SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2025
PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for Asian patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer: a phase III RCTs based meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) presents significant therapeutic challenges, particularly in Asian populations, which exhibit distinct biological and genetic characteristics. Immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy has emerged as a promising approach; however, its efficacy compared to chemotherapy alone remains under investigation. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combined with chemotherapy (PIC) versus chemotherapy alone in the treatment of advanced TNBC in Asian patients. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed across six databases for phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Only studies comparing the outcomes of PIC versus chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced TNBC, including subgroup analyses of Asian populations, were included. Data were pooled to assess overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), responses, and safety profiles. Results: A total of 1041 patients from five phase 3 RCTs were included in the final analysis. Compared to chemotherapy alone, PIC therapy significantly improved PFS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.74 [0.62, 0.88], P = 0.0008). No significant difference was observed in OS (HR: 0.78 [0.55, 1.12], P = 0.18), although a slight trend favoring PIC therapy was noted. Among PD-L1-positive patients, both OS (HR: 0.62 [0.44, 0.86], P = 0.005) and PFS (HR: 0.66 [0.50, 0.86], P = 0.003) were significantly improved in the PIC group. The PIC group also exhibited a substantially higher OS rate at 12-36 months and a higher PFS rate at 6-30 months. However, the incidence of immune-related AEs (irAEs) (risk ratio [RR]: 1.69 [1.33, 2.15], P < 0.0001) and grade 3-5 irAEs (RR: 3.11 [1.59, 6.10], P = 0.001) was significantly higher in the PIC group. The most common irAEs in the PIC group were hypothyroidism (14.40%), dermatitis (10.00%), and infusion reactions (8.85%). Both treatment groups exhibited similar response rates and treatment-related AEs (TRAEs). Conclusions: In Asian patients with advanced TNBC, PIC significantly improved survival compared to chemotherapy alone. Although the combination therapy was associated with a higher incidence of irAEs, its clinical benefits support its use as a viable treatment option for this population. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42024622428.
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.