Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39382194›Full record

ArticleCancer medicine2024

The efficacy of first and second immunotherapy exposure in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer.

Mingxiu Ju, Baoyue Pan, Yongwen Huang, Yun Zhou, Jieping Chen, Huiling Xiang, Shije Xu, Siyu Chen, Chunyan Lan, Jundong Li and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer medicine, 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. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  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

11 authors.

Mingxiu JuDepartment of Gynecology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P.R. China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-1617-8889
Baoyue PanDepartment of Gynecology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P.R. China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5922-7136
Yongwen HuangDepartment of Gynecology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P.R. China.
Yun ZhouDepartment of Gynecology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P.R. China.
Jieping ChenDepartment of Gynecology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P.R. China.
Huiling XiangDepartment of Gynecology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P.R. China.
Shije XuDepartment of Gynecology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P.R. China.
Siyu ChenDepartment of Gynecology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P.R. China.
Chunyan LanDepartment of Gynecology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P.R. China.
Jundong LiDepartment of Gynecology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P.R. China.
Min ZhengDepartment of Gynecology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P.R. China.

Funding

Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation of Guangdong Province 2022A1515220210Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation of Guangdong Province 2023A1515010455Guangzhou Municipal Science and Technology Research Foundation 2024B03J0079National Natural Science Foundation of China 82103330
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveImmunotherapy has led to changes in cervical cancer guidelines. Therefore, additional biomarkers to identify the ideal patient who would experience the most benefit may be important.

methodsWe retrospectively collected 208 patients with R/M CC and recorded clinicopathologic information, peripheral blood markers and treatments to analyze the prognostic factors of clinical outcomes. Response rate comparison, univariate, and multivariate analyses were performed to assess the efficacy of different factors.

resultsA total of 43.27% patients achieved objective responses, including 18 with complete response and 72 with partial response. Patients receiving first-line immunotherapy had much higher objective response rate (ORR) than the remaining patients (53.8% vs. 34.8%, p = 0.006). CRP >3 ECOG ≥1 and recurrence in 6 months predicted shorter progression free survival (PFS). CRP >3, GLU >6.1 independently predicted unfavorable overall survival (OS). Compared with no antiangiogenic therapy, previous antiangiogenic therapy reduced the median OS by nearly 14 months. Immunotherapy rechallenge was still effective after first immunotherapy failure, and combined with dual-immunotherapy or bevacizumab combined with chemoradiotherapy resulted in a 60.00% or 62.50% ORR, respectively. Patients with squamous cell carcinoma, with stable disease or objective response in the first immunotherapy or without chemotherapy in second immunotherapy had favorable clinical outcome.

conclusionThe baseline CRP levels in serum was an independent factor for PFS and OS of R/M CC patients treated with immunotherapy, and previous antiangiogenic therapy was associated with poor OS. Patients still show response to immunotherapy rechallenge and combined treatment with bevacizumab or candonilimab showed higher response rate than anti-PD-1 after immunotherapy failure.

Indexed as

ImmunotherapyNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdultAgedFemaleHumansImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsMiddle AgedPrognosisProgression-Free SurvivalRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeImmune Checkpoint Inhibitorsantiangiogenic therapyimmunotherapyrecurrent or metastatic cervical cancer

Identifiers

PMID39382194
PMCPMC11462590

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.