Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37229447›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in endocrinology2023

Immune checkpoint inhibitors in first-line therapies of metastatic or early triple-negative breast cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Xueyan Liang, Xiaoyu Chen, Huijuan Li, Yan Li

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.1field-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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Applications of mRNA Delivery in Cancer Immunotherapy.International journal of nanomedicine · 2025
    Review
  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 1 institution in 1 country.

Xueyan LiangPhase 1 Clinical Trial Laboratory, Guangxi Academy of Medical Sciences and the People's Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Nanning, Guangxi, China.
Xiaoyu ChenPhase 1 Clinical Trial Laboratory, Guangxi Academy of Medical Sciences and the People's Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Nanning, Guangxi, China.
Huijuan LiPhase 1 Clinical Trial Laboratory, Guangxi Academy of Medical Sciences and the People's Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Nanning, Guangxi, China.
Yan LiDepartment of Pharmacy, Guangxi Academy of Medical Sciences and the People's Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Nanning, Guangxi, China.
The People's Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The optimal first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment strategy for metastatic or early triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) has not yet been determined as a result of various randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of ICIs in patients with metastatic or early TNBC. Methods: RCTs comparing the efficacy and safety of ICIs in patients with TNBC were included in the studies. Based on PRISMA guidelines, we estimated pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) using random-effects models of Bayesian network meta-analysis. Primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included pathologic complete response rate (pCR), grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events (trAEs), immune-related adverse events (irAEs), and grade ≥ 3 irAEs. Results: The criteria for eligibility were met by a total of eight RCTs involving 4,589 patients with TNBC. When ICIs were used in patients without programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) selection, there was a trend toward improved PFS, OS, and pCR, without significant differences. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy is superior to other treatment regimens in terms of survival for TNBC patients based on Bayesian ranking profiles. Subgroup analysis by PD-L1 positive population indicated similar results, and atezolizumab plus chemotherapy provided better survival outcomes. Among grade ≥ 3 trAEs and any grade irAEs, there was no statistically significant difference among different ICI agents. The combination of ICIs with chemotherapy was associated with a higher incidence of grade ≥ 3 irAEs. Based on rank probability, the ICI plus chemotherapy group was more likely to be associated with grade ≥ 3 trAEs, any grade irAEs, and grade ≥ 3 irAEs. Hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism were the most frequent irAEs in patients receiving ICI. Conclusions: ICI regimens had relatively greater efficacy and safety profile. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy and atezolizumab plus chemotherapy seem to be superior first-line treatments for intention-to-treat and PD-L1-positive TNBC patients, respectively. It may be useful for making clinical decisions to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different ICIs based on our study. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022354643.

Indexed as

Immune Checkpoint InhibitorsTriple Negative Breast NeoplasmsB7-H1 AntigenDecision MakingHumansB7-H1 AntigenImmune Checkpoint Inhibitorsanti-PD1/PD-L1atezolizumabdurvalumabimmune checkpoint inhibitorsnetwork meta-analysispembrolizumabtriple-negative breast cancer

Identifiers

PMID37229447
PMCPMC10204114
OpenAlexW4378348260

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.