SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2024
Updated Bayesian network meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of PD-1 versus PD-L1 inhibitors in first-line treatment with chemotherapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Article
- First-line treatment of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer with immune checkpoint inhibitors acting on different targets: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Translational cancer research · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of programmed cell death 1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy (PD-1 + Chemo) and programmed cell death ligand 1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy (PD-L1 + Chemo) for the treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of relevant data using R software, considering overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAES). Results: PD-1 + Chemo (OS: hazard ratio [HR] 0.71; PFS: HR 0.59) and PD-L1 + Chemo (OS: HR 0.72; PFS: HR 0.73) significantly prolonged survival and did not increase the incidence of grade ≥3 TRAEs compared with chemotherapy. Indirect comparisons showed no significant difference in clinical efficacy (OS: HR 0.99, 95% CI: 0.86-1.1; PFS: HR 0.80, 95% CI: 0.61-1.0) or safety (HR 1.0, 95% CI: 0.93-1.1) between PD-1 + Chemo and PD-L1 + Chemo. Non-cumulative probability ranking plot ranking results showed that PD-1 + Chemo ranked first in OS and PFS. Patients with PD-L1 expression levels < 1%, PD-1 + Chemo showed a trend of disadvantage (OS: HR 1.3; PFS: HR 1.2), whereas for patients with PD-L1 expression levels ≥ 1%, PD-1 + Chemo showed a trend of advantage (OS: HR 0.85; PFS: HR 0.85). Conclusions: PD-1 + Chemo and PD-L1 + Chemo significantly prolonged OS and PFS in patients with ES-SCLC and did not significantly increase the incidence of grade ≥ 3 TRAES. The efficacy and safety profiles of PD-1 + Chemo and PD-L1 + Chemo appear to be similar.
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.