Efficacy and safety of immunotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer immunotherapy represents a more advanced and effective treatment modality compared to traditional therapies, playing a significant role in the management of patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. However, the efficacy of immunotherapy can be influenced by the 'double-edged sword' nature of the immune system and the individual differences among cancer patients. To assess the efficacy and safety of immunotherapy in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published clinical studies. Clinical research literature related to nasopharyngeal carcinoma immunotherapy was searched in the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases up until December 2010. The literature was screened rigorously according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Quality evaluation of the included studies was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and studies meeting the inclusion criteria were extracted for analysis and evaluation. The Chi-square test and I2 statistic were utilized to assess heterogeneity, while publication bias was examined through the construction of a funnel plot and the application of the Egger test. A total of 19 studies were included in this meta-analysis, including 2,354 patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. The results showed that immunotherapy had a good therapeutic effects on patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. The 0.5-3 year PFS of patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma who received immunotherapy was significantly improved compared to the group who did not receive immunotherapy (OR: 1.87; 95% CI 1.22-2.85) and 0.5-3 year OS were also significantly improved (OR: 1.45; 95% CI 1.23-1.74). In terms of treatment-related adverse events (AEs), the incidence of ≥ grade 3 treatment-related AEs was 27% (95% CI 25-30%), and the incidence of combination therapy was higher than that of monotherapy. In the treatment of patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma, immunotherapy has demonstrated superior efficacy compared to chemotherapy alone. Furthermore, the expression levels of EBV DNA and PD-L1 in the serum of patients significantly influence the therapeutic outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.044 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".