Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38769930›Full record

SynthesisCancer medicine2024

The effect of liver metastases on clinical efficacy of first-line programmed death-1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: A post hoc analysis of ASTRUM-007 and meta-analysis.

Jing Gao, Yan Song, Xiaoge Kou, Zhenbo Tan, Shu Zhang, Meili Sun, Jin Zhou, Min Fan, Ming Zhang, Yongxiang Song and 13 more

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cancer medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

23 authors.

Jing GaoDepartment of Medical Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Yan SongDepartment of Medical Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Xiaoge KouDepartment of Medical Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xinxiang Medical University, Xinxiang, China.
Zhenbo TanDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Xingtai People's Hospital, Xingtai, China.
Shu ZhangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Shandong First Medical University Cancer Hospital, Shandong Cancer Hospital, Jinan, China.
Meili SunDepartment of Medical Oncology, Central Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, China.
Jin ZhouDepartment of Medical Oncology, Sichuan Cancer Hospital, Chengdu, China.
Min FanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.
Ming ZhangDepartment of Integrated Traditional and Western Medicine, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Yongxiang SongDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical University, Zunyi, China.
Suyi LiDepartment of Medical Oncology, Anhui Provincial Cancer Hospital, Hefei, China.
Yuan YuanDepartment of Medical Oncology, Xuzhou Central Hospital, Xuzhou, China.
Wu ZhuangDepartment of Medical Oncology, Fujian Cancer Hospital, Fuzhou, China.
Jingdong ZhangMedical Oncology Department of Gastrointestinal Cancer, Liaoning Cancer Hospital & Institute, Cancer Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Li ZhangDepartment of Oncology, Chongqing University Three Gorges Hospital, Chongqing, China.
Hao JiangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Bengbu Medical College, Bengbu, China.
Kangsheng GuDepartment of Medical Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.
Huangyang YeDepartment of Medical Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, Xiamen, China.
Ying KeShanghai Henlius Biotech, Inc., Shanghai, China.
Xiao QiShanghai Henlius Biotech, Inc., Shanghai, China.
Qingyu WangShanghai Henlius Biotech, Inc., Shanghai, China.
Jun ZhuShanghai Henlius Biotech, Inc., Shanghai, China.
Jing HuangDepartment of Medical Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0002-2167-8385

Funding

Major Project of Medical Oncology Key Foundation of Cancer Hospital Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences CICAMS-MOMP2022001Shanghai Henlius Biotech, Inc
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo explore the efficacy of serplulimab plus chemotherapy in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients with liver metastases.

methodsA post hoc exploratory analysis of ASTRUM-007 study was performed, focusing on the association between the liver metastases status and the clinical outcomes. A systematic literature search of electronic databases was conducted to identify eligible randomized controlled trials for the meta-analysis. Study-level pooled analyses of hazard ratios (HRs) for PFS according to liver metastases were performed.

resultsThe post hoc analysis of ASTRUM-007 showed that although patients with liver metastases had a worse prognosis comparing with the non-liver metastases patients in both treatment arms (serplulimab plus chemotherapy arm: median PFS, 5.7 vs. 6.6 months, HR 1.57 [95% CI, 1.15-2.13]; median OS, 13.7 vs. 15.3 months, HR 1.48 [95% CI, 1.09-1.98]; placebo plus chemotherapy arm: median PFS, 4.3 vs. 5.5 months, HR 1.58 [95% CI, 1.01-2.39]; median OS, 10.3 vs. 11.2 months, HR 1.32 [95% CI, 0.84-2.00]), OS and PFS benefits derived from serplulimab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy in this study were observed in both patients with liver metastases (HR of PFS: 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-0.97; HR of OS: 0.68; 95% CI, 0.43-1.11) and the non-liver metastases patients (HR of PFS: 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49-0.80; HR of OS: 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55-0.87) with similar magnitude. Three randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled HRs demonstrated that the addition of anti-PD-1 antibodies significantly improved PFS compared to chemotherapy alone regardless of liver metastases status.

conclusionsThis study reveals that the presence of liver metastases is a poor prognostic factor but does not affect the improvements in both PFS and OS brought by adding PD-1 blockade to chemotherapy in ESCC patients. Predictive biomarkers for survival in these patients warrant further investigation.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsEsophageal NeoplasmsEsophageal Squamous Cell CarcinomaLiver NeoplasmsAgedAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedFemaleHumansImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsMaleMiddle AgedRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedImmune Checkpoint Inhibitorsanti‐PD‐1 antibodychemotherapyesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC)liver metastasesmeta‐analysisserplulimab

Identifiers

PMID38769930
PMCPMC11106639

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.