Efficacy and safety of immunotherapy in anaplastic thyroid carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anaplastic thyroid carcinoma (ATC) is a rare, aggressive solid tumor with poor prognosis. Traditional treatment such as surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy has limited therapeutic effects. In recent years, immunotherapy is changing the treatment pattern of them. We systematically summarize the research status and application of immunotherapy in ATC to provide clinicians and relevant researchers with a comprehensive perspective. METHOD: A comprehensive search of the PubMed and Embase databases identified 18 studies investigating the application of immunotherapy in ATC. These included ten cohort studies and eight case reports. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) and Joanna Briggs Institute checklist (JBI). Subsequently, a single-proportion meta-analysis and meta-regression were performed to evaluate the efficacy of immunotherapy in ATC. RESULTS: The favorable response rate to immunotherapy in ATC patients (33-100%) varies across cohorts, indicating substantial heterogeneity. The combination of immunotherapy with targeted therapy, as well as the use of neoadjuvant treatment, has led to improved outcomes for ATC. Single-proportion meta-analysis suggests that immunotherapy may provide clinical benefits for a subset of ATC patients (approximately one-third to one-half), but its effectiveness in controlling disease progression remains limited. Meta-regression further indicates that ATC patients with PD-L1 expression or BRAF V600E mutations tend to have better treatment responses. Among the 8 case reports, two patients achieved complete remission after immunotherapy, and four patients died of disease progression after immunotherapy. Mild adverse effects are common, but interstitial pneumonia is associated with poor prognosis in immunotherapy. CONCLUSION: Immunotherapy for ATC has demonstrated safety and efficacy in several studies, especially in patients with PD-L1 expression or BRAF V600E mutations. However, immune-related side effects should be carefully managed, particularly to prevent interstitial pneumonia.
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 | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".