ArticleBMC cancer2026
Atezolizumab versus pembrolizumab in the treatment of advanced triple-negative breast cancer: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of ITT and PD-L1 positive populations.
Article in BMC cancer, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) combined with chemotherapy (CT) are a standard treatment for advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC). This study aims to evaluate the comparative efficacy and ranking of ICIs + CT regimens in treating advanced TNBC.
methodsA Bayesian network meta-analysis of phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ICI + CT versus CT alone was conducted in advanced TNBC patients. Outcomes included objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), landmark mortality probability ratios, and landmark progression probability ratios across intention-to-treat (ITT) and PD-L1-positive populations. Indirect comparison was performed using R software following PRISMA 2020 guidelines.
resultsThe network analysis included four RCTs (six publications; n = 2,776). Atezolizumab (A) + CT achieved higher ORR than chemotherapy alone, especially in the PD-L1-positive population, whereas DCRs were comparable across groups. At 36 months, landmark mortality probability ratios in the ITT population were 0.68 (95% CrI 0.60-0.76) vs. 0.67 (95% CrI 0.58-0.78) for A + CT and pembrolizumab (P) + CT, respectively. In the PD-L1-positive subgroup, these ratios were 0.73 (95% CrI 0.61-0.88) vs. 0.83 (95% CrI 0.53-1.18) for A + CT and P + CT, respectively. The 36-month landmark progression probability ratios favored P + CT in the ITT cohort (0.47 vs. 0.62 for A + CT) and were comparable in the PD-L1-positive population (0.51 vs. 0.47 for A + CT). SUCRA ranking showed A + CT as having the highest probability of effectiveness for short-term outcomes in the PD-L1-positive patients. Conversely, P + CT demonstrated superior long-term survival stability in the ITT population, reinforced by restricted mean survival time (RMST) analysis. The certainty of evidence via GRADE was low to moderate.
conclusionBoth ICI regimens provide clinical benefit, as reflected by lower landmark mortality and progression probability ratios compared with chemotherapy. A + CT demonstrates superior initial response probabilities in PD-L1-positive patients, whereas P + CT exhibits more durable long-term outcomes in the ITT population. Regimen selection should be guided by specific clinical priorities, biomarker status, and the desired temporal profile of the therapeutic effect.
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.