SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Efficacy and safety of subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in the treatment of solid tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aim was to evaluate the differences in pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, and safety between subcutaneous (s.c.) and intravenous (i.v.) administration of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in the treatment of solid tumors, and to explore the development history and future prospects of s.c. administration of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library were searched for relevant studies from inception to October 10, 2025. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were used to compare the pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety of s.c. and i.v. PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in the treatment of solid tumors. Review Manager 5.4.1 was used to analyze the data. Primary outcomes and endpoints included serum drug concentration、overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AE). Results: This systematic review and meta-analysis included three randomized controlled trials with a total of 1243 patients (746 received s.c. administration, and 497 received i.v. administration). Compared to the i.v. administration, there were no significant differences in drug concentration, OS [HR = 0.86; 95% CI (0.68, 1.08); P = 0.19], PFS [HR = 1.06; 95% CI (0.92, 1.23); P = 0.42], or ORR [RR = 1.18; 95% CI (0.97, 1.43); P = 0.09] for the s.c. administration of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. Regarding AE, arthralgia was more commonly associated with s.c. administration, whereas i.v. administration resulted in a higher incidence of injection site reactions. Conclusion: The pharmacokinetics of s.c.PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors for the treatment of solid tumors are similar to those of i.v. administration, and no significant differences were found in efficacy and safety analyses; This finding supports s.c. administration as a viable and complementary alternative to traditional i.v. delivery. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD420251161810.
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.