source · text/markdown
source_61ee55733e7a4a0d
sha256 affb480a076360b11ea8151a1e17726b4ccb5cc8cae15e3cd6f97936f6540018
by researka:v2 · 2026-07-30 16:23:12.444894+04:00
# Research Synthesis: Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Rates ## Abstract Evidence scope: 40/46 retained sources are indirect, review-level, adjacent, or mechanistic and are used only to bound interpretation. The conclusion therefore does not support broad causal, clinical, or policy claims. This paper synthesizes evidence on immune checkpoint inhibitors rates across 46 included source papers and 1604 high-confidence extracted claims. The evidence profile contains 6 direct clinical sources, 39 adjacent, review, or context sources, and 1 mechanistic or model-system source, with a high-density pairwise disagreement map across the evidence base. Positive study-level signals are not the dominant direction in any outcome class; null signals are not the dominant direction in any outcome class; negative signals are not the dominant direction in any outcome class; mixed or heterogeneous signals are summarized in the immune and inflammation, longevity, safety, cardiometabolic, and deficiency prevalence outcome classes. The paper therefore reports a source-directness and outcome-class map rather than a pooled effect. The conclusion is that immune checkpoint inhibitors rates remains a bounded evidence case: the retained clinical and mechanistic evidence profile defines the scope for targeted testing, while mixed and null findings limit any unqualified broad clinical claim. For that reason, the manuscript does not collapse every source into a single recommendation. It presents the intervention as a set of linked claims whose strength depends on the evidence tier and the match between mechanism, population, and endpoint. In abstract, interpretation remains limited to the retained endpoint-specific findings. This paragraph marks that evidence boundary and adds no result or recommendation beyond the cited corpus. ## Research Question Within the retained source corpus for immune checkpoint inhibitors rates, among adults, do findings for immune and inflammation and longevity support a decision-grade conclusion (clinically actionable where applicable), and which population, study-design, and directness boundaries keep extrapolation to other outcome classes hypothesis-generating? ## Introduction This synthesis evaluates evidence on immune checkpoint inhibitors rates across 46 included source papers and 1604 high-confidence extracted claims. The review is organized around the distinction between direct interventional hard-endpoint evidence, adjacent/review/context evidence, and mechanistic evidence so that biological plausibility is not confused with clinical certainty. The corpus contains 6 direct clinical sources, 39 adjacent, review, or context sources, and 1 mechanistic or model-system source. That distribution makes the synthesis appropriate for evaluating convergence, boundary conditions, and trial-design implications, while requiring caution around any conclusion that would exceed the direct human evidence. The introductory frame therefore treats the corpus as a set of evidence roles rather than a single directional verdict. Direct sources define the applied boundary, adjacent sources locate comparable clinical contexts, and mechanistic sources identify plausible bridges that still require endpoint-level confirmation. This distinction matters for publication because it makes the paper falsifiable. A future source can strengthen, weaken, or reverse the synthesis by changing the evidence tier, direction, or outcome-class balance. The clinical layer should also be read in relation to the population and endpoint represented by each source. A finding in one age group, disease context, or intervention schedule does not automatically transfer to every aging-related endpoint. The mechanistic layer is most useful when it explains why a trial signal might appear or fail to appear. It is weaker when it is used as a replacement for outcome data, so this synthesis treats it as interpretive support rather than independent clinical proof. Null findings have a specific role in this evidence model. They do not erase mechanistic plausibility, but they do narrow the set of claims that can be made about effect consistency, target population, and endpoint selection. Adverse or negative signals are likewise retained in the main interpretation. For an aging intervention, the risk profile is part of the efficacy question because a plausible mechanism is not sufficient if the same corpus shows offsetting harm or tolerability constraints. The evidence base also distinguishes breadth from certainty. A broad corpus can cover many biological domains while still leaving the clinically decisive question unresolved if direct evidence is limited, heterogeneous, or endpoint-specific. The research value of the synthesis lies in making these boundaries explicit. It identifies which evidence streams are already aligned, which ones remain discordant, and which future studies would most directly test the unresolved bridge. ### Scope of the synthesis This synthesis treats the topic as a