Evidence Hub

Evaluation of neoadjuvant immunotherapy regimens for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and single-arm and network meta-analysis

Ye Z, Fan W, Zeng B, Tan R, Yu S, Qiu J, Yang L, Zhang S et al.

International journal of surgery (London, England), 2026

1,688 participants

Abstract

Background: Although multiple neoadjuvant immunotherapy (NAI) regimens have been explored in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) recently, the optimal selection remains largely debatable. The present study aimed to comparatively evaluate clinical outcomes across various NAI regimens in resectable HNSCC.

Methods: We systematically searched studies published from 2000 to June 2025. Data encompassing treatment efficacy (objective response rate [ORR], pathological complete response [pCR], major pathological response [MPR], tumor downstaging), survival outcomes (overall survival [OS], disease-free survival [DFS]), and safety profiles (grade ≥3 immune-related adverse events [irAEs]) were pooled and analyzed from eligible studies. Subsequently, network meta-analysis (NMA) with surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was implemented to comparatively evaluate therapeutic regimens across studies.

Results: A total of 44 studies (7 randomized controlled trials and 39 single-arm trials) involving 1688 patients were included. Pooled analysis revealed superior treatment response with neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy (NIC) versus alternative regimens: ORR = 80% (0.70-0.88), pCR = 40% (0.35-0.44), MPR = 64% (0.59-0.69), and pathological downstaging = 79% (0.71-0.86), complemented by favorable survival (2-year OS = 91% [0.86-0.94]; 2-year DFS = 90% [0.83-0.94]). NMA of 7 RCTs demonstrated that NIC conferred significant improvements in pCR and downstaging rates compared to…

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: 1,688 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