Dual blockade immunotherapy targeting PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4 in lung cancer

Weishi Cheng; Kai Kang; Ailin Zhao; Yijun Wu

doi:10.1186/s13045-024-01581-2

Home SearchPaper Details

Dual blockade immunotherapy targeting PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4 in lung cancer

Weishi Cheng, Kai Kang, Ailin Zhao, Yijun Wu

BioMed Central (2024) • Volume 17, Issue 1

SynthesisNarrativeReviewPDF AvailableGrade Eligible

Overall Assessment

Limited Methodological Quality

Assessment created by PaperScorers Medical AI v0.1.0 on Dec 15, 2025

D+

53/100

Key Takeaways

•Dual PD‑1/PD‑L1 + CTLA‑4 blockade shows efficacy in NSCLC vs chemo; safety tighter than mono-ICI.
•TMB may enrich benefit; PD‑L1 less discriminative for dual ICI.
•BsAbs (e.g., cadonilimab, KN046) aim to retain efficacy with lower toxicity; early lung cancer signals mixed.
•Combining dual blockade with chemo/radiotherapy/targeted therapy is promising but toxicity-limited.
•Evidence base remains heterogeneous; no systematic synthesis performed here.

Conclusion

A timely, balanced narrative review; clinically useful overview but lacks systematic methods and reproducibility features.

Quick Actions

Read Full Paper

Quality Dimensions

Bias & Integrity

COI handling, outcome switching, selective reporting

B-70

Methods Rigour

Protocol clarity, sampling, controls

D-35

External Validity

Generalisability, setting, population

C60

Transparency & Reproducibility

Data/code/materials availability, preregistration

D40

Significance & Novelty

Contribution vs prior art; context if known

B-70

Statistical Validity

Models, assumptions, multiplicity, CI priority

D-35

Integrity & Transparency

Integrity checks

P-hacking risk?

?

None suspected

Signs of selective hypothesis testing or analysis choices that could inflate false positive rates.

Outcome switching?

?

None suspected

Evidence that primary outcomes were changed during or after the study, potentially distorting results.

Conflict of interest?

?

None suspected

Authors have financial or other relationships that could bias research findings.

Data integrity issues?

?

None suspected

Concerns about the accuracy, completeness, or authenticity of the reported data.

Open science signals

Research data

?

Not applicable

Raw data used in the analyses is publicly available or accessible upon request.

Analysis code

?

Not applicable

Code or scripts used to analyze the data are shared for reproducibility.

Study materials

?

Not applicable

Protocols, questionnaires, and other materials are publicly available.

Premise

Primary Research Question

What is the role, mechanism, clinical evidence, and future combinations of PD‑1/PD‑L1 + CTLA‑4 dual blockade in lung cancer?

Hypothesis is Falsifiable

—Not specified

Narrative review; no testable hypothesis.

PICO Framework

Population—Not specified

Review article; no enrolled participants.

Intervention—Not specified

Multiple regimens summarised; no single protocol.

Comparison—Not specified

Comparisons drawn from cited trials, not a study design here.

Outcome—Not specified

Outcomes (OS/PFS/ORR/TRAEs) are from cited trials.

Literature Positioning

Literature Review Balanced

Well covered

Covers key NSCLC/SCLC trials (CheckMate, MYSTIC/ARCTIC) and bsAbs; tables summarise studies.

Evidence: pp. 7–11; Tables 1–4

Research Gap Clearly Stated

Well covered

States efficacy of dual blockade unclear; bsAbs may reduce toxicity while preserving efficacy.

Evidence: Abstract p. 1–2

Stated Contribution Clear

Well covered

Aims to elucidate mechanisms, clinical advances, and combinations for future lung cancer therapy.

Evidence: Abstract p. 1–2

Study Provenance

Peer reviewed venueGrant funding disclosedConflict disclosure provided3 affiliations listed

Authors & Affiliations

West China Hospital Sichuan Univ.; PUMC/CAMS; affiliations listed with departments.

Funding Statement

Multiple public grants (NSFC, provincial, postdoc programmes).

Conflicts of Interest

Authors report no relevant financial or non-financial interests.

Peer Review

✓Journal of Hematology & Oncology is a peer‑reviewed BMC journal.

Evidence: p. 1

Methodological Assessment

All design modules are marked as not applicable. Use the accordion below to review their details.

Modules without applicable checklist items (10)

These designs were fully marked as not applicable but remain available for reference.

Quick Actions

Read Full Paper

Study Overview

Study Design

Narrative Review

Primary classification used to evaluate this research.

Population

Narrative review of lung cancer immunotherapy (NSCLC/SCLC) focusing on dual checkpoint blockade and bispecific antibodies.

Brief summary of who or what was studied.

Reviewer Notes

Narrative review summarising mechanisms, trials and bsAbs; no primary data or systematic review protocol.

Publication Details

DOI

10.1186/s13045-024-01581-2

Published

July 27, 2024

Citations

104 citations

FWCI

55.93

External Resources

DOI Link OpenAlex

Disclaimer: This assessment is generated by AI and should not be the sole basis for clinical or research decisions. Always review the original paper and consult with domain experts.

Suggested Papers

C

Prevalence and Early Identification of Autism Spectrum Disorder Among Children Aged 4 and 8 Years — Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 16 Sites, United States, 2022

Kelly Shaw et al.•2025

D-

Studies on Serological Cross‐Reaction in Sequential Flavivirus Infections

Yoshihiro Makino et al.•1994

No Report

Tattoo inks contain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons that additionally generate deleterious singlet oxygen

Johannes Regensburger et al.•2010

Suggested Papers

From Our Blog

Randomized Controlled Trials: The Gold Standard

Why is the RCT the king of evidence? Because it is the only way to kill the confounders.

Data Dredging: Torturing the Data Until It Confesses

When you look for patterns without a hypothesis, you will find them. But they will be lies.

Understanding Sample Size: How Many Patients is Enough?

Sample size determines the reliability of a study. Small studies are like low-resolution photos: you cannot trust the details.