Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39267732›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2024

Evaluating the efficacy and safety of different neoadjuvant immunotherapy combinations in locally advanced HNSCC: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Chang Liu, Mingzhu Li, Xiaojie Liu, Ting Shi, Yun Wang, Chaoyang Sui, Wenan Zhang, Bowen Wang

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in immunology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Chang LiuDepartment of Burns and Plastic Surgery, Yantaishan Hospital, Yantai, China.
Mingzhu LiDepartment of implantology, Affiliated Hospital of Binzhou Medical College, Yantai Stomatology Hospital, Yantai, China.
Xiaojie LiuDepartment of Burns and Plastic Surgery, Yantaishan Hospital, Yantai, China.
Ting ShiDepartment of Burns and Plastic Surgery, Yantaishan Hospital, Yantai, China.
Yun WangDepartment of Burns and Plastic Surgery, Yantaishan Hospital, Yantai, China.
Chaoyang SuiDepartment of Burns and Plastic Surgery, Yantaishan Hospital, Yantai, China.
Wenan ZhangDepartment of Burns and Plastic Surgery, Yantaishan Hospital, Yantai, China.
Bowen WangDepartment of Burns and Plastic Surgery, Yantaishan Hospital, Yantai, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors have demonstrated promising therapeutic outcomes in recurrent/metastatic (R/M) Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma (HNSCC), prompting numerous clinical trials to investigate the safety and efficacy of this approach in neoadjuvant therapy. This systematic review aims to consolidate and analyze the findings from various clinical trials combining neoadjuvant immunotherapy for HNSCC, with the goal of identifying the most effective neoadjuvant immunotherapy regimen. Methods: The system conducted searches across electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Web of science from their inception to July 1, 2024. The primary focus was on evaluating efficacy (particularly pathological complete response (pCR), major pathological response (MPR), and overall response rate (ORR)) and safety (primarily assessed by grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse reactions). Results: A total of 1943 patients from 32 studies were analyzed. Combining neoadjuvant immunotherapy with chemotherapy or radiotherapy demonstrated superiority over neoadjuvant immunotherapy alone in terms of the MPR rate, while showing no statistically significant difference in the pCR rate. Furthermore, the combination of neoadjuvant immunotherapy with chemotherapy or radiotherapy exhibited a lower CR rate compared to neoadjuvant immunotherapy with radiotherapy alone, but a higher PR rate and SD rate. Apart from the neoadjuvant immunotherapy group in isolation, there were no statistically significant differences in grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) and immune-related adverse events (irAEs) among the other three combination therapy groups. Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis indicate that patients with locally advanced HNSCC might benefit from neoadjuvant immunotherapy, particularly when used in conjunction with chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Nonetheless, additional data is required to definitively confirm its efficacy. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=553753, identifier CRD42024553753.

Indexed as

Head and Neck NeoplasmsImmunotherapyNeoadjuvant TherapySquamous Cell Carcinoma of Head and NeckCombined Modality TherapyHumansImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsTreatment OutcomeImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsefficacyHNSCCmeta-analysisneoadjuvant immunotherapysafety

Identifiers

PMID39267732
PMCPMC11390592

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.