SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2025
PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus bevacizumab plus chemotherapy versus PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a phase 3 RCT 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. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Immune checkpoint inhibitor-based combination therapy for platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory recurrent ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective trials.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Deficiency of SMARCB1 drives an immunosuppressive microenvironment in meningioma.Acta neuropathologica communications · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Combining PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors with chemotherapy (PIC) is a standard first-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The addition of bevacizumab to this regimen (PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors+bevacizumab+chemotherapy [PIBC]) remains controversial regarding its potential to enhance antitumor efficacy in clinical practice. This meta-analysis aims to compare the antitumor effectiveness and safety profiles of PIBC with PIC. Methods: We systematically searched six databases to identify eligible RCTs. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), while the secondary outcomes included treatment responses and adverse events (AEs). Results: Three RCTs (IMpower150, jRCT2080224500, and ORIENT-31) comprising a total of 1529 patients were analyzed. The PIBC regimen significantly improved PFS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.76 [0.66, 0.87], P < 0.0001), objective response rate (risk ratio [RR]: 1.36 [1.22, 1.51], P < 0.00001), and disease control rate (RR: 1.06 [1.00, 1.12], P = 0.04). The PFS rates were also higher in the PIBC group at 6 and 18 months. Both groups showed similar results in terms of OS, 3-36 month OS rates, and total AEs. However, the PIBC group exhibited a higher incidence of grade 3-5 AEs, serious AEs, grade 3-5 treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) and serious TRAEs. The most frequent grade 3-5 AEs in the PIBC group included anorexia (36.40%), decreased neutrophil count (16.25%), neutropenia (13.50%), reduced white blood cell count (12.12%), and febrile neutropenia (9.42%). Conclusions: PIBC appears to be better than PIC for advanced NSCLC offering improved PFS and response rates (ORR and DCR). However, its higher incidence of AEs requires cautious attention. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024559146, identifier CRD42024559146.
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.