MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4405978099 · doi:10.7759/cureus.76709

Real-World Evidence on the Effectiveness of Pembrolizumab in Patients With Recurrent/Metastatic/Unresectable Head and Neck Squamous Cell Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2025· review· en· W4405978099 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Meenakshi Meenu, Pravesh Dhiman, Muninder Kumar, Pranita Pradhan, Shivam Pandey

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAll-India Institute of Medical Sciences
KeywordsMedicinePembrolizumabOncologyCetuximabInternal medicineMeta-analysisHead and neck cancerAdverse effectRadiation therapySystematic reviewPublication biasCancerSurgeryMEDLINEColorectal cancerImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of the review was to systematically review real-world data on the effectiveness and safety of pembrolizumab in recurrent/metastatic/unresectable head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC) patients. Two independent reviewers retrieved the studies separately and simultaneously. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central were searched for prospective and retrospective studies on recurrent/metastatic/unresectable HNSCC patients treated with either pembrolizumab monotherapy or pembrolizumab combination therapy published till November 2024. Studies published in the English language and available as full-text articles were included while studies with patients treated with additional chemotherapeutic agents that do not include chemotherapy with fluorouracil, platinum, cetuximab, or radiotherapy were excluded. Outcomes were overall response rate, progression-free survival, overall survival, and adverse events. Forest plots were generated using RevMan software version 5.4 (2020; The Cochrane Collaboration, London, United Kingdom). The ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions) tool was used for the assessment of the potential risk of bias and the quality of evidence was synthesized using GRADEpro (Evidence Prime Inc., Hamilton, Canada). We identified 5884 records, removed 2784 duplicate records, and screened 3100 studies. A total of 2931 records were excluded based on title/abstract. Of the remaining 169 articles, nine studies satisfied eligibility criteria and were included for final review. Pooled data suggested that 1006 patients were administered with pembrolizumab monotherapy while 448 patients received pembrolizumab combination therapy. Monotherapy improved the overall response rate compared to combination therapy. No significant difference in progression-free survival and overall survival was found between the two groups. Adverse events were reported less in pembrolizumab monotherapy compared to pembrolizumab combination therapy. The studies were assessed at high risk of bias and graded at low to very low quality of evidence. The study showed some beneficial effects of pembrolizumab monotherapy in recurrent/metastatic/unresectable HNSCC patients in real-world scenarios. However, more studies are required to generate robust evidence.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.062
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.062
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.027
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureus→Same topicHead and Neck Cancer Studies→French-language works237,207→