Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40529375›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in immunology2025

The comparison of efficacy and safety between cadonilimab (PD-1/CTLA-4) and anti-PD-1 inhibitors in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer: a retrospective real-world study.

Baoyue Pan, He Huang, Ting Wan, Qidan Huang, Shanyang He, Shijie Xu, Siyu Chen, Jiaxin Yin, Jundong Li, Min Zheng

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article 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 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Baoyue Pan *Department of Gynecology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
He Huang *Department of Gynecology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Ting Wan *Department of Gynecology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Qidan Huang *Department of Gynecology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Shanyang He *Department of Gynecology, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Shijie XuDepartment of Gynecology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Siyu ChenDepartment of Gynecology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Jiaxin YinDepartment of Gynecology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Jundong LiDepartment of Gynecology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Min ZhengDepartment of Gynecology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Cadonilimab provides substantial clinical benefits in recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (R/M CC) in several clinical trials and meeting abstracts. However, the efficacy of cadonilimab in patients with prior failure of anti- programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) inhibitors, as well as a direct comparison of its efficacy and safety with anti-PD-1 inhibitors, has not been reported in real-world settings. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study at our hospital, including two R/M CC patient cohorts. The first cohort consisted of 101 patients who received cadonilimab, either as monotherapy or in combination with other therapies, between July 1, 2022, and October 31, 2024. The second cohort comprised 201 patients who were treated with anti-PD-1 inhibitors (alone or in combination) but did not receive cadonilimab, between August 1, 2018, and March 31, 2024. In cadonilimab group, 4 patients received monotherapy, 13 patients received radiotherapy or surgery, 72 patients received concurrent chemotherapy, 57 patients received targeted therapy. Among anti-PD-1 group, 6 patients received monotherapy, 34 patients received radiotherapy or surgery, 127 patients received concurrent chemotherapy, 116 patients received targeted therapy. Clinicopathologic information, peripheral blood markers and treatment regimens were collected and analyzed to identify prognostic factors of cadonilimab through response rate comparison, as well as univariate, and multivariate analyses. The objective response rate (ORR) was compared between the cadonilimab and anti-PD-1 groups, stratified by PD-L1 expression. Safety data were also analyzed. Results: The cadonilimab group achieved an ORR of 59.41%, while the anti-PD-1 inhibitors group had an ORR of 44.28%. R/M CC patients with squamous cell carcinoma independently predicted prolonged progression-free survival ( Conclusion: Cadonilimab improved survival in R/M CC patients with previous anti-PD-1 treatment failure, achieving higher ORR in patients with negative PD-L1 expression compared to ati-PD-1 inhibitors. However, this benefit was associated with a notable increase in irAEs.

Indexed as

Antibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedCTLA-4 AntigenImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalProgrammed Cell Death 1 ReceptorUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdultAgedFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm MetastasisRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedCTLA-4 AntigenCTLA4 protein, humanImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsPDCD1 protein, humanProgrammed Cell Death 1 Receptoranti-PD-1anti-PD-1/CTLA-4cadonilimabcervical cancerimmune checkpoint inhibitor

Identifiers

PMID40529375
PMCPMC12171111

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.