ArticleBMC cancer2026
Comparative efficacy and safety of first-line immunotherapy- and targeted therapy-based regimens for advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer: a network meta-analysis.
Article in BMC cancer, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal first-line immunotherapy- or targeted therapy-based regimen for advanced gastric cancer (GC) and gastroesophageal junction cancer (GEJC) remains uncertain, largely because direct head-to-head comparisons are limited. We therefore conducted a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of currently available first-line treatment strategies.
methodsPubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched from inception to January 10, 2026, for randomized controlled trials evaluating first-line immunotherapy- or targeted therapy-based regimens for advanced GC or GEJC. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed using hazard ratios (HRs), and dichotomous outcomes were analyzed using odds ratios (ORs), both with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. Bayesian network meta-analysis performs by R4.3.1.
resultsNineteen randomized controlled trials involving 10,808 patients were included. No statistically significant differences were observed among treatment regimens for OS or PFS. Several immunotherapy- and targeted therapy-based regimens demonstrated improvements in short-term tumor response outcomes, including ORR and DCR; however, these improvements were not consistently associated with survival benefits. SUCRA-based ranking results suggested variability in probabilistic treatment ordering but should be interpreted as exploratory rather than definitive evidence of clinical superiority. Substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity was observed across trials, including differences in biomarker status (PD-L1, HER2, CLDN18.2, FGFR2b), geographic regions, chemotherapy backbones, and subsequent treatment strategies. In safety analyses, EGFR-targeted agents showed relatively favorable profiles in selected outcomes.
conclusionsAlthough certain regimens were associated with improved short-term tumor responses, there is insufficient evidence to support definitive superiority in terms of long-term survival outcomes. Given biomarker heterogeneity, clinical variability, and limitations in network structure, these findings should be interpreted cautiously. Further biomarker-stratified and head-to-head randomized trials are warranted to better define optimal treatment strategies.
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.