SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2026
Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with antiangiogenic agents in advanced cervical cancer: a systematic review and 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. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Advanced cervical cancer (aCC) is associated with a poor prognosis for patients. While immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have demonstrated potential therapeutic benefits, their effectiveness can be hindered by inherent resistance mechanisms and the onset of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). The strategy of combining ICIs with anti-angiogenic agents has gained traction as a potentially effective treatment approach. Nonetheless, there is a notable absence of robust, systematic evidence to confirm the efficacy and safety of this combination specifically for aCC patients. Methods: We conducted a thorough search of relevant studies across multiple databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus. We extracted key outcome measures, such as overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs) for further analysis. Results: The analysis included three randomized controlled trials (RCTs;all evaluating first-line treatment for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer) and eight single-arm trials(predominantly later-line or mixed-line settings), encompassing a total of 1, 491 patients. The meta-analysis revealed that in RCTs, ICIs significantly improved OS, decreasing the risk of death by 16% (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]:0.78-0.91, P <0.001), and enhanced PFS, reducing the risk of disease progression by 18% (HR = 0.82, 95% CI:0.77-0.88, P <0.001). The combination group exhibited a higher objective response rate (ORR, risk ratio [RR] = 1.19, 95% CI:1.10-1.30, P <0.001) compared to the control group. Findings from single-arm studies provided supportive exploratory evidence, showing a pooled ORR of 0.57 (95% CI: 0.46-0.68).Safety profiles were generally acceptable in RCTs, but the absolute rate of severe toxicity in single-arm studies was substantial (51% grade ≥3).Sensitivity analyses affirmed the robustness of the OS results (I² = 0%), with a stable ORR despite observed heterogeneity. Conclusion: Pooled analysis of first-line RCTs indicates that combining ICIs with anti-angiogenic agents and chemotherapy demonstrates promising efficacy and a manageable safety profile in persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer. However, vigilant monitoring and prompt management of immune therapy-related adverse events are crucial for patient safety. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD420251050867.
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.