Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35972744›Full record

SynthesisJAMA network open2022

Association of Anticancer Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors With Patient-Reported Outcomes Assessed in Randomized Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Laura Pala, Isabella Sala, Chiara Oriecuia, Tommaso De Pas, Paola Queirolo, Claudia Specchia, Emilia Cocorocchio, Pierfrancesco Ferrucci, Damiano Patanè, Maristella Saponara and 7 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes in immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy: addressing gaps, capturing patient experience, and advancing the field.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Error in Author Affiliation.JAMA network open · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Laura PalaDivision of Melanoma, Sarcomas, and Rare Tumors, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy.
Isabella SalaDepartment of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, University of Milan-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
Chiara OriecuiaDepartment of Molecular and Translational Medicine, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Tommaso De PasDivision of Melanoma, Sarcomas, and Rare Tumors, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy.
Paola QueiroloDivision of Melanoma, Sarcomas, and Rare Tumors, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy.
Claudia SpecchiaDepartment of Molecular and Translational Medicine, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Emilia CocorocchioDivision of Medical Oncology, European Institute of Oncology, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Milan, Italy.
Pierfrancesco FerrucciDepartment of Experimental Oncology, European Institute of Oncology, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Milan, Italy.
Damiano PatanèDivision of Melanoma, Sarcomas, and Rare Tumors, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy.
Maristella SaponaraDivision of Melanoma, Sarcomas, and Rare Tumors, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy.
Elisabetta PennacchioliMelanoma, Sarcoma, and Rare Tumors Surgery Division, European Institute of Oncology, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Milan, Italy.
Sara CoppolaMelanoma, Sarcoma, and Rare Tumors Surgery Division, European Institute of Oncology, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Milan, Italy.
Giuseppe VialeDepartment of Pathology, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy.
Giuseppe GiacconeDepartment of Oncology, Weill Cornel Medicine, New York, New York.
Richard D GelberDepartment of Data Science, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Vincenzo BagnardiDepartment of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, University of Milan-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
Fabio ConfortiDivision of Melanoma, Sarcomas, and Rare Tumors, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy.
European Institute of Oncology · ITHumanitas Gavazzeni · ITUniversity of Brescia · ITUniversity of Milano-Bicocca · ITCornell College · USFrontier Science & Technology Research Foundation · USUniversity of Milan · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The association of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) with patient quality of life has been poorly explored. Objective: To evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) assessed in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of immunotherapy-based treatments. Data Sources: This systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis used RCTs identified in PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus from database inception to June 1, 2021. Study Selection: A total of 2259 RCTs were identified that assessed ICIs as monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy or combined with another ICI and/or targeted therapy vs control groups not containing immunotherapy in patients with advanced solid tumors. Studies were reviewed independently by 2 authors. Data Extraction and Synthesis: This meta-analysis followed the PRISMA guidelines and recommendations of the Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium. Main Outcomes and Measures: The coprimary aims of the meta-analysis were (1) pooled differences between treatment groups in the mean change of PRO score from baseline to 12 and 24 weeks of follow-up and (2) pooled differences between treatment groups in the time to deterioration of PRO score. For each end point, RCTs have been analyzed according to the type of treatment administered in the experimental group: ICIs given as monotherapy, ICIs combined with chemotherapy, or ICIs in association with another ICI and/or with targeted therapies. Results: Of the 2259 identified RCTs, 34 (18 709 patients) met the selection criteria and were analyzed. In the group of 19 RCTs testing ICIs as monotherapy, the pooled between-groups difference of mean change from baseline to 12 weeks of follow-up was 4.6 (95% CI, 2.8-6.4), and the mean change from baseline to 24 weeks of follow-up was 6.1 (95% CI, 4.2-8.1), significantly favoring ICIs. The pooled difference was 1.4 (95% CI, -0.4 to 3.2) at week 12 and 2.5 (95% CI, -0.8 to 5.9) at week 24 in the group of 8 RCTs testing ICIs combined with chemotherapy and 2.1 (95% CI, -0.8 to 5.0) at week 12 and 2.1 (95% CI, -0.4 to 4.5) at week 24 in the group of 8 RCTs testing other ICI-containing combinations. The time to deterioration was significantly longer in the immunotherapy-containing groups compared with control groups in all 3 groups of RCTs evaluated (hazard ratios of 0.80 [95% CI, 0.70-0.91] for ICIs as monotherapy, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.78-1.00] for ICIs plus chemotherapy, and 0.78 [95% CI, 0.63-0.96] for other ICI-containing combinations). Conclusions and Relevance: Immune checkpoint inhibitors as monotherapy appear to have a favorable association with patient-reported quality of life and can be combined with other classes of anticancer drugs without worsening this quality of life.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsNeoplasmsHumansImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsImmunotherapyPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresAntineoplastic AgentsImmune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID35972744
PMCPMC9382448
OpenAlexW4292186446

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.