Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39723374›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2024

Efficacy and safety of first-line immunotherapy-containing regimens compared with chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Weiming Liang, Shibo Huang, Yanping Huang, Miaoyan Huang, Chunyan Li, Yiwen Liang, Li Pang

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

7 authors.

Weiming Liang *The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi, China.
Shibo Huang *The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi, China.
Yanping HuangThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi, China.
Miaoyan HuangThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi, China.
Chunyan LiThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi, China.
Yiwen LiangThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi, China.
Li PangMedicine Center, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: To assess the efficacy and safety of first-line immunotherapy-containing regimens compared with chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC). Method: A comprehensive search was performed in four databases (Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library) to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of first-line immunotherapy-containing regimens for advanced or metastatic UC. The search encompassed the time span from the inception of the databases to April 23, 2024. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to assess the rates of progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), complete response (CR), objective response rate (ORR), and grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs). Results: We conducted a comprehensive analysis of five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included a total of 4749 patients. Nine different treatment regimens included in the study were ranked statistically and intuitively using NMA. The top five effective regimens, ranked by OS, were EV + Pembro (1.000), Nivol + Chemo (0.724), Atezo + Chemo (0.610), Durva + Treme (0.558), and Pembro + Chemo (0.530). The top five effective regimens, ranked by PFS, were EV + Pembro (0.999), Nivol + Chemo (0.640), Pembro + Chemo (0.484), Atezo + Chemo (0.373) and Chemo (0.003). The top five effective regimens, ranked by CR, were EV + Pembro (0.969), Nivol + Chemo (0.803), Atezo + Chemo (0.772), Pembro + Chemo (0.472), Durva + Treme (0.449). The top five effective regimens, ranked by ORR, were EV + Pembro (0.995), Nivol + Chemo (0.852), Pembro + Chemo (0.761), Atezo + Chemo (0.623), and Chemo (0.519). Conclusion: Our results indicated that EV + Pembro as first-line therapy resulted in considerably improved efficacy and safety compared to chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic UC. ICI plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment resulted in a longer PFS, a greater ORR, but no longer OS compared to chemotherapy alone, as well as higher toxicity. ICI alone as first-line therapy provided similar OS and lower toxicity compared to chemotherapy, but lower ORR. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD42024538546.

Indexed as

chemotherapyenfortumab vedotinfirst-lineimmune-checkpoint inhibitorimmunotherapymeta-analysisPD-1 inhibitoruc

Identifiers

PMID39723374
PMCPMC11668658

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.