SynthesisClinical and experimental medicine2025
Evaluating comparative effectiveness of pembrolizumab-based therapy versus chemotherapy in treatment of gastric carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Clinical and experimental medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab in the treatment of HER2-negative advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of emerging clinical data.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Pooled it
- Safety and Efficacy of Semaglutide in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease, With or Without Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism · 2025Pooled it
- Bioinformatic Analysis of RNF43 and Its Co-expressors As Prognostic Biomarkers for Gastric Cancer.Cureus · 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
Gastric cancer, especially cancer of the gastro-esophageal junction, ranks among the first five cancers in the world with the highest mortality rates. It has poor survival rates for the advanced stages. Traditional chemotherapy, while standard, often results in significant side effects and limited efficacy. The objective of this meta-analysis and systemic review is to ascertain if pembrolizumab-based therapies for advanced gastric cancer are more effective and safer than standard chemotherapy. The focus consisted of RCTs with adults suffering from gastric carcinoma who received pembrolizumab every 3 weeks (200 mg) intra-related dose or with at least comparable chemotherapy regimen. Outcomes assessed are as follows: overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR). All potential sources regarding the search of outcome measures were applied: Google Scholar, Scopus, PubMed, and Cochrane library, and last search in June 2024 was carried out. Out of 568 articles screened, four RCTs comprising 2,831 patients met the inclusion criteria. Analysis indicated that pembrolizumab alone did not significantly improve OS compared to chemotherapy (HR 0.87). However, when combined with chemotherapy, pembrolizumab dramatically enhanced OS (HR 0.80) and PFS (HR 0.78). ORR was superior in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group (RR 1.24), while pembrolizumab monotherapy showed no significant difference from chemotherapy alone. Safety analysis revealed a higher frequency of adverse events in the pembrolizumab-based therapy groups compared to chemotherapy. Pembrolizumab together with chemotherapy improves greater survival and higher levels of response rate in patients with severe gastric cancer, especially with high PD-L1 expression. But it has rather more adverse events, allowing patient monitoring with care.
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.