SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2025
Comparative effectiveness and safety of immunotherapeutic strategies in ovarian cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 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.
- Ovarian Cancer Mortality Predictors in Public Oncology Centers, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: A Case-Control Study.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Ovarian cancer remains the most lethal gynecologic malignancy, with poor survival despite standard therapies. Immunotherapy represents a promising option, yet the comparative efficacy and safety among different immunotherapies are unclear. This network meta-analysis aimed to evaluate and rank multiple immunotherapeutic strategies for ovarian cancer. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science was performed through May 31, 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing immunotherapies were included. Outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), and grade ≥3 adverse events. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models, calculating standardized mean differences (SMDs) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous variables, and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs for categorical variables. Results: Twenty-six RCTs involving 5,982 patients were included. Cancer vaccines (CV) (HR = 0.56, 95% CI 0.43-0.73) and dual immune checkpoint blockade (DICB) (HR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.46-0.92) significantly improved OS compared with controls. CV also prolonged PFS (SMD = 0.95, 95% CI 0.16-1.75). CTLA-4 inhibitors markedly increased ORR (OR = 99.32, 95% CI 1.18-8360.43), though no significant DCR differences were observed. PD-1 inhibitors demonstrated the best safety profile, reducing grade ≥ 3 AEs (OR = 0.16, 95% CI 0.08-0.33) and overall TRAEs versus other immunotherapies. Conclusion: CV and DICB yielded the most consistent survival benefits, while PD-1 inhibitors showed superior safety. These findings support tailored, biomarker-informed immunotherapy approaches and combination strategies to optimize efficacy and tolerability in ovarian cancer. Further head-to-head trials are warranted to confirm these results. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO (CRD420251083861).
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.