ArticleHeliyon2024
Efficacy and safety of different cycles of neoadjuvant immunotherapy in resectable non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There is no standard consensus on the optimal number of cycles of neoadjuvant immunotherapy prior to surgery for patients with locoregionally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We carried out a systematic review to evaluate the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant immunotherapy with different treatment cycles in order to provide valuable information for clinical decision-making. Methods: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched before May 2023. The included studies were categorized based on different treatment cycles of neoadjuvant immunotherapy to assess their respective efficacy and safety in patients with resectable NSCLC. Results: Incorporating data from 29 studies with 1331 patients, we found major pathological response rates of 43 % (95%CI, 34-52 %) with two cycles and 33 % (95%CI, 22-45 %) with three cycles of neoadjuvant immunotherapy. Radiological response rates were 39 % (95%CI, 28-50 %) and 56 % (95%CI, 44-68 %) for two and three cycles, respectively, with higher incidence rates of severe adverse events (SAEs) in the three-cycle group (32 %; 95%CI, 21-50 %). Despite similar rates of R0 resection between two and three cycles, the latter showed a slightly higher surgical delay rate (1 % vs. 7 %). Neoadjuvant treatment modes significantly affected outcomes, with the combination of immunotherapy and chemotherapy demonstrating superiority in improving pathological and radiological response rates, while the incidence of SAEs in patients receiving combination therapy remained within an acceptable range (23 %; 95%CI, 15-35 %). However, regardless of the treatment mode administered, an increase in the number of treatment cycles did not result in substantial improvement in pathological response rates. Conclusion: There are clear advantages of combining immunotherapy and chemotherapy in neoadjuvant settings. Increasing the number of cycles of neoadjuvant immunotherapy from two to three primarily may not substantially improve the overall efficacy, while increasing the risk of adverse events. Further analysis of the outcomes of four cycles of neoadjuvant immunotherapy is necessary.
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.