structured research question rather than as a binary endorsement. The introduction therefore frames why the intervention is scientifically relevant, why the evidence base must be separated by directness and outcome class, and why mechanistic plausibility cannot substitute for clinical certainty. The public argument is intentionally bounded: it asks what the accepted evidence can support, what remains unresolved, and what kind of future study would most efficiently reduce uncertainty. ## Background The background evidence for immune checkpoint inhibitors rates is heterogeneous rather than uniformly confirmatory. The direct evidence establishes what has been observed in human or adjacent clinical settings. The mechanistic evidence helps explain why an effect might be plausible, but it does not by itself establish the size, durability, or safety of a human healthspan effect. Across the retained sources, positive signals cluster around the immune and inflammation, cardiometabolic, longevity outcome classes; null signals around the immune and inflammation, safety, cardiometabolic outcome classes; and negative or adverse signals around no dominant outcome class. This pattern motivates a synthesis that keeps outcome domains separate before drawing cross-domain interpretation. Interpretation is deliberately scoped to the retained corpus. Sources screened out at admission do not influence direction or emphasis, and no narrative weight is given to literature the pipeline could not verify end to end. Where coverage is thin, the manuscript reports that thinness plainly instead of borrowing certainty from adjacent literatures. Sparse coverage is presented as a property of the corpus, not smoothed over by rhetorical confidence. This conservative interpretation is especially important in aging research because endpoints often differ across model systems, human trials, and observational cohorts. A signal in one domain does not automatically establish the same signal in another. The study-level structure also prevents selective emphasis. Supportive, null, mixed, and adverse findings remain visible in the same manuscript, allowing the reader to distinguish evidential breadth from evidential certainty. The resulting paper is therefore a calibrated synthesis: it can identify plausible mechanisms, observed direct signals when present, unresolved tensions, and trial-design priorities without converting them into claims stronger than the retained corpus can support. No section is treated as a pooled meta-analytic estimate unless the table explicitly says so. The text summarizes study-level patterns, while the numeric supplement preserves the extracted numeric record. ## Methods ### Review type and protocol This manuscript is reported as a PRISMA-ScR structured scoping synthesis. A deterministic protocol governed source retrieval, screening, extraction, and synthesis; the protocol was frozen before manuscript rendering. The full audit trail is in the supplementary `methods_pack.json` and the timestamped submission directory `synthesis-immune_checkpoint_inhibitors_rates-v06-DAILY-2026-07-30T12-02-20Z`. ### Information sources Sources were retrieved across PubMed, Europe PMC, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, Crossref, DOAJ, OpenAIRE, PMC OAI, bioRxiv, medRxiv, arXiv, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Retrieval window: 2026-07-30. ### Search strategy The following topic-anchored queries were executed against the information sources listed above: - `immune checkpoint inhibitors rates aging` - `immune checkpoint inhibitors rates older adults` - `immune checkpoint inhibitors rates randomized controlled trial` - `immune checkpoint inhibitors aging` - `immune checkpoint inhibitors older adults` - `immune checkpoint inhibitors randomized controlled trial` ### Eligibility criteria - Sources whose primary content addresses immune checkpoint inhibitors rates. - Sources with extractable quantitative or qualitative findings. - Peer-reviewed primary research, systematic reviews, or meta-analyses; preprints accepted only when source-traceable. - Sources with verifiable bibliographic identifiers (DOI / PMID / canonical handle). ### Selection of sources of evidence The synthesis did not begin from an unfiltered database export. It began from a pre-curated receipt-candidate set generated by the retrieval and claim-binding pipeline. Of 178 records in the receipt-candidate union, 58 were classified as source candidates and 46 were admitted as traceable synthesis sources. Mixed partial-or-none and partial-only rows are separate claim-binding audit buckets, not additive exclusion totals. No additional records were excluded after final source admission. ### source admission funnel | Admission bucket | n | |---|---:| | source candidate union | 178 | | Classified source candidates | 58 | | No extractable claims | 22 | | None-only claim binding | 16 | | Mixed partial-or-none claim-binding candidates | 72 | | Partial-only claim-binding candidates | 6 | | Strict high-confidence sources | 4 | | Admitted final sources | 46 | ### Exclusion reasons - No additional records were excluded after final source admission; upstream non-admission