Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36410086›Full record

SynthesisESMO open2022

The impact of single agent PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibition on advanced endometrial cancers: meta-analysis.

P-S Kok, Y C Antill, C L Scott, C K Lee

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in ESMO open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. The Impact of JAK1 Pathogenic Variants and MHC-I Expression on Response to Immune Checkpoint Inhibition in Endometrial Cancer.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

P-S KokAustralia New Zealand Gynaecological Oncology Group, Sydney, Australia; National Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, Australia. Electronic address: peey-sei.kok@sydney.edu.au.
Y C AntillAustralia New Zealand Gynaecological Oncology Group, Sydney, Australia; Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
C L ScottAustralia New Zealand Gynaecological Oncology Group, Sydney, Australia; Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, Australia; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.
C K LeeAustralia New Zealand Gynaecological Oncology Group, Sydney, Australia; Cancer Care Centre, St George Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
Australia New Zealand Gynaecological Oncology Group · AUNational Health and Medical Research Council · AUSt George Hospital · AUWalter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy is an emerging option for advanced endometrial cancer (EC). Mismatch repair (MMR) status is widely regarded as a biomarker predictive of response to ICIs. The predictive value of MMR based on small, single-arm trials, however, is conflicting. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to assess the activity of single-agent ICI in advanced EC, and compared the magnitude of treatment benefit in MMR deficient (dMMR) and MMR proficient (pMMR) EC.

methodsWe carried out an electronic search to identify prospective trials of single-agent ICI in advanced EC. Data on objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) were extracted and pooled. ORR was estimated using the inverse variance method and subgroup difference by MMR status was examined. PFS difference according to MMR status was summarized using the Kaplan-Meier approach.

resultsFrom eight trials with 492 women, the pooled ORR was 19% [95% confidence interval (CI) 16% to 22%]. ORR was significantly greater in dMMR (n = 281) than pMMR EC (n = 211) (dMMR: 46%, pMMR: 8%; risk ratio 5.74, 95% CI 3.58-9.21; interaction P < 0.001). Complete response was 11% and 0.05% and median PFS was 8.3 and 2.1 months in dMMR and pMMR EC, respectively (hazard ratio PFS 0.58, 95% CI 0.38-0.89; P = 0.01). The 12-month PFS rates were 42.0% and 20.7%, respectively.

conclusionSingle-agent ICI is associated with a 5.74 times greater objective response and 42% reduction in risk of disease progression or death in dMMR compared with pMMR EC. MMR status should be determined prospectively and be used as a stratification factor in future trials of advanced EC. Further translational analysis is urgently required to identify the cause of dMMR and allow subclassification of EC into different dMMR molecular subtypes.

Indexed as

Endometrial NeoplasmsProgrammed Cell Death 1 ReceptorB7-H1 AntigenBrain NeoplasmsColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansNeoplastic Syndromes, HereditaryProspective StudiesB7-H1 AntigenProgrammed Cell Death 1 Receptorendometrial cancerimmunotherapymismatch repairMMR

Identifiers

PMID36410086
PMCPMC9808459
OpenAlexW4309328741

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.