ArticleTranslational cancer research2024
Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors plus platinum-etoposide
Article in Translational cancer research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A predictive model for immunotherapy in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer based on peripheral blood.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Mapping the evolution of immune checkpoint inhibitor research in small cell lung cancer: A bibliometric analysis (1997-2025).Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Currently, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) combined with platinum-etoposide (EP) are gradually becoming the first-line standard treatment for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy and safety of ICIs combined with EP Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for phase II/III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that met inclusion criteria from January 2016 to November 2023. Outcome measures included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), treatment-related serious adverse events (TRSAEs), and immune-related adverse events (IRAEs). The effect analysis statistics of the outcome indicators were expressed with hazard ratio (HR) and odds ratio (OR) and their 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: This study included nine RCTs with a total of 4,711 patients. Compared to EP, ICIs plus EP improved patients' PFS (HR =0.71; 95% CI: 0.64-0.79; P<0.001), OS (HR =0.79; 95% CI: 0.74-0.84; P<0.001), and ORR (OR =1.27; 95% CI: 1.12-1.44; P=0.001), but increased the incidence of adverse events (AEs): TRAEs (OR =1.45; 95% CI: 1.20-1.76; P<0.001), IRAEs (OR =3.97; 95% CI: 2.49-6.32; P<0.001), and grade 3-4 IRAEs (OR =6.17; 95% CI: 2.36-16.15; P<0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the incidence of grade 3-4 TRAEs (OR =1.05; P=0.54), TRSAEs (OR =1.40; P=0.13), and grade 3-4 TRSAEs (OR =1.17; P=0.72). Subgroup analysis found that patients with brain metastasis did not benefit from ICIs combined with EP therapy, and patients with programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥1% had poorer survival benefits compared to patients with PD-L1 expression <1%. Conclusions: In the first-line treatment of ES-SCLC, compared to EP chemotherapy, ICIs with EP can benefit patients in terms of PFS, OS, and ORR, but it will increase the occurrence of AEs.
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.