ReviewCureus2025
Efficacy of Tislelizumab in Lung Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The effect of tislelizumab on complete and pathological complete response in non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Recapitulating lung cancer metastasisOncology reports · 2026Review
- Vitamin D and Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Lung Cancer: A Synergistic Approach to Enhancing Treatment Efficacy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- The efficacy and safety of tislelizumab in the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy of tislelizumab, alone or in combination with chemotherapy, in patients with lung cancer. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases until February 15, 2025. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tislelizumab with control treatments in lung cancer patients were included. The primary outcomes assessed were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Four phase-III RCTs involving 1,837 patients were included in the analysis. The results demonstrated that tislelizumab significantly improved OS (hazard ratios (HR): 0.72, 95% CI: 0.63-0.81) and PFS (HR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.54-0.68) compared to control treatments. Subgroup analyses revealed consistent benefits across both non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) populations, with no significant differences between cancer types. Similarly, the efficacy of tislelizumab was comparable whether administered as monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy. Low heterogeneity was observed among the included studies, suggesting consistency in treatment effects. Follow-up duration across studies ranged from 14.2 to 16.7 months. These findings indicate that tislelizumab, either alone or combined with chemotherapy, is an effective treatment option for lung cancer patients, demonstrating significant improvements in survival outcomes. However, further high-quality RCTs are needed to validate these results, particularly in SCLC patients, where evidence is limited to a single study. Future research should also consider patient-specific factors such as age, gender, and comorbidities to refine treatment strategies.
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.