SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2026
Efficacy and safety of bispecific antibodies versus other antitumor therapies in solid tumors: 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) have emerged as a promising strategy for solid tumor treatment, yet their comparative efficacy and safety versus other antitumor therapies remain unclear. Materials and methods: Literature was systematically searched in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus from inception up to August 2026. American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and clinicaltrials.gov were also checked. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs) were used to assess efficacy and safety. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots. Heterogeneity was evaluated using subgroup, meta-regression and sensitivity analyses. The protocol was preregistered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD420261359397). Results: A total of 9 eligible studies involving 3,505 patients were included. Compared with other antitumor therapies, BsAbs demonstrated significant improvements in PFS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61-0.94, p=0.011) and OS (HR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.63-0.95, p=0.016). ORR showed a borderline effect (Risk Ratio [RR]: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.00-1.44, p=0.046). Subgroup analyses suggested potential benefits in selected populations, particularly among patients treated with T-cell engaging BsAbs or tumor microenvironment/angiogenesis-modulating BsAbs, patients aged <65 years, and patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Regarding safety, renal and vascular toxicities, including proteinuria, peripheral edema, and hypertension, as well as immune-related toxicities such as cytokine release syndrome and rash, were more frequently observed in the BsAb group. Other increased adverse events included anemia, pain in extremity, decreased appetite, and vomiting. Conclusion: BsAb-based regimens significantly improve PFS and OS compared with non-BsAb antitumor therapies in patients with solid tumors. Although the overall AE profile appeared manageable, renal and vascular toxicities and immune-related/inflammatory toxicities warrant particular attention. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD420261359397.
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.