SynthesisNeurosurgical review2026
Immune checkpoint inhibitors in combination with standard treatment versus standard treatment alone for newly diagnosed glioblastoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe standard treatment for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma is based on surgical resection associated with radiotherapy (RT) and temozolomide (TMZ). However, the effectiveness of this approach is limited by the intratumoral heterogeneity and by the enzyme MGMT (O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase) activity itself. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) emerge as a compelling therapeutic strategy combined with RT and TMZ for these patients.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of English-language studies from PubMed, Embase, and LILACS were conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of ICIs in combination with the standard treatment for newly diagnosed glioblastoma. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and treatment-related adverse events. Secondary endpoints were OS and PFS according to extent of surgical resection (ESR), and adverse events for grade 3 or above. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled. Quality assessment and risk of bias were performed according to Cochrane recommendations.
resultsThree randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 938 patients were included, 506 (54%) of whom had been administered ICI + TMZ + RT. OS (HR: 1.06; 95% CI:0.92–1.21; p = 0.41; I² = 0%) and PFS (HR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.88–1.27; p = 0.55; I² = 48%) were not significantly different between the ICIs and the standard treatment alone groups. Headache, as an adverse event, occurred significantly more frequently in the ICI group (OR: 1.58; 95% CI: 1.04–2.41; p = 0.03; I² = 0%). Other adverse events showed no significant differences between the groups. No subgroup analysis – neither OS nor PFS stratified by ESR – demonstrated significant differences between treatment groups.
conclusionThis meta-analysis demonstrates the addition of ICIs to TMZ plus RT does not confer statistically significant survival benefits in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma and are significantly associated with an increased incidence of headache when compared to the standard treatment alone. This signal was not accompanied by a significant rise in other adverse events, suggesting the overall safety remains manageable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41843056What 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.