Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39073269›Full record

SynthesisThe clinical respiratory journal2024

Which Is More Suitable for First-Line Treatment of Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer, PD-L1 Inhibitors Versus PD-1 Inhibitors? A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Wenjing Liu, Lulin Yu, Yuqian Feng, Siyu Huang, Yuxin Hua, Mingying Peng, Shanming Ruan, Kai Zhang

Abstract readComparative StudySystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The clinical respiratory journal, 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Precision epigenetic therapies in oncology.Cancer metastasis reviews · 2025
    Review
  5. 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

8 authors.

Wenjing LiuDepartment of Medical Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-9597-7234
Lulin YuDepartment of Medical Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-2175-7678
Yuqian FengDepartment of Medical Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China.
Siyu HuangDepartment of Medical Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China.
Yuxin HuaDepartment of Medical Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China.
Mingying PengDepartment of Medical Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1094-9274
Shanming RuanDepartment of Medical Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University (Zhejiang Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine), Hangzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1061-5255
Kai ZhangDepartment of Medical Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University (Zhejiang Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine), Hangzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8956-6187

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn this network meta-analysis (NMA), the efficiency and safety of PD-1 inhibitors + chemotherapy and PD-L1 inhibitors + chemotherapy were compared in the first-line therapy of patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC).

methodsWe searched research databases, conference abstracts, and trial registries and subsequently chose relevant studies and extracted dates. The NMA was conducted to estimate the efficiency and safety of the PD-1 inhibitors + chemotherapy and PD-L1 inhibitors + chemotherapy on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall remission rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs). Studies were assessed for quality. Subgroup analyses were used to evaluate study heterogeneity.

resultsWe included six randomized trials with a total of 3163 patients. Direct comparisons showed that patients who received either PD-1 inhibitors + chemotherapy (HR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.57-0.87) or PD-L1 inhibitors + chemotherapy (HR: 0.74, 0.61-0.89) demonstrated significantly longer OS than those who received placebo + chemotherapy. The results of the NMA showed that no significant differences in OS (HR 0.96 95% CI: 0.72-1.3), PFS (HR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.51-1.4), and ORR (OR 1.3 95% CI: 0.66-2.5) were observed for PD-1 inhibitors + chemotherapy compared with PD-L1 inhibitors + chemotherapy, but the Bayesian ranking revealed that patients receiving PD-1 inhibitors + chemotherapy tended to have longer OS, PFS benefit, and better treatment response than patients receiving PD-L1 inhibitors + chemotherapy. In terms of safety, no significant difference was observed in their safety profiles.

conclusionIn comparison to placebo + chemotherapy, PD-L1 inhibitors + chemotherapy and PD-1 inhibitors + chemotherapy significantly improved survival for ES-SCLC. According to the available data, PD-L1 inhibitors + chemotherapy and PD-1 inhibitors + chemotherapy had equivalent efficacy and safety; however, the level of evidence of this type of comparison is limited.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsLung NeoplasmsSmall Cell Lung CarcinomaB7-H1 AntigenHumansNeoplasm StagingProgrammed Cell Death 1 ReceptorRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeB7-H1 AntigenCD274 protein, humanImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsProgrammed Cell Death 1 Receptorefficacyextensive‐stage small cell lung cancerfirst‐line therapyPD‐1 inhibitorsPD‐L1 inhibitorssafety

Identifiers

PMID39073269
PMCPMC11284309

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.