ReviewFuture science OA2025
Immune checkpoint inhibitors or targeted therapy by mismatch repair status in endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis.
Review in Future science OA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Can whole genome data analysis be used to personalize breast cancer care?Translational cancer research · 2026Article
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
objectiveThis study evaluated the benefits of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and/or targeted therapies in mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) and mismatch repair-proficient (pMMR) patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (EC) via network meta-analysis.
methodsEnglish databases were searched from inception through January 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy and safety of related therapies for patients with EC stratified by MMR status were included. The main evaluation indicators included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), the objective response rate (ORR), and severe adverse events (SAEs).
resultsTen studies were included in the analysis. The results indicated that in the dMMR population, ICIs provide superior survival benefits. Among these, Dostarlimab combined with carboplatin and paclitaxel (CP) had the highest PFS and OS rates. For the pMMR population, Selinexor + CP offers significant benefits over CP alone, although OS outcome data are limited. In pMMR patients with prior chemotherapy, the lenvatinib + pembrolizumab strategy may provide additional PFS benefits relative to chemotherapy treatment.
conclusionsICIs offered advantages for the dMMR population, whereas selinexor could provide survival benefits for the pMMR population. For pMMR patients who have received prior chemotherapy, the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab strategy shows promise.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.