ReviewFrontiers in oncology2026
Late-phase strategies to overcome limitations of PD-1/PD-L1 therapy: a clinical development trajectory through 2030.
Review 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inhibition of the PD-1/PD-L1 axis has become a clinical standard across multiple malignancies, yet durable benefit remains restricted to selected settings, and many biologically rational combinations fail to maintain clinical benefit in late-phase evaluation. This structured, registry-derived narrative review, supported by expert-guided interpretation, was designed to identify the most clinically meaningful development directions among strategies intended to overcome the limitations of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy and most likely to generate practice-relevant late-phase readouts through 2030. We searched major international and regional clinical trial registries and applied harmonization, cross-registry deduplication, formal late-phase filtering, semi-automated prioritization, and manual documentation-based verification. The final analytic corpus was interpreted using a two-level framework: first, by the dominant clinicobiological barrier limiting PD-1/PD-L1 efficacy, and second, by three criteria of clinical promise - exposure and effect, manageable toxicity, and confirmable clinical benefit. This approach narrowed a registry-derived pool of more than 13, 000 PD-1/PD-L1 studies to 47 clinically relevant late-phase programs that define the most likely near-term development trajectory through 2030. Within this corpus, a narrower confirmatory subset emerged in which incremental clinical benefit is tested most directly in comparative designs. These programs represent the most plausible leading strategies of the next phase of PD-1/PD-L1-based clinical development and provide a clinically interpretable framework for prioritizing future translational and late-phase efforts.
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.