SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2025
Bispecific antibodies combined with chemotherapy in solid tumor treatment, the path forward?
Synthesis in Frontiers in immunology, 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.
- Efficacy and safety of bispecific antibodies versus other antitumor therapies in solid tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Pooled it
- Cancer cell-selective ectopic expression of CD20 as an antigen enables rituximab repurposing for solid tumour immunotherapy.Clinical and translational medicine · 2026Article
- Landscape of T-cell bispecific antibodies in cancer therapy: therapeutic strategies, challenges and future prospection.Molecular cancer · 2026Review
- Review
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
Background: Bispecific antibodies (bsAbs) introduced a novel strategy in anticancer therapy when chemotherapy alone could not meet life expectancy. Nonetheless, the efficacy of monotherapy was limited, and the safety profile of bsAbs combined with chemotherapy remained uncertain. Methods: Literature retrieval was carried out through PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane from inception to January, 2025. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and overall response rate (ORR), along with adverse effects (AEs), were utilized to assess the efficacy and safety. Publication bias was calculated using Funnel plots and Egger's test. Heterogeneity was examined through subgroup and sensitivity analyses. The protocol was preregistered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42025633628). Results: A total of 8 eligible clinical studies with 2,495 patients were included. Compared with chemotherapy alone, bsAb+chemotherapy exhibited positive outcomes in PFS (hazard ratio (HR): 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.44-0.60; p<0.01), OS (HR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.57-0.77; p<0.01), and ORR (HR: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.16-0.47; p<0.01). Subgroup analysis revealed that female patients, Asian patients, those under 65 years of age, and patients treated with IgG-like bsAb were more likely to benefit from the survival advantages of bsAb+chemotherapy. Despite the occurrence of leukopenia, metabolism-related, and skin-related AEs, RR of AEs in other systems showed no statistical significance. Conclusion: BsAb+chemotherapy was superior to chemotherapy alone, especially in female patients, Asian patients, those under 65 years of age, and patients receiving IgG-like bsAb. Additionally, while the AEs associated with bsAb+chemotherapy are generally manageable, there is still room for improvement. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42025633628.
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.