ArticleWorld journal of oncology2025
Anti-Programmed Cell Death-1 Versus Anti-Programmed Death-Ligand 1 (PD-L1) in PD-L1-Negative Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in World journal of oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- Navigating Immunotherapy Resistance: The Role of Cross-Line Strategies in Cancer Treatment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Targeting regulated cell death pathways in lung cancer: mechanisms, therapeutic strategies, and clinical translation.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
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
Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) which target programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) receptor or its ligand (PD-L1) are used extensively in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In this article, we compared the relative efficacy of PD-1 inhibitors and PD-L1 inhibitors in PD-L1-negative advanced NSCLC. Methods: We searched MEDLINE (host: PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar) for randomized trials for advanced NSCLC in which ICIs (anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1) were used where outcome data were reported based on PD-L1 testing, including the subset of PD-L1-negative patients. We extracted hazard ratios (HRs) and related 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and/or P values for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for the PD-L1-negative subgroup of each included trial. We then pooled data using a random effects meta-analysis and compared anti-PD-1 to anti-PD-L1 inhibitors. Variations in effect size were examined using subgroup analyses. Results: Twenty-three trials were included in the meta-analysis. PD-L1 testing was performed in all participants. A total of 4,548 PD-L1-negative patients were included in the analysis, representing 33% of all participants in the included clinical trials. Overall, the addition of anti-PD-1 was associated with better OS in PD-L1-negative advanced NSCLC patients (HR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.67 - 0.83, P < 0.01), while the addition of anti-PD-L1 inhibitors showed no improvement in OS (HR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.78 - 1.05, P = 0.18). Compared to anti-PD-L1 agents, anti-PD-1 resulted in better OS in PD-L1-negative patients (HR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.67 - 0.99, P = 0.01). The differential benefit of anti-PD-1 over anti-PD-L1 was of larger magnitude when checkpoint inhibitors were used in the first-line setting (pairwise comparison HR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.66 - 0.93, P = 0.01), while there was no difference for later lines of therapy (pairwise comparison 1.13; 95% CI: 0.82 - 1.55, P = 0.45). These differences in OS were not observed when pooling PFS data. Conclusions: Compared to checkpoint inhibitors targeting PD-L1, those targeting PD-1 are associated with better OS in PD-L1-negative advanced NSCLC, a finding influenced by trials performed in the first-line sitting. These data should be validated using real-world studies.
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.