Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36385210›Full record

SynthesisCancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII2023

Pre-treatment soluble PD-L1 as a predictor of overall survival for immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ádám Széles, Tamás Fazekas, Szilard Váncsa, Melinda Váradi, Petra Terézia Kovács, Ulrich Krafft, Viktor Grünwald, Boris Hadaschik, Anita Csizmarik, Péter Hegyi and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. CD137Journal of translational medicine · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Ádám SzélesDepartment of Urology, Semmelweis University, Üllői Út 78/B, Budapest, 1082, Hungary.
Tamás FazekasDepartment of Urology, Semmelweis University, Üllői Út 78/B, Budapest, 1082, Hungary.
Szilard VáncsaCenter for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Melinda VáradiDepartment of Urology, Semmelweis University, Üllői Út 78/B, Budapest, 1082, Hungary.
Petra Terézia KovácsDepartment of Urology, Semmelweis University, Üllői Út 78/B, Budapest, 1082, Hungary.
Ulrich KrafftDepartment of Urology, University of Duisburg-Essen and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK)-University Hospital Essen, Hufelandstraße 55, 45147, Essen, Germany.
Viktor GrünwaldDepartment of Urology, University of Duisburg-Essen and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK)-University Hospital Essen, Hufelandstraße 55, 45147, Essen, Germany.
Boris HadaschikDepartment of Urology, University of Duisburg-Essen and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK)-University Hospital Essen, Hufelandstraße 55, 45147, Essen, Germany.
Anita CsizmarikDepartment of Urology, Semmelweis University, Üllői Út 78/B, Budapest, 1082, Hungary.
Péter HegyiCenter for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Alex VáradiCenter for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Péter Nyirády *Department of Urology, Semmelweis University, Üllői Út 78/B, Budapest, 1082, Hungary.
Tibor Szarvas *Department of Urology, Semmelweis University, Üllői Út 78/B, Budapest, 1082, Hungary. szarvas.tibor@med.semmelweis-univ.hu.
Semmelweis University · HUUniversity of Duisburg-Essen · DEUniversity of Pecs · HU

Funding

János Bolyai Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences BO/00451/20/5New National Excellence Program ÚNKP-21-3-II-SE-13New National Excellence Program ÚNKP-21-5-SE-3
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) such as anti-PD-L1 and anti-PD-1 agents have been proven to be effective in various cancers. However, the rate of non-responders is still high in all cancer entities. Therefore, the identification of biomarkers that could help to optimize therapeutic decision-making is of great clinical importance. Soluble PD-L1 (sPD-L1) and PD-1 (sPD-1) are emerging blood-based biomarkers and were previously shown to be prognostic in various clinical studies.

objectiveWe aimed to evaluate the prognostic relevance of sPD-L1 and sPD-1 in patients with different tumor entities who underwent ICI therapy.

methodsWe searched for articles in PubMed via Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane databases. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS); furthermore, we analyzed on-treatment serum level changes of sPD-L1 and sPD-1 during ICI therapy.

resultsWe synthesized the data of 1,054 patients with different cancer types from 15 articles. Pooled univariate analysis showed that elevated levels of sPD-L1 were significantly associated with inferior OS (HR = 1.67; CI:1.26-2.23, I

conclusionsWe found significantly inferior OS in ICI-treated cancer patients with elevated pre-treatment sPD-L1 levels, but this association seems to be tumor type dependent. In addition, sPD-L1 increases during anti-PD-L1 therapy seems to be therapy specific.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungLung NeoplasmsB7-H1 AntigenHumansImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsPrognosisRadioimmunotherapyB7-H1 AntigenImmune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID36385210
PMCPMC10110702
OpenAlexW4309247174

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.