ArticleTranslational cancer research2026
Comparative effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors in squamous
Article in Translational cancer research, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The differential therapeutic efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy in patients with cervical squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and non-squamous cell carcinoma (non-SCC) remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of ICI therapy in patients with metastatic cervical SCC and non-SCC. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy of ICI therapy for metastatic cervical cancer. The primary efficacy endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR). Results: Four eligible RCTs were included in this meta-analysis. ICI therapy significantly improved PFS and OS in both SCC and non-SCC patients compared with the control treatment. Anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (anti-PD-1) monotherapy significantly increased the ORR in SCC patients (P<0.001), while no significant improvement was observed in non-SCC patients (P=0.23). Subgroup analysis showed that anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-1/CTLA-4 combination therapies significantly prolonged PFS in SCC patients (both P<0.001), but not in non-SCC patients (P=0.13 and P=0.83, respectively). In contrast, anti-programmed cell death ligand 1 (anti-PD-L1) therapy failed to improve PFS in SCC patients (P=0.22) but significantly enhanced PFS in non-SCC patients (P<0.001). OS subgroup analysis revealed that anti-PD-1, anti-PD-L1, and anti-PD-1/CTLA-4 therapies all significantly prolonged OS in SCC patients. In non-SCC patients, only the anti-PD-1 subgroup exhibited a significant OS benefit (P=0.006), with no statistically significant differences observed in the anti-PD-L1 and anti-PD-1/CTLA-4 subgroups (P=0.08 and P=0.83, respectively). Conclusions: ICI therapy improves clinical outcomes in patients with metastatic cervical cancer, but its efficacy varies significantly between SCC and non-SCC subtypes. These findings warrant high attention in clinical practice and provide a reference for individualized therapeutic decision-making.
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.