SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2025
Grade ≥ 3 hematologic adverse events of immunotherapy in advanced NSCLC patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitor-combination therapy versus chemotherapy alone among Chinese population in cholangiocarcinoma treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative efficacy and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors versus docetaxel in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of thoracic disease · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe impact of incorporating immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) into standard chemotherapy on the severity and risk of myelosuppression in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients remains uncertain.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated ICIs in people with NSCLC. A comprehensive search of four databases, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, was carried out from inception to 30 October 2023. Pooled analyses assessed the risk ratios (RR) for treatment-related hematological adverse events greater than or equal to grade 3. The protocol is registered with PROSPERO and has the CRD42024500056 registration number.
findingsTwenty-three phase 3 RCTs were contained, involving 15,844 people with NSCLC receiving ICIs with or without chemotherapy. Compared with chemotherapy alone, ICI monotherapy or dual immunotherapy reduced treatment-associated leukopenia (relative risk (RR) 0.03, 95% CI 0.01-0.08), neutropenia (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.01-0.03), thrombocytopenia (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.02-0.14), and anemia (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.05-0.15), with a pooled incidence of 0.07%, 0.08%, 0.14%, and 9.07%. Compared with chemotherapy alone, ICIs in combination with chemotherapy increased the risk of developing treatment-related thrombocytopenia (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.04-1.77), with a pooled incidence rate of 6.83%; it did not increase leukopenia (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.70-1.35), neutropenia (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90-1.23), and anemia (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.85-1.43), with pooled incidence rates of 4.47%, 14.67%, and 13.36%, respectively.
interpretationFor patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC, severe hematological adverse events are uncommon when ICIs are used alone, as opposed to chemotherapy. However, when used in conjunction with chemotherapy, these side effects may be intensified, particularly in the form of an elevated incidence of thrombocytopenia of grade 3 or higher.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39841181What 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.