Pembrolizumab versus paclitaxel for previously treated, advanced gastro-esophageal junction cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Background:This paper aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of pembrolizumab and paclitaxel as a second line for patients with locally advanced gastroesophageal cancer. Methods:By searching PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Ovid, any randomized clinical study comparing the effectiveness of paclitaxel and pembrolizumab as second-line therapy for advanced gastroesophageal cancer met the inclusion criteria. Only 3 of the 23 eligible studies that were fully reviewed were eligible for meta-analysis. Results:The total number of patients included in the meta-analysis was 635 in the pembrolizumab group and 596 in the paclitaxel group. In terms of objective response rate, there was no statistically significant difference between pembrolizumab and paclitaxel (relative risk = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.80-1.50, P = .57). Furthermore, Pembrolizumab and paclitaxel did not differ in terms of the rate of partial response statistically significantly from one another, according to the overall analysis (relative risk = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.57-1.52, P-value = .78). Conclusion:There is no difference between pembrolizumab and paclitaxel in objective response rate. The objective response rate shows that doctors may consider either treatment for patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer, given the time to response is comparable across therapies.

Automated summary

This study compared the effectiveness and safety of pembrolizumab and paclitaxel as a second line treatment for locally advanced gastroesophageal cancer. The results showed no significant difference in objective response rate between the two drugs, indicating that doctors can consider either treatment option based on patient conditions.