SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Comparative evidence on the independent contribution of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor to anti-GD2 immunotherapy in neuroblastoma: a systematic review and gap analysis.
Synthesis 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
Objective: To assess comparative evidence on the independent contribution of GM-CSF to the efficacy and safety of anti-GD2 immunotherapy in neuroblastoma and to identify evidence gaps. Methods: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines in February 2026. MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify comparative studies evaluating anti-GD2 immunotherapy with and without GM-CSF in patients with neuroblastoma. In addition, the websites of key oncology societies were searched. Results: No study directly compared otherwise equivalent anti-GD2 regimens that differed only in the inclusion of GM-CSF. Two studies met the broader comparative eligibility criterion and provided only indirect regimen-level information. Both evaluated older, non-licensed murine anti-GD2 antibodies (m3F8 and 14.G2a), and neither evaluated GM-CSF with currently licensed anti-GD2 antibodies. In the retrospective study by Cheung et al., survival outcomes differed across treatment eras; however, GM-CSF was co-administered with 13-cis-retinoic acid and treatment groups also differed with respect to prior stem cell transplantation, induction therapy, baseline characteristics, follow-up duration and supportive care. Therefore, the observed survival differences cannot be attributed to GM-CSF. Toxicity comparisons in this study were also limited by differences in toxicity ascertainment across treatment eras. The prospective phase I/Ib study by Frost et al. was primarily designed to evaluate dose finding and toxicity, included very small and heterogeneous treatment groups, and did not isolate GM-CSF as an independent treatment variable. No eligible comparative study was identified for dinutuximab, dinutuximab beta or naxitamab. Conclusion: Available comparative evidence is insufficient to determine the independent contribution of GM-CSF to the efficacy or safety of anti-GD2 immunotherapy in neuroblastoma. These findings should not be used to justify modification of licensed product-specific anti-GD2 regimens. A randomized trial holding the anti-GD2 backbone and relevant co-interventions constant is needed to isolate the effect of GM-CSF. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD420251116911.
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.