ArticleEClinicalMedicine2025
Evaluation of clinical and safety outcomes of cancer vaccines in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer after first-line therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Therapeutic vaccines targeting solid tumors: A series of clinical trial analysis over the past decade.Translational oncology · 2026Review
- Liposomal drug delivery for lung cancer therapy: progress, challenges, and future perspectives.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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on cancer vaccines, systematic evaluations of their efficacy and safety for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) following first-line therapy remain lacking. Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO, CRD42024568178), PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched from inception up to December 27, 2024. Published phase II or III RCTs reporting survival outcomes in advanced or metastatic NSCLC patients who received vaccine therapy after first-line therapy were included. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), with progression-free survival (PFS) as secondary outcome. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) was the major safety outcome. Random-effects model was employed in this meta-analysis. Risk of bias was evaluated with RoB 2. Findings: Eleven RCTs comprising 3228 patients (67% male, n = 2162) were included, without high risk of bias. The included studies involved employing cancer vaccines as first-line maintenance therapy, second-line therapy, or third-line therapy. In general, Cancer vaccines associated with improved OS (HR = 0.85, 95% CI, 0.78-0.92, Interpretation: This meta-analysis demonstrated the clinical efficacy and safety of cancer vaccines in advanced NSCLC patients after first-line therapy, especially in those with squamous cell carcinoma. Immune response was identified as a predictive biomarker for vaccines effect. This study provides the state-of-the-art evidence for the clinical application of cancer vaccines in advanced NSCLC patients after first-line therapy. Funding: 20240484580, 20230484314, 2023YFF0723500, 2021RU002, 82173386, RZ2022-04.
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.