SynthesisOncology research2025
Efficacy of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in the Treatment for Head and Neck Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Oncology research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Checkpoint inhibitors have significantly improved outcomes in a number of malignancies. To determine the most effective course of treatment for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), this systematic review evaluated the efficacy of several therapeutic approaches based on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Methods: A comprehensive evaluation of the literature was conducted, looking at randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that were published in Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials since database establishment. The risk of bias of the enrolled studies was analyzed using The Review Manager (RevMan) 5.4. Using network meta-analyses (NMA), the relative treatment effects on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) from qualifying randomized controlled trials were synthesized and evaluated. Results: Regarding OS, compared with nivolumab plus chemotherapy, chemotherapy (Hazard ratio (HR) = 2.1, 95% Confidence interval (CI): 1.2, 3.4) showed a treatment disadvantage. Meanwhile, nivolumab plus chemotherapy may represent the most efficient (57.89%) and has a lower cost among all the treatments enrolled in this study for advanced HNSCC. Regarding PFS, compared with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab plus chemotherapy (HR = 0.4, 95% CI: 0.2, 0.8) showed treatment superiority. Additionally, nivolumab plus chemotherapy (77.18%) has the longest PFS among all interventions. Conclusion: Taking into account OS and PFS, the combination of nivolumab plus chemotherapy may appear to be the most effective option and is associated with a comparatively lower cost among all treatments included in this network meta-analysis, thereby recommending its use as a first-line therapy for HNSCC. Registration: INPLASY (2024070073).
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.