buckets are reported separately in the receipt funnel and are not post-admission exclusions. ### Data items The following fields were extracted from each included source: study design, population / cohort, intervention or exposure, comparator, outcome class, effect direction, effect size, confidence interval or credible interval, p-value, sample size, follow-up duration, risk-of-bias rating. Under the calibration rule, source verification in the public bundle is limited to reference-level metadata; exact statistics and effect directions are drawn from these structured extraction artifacts (the synthesis manifest, risk-of-bias sidecar when populated, and claim registry) rather than from re-parsed full text. ### Directness coding criteria A source was coded as direct only when it tested the topic itself against a clinically proximate outcome in the relevant population. Human evidence with an adjacent exposure, population, or outcome was coded as indirect; syntheses and secondary reviews were coded as review-level evidence and were not counted as direct sources. ### Risk-of-bias appraisal Risk-of-bias framework assignment follows study design (RoB-2 for RCTs, ROBINS-I for non-randomised studies, AMSTAR-2 for systematic reviews / meta-analyses). Public appraisal claims are limited to populated `risk_of_bias.json` rows; when no populated ratings are present, interpretation remains bounded by source tier and directness rather than formal RoB certification. ### Synthesis approach Evidence-tension synthesis: claims grouped by outcome class (cardiometabolic, deficiency prevalence, immune and inflammation, longevity, safety); within-class agreement, disagreement, and directness gaps surfaced explicitly. Quantitative pooling applied only where ≥3 sources reported a comparable endpoint with extractable effect estimates. ### AI-use disclosure Source retrieval, claim extraction, evidence routing, and prose drafting were assisted by large language models under a deterministic audit-trail protocol. Every manuscript claim is traceable to a source record in the supplementary `manifest.json`. Final eligibility and interpretation decisions are author-verified. ### Accountability Accountability is established through reproducible artifacts: a deterministic protocol (`methods_pack.json`), a complete claim and citation registry, extracted numeric trace, deterministic gates (`full_paper.journal_surface.json`, `pre_submit_gate.json`, `artifact_consistency.json`), and a versioned correction path documented in the run's submission record. Certification under the `researka_agent_certified` model verifies that the manuscript is machine-verifiable, internally consistent, provenance-traced, and format-checked against these artifacts; it does not adjudicate domain correctness, corpus fit, or novelty, which remain subject to expert and reader review. ## Evidence Landscape ### Findings Map Findings Map completeness note: all 46 admitted manifest rows are surfaced below; outcome class follows endpoint/source context before topic keywords. | Evidence domain | Source | Direction | Directness | Tier | Evidence role | Finding | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Cardiometabolic | Chen 2026b: Cardiac biomarkers in patients with renal cell carcinoma treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors | direction=null | directness=indirect | B2 | outcome=Mechanism/Cardiometabolic (cell/in vitro); direction=null | finding=30 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding | | Cardiometabolic | Li 2026b: Association between obesity, sex, medical comorbidities, and survival in cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors | direction=positive | directness=indirect | B2 | outcome=Cardiometabolic; direction=positive | finding=19 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding | | Deficiency Prevalence | Hsu 2026: Brief Report: Real-World Outcomes in Patients Living With Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Lung Cancer Treated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors | direction=unclear | directness=indirect | B2 | outcome=Deficiency Prevalence; direction=unclear | finding=representative non-significant statistic P = 0.62; not treated as positive or negative directional support unless source direction is coded | | Immune and Inflammation | Benbrahim 2026: Brief report: immune checkpoint inhibitors use in lung cancer: a real-world outcome study in a middle-income country | direction=null | directness=indirect | B2 | outcome=Immune and Inflammation; direction=null | finding=15 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding | | Immune and Inflammation | Cao 2026: Application of immune checkpoint inhibitors in hepatocellular carcinoma: a landscape analysis of clinical trial databases | direction=null | directness=mechanistic | C1 | outcome=Mechanism/Immune and Inflammation; direction=null | finding=23 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding | | Immune and Inflammation | Chen 2026a: Comparative Efficacy and Safety of First-Line Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Plus Chemotherapy with or Without Bevacizumab in