SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2026
Comparison of drug regimens for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in immunology, 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.
- Cellular Immunotherapy for Cervical Cancer: Next Therapeutics Frontiers.Oncology research · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cervical cancer is one of the most common cancers among women worldwide. For patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (R/MCC) after surgery or radiotherapy, drug therapy is the primary treatment modality. Currently, head-to-head comparison studies of different immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) combination regimens are lacking in clinical practice. This study aims to provide an indirect comparison of the relative efficacy of various drug regimens (including chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy) for R/MCC patients through a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). Method: The study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines and systematically searched databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing drug treatment regimens. The primary efficacy endpoint was overall survival (OS). Progression-free survival (PFS) was analyzed as a Result: A total of 15 RCTs involving 4,588 R/MCC patients were included. The NMA results for OS showed that ICI combination regimens (with or without bevacizumab) provided a significant benefit compared to backbone chemotherapy. Specifically, the regimen of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy and bevacizumab showed the greatest potential for OS benefit (Frequentist HR: 0.45, 95%CI: 0.30-0.67 vs. cisplatin plus paclitaxel), ranking first by SUCRA (87%). Among traditional chemotherapy regimens, only the cisplatin plus paclitaxel regimen was significantly superior to single-agent cisplatin (Frequentist HR: 0.74, 95%CI: 0.59-0.93). The NMA results for PFS indicated that the cadonilimab plus chemotherapy regimen was the most outstanding (Frequentist HR: 0.46, 95%CI: 0.32-0.66 vs. cisplatin plus paclitaxel), ranking first by SUCRA (90%). The rankings of the treatment regimens were consistent across both Bayesian and Frequentist, suggesting strong robustness of the results. Conclusion: ICI combination regimens (with or without bevacizumab) are likely the optimal choice for treating R/MCC patients. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy and bevacizumab is most likely to yield the OS benefit, and cisplatin plus paclitaxel remains the best backbone chemotherapy regimen for R/MCC. This study provides comprehensive indirect comparison evidence for clinicians in selecting R/MCC treatment strategies. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251180897, identifier CRD42024604107.
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.