Comparative efficacy and safety of tislelizumab and other programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitors in first-line treatment of advanced gastroesophageal cancers: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several programmed cell death protein-1 inhibitors are approved for the first-line treatment of advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer, including pembrolizumab, nivolumab and, more recently, tislelizumab. Since direct comparisons between these agents are lacking, advanced statistical modeling can be utilized to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of tislelizumab compared with other first-line immunotherapy regimens in this indication. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed to identify and summarize published randomized controlled trials investigating first-line treatments in adult patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer. Relevant trials were synthesized using a Bayesian network meta-analysis; fixed-effect models were conducted for all analyses. The network meta-analysis base case used the intent-to-treat populations for tislelizumab + chemotherapy and placebo + chemotherapy from RATIONALE-305. RESULTS: Key comparators included nivolumab + chemotherapy (ATTRACTION-4, CheckMate 649), and pembrolizumab + chemotherapy (KEYNOTE-062, KEYNOTE-859). Tislelizumab + chemotherapy demonstrated similar efficacy compared with nivolumab + chemotherapy and pembrolizumab + chemotherapy for both overall survival and progression-free survival. Tislelizumab + chemotherapy was associated with significantly lower odds of grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events compared with nivolumab + chemotherapy, and there were no statistically significant differences between tislelizumab + chemotherapy compared with pembrolizumab + chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Overall, these analyses suggest that tislelizumab + chemotherapy is similarly efficacious to pembrolizumab + chemotherapy and nivolumab + chemotherapy, and is associated with a similar or lower incidence of grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events in the first-line treatment of gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer.
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 | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".