ReviewGastro hep advances2026
Efficacy and Safety of Anti-PD-(L)1 Treatments: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Asian vs Non-Asian Patients with Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.
Review in Gastro hep advances, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is prevalent in Asia. Since 2019, anti-programmed cell death protein-1 or programmed death-ligand 1 (anti-PD-[L]1s) have become a mainstay of ESCC treatment. However, many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of anti-PD-(L)1s were conducted in Asian populations; thus, the applicability of these data to non-Asian cohorts is uncertain. To address this, we conducted a meta-analysis across first- (1L) and second-line (2L) RCTs in advanced/metastatic ESCC. Methods: RCTs were identified from 2 systematic literature reviews, targeting adults receiving anti-PD-(L)1s at 1L and 2L. Three meta-analyses were performed, testing for heterogeneity and treatment effect (overall survival [OS] or progression-free survival) in the overall population; the third examined Asian vs non-Asian subgroups. Results stability was assessed in sensitivity analyses. Results: Twelve RCTs were included in the primary meta-analysis; 13 RCTs in the sensitivity analyses. Among patients with ESCC receiving 1L or 2L anti-PD-(L)1s, OS was consistent across RCTs and there was no statistically significant difference between Asian (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70 [95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.75]) and non-Asian (HR, 0.73 [95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.85]) subgroups. For the overall population, no baseline characteristics had a significant impact on the OS HR, and neither line of therapy nor PD-(L)1 expression was shown to be a significant factor in OS heterogeneity. Progression-free survival meta-analyses were not performed due to a lack of data. Conclusion: This meta-analysis indicates that there is no significant difference in OS between Asian and non-Asian ESCC patients receiving 1L or 2L anti-PD-(L)1 treatment. Results may support regulatory and health technology assessment decision making. In addition, they may encourage wider guideline consideration for anti-PD-(L)1s.
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.