ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2026
Efficacy of cemiplimab in biomarker defined subgroups of non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 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
Background: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) represents a significant challenge in oncology, characterized by its heterogeneous nature and poor prognosis, particularly in advanced stages. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of cemiplimab, administered intravenously at a dose of 350 mg every three weeks, in patients with advanced NSCLC, specifically focusing on its impact on prognostic biomarkers. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from inception to 31 May 2026. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating intravenous cemiplimab (350 mg every three weeks) in adult patients with advanced NSCLC. Comparators were placebo or standard of care. Eligible studies reported overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), or objective response rate (ORR). Two reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the RoB2 tool. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to pool risk ratios (RR) for response outcomes, with heterogeneity evaluated using I Results: Among the eight studies reviewed, significant survival benefits were observed in OS and PFS for patients receiving cemiplimab treatment. Notably, patients without epidermal growth factor receptor ( Conclusions: These findings advocate for cemiplimab as a viable treatment option in advanced NSCLC, warranting further investigations to elucidate its mechanisms and optimize treatment strategies for diverse patient populations.
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.