SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2024
Impact of programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor therapy on the survival of patients with advanced or recurrent uterine cancers: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in immunology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: No prior meta-analysis has investigated the impact of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitor therapy on survival outcomes in patients with advanced or recurrent uterine cancers (including both corpus and cervical cancers). Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed and Embase databases was conducted, covering the past 10 years (up to August 2023) and encompassing all clinical research related to uterine cancer. Five randomized controlled trials and one cohort study met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Data on patient demographics, clinical characteristics, treatment regimens, and survival outcomes were extracted. Hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), as well as the relative risk of grade 3 or higher adverse events, were pooled using random-effects models. Results: Patients receiving PD-1 inhibitors had better OS (HR, 0.65, 95% CI, 0.59-0.72; P<.001) and PFS (HR, 0.59, 95% CI, 0.49-0.70; P<.001) than those receiving variable non-PD-1 inhibitor therapies among 3452 uterine cancer patients. The leave-one-out meta-analysis of the HR of OS showed no individual study impact on the estimation of the overall effect size. Subgroup analysis revealed better OS in the PD-1 inhibitors use than the controls in cervical cancer (HR, 0.68, 95% CI, 0.59-0.79), endometrial cancer (HR, 0.62, 95% CI, 0.54-0.72), and pembrolizumab use (HR, 0.66, 95% CI, 0.57-0.75) subgroups. Patients with advanced cervical cancer, who had CPS > 1, receiving PD-1 inhibitors have statistically significant benefits in OS compared to controls (HR, 0.65, 95% CI, 0.53-0.80). The pooled HR for overall survival was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.60-0.82; P<.001) in patients who received PD-1 inhibitors as compared to those who did not receive PD-1 inhibitors in proficient mismatch repair (MMR) endometrial cancer patients. However, in deficient MMR patients, the HR was 0.30 (95% CI, 0.13-0.70). The relative risk of grade 3 or higher adverse events was not higher in the PD-1 inhibitor group (relative risk, 1.12, 95% CI, 0.98-1.27). Conclusion: Survival was significantly better using PD-1 inhibitor therapy than variable non-PD-1 inhibitor chemotherapies among patients with advanced or recurrent uterine cancers.
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.