SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2024
Perioperative immunotherapy for stage II-III non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis base on randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neoadjuvant versus perioperative immunotherapy in resectable NSCLC: A PD-L1-stratified Bayesian network meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- The Adjuvant-Phase Dilemma After Neoadjuvant Chemoimmunotherapy in Resectable NSCLC: Evidence and Response-Guided Strategies.Cancers · 2026Review
- Review
- Immunotherapy for high-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma: a narrative review bridging molecular insights to clinical translation.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- A narrative review on perioperative systemic therapy in non-small cell lung cancer.Exploration of targeted anti-tumor therapy · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In recent years, we have observed the pivotal role of immunotherapy in improving survival for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the effectiveness of immunotherapy in the perioperative (neoadjuvant + adjuvant) treatment of resectable NSCLC remains uncertain. We conducted a comprehensive analysis of its antitumor efficacy and adverse effects (AEs) by pooling data from the KEYNOTE-671, NADIM II, and AEGEAN clinical trials. Methods: For eligible studies, we searched seven databases. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) pertaining to the comparative analysis of combination neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy plus perioperative immunotherapy (PIO) versus perioperative placebo (PP) were included. Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS). Secondary endpoints encompassed drug responses, AEs, and surgical outcomes. Results: Three RCTs (KEYNOTE-671, NADIM II, and AEGEAN) were included in the final analysis. PIO group (neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy plus perioperative immunotherapy) exhibited superior efficacy in OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.63 [0.49-0.81]), EFS (HR: 0.61 [0.52, 0.72]), objective response rate (risk ratio [RR]: 2.21 [1.91, 2.54]), pathological complete response (RR: 4.36 [3.04, 6.25]), major pathological response (RR: 2.79 [2.25, 3.46]), R0 resection rate (RR: 1.13 [1.00, 1.26]) and rate of adjuvant treatment (RR: 1.08 [1.01, 1.15]) compared with PP group (neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy plus perioperative placebo). In the subgroup analysis, EFS tended to favor the PIO group in almost all subgroups. BMI (>25), T stage (IV), N stage (N1-N2) and pathological response (with pathological complete response) were favorable factors in the PIO group. In the safety assessment, the PIO group exhibited higher rates of serious AEs (28.96% vs. 23.51%) and AEs leading to treatment discontinuation (12.84% vs. 5.81%). Meanwhile, although total adverse events, grade 3-5 adverse events, and fatal adverse events tended to favor the PP group, the differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion: PIO appears to be superior to PP for resectable stage II-III NSCLC, demonstrating enhanced survival and pathological responses. However, its elevated adverse event (AE) rate warrants careful consideration. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, identifier CRD42023487475.
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.