ArticleImmunoTargets and therapy2026
The Comparative Effectiveness of Enlonstobart and Camrelizumab as Second-Line Recurrent or Metastatic Cervical Cancer Therapies: Matching-Adjusted and Simulated Treatment Comparisons.
Article in ImmunoTargets and therapy, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (R/M CC) has limited therapeutic options after first-line treatment failure. Both enlonstobart and camrelizumab are anti-PD-1 antibodies recommended for second-line treatment, but direct comparative evidence is lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the relative efficacy of enlonstobart versus camrelizumab as second-line treatments in patients with R/M CC. Methods: We conducted an unanchored matched-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) using individual patient data from the single-arm enlonstobart Phase II trial and published aggregate data from the camrelizumab phase II trial, both of which targeted an R/M CC population with prior platinum-based treatment failure. Entropy balancing was used to adjust for eight baseline covariates. Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for the survival endpoints. A simulated treatment comparison (STC) was performed as sensitivity analysis. Results: Before adjustment, no significant differences were observed between treatments for OS or PFS. After MAIC adjustment, enlonstobart demonstrated significant OS advantage over camrelizumab (HR=0.51, 95% CI 0.27-0.94, p=0.03), with median OS of 32.2 versus 14.94 months. PFS showed a favorable trend but was not statistically significant (HR=0.69, 95% CI 0.42-1.14, p=0.15). STC analysis corroborated the OS benefit and suggested significant PFS advantage of enlonstobart over camrelizumab. Safety profiles were comparable between treatments. Conclusion: This indirect comparison demonstrated that enlonstobart provided a significant OS advantage compared to camrelizumab in patients with second-line R/M CC. These findings suggest enlonstobart may represent a promising therapeutic option for PD-(L)1 positive R/M CC patients.
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.