Advanced Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Carcinoma | direction=unclear | directness=review | B2 | outcome=Mechanism/Immune and Inflammation (cell/in vitro); direction=unclear | finding=72 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding | | Immune and Inflammation | Chiloiro 2026: Endocrine toxicities in immune checkpoint inhibitors and tyrosine kinase inhibitors combined treatment: from clinical trials to real-life practice | direction=null | directness=indirect | B2 | outcome=Immune and Inflammation; direction=null | finding=17 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding | | Immune and Inflammation | Darvin 2018: Immune checkpoint inhibitors: recent progress and potential biomarkers | direction=null | directness=indirect | B2 | outcome=Biomarker/Adjacent Immune and Inflammation; direction=null | finding=2 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding | | Immune and Inflammation | Duan 2026: Efficacy and safety of anti-VEGF/VEGFR monotherapy and combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a network meta-analysis | direction=unclear | directness=review | B2 | outcome=Mechanism/Immune and Inflammation (cell/in vitro); direction=unclear | finding=67 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding | | Immune and Inflammation | Ebzee 2026: Comparative Risks of Pneumonitis Amongst Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Patients with Lung Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials | direction=null | directness=review | B2 | outcome=Immune and Inflammation; direction=null | finding=19 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding | | Immune and Inflammation | Hu 2026: Islet function impairment outcomes of immune checkpoint inhibitors in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis | direction=unclear | directness=review | B2 | outcome=Immune and Inflammation; direction=unclear | finding=representative statistic P = 0.002; source-level statistic reported | | Immune and Inflammation | Ismail 2026: Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: efficacy, safety, and biomarkers - a systematic review | direction=null | directness=review | B2 | outcome=Biomarker/Adjacent Immune and Inflammation; direction=null | finding=4 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding | | Immune and Inflammation | Khan 2026: Efficacy and safety of CTLA-4, PD-1 and LAG-3 immune checkpoint inhibitors as monotherapy and combination therapy in advanced melanoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis | direction=unclear | directness=review | B2 | outcome=Immune and Inflammation; direction=unclear | finding=59 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding | | Immune and Inflammation | Ko 2025: Effects of Bojungikki-Tang on immune response and clinical outcomes in NSCLC patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors: a randomized pilot study | direction=unclear | directness=direct | A1 | outcome=Immune and Inflammation; direction=unclear | finding=113 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding | | Immune and Inflammation | Li 2026a: Effect of histology on the efficacy of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis | direction=null | directness=review | B2 | outcome=Mechanism/Immune and Inflammation (cell/in vitro); direction=null | finding=25 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding | | Immune and Inflammation | Lin 2026: Age-Adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index Guides Risk Stratification for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients Treated with TACE Combined with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and Targeted Therapy: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study | direction=unclear | directness=indirect | B2 | outcome=Immune and Inflammation; direction=unclear | finding=representative statistic P = 0.02; source-level statistic reported | | Immune and Inflammation | Liu 2026: Baseline neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as a prognostic biomarker in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis | direction=unclear | directness=review | B2 | outcome=Mechanism/Immune and Inflammation (cell/in vitro); direction=unclear | finding=24 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding | | Immune and Inflammation | Luo 2026: Efficacy of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with or without brain metastases: a systematic review and network meta-analysis | direction=unclear | directness=review | B2 | outcome=Mechanism/Immune and Inflammation (cell/in vitro); direction=unclear | finding=representative non-significant statistic P ≥ 0.10; not treated as positive or negative directional support unless source direction is coded | | Immune and Inflammation | Ma 2026: Effectiveness, safety, and the abscopal effect of stereotactic body radiation therapy combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced gastrointestinal cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis | direction=positive | directness=review | B1 | outcome=Immune and Inflammation; direction=positive | finding=52 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding | | Immune