Evidence Hub

Efficacy and safety of first-line immunotherapy-related induction and maintenance therapy for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

Yu HJ, Liu JC, Zhang DS, Chen Z, Deng Q

Frontiers in pharmacology, 2026

8,945 participants

Abstract

Background: Extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) is highly aggressive with dismal prognosis, and platinum monochemotherapy offers modest long-term survival. Multiple first-line regimens integrating immunotherapy, anti-angiogenic agents and chemotherapy have been approved, yet direct head-to-head comparisons are scarce, and the optimal induction plus maintenance strategy remains undefined. In this study, a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to hierarchically assess the efficacy and safety of available first-line regimens and identify balanced treatment strategies for ES-SCLC.

Methods: Eligible phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Trials were included if they enrolled treatment-naïve patients with ES-SCLC and reported at least one of the following outcomes: overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), or grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). NMA was implemented using the gemtc package in R. SUCRA values were calculated for treatment ranking, and subgroup analyses stratified by pharmacological mechanisms were conducted.

Results: Fourteen RCTs involving 8,945 patients across 18 regimens were included in the present analysis. These trials encompassed diverse combinations of mainstream immune checkpoint inhibitors, anti-angiogenic targeted agents, and chemotherapeutic agents. The atezolizumab + lurbinectedin + chemotherapy and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 8,945 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free