SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for the treatment of cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Significant improvement in overall survival with postoperative traditional Chinese medicine in stage I lung adenocarcinoma: a real-world retrospective cohort study.Translational lung cancer research · 2026Article
- Review
- Saikosaponin D overcomes gemcitabine resistance in pancreatic cancer via AKT/mTOR pathway inhibition and synergistic induction of apoptosis and autophagy.Oncology reports · 2026Article
- Harmonizing yin and yang, remodeling the microenvironment: the adjuvant potential of Chinese herbal medicine in tumor immunotherapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Traditional Chinese medicine as a potential barrier-oriented sensitization strategy for immune checkpoint blockade in microsatellite-stable colorectal cancer: from resistance mechanisms to translational validation.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Cancer cachexia as an immunometabolic syndrome: targeting the immunometabolic interface with traditional Chinese Medicine monomers and formulas.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Survival prediction in colorectal cancer liver metastases using machine learning with SHAP-based interpretation.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Regulatory effects of traditional Chinese medicine on the breast-cancer immune microenvironment.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cancer remains a major global health burden. Combining traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) may potentially mitigate treatment-related side effects and improve the quality of life for cancer patients. To critically evaluate the clinical efficacy of this combination therapy, a meta-analysis was performed. Methods: A systematic search was conducted across six databases. Data were analyzed using RevMan 5.3 and Stata 12. Heterogeneity was explored through subgroup analysis and meta-regression. The robustness of results was assessed via sensitivity analysis and publication bias. Results: 41 studies were included. The TCM + ICIs group demonstrated significantly superior outcomes compared to the ICIs group across multiple endpoints: Overall Response Rate (ORR) (RR: 1.34 [1.20, 1.49]), Disease Control Rate (DCR) (RR: 1.15 [1.10, 1.21]), CD4 Conclusion: The combination of TCM with ICIs appears to enhance antitumor immunity, reduce adverse reactions, lower serum tumor marker levels, improve disease control, and ameliorate patient performance status. This combination strategy represents a promising therapeutic approach for various cancers and warrants further investigation.
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.