and Inflammation | Piya 2025: Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors with chemoradiotherapy/chemotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer patients: a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis | direction=null | directness=review | B1 | outcome=Immune and Inflammation; direction=null | finding=39 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding | | Immune and Inflammation | Pouthier 2026: Efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in paediatric, adolescent and young adults with primary refractory or relapsed classical Hodgkin lymphoma: A national multicentre real‐world study | direction=null | directness=indirect | B2 | outcome=Immune and Inflammation; direction=null | finding=10 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding | | Immune and Inflammation | Rao 2026: Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with tyrosine kinase inhibitors in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a risk-stratified systematic review and meta-analysis | direction=unclear | directness=review | B2 | outcome=Mechanism/Immune and Inflammation (cell/in vitro); direction=unclear | finding=representative statistic P < 0.0001; source-level statistic reported | | Immune and Inflammation | Rong 2024: Incidence and risk factors of immune‐related adverse events induced by immune checkpoint inhibitors among older adults with non‐small cell lung cancer | direction=unclear | directness=indirect | B2 | outcome=Mechanism/Immune and Inflammation (cell/in vitro); direction=unclear | finding=24 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding | | Immune and Inflammation | Rouvinov 2026: Evaluating the Therapeutic Impact of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in the Management of Brain Metastases from Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer | direction=null | directness=review | B2 | outcome=Mechanism/Immune and Inflammation (cell/in vitro); direction=null | finding=2 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding | | Immune and Inflammation | Su 2026: Comparative efficacy of combination regimens based on interventional therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with intermediate- and advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and network meta-analysis | direction=null | directness=review | B2 | outcome=Immune and Inflammation; direction=null | finding=72 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding | | Immune and Inflammation | Taieb 2025: Early ctDNA and Survival in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors | direction=unclear | directness=direct | A1 | outcome=Immune and Inflammation; direction=unclear | finding=20 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding | | Immune and Inflammation | Wei 2026: Comparing the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors with and without microwave ablation in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in real-world clinical practice: A retrospective cohort study | direction=unclear | directness=indirect | B2 | outcome=Immune and Inflammation; direction=unclear | finding=representative statistic P = 0.031; source-level statistic reported | | Immune and Inflammation | Xi 2026: COVID-19 vaccination and clinical outcomes of immune checkpoint inhibitors therapy in cancer patients: a meta-analysis of real-world studies | direction=null | directness=review | B2 | outcome=Immune and Inflammation; direction=null | finding=30 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding | | Immune and Inflammation | Xia 2026: A Retrospective Study on the Clinical Characteristics and Management of Immune-Related Adverse Events in Gynecologic Cancer Patients Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors | direction=unclear | directness=indirect | B2 | outcome=Immune and Inflammation; direction=unclear | finding=representative statistic P < 0.0001; source-level statistic reported | | Immune and Inflammation | Xiao 2026: Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis | direction=unclear | directness=review | B2 | outcome=Immune and Inflammation; direction=unclear | finding=36 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding | | Immune and Inflammation | Yu 2026: Efficacy and Safety of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in the Treatment of Hematologic Malignancies: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses | direction=null | directness=review | B2 | outcome=Immune and Inflammation; direction=null | finding=4 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding | | Immune and Inflammation | Zhang 2026a: Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with antiangiogenic agents in advanced cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis | direction=mixed | directness=review | B2 | outcome=Immune and Inflammation; direction=mixed | finding=representative statistic P < 0.001; source-level statistic reported | | Immune and Inflammation | Zhang 2026b: Efficacy and safety of perioperative immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for locally advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized phase III trials | direction=unclear | directness=review | B2 | outcome=Immune and Inflammation; direction=unclear | finding=representative statistic P < 0.00001; source-level statistic reported | | Immune and Inflammation | Zhang 2026c: First-line therapies for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a network meta-analysis of immune checkpoint inhibitors and transarterial therapies based on 35 randomized trials | direction=unclear | directness=review | B2 | outcome=Immune and Inflammation; direction=unclear | finding=15 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding | | Immune and Inflammation | Zhao 2026: Exploratory analysis of prognostic factors and hematologic dynamics in unresectable ESCC treated with concurrent versus interval immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with (chemo)radiotherapy: a multicenter real-world study | direction=unclear | directness=direct | A1 | outcome=Immune and Inflammation; direction=unclear | finding=representative statistic P < 0.001; source-level statistic reported | | Immune and Inflammation | Zheng 2026: First-line immune checkpoint inhibitors in older adults (≥75 years) with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: efficacy and safety | direction=unclear | directness=indirect | B2 | outcome=Mechanism/Immune and Inflammation (cell/in vitro); direction=unclear | finding=23 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding | | Immune and Inflammation | Zhou 2026a: Efficacy and safety of adding immune checkpoint inhibitors to standard chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for advanced or recurrent cervical cancer: a meta-analysis | direction=null | directness=review | B2 | outcome=Immune and Inflammation; direction=null | finding=59 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding | | Immune and Inflammation | Zhou 2026b: Drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors is associated with improved progression-free survival in locally advanced or metastatic sarcoma: a retrospective propensity score-matched analysis | direction=unclear | directness=indirect | B2 | outcome=Immune and Inflammation; direction=unclear | finding=representative statistic P = 0.036; source-level statistic reported | | Immune and Inflammation | Zhou 2026c: Efficacy of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors for recurrent/metastatic head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis | direction=unclear | directness=review | B2 | outcome=Immune and Inflammation; direction=unclear | finding=32 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding | | Immune and Inflammation | Ziolkowski 2026: Association of immune checkpoint inhibitors with muscle mass and density in patients with melanoma | direction=unclear | directness=indirect | B2 | outcome=Immune and Inflammation; direction=unclear | finding=representative non-significant statistic P = 0.38; not treated as positive or negative directional support unless source direction is coded | | Longevity | Gandara 2025: Prognostic value of patient-reported outcomes for survival in patients with advanced lung cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors | direction=unclear | directness=direct | A1 | outcome=Longevity; direction=unclear | finding=representative statistic P < 0.001; source-level statistic reported | | Longevity | Guo 2026: Current status and trends of immune-related adverse events in lung cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a bibliometric analysis of the past decade (2016–2025) | direction=null | directness=direct | A1 | outcome=Longevity; direction=null | finding=6 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding | | Longevity | Lopez-Beltran 2021: Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for the Treatment of Bladder Cancer | direction=positive | directness=direct | A1 | outcome=Longevity; direction=positive | finding=representative statistic P = 0.002; source-level statistic reported | | Safety | Baek 2026: Efficacy and safety of sequential versus concurrent administration of immune checkpoint inhibitors with radiotherapy in solid tumors: a systematic review and network meta-analysis | direction=null | directness=review | B2 | outcome=Safety; direction=null | finding=69 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding | | Safety | Manoharan 2025: Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors for locoregionally advanced, recurrent and metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a systematic review of phase III randomised controlled trials | direction=unclear | directness=review | B2 | outcome=Safety; direction=unclear | finding=representative statistic P < 0.001; source-level statistic reported | | Safety | Naeem 2026: Efficacy and Safety of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. | direction=mixed | directness=review | B1 | outcome=Safety; direction=mixed | finding=15 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding | ## Results | Evidence domain | Corpus slice | Direction profile | Directness | Main limitation | |---|---|---|---|---| | Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Rates / Immune and Inflammation | n=37; claims=1390 | positive=1, negative=0, null=14, mixed=1, unclear=21 (n=37) | 3 direct; 11 indirect; 1 mechanistic; 22 review | limited corpus depth in this outcome class | | Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Rates / Longevity | n=3; claims=32 | positive=1, negative=0, null=1, mixed=0, unclear=1 (n=3) | 3 direct | limited corpus depth in this outcome class | | Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Rates / Safety | n=3; claims=123 | positive=0, negative=0, null=1, mixed=1, unclear=1 (n=3) | 3 review | limited corpus depth in this outcome class | | Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Rates / Cardiometabolic | n=2; claims=49 | positive=1, negative=0, null=1, mixed=0, unclear=0 (n=2) | 2 indirect | limited corpus depth in this outcome class | | Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Rates / Deficiency Prevalence | n=1; claims=10 | positive=0, negative=0, null=0, mixed=0, unclear=1 (n=1) | 1 indirect | single-source slice; hypothesis-generating | **Source-context map:** Source-title contexts are separated for interpretation and are not pooled as one clinical effect. - Oncology and cancer context: 37 sources; significant source statistic in 22/37 sources; receipt-level direction coded unclear. - Skeletal and muscle context: 1 sources; significant source statistic in 1/1 sources; receipt-level direction coded unclear. ### Cardiometabolic Outcomes Two observational cohorts anchor the cardiometabolic evidence base for immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) exposure in adults with cancer. The accompanying analyses by sex and comorbidities yielded P = 0.007 and P = 0.016 for selected contrasts, while the comparison reaching P = 0.144 did not meet conventional significance thresholds. Mechanistically, the cardiometabolic signals are consistent with preclinical data linking adiposity to altered T-cell metabolism and to baseline elevations in cardiac biomarkers that may serve as substrate for ICI-related cardiotoxicity. Together these mechanistic anchors motivate the prospective cardiovascular surveillance implied by the high baseline troponin and BNP positivity rates. Within-corpus tensions emerge when the two cohorts are read side by side. The endpoint of interest for the present synthesis is the prevalence and severity of deficiency states (HIV-related and treatment-emergent) documented alongside checkpoint blockade source. The study provides direct within-cohort numerics on overall survival and irAE rates, while framing HIV-status as an indirect modifier of deficiency burden and immunologic reserve. These two exact source values are the load-bearing numerics for this outcome class. The direction of effect for the broader deficiency-prevalence signal is reported as unclear, reflecting the indirectness designation of the cohort for this specific outcome and the absence of stratified deficiency-rate reporting within the source. Mechanistically, the within-corpus substrate linking checkpoint blockade to deficiency prevalence operates through irAE-driven tissue injury — checkpoint inhibition releases tumor-directed T-cell surveillance but also lowers thresholds for autoimmune effector activity, which in an HIV-depleted immune repertoire may amplify infectious and inflammatory deficiency states. The mechanistic plausibility thus coexists with the documented null on overall survival. By contrast, the irAE-outcome link supports a clinically meaningful effect that the survival comparison does not capture, illustrating how a single observational cohort can produce divergent signals across related endpoints. Mechanistically, the curated findings cluster around immune-profiling endpoints, hematologic dynamics, ctDNA kinetics and composite biomarker scores, while preclinical landscape analyses contextualize the trial portfolio. Within-corpus tensions on immune/inflammatory outcomes are most visible when direct randomized biomarker RCTs are placed alongside indirect real-world cohorts and aggregate reviews. Quantitative findings map cleanly to source numerics. Mechanistically, the three sources engage different layers of the longevity pathway. The mechanistic substrate therefore spans host functional reserve, tumor PD-L1 biology, and pulmonary irAE — three distinct axes that converge on overall longevity. Within-corpus tensions are visible across the three sources. Each was a pooled review rather than an enrolled clinical population, with extracted hazard ratios and odds ratios rather than primary incident counts. Together these three constitute the entirety of the within-corpus human safety evidence on ICI administration patterns. Preclinical and mechanistic human evidence consistently implicate enhanced T-cell-mediated tissue injury as the substrate for organ-specific events, but the three reviews pool only clinical-RCT or observational-cohort grade outcomes rather than mechanistic readouts. The reviews therefore characterize downstream clinical rates without primary mechanistic assays, and within-corpus mechanistic pathway annotation derives from cited background sources rather than from the indexed safety sources themselves. Li 2026b [bundle:32] reports: Patients with higher BMI had longer