SynthesisImmunotherapy2026
Efficacy of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors for recurrent/metastatic head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Immunotherapy, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have brought a paradigm shift in recurrent/metastatic (R/M) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), but their first-line efficacy remains inconsistent. This meta-analysis compared the efficacy of ICIs versus the EXTREME regimen in R/M HNSCC patients.
methodsRandomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of ICIs versus EXTREME in R/M HNSCC patients and reporting on programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) were included. Kaplan-Meier curves of OS and PFS were reconstructed; ORR was presented as odds ratios.
resultsFrom an initial pool of 356 studies, three trials were included. In the total population, median OS was similar among ICI monotherapy (11.5 months), dual ICIs (12.5 months), and EXTREME (12.0 months). In the PD-L1 high expression population, ICI monotherapy and dual ICIs demonstrated a trend toward improved OS relative to EXTREME. EXTREME demonstrated better PFS and ORR than ICI monotherapy and dual ICIs in both the total and PD-L1 high expression populations.
conclusionsFirst-line ICI monotherapy and dual ICIs did not significantly improve OS, PFS, and ORR compared with EXTREME. However, a discernible trend suggested a potential survival benefit for ICIs in patients with high PD-L1 expression.
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.