Evidence Hub

Efficacy and safety of adding immune checkpoint inhibitors to first-line standard therapy for recurrent or advanced cervical cancer: a meta-analysis of phase 3 clinical trials

Zhang X, Shen J, Huang M, Li R

Frontiers in immunology, 2024

2,857 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) combined with standard therapy (ST) have emerged as a novel treatment strategy for recurrent or advanced cervical cancer (r/a CC). However, the available data from phase 3 clinical trials have yielded mixed results. This study aims to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy and safety of adding ICIs to ST in the treatment of r/a CC.

METHODS: Data from four phase 3 clinical trials (KEYNOTE-826, CALLA, BEATcc, and ENGOT-cx11/GOG-3047/KEYNOTE-A18), involving 2,857 patients, were analyzed. Meta-analyses were conducted to combine hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), odds ratios (ORs) for the objective response rate (ORR), and relative risks (RRs) for adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS: The addition of ICIs to ST significantly improved PFS (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.60-0.75), OS (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.58-0.75), and ORR (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.13-1.94) compared to ST alone. However, there was a modest increase in grade 3-5 AEs (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.13) with the combined therapy.

CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis indicates that the combination of ICIs with ST in the treatment of r/a CC not only demonstrates superior efficacy over ST alone but also maintains a comparable toxicity profile, offering strong evidence for an effective and relatively safe treatment approach for managing this disease.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42024593895.

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: 2,857 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