SynthesisDisease markers2022
The Efficacy of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors vs. Chemotherapy for KRAS-Mutant or EGFR-Mutant Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancers: A Meta-Analysis Based on Randomized Controlled Trials.
Synthesis in Disease markers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- The emerging role of Sotorasib plus Panitumumab combination therapy in colorectal cancer treatment.International journal of clinical oncology · 2025Review
- Prognostic Value of KRAS Mutations in Relation to PDL1 Expression and Immunotherapy Treatment in Adenocarcinoma and Squamous Cell Carcinoma Patients: A Greek Cohort Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients with KRAS mutations: A network meta-analysis.The clinical respiratory journal · 2024Article
- High expression of FGFR3 predicts a better prognosis for patients with non-small cell lung cancer in a Chinese population.Journal of thoracic disease · 2023Article
- Efficacy of Immunotherapy in Second-Line Treatment ofCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess and compare the effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors vs. chemotherapy for KRAS-mutant or EGFR-mutant non-small-cell lung cancers. Methods: Until February 19, 2022, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in NSCLC. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were used as outcome measures. The studies were conducted using the Cochrane methodology for meta-analyses, and all statistical analyses were made with Review Manager Software (RevMan version 5.4). Results: Our meta-analysis included nine clinical trials including 5633 participants with NSCLC. Immune checkpoint drugs extended OS (hazard ratio (HR), 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.60-0.76) and PFS (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.35-0.56) in patients with EGFR wild-type compared to chemotherapy alone, whereas programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1)/programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy extended PFS in NSCLC patients with EGFR mutations (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.42-0.94). Meanwhile, immune checkpoint inhibitors vs. chemotherapy improved the OS (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.48-0.88) and PFS (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.66) of NSCLC patients with KRAS mutation. NSCLCs with KRAS G12C mutation had a much better PFS with ICIs than with chemotherapy (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.21-0.71). Conclusion: This research revealed that individuals with EGFR wild-type NSCLC or KRAS mutation may benefit from PD-L1/PD-1 inhibitors and that PD-L1/PD-1 inhibitors in combination with chemotherapy seem to be more successful than chemotherapy alone in NSCLC patients with EGFR mutation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.