SynthesisBMC cancer2025
Multidimensional comparative evaluation of first-line therapies for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of clinical efficacy and safety profiles.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe first-line treatment for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) has evolved from chemotherapy alone to chemoimmunotherapy. However, the improvements in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) have been modest. Therefore, this study employs a comprehensive multidimensional evaluation framework to identify optimized therapeutic combinations with enhanced efficacy and improved safety profiles in the immunotherapy era.
methodsAn adaptive search strategy was employed to retrieve all relevant literature from electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, from database inception to November 2024. The retrieved studies were carefully screened according to pre-designed inclusion and exclusion criteria. Clinical research articles and their supplementary materials that met the criteria were obtained and thoroughly reviewed. Manual data extraction was conducted, with the safety data and efficacy outcomes. A network meta-analysis of all acquired data for each outcome was performed. The study protocol was pre-registered in PROSPERO, CRD42024612944.
resultsThis network meta-analysis included 6,473 patients from 14 head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Compared with etoposide-platinum chemotherapy combined with a programmed cell death ligand 1 inhibitor (the Chemo + PD-L1 regimen), the addition of anlotinib (the Chemo + PD-L1 + Anlo regimen) resulted in better PFS (hazard ratio (HR), 0.42; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.33-0.54) and objective response rate (ORR) (odds ratio (OR), 1.81; 95% CI, 1.13-2.91). Moreover, adding BMS-986012 (anti-fucosyl-GM1 antibodies) to the Chemo + PD-L1 regimen ranked first in the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA, 0.96) analysis for OS. Compared with the Chemo + PD-L1 regimen, the addition of an anti-CTLA-4 inhibitor (the Chemo + PD-L1 + CTLA-4 regimen) was associated with an increased risk of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of grades ≥ 3 (risk ratio (RR), 1.19; 95%CI, 1.04-1.36).
conclusionsIncorporating anlotinib into the Chemo + PD-L1 regimen can be a viable first-line option for patients with high tumor burden, but cannot fully replace the current first-line standard-of-care (SOC). Chemoimmunotherapy combined with immune-related targeting drugs demonstrates the potential to improve overall survival.
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.