SynthesisPloS one2024
Efficacy and safety of concurrent immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
- A systematic review of heterogeneity in clinical trial design for anal cancer radiotherapy-immunotherapy combinations.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Review
- CT-based radiomics combined with deep learning for predicting radiation pneumonitis in patients with esophageal cancer: a two-center study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Immune checkpoint inhibitors and cardiovascular toxicity: immunology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2025Review
- Efficacy and safety of camrelizumab-based comprehensive treatment for non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2024Article
- Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and Interstitial Lung Disease: A Comprehensive Review of Pathogenesis, Diagnosis, and Management.Open respiratory archivesReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe recent usage of immunotherapy combined with chemoradiotherapy has improved survival in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. However, determining the most effective therapy combination remains a topic of debate. Research suggests immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) post-chemoradiotherapy enhance survival, but the impact of concurrent ICIs during chemoradiotherapy on rapid disease progression is unclear. This meta-analysis aims to assess the effectiveness and safety of concurrent ICIs with radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for relevant studies, extracting data on overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs).
resultsThe analysis included ten studies with 490 participants. Stage III NSCLC ORR was 81.8%, while Stage IV ORR was 39.9%. One-year PFS and OS for Stage III were 68.2% and 82.6%, compared to 27.9% and 72.2% for Stage IV. Common adverse events included anemia (46.6%), nausea (47.6%), rash (36.4%), and radiation pneumonitis (36.3%).
conclusionsOur meta-analysis shows concurrent ICIs with chemoradiotherapy are effective and safe in advanced NSCLC, particularly in stage III patients at risk of progression before starting ICIs after chemoradiotherapy. The findings support further phase III trials. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023493685) and is detailed on the NIHR HTA programme website.
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.