SynthesisNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2026
Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors for locoregionally advanced, recurrent and metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a systematic review of phase III randomised controlled trials.
Synthesis in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2026. 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.
- Improving Laboratory-Based Cancer Drug Discovery Study Designs for Better Research Translations.Methods and protocols · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are an emerging treatment option for cancer. Many randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using ICIs have been conducted on nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients, some of which are phase III trials of locoregionally advanced and recurrent/metastatic NPCs. We performed a systematic review to qualitatively assess the efficacy and safety of ICIs in NPC patients. PubMed/MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, Google, preprint servers, and references were thoroughly searched using Boolean search string (except for references) from inception through April 28, 2025. Full articles and conference abstract that met the eligibility criteria, such as reported studied population, intervention, comparison and outcome, were included. The quality of included studies was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) version 1.0 tool. Meta-analysis was not performed due to data heterogeneity, mainly from methodological variations. Seven phase III trials were shortlisted and tabulated. Three studies described on locoregionally advanced NPC (LANPC), with one article showing moderate RoB and two articles showing high RoB, while three out of four studies on recurrent/metastatic NPC had low RoB. Studies with high RoB provide low certainty/reliability, while those with low RoB offer higher reliability. Each study was unique in ICI usage and study design, including disease stage, adjuvant versus combination therapy, and participant selection criteria. Three high RoB studies, with two studies belonging to LANPC, reported negative effects (p > 0.05) on overall survival (OS). Two low RoB recurrent/metastatic studies reported positive outcome. Progression-free survival (PFS) was met (p < 0.01) in three low RoB recurrent/metastatic NPC studies. PFS [Hazard ratio-HR 0.52 (95% Confidence interval (CI): 0.37-0.73); p < 0.001] and OS [HR 0.63 (95% CI: 0.45-0.89); p < 0.01] were met in 1 low RoB recurrent/metastatic study (toripalimab). Overall, grade ≥ 3 adverse events, including immune-related ones (with rashes being the most common), were manageable. Based on our systematic review, combining ICIs with standard chemotherapy is probably a promising approach for PFS in recurrent/metastasic NPC patients. However, due to high RoB it is inconclusive for LANPC, and high-quality studies are needed.
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.