Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36090645›Full record

ArticleTranslational lung cancer research2022

Safety and efficacy of retreatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Zijing Cai, Ping Zhan, Yong Song, Hongbing Liu, Tangfeng Lv

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational lung cancer research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Safety and efficacy of restarting immune checkpoint inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer patients following immune-related adverse events: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Zijing CaiDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Jinling Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Ping ZhanDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Jinling Hospital, Nanjing University School of Medicine, Nanjing, China.
Yong SongDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Jinling Hospital, Nanjing University School of Medicine, Nanjing, China.
Hongbing LiuDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Jinling Hospital, Nanjing University School of Medicine, Nanjing, China.
Tangfeng LvDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Jinling Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Nanjing General Hospital of Nanjing Military Command · CNNanjing Medical University · CNNanjing University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Retreatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) might be a subsequent therapeutic option for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who discontinued initial ICIs treatment because of disease progression, immune-related adverse events (irAEs) or completion of a fixed course, yet little evidence exists on the safety and efficacy of ICIs retreatment to support this strategy. Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane and major meeting libraries for articles about ICIs retreatment in NSCLC for systematic review and meta-analysis. The outcomes included objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) for efficacy and the incidence of all-grade and high-grade irAEs for safety. ICIs rechallenge implies retreatment that can be applied to patients who progressed, while ICIs resumption refers to retreatment for patients who discontinued prior treatment due to an irAE or completion of a fixed course of immunotherapy. Results: Eighteen studies were enrolled in our analysis. The pooled ORR and DCR of ICIs retreatment were respectively 20% and 54%. ICIs retreatment was associated with a decrease in ORR and DCR compared to prior ICIs treatment (ORR: OR, 0.29, 95% CI: 0.14, 0.63, P=0.002; DCR: OR, 0.53, 95% CI: 0.28-0.99, P=0.05). The pooled ORR and DCR of ICIs rechallenge were 8% and 39%. ICIs rechallenge showed a lower ORR compared with initial ICIs treatment (P<0.05). ICIs resumption presented an ORR of 34% and a DCR of 71%, showing no significant difference in ORR and DCR compared with initial ICIs treatment (P>0.05). Retreated with the same type of ICIs as before showed no difference in ORR and DCR (P>0.05), while with different ICIs was associated with a decrease in ORR and DCR in contrast to initial treatment (P<0.05). The pooled incidence of all-grade and high-grade irAEs after ICIs retreatment in patients with NSCLC were separately 41% and 13% which showed a similar incidence compared with initial ICIs treatment (P>0.05). Discussion: Retreatment with ICIs is feasible for patients with NSCLC in consideration of its encouraging efficacy and tolerable safety, especially in resumption with ICIs. When it comes to ICIs rechallenge, it is necessary to accurately identify the potential targeted beneficiary population. More large-scale prospective studies are warranted to confirm our discoveries. More attention could be paid to further exploring the efficacy and safety of retreatment concurrently with ICIs and chemotherapy.

Indexed as

immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs)Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)rechallengeresumptionretreatmentsafety and efficacy

Identifiers

PMID36090645
PMCPMC9459604
OpenAlexW4288076844

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.