SynthesisEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2026
Efficacy and safety of immunotherapy monotherapy versus combination regimens in recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study systematically reviewed and conducted a meta-analysis to compare efficacy and safety of immunotherapy strategies in recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC), assessing PD-L1 and treatment line impact.
methodsEleven phase III trials (n=6045) compared three immunotherapy strategies—immune monotherapy, combination with chemotherapy/targeted therapy, or double-agent immunotherapy—against standard of care (SOC) or alternative regimen. Primary endpoints: OS (overall survival) and PFS (progression-free survival); secondary: ORR (objective response rate), grade ≥3 TRAEs (treatment-related adverse events) and treatment-related deaths.
resultsImmunotherapy plus chemotherapy/targeted improved OS (HR=0.71, 95% CI: 0.62-0.81; p<0.001) and ORR (RR=1.11, 95% CI: 1.03-1.20; p=0.007) in first-line setting, with PFS benefit disappearing after trim-and-fill correction (adjusted HR=0.88, 95% CI: 0.61-1.27). Immune monotherapy enhanced OS only in second-line settings (HR=0.79, 95% CI: 0.69-0.91; p=0.001), particularly for PD-L1-positive patients (HR=0.71, 95% CI: 0.62-0.81; p<0.001), while increasing mortality risk in PD-L1-negative subgroups (HR=1.40, 95% CI: 1.01-1.94; p=0.045). Double-agent immunotherapy showed no OS improvement (HR=1.01, 95%CI: 0.90-1.12; P=0.9198) and potential PFS detriment (HR=1.40, 95%CI: 0.99-1.99; P=0.059). Safety analyses indicated reduced TRAEs with monotherapy (RR=0.32) and double-agent therapy (RR=0.48), but comparable toxicity for immunotherapy plus chemotherapy/targeted therapy versus SOC (RR=1.02).
conclusionCurrent evidence supports immunotherapy plus chemotherapy/targeted as a standard first-line option for R/M HNSCC. Immune monotherapy is recommended for second-line PD-L1-positive patients. Available data do not support the use of double-agent immunotherapy. Prioritize OS over PFS in clinical decisions, and implement double-blind trials to minimize bias.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41495509What 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.