SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2026
Efficacy and safety of first-line therapies for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer: a systematic review and exploratory network meta-analysis of immunotherapy.
Synthesis in Frontiers in immunology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The first-line treatment for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer continues to pose significant clinical challenges. While the application of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has transformed the existing treatment paradigm, the lack of direct comparisons between the different immunotherapy regimens limits the selection of optimal strategies for diverse patient populations. Methods: We have searched through the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases for phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The objective response rate (ORR) and the incidence of grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were the secondary endpoints. Data were analyzed using a frequentist network meta-analysis and Bucher's indirect comparison method. Results: Four phase III RCTs (1,924 patients) were enrolled. Combinations with bevacizumab, pembrolizumab, and atezolizumab demonstrated comparable efficacy to each other [OS relative hazard ratio (HR) = 1.11, 95%CI = 0.77-1.62; PFS relative HR = 1.09, 95%CI = 0.78-1.52), both significantly superior to chemotherapy. In the treatment setting without bevacizumab, cadonilimab outperformed pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for OS (relative HR = 0.75, 95%CI = 0.45-1.25) and PFS (relative HR = 0.64, 95%CI = 0.40-1.03). Patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive tumors [combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 1] derived clear benefit from immunotherapy, whereas the PD-L1-negative (CPS < 1) populations experienced limited improvements overall. However, cadonilimab showed a trend toward PFS improvement in this subgroup (HR = 0.65, 95%CI = 0.42-1.03, Conclusion: In the bevacizumab combination setting, pembrolizumab and atezolizumab demonstrate equivalent efficacy. Cadonilimab excels in settings without bevacizumab, showing efficacy in PD-L1-negative patients and metastatic subgroups. Thus, clinical decision-making should integrate multiple pieces of information such as the PD-L1 expression status and bevacizumab eligibility, and individual safety profiles should be considered to create personalized treatment routes. In the future, head-to-head comparative studies are urgently needed to precisely identify optimal treatment regimens for certain types of patient subgroups. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251158152, identifier CRD420251158152.
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.