Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39777725›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2025

Anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 antibodies for glioma.

Suely M de Melo, Mauricio En Elias Nunes da Silva, Maria Regina Torloni, Rachel Riera, Kelly De Cicco, Carolina Oc Latorraca, Ana Carolina Pereira Nunes Pinto

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Advances in glioblastoma: Is there light at the end of the tunnel?The Indian journal of medical research · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. 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

7 authors.

Suely M de MeloDepartamento de Neurocirurgia, Escola Paulista de Medicina (EPM), Universidade Federal de Sao Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo, Brazil.
Mauricio En Elias Nunes da SilvaSaúde Baseada em Evidências, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Maria Regina TorloniCochrane Brazil, São Paulo, Brazil.
Rachel RieraNúcleo de Ensino e Pesquisa em Saúde Baseada em Evidências e Avaliação Tecnológica em Saúde (NEP-Sbeats) , Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Kelly De CiccoGlioma patient, Santos, Brazil.
Carolina Oc LatorracaCochrane Brazil, São Paulo, Brazil.
Ana Carolina Pereira Nunes PintoSaúde Baseada em Evidências, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGlioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is the most common and aggressive adult glioma (16-month median survival). Its immunosuppressive microenvironment limits the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs).

objectivesTo assess the effects of the ICIs antibodies anti-programmed cell death 1 (anti-PD-1) and anti-programmed cell death ligand 1 (anti-PD-L1) in treating adults with diffuse glioma. SEARCH

methodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and clinical trials registers on 8 March 2024. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating adults with diffuse glioma treated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 compared to placebo or other therapies used alone or with other ICIs. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and serious adverse events (SAE). Secondary outcomes were overall response rate (ORR), quality of life (QoL), and less serious AEs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods. MAIN

resultsWe included seven RCTs evaluating anti-PD-1 treatment in recurrent (N = 4) and newly diagnosed (N = 3) grade 4 glioma participants. The analysis encompassed 1953 participants; sample sizes ranged from 35 to 716. Meta-analyses were not possible due to heterogeneity and the small number of studies. Most trials had high risk of bias. Nivolumab versus bevacizumab in people with recurrent GBM (1 trial, 369 participants) Nivolumab probably does not increase OS (hazard ratio (HR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.30; 1.3% more, 95% CI 6.30 fewer to 7.80 more; 369 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or PFS (HR 1.97, 95% CI 1.57 to 2.48; 16.40% more, 95% CI 12.40 more to 19.00 more; 369 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence for SAE is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 1.20, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.92; 347 participants). Nivolumab probably does not increase ORR (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.63; 309 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but may not increase less serious AEs (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.10; 347 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nivolumab plus bevacizumab 10 mg/kg versus nivolumab plus bevacizumab 3 mg/kg in people with recurrent GBM (1 trial, 90 participants) Nivolumab plus bevacizumab 10 mg/kg may not increase OS (HR 1.39, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.25; 9.90% more, 95% CI 5.20 fewer to 18.80 more; 90 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence for PFS (HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.93; 5.80% more, 95% CI 8.20 fewer to 14.20 more; 90 participants) and SAE (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.79; 90 participants) is very uncertain. Nivolumab may not increase less serious AEs (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.09; low-certainty evidence; 90 participants). Pembrolizumab plus bevacizumab versus pembrolizumab in people with recurrent GBM (1 trial, 80 participants) The evidence for OS (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.63; 0.30% more, 95% CI 7.60 fewer to 2.90 more; 80 participants), PFS (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.54: 0.40% fewer, 95% CI 9.20 fewer to 2.80 more; 80 participants), SAE (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.42; 80 participants), and ORR (RR 12.76, 95% CI 0.77 to 210.27; 80 participants) is very uncertain. Pembrolizumab plus bevacizumab may not increase less serious AEs (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.13; 80 participants; low-certainty evidence). Neoadjuvant (before surgical resection) and adjuvant (after surgical resection) pembrolizumab versus adjuvant-only pembrolizumab in people with recurrent GBM (1 trial, 35 participants) The evidence for OS (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.92; 25.20% fewer, 95% CI 37.10 fewer to 2.10 fewer; 35 participants), PFS (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.91; 30.10% fewer, 95% CI 52.20 fewer to 3.60 fewer; 35 participants), and SAE (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.28; 32 participants) is very uncertain. Nivolumab plus radiotherapy versus temozolomide plus radiotherapy in people with newly diagnosed unmethylated GBM (1 trial, 560 participants) Nivolumab plus radiotherapy probably does not increase OS (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.58 months; 8.30% more, 95% CI 2.80 more to 12.90 more; 560 participants) and PFS (HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.65 months; 7.50% more, 95% CI 3.60 more to 10.30 more; 560 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence for SAE is very uncertain (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.18; 553 participants). It may not increase ORR (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.69; 560 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably does not increase less serious AEs (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.04; 560 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence for time to deterioration of QoL is very uncertain (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.99; 560 participants). Nivolumab plus temozolomide plus radiotherapy versus placebo plus temozolomide plus radiotherapy in people with newly diagnosed methylated GBM (1 trial, 716 participants) Nivolumab plus temozolomide plus radiotherapy probably does not increase OS (HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.32; 3.50 more, 95% CI 3.80 fewer to 9.60 more; 716 participants) and PFS (HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.32; 3.00 more, 95% CI 3.50 fewer to 7.90 more; 716 participants), and probably increases SAE (RR 2.91, 95% CI 2.05 to 4.12; 709 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It does not increase less serious AEs (RR 1.02, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.04; 709 participants; high-certainty evidence). Adjuvant nivolumab plus temozolomide versus temozolomide in older people with GBM (1 trial, 103 participants) Nivolumab plus temozolomide probably does not increase OS (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.33; 3.10 fewer, 95% CI 15.80 fewer to 3.60 more; 103 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and PFS (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.19; 5.40 fewer, 95% CI 19.10 fewer to 2.40 more; 103 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence for SAE is very uncertain (RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.81; 103 participants). The evidence for QoL is very uncertain (results only reported graphically; 103 participants). AUTHORS'

conclusionsIn recurrent GBM, nivolumab alone probably has no benefit. Anti-PD1 plus bevacizumab may also be ineffective based on low- to very low-certainty evidence. Neoadjuvant plus adjuvant pembrolizumab may improve OS and PFS, but this was based on only one small trial and very low-certainty evidence. In newly diagnosed GBM, nivolumab plus radiotherapy in unmethylated and plus radiotherapy plus temozolomide in methylated GBM probably has no benefit. In older participants, adjuvant nivolumab probably offers no benefit.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Agents, ImmunologicalB7-H1 AntigenBrain NeoplasmsGlioblastomaImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsProgrammed Cell Death 1 ReceptorAdultAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedBevacizumabBiasHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNivolumabProgression-Free SurvivalQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntineoplastic Agents, ImmunologicalB7-H1 AntigenBevacizumabCD274 protein, humanImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsNivolumabPDCD1 protein, humanProgrammed Cell Death 1 Receptor

Identifiers

PMID39777725
PMCPMC11707826

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.