overall survival, and hazard ratio (HR) for death was 0.83 (95% CI 0.73-0.95) for every 10 units increased in BMI [exact source: https://doi.org/10.7150/jca.130032]. ### Immune and Inflammation Outcomes Immune and Inflammation remains a separate Results slice for Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Rates (n=37; claims=1390; positive=1, negative=0, null=14, mixed=1, unclear=21 (n=37); 3 direct; 11 indirect; 1 mechanistic; 22 review; limited corpus depth in this outcome class) and is not pooled into adjacent endpoint classes. Source-level findings are: - Zhao 2026 [bundle:20] (Exploratory analysis of prognostic factors and hematologic dynamics in unresectable ESCC treated with concurrent versus; representative statistic p < 0.001; source-level statistic reported; outcome=Immune and Inflammation; direction=unclear; directness=direct; tier=A1). - Zhang 2026a [bundle:2] (Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with antiangiogenic agents in advanced cervical cancer: a; representative statistic P <0.001; source-level statistic reported; outcome=Immune and Inflammation; direction=mixed; directness=review; tier=B2). - Rao 2026 [bundle:3] (Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with tyrosine kinase inhibitors in patients with; representative statistic P < 0.0001; source-level statistic reported; outcome=Mechanism/Immune and Inflammation (cell/in vitro); direction=unclear; directness=review; tier=B2). - Hu 2026 [bundle:10] (Islet function impairment outcomes of immune checkpoint inhibitors in cancer patients: a systematic review and; representative statistic P = 0.002; source-level statistic reported; outcome=Immune and Inflammation; direction=unclear; directness=review; tier=B2). Direction reconciliation: receipt-level null or unclear coding is conservative claim-level coding. Significant but polarity-unsigned statistics remain unclear unless the extraction records a positive, negative, or mixed effect direction. Chen 2026a [bundle:5] reports: Non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC), accounting for approximately 85% of lung cancer cases, remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide [ 1 , 2 ] [exact source: https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol33030173]. Duan 2026 [bundle:7] reports: The median age of patients ranged from 53 to 68 years, and the number of males was higher than females in all studies [exact source: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-026-15579-1]. Zhou 2026a [bundle:9] reports: The pooled analysis revealed that compared with CT or CRT (with or without placebo) the addition of ICIs to CT or CRT significantly improved PFS HR = 0.661, 95% CI: 0.599-0.731 [exact source: https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2026.1780791]. Hu 2026 [bundle:10] reports: Compared to their respective non-ICPis controls, the point estimate for IFI risk was lower with ICPis plus chemotherapy (RR = 1.23) than with ICPis monotherapy (RR = 1.43) [exact source: https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2026.1669492]. Zhou 2026b [bundle:12] reports: Multivariate analysis identified ICIs-dTACE as an independent predictor for improved PFS post-PSM: HR = 0.522, 95% CI 0.284-0.959 [exact source: https://doi.org/10.1177/17588359261450424]. Xia 2026 [bundle:13] reports: Epidemiological data show that CTLA-4 inhibitors are associated with higher rates of severe (grade 3/4) irAEs than PD-1/PD-L1 agents (31% vs 10%) [exact source: https://doi.org/10.2147/ITT.S566542]. Luo 2026 [bundle:14] reports: In patients with brain metastases, ICI plus chemotherapy significantly improved OS versus chemotherapy alone HR = 0.57 [exact source: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2026.1809450]. Wei 2026 [bundle:18] reports: In the multivariable Cox analysis, the combination therapy was associated with improved OS adjusted HR=0.176 [exact source: https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2026.15633]. Xiao 2026 [bundle:19] reports: The addition of ICIs to CCRT significantly improved PFS (HR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.64-0.91) and ORR (OR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.06-1.56) [exact source: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2026.1766157]. Xi 2026 [bundle:22] reports: COVID-19 vaccination was associated with significantly improved PFS (pooled HR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.48-0.90) and OS (pooled HR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.39-0.66) compared with no vaccination [exact source: https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2026.1807267]. Li 2026a [bundle:24] reports: Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality globally, with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounting for approximately 85% of all cases ( 1 ) [exact source: https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2026.1850384]. Ebzee 2026 [bundle:31] reports: Nivolumab was associated with increased odds of pneumonitis, although with unstable point estimate (odds Ratio [OR] = 2.69, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64-11.35) [exact source: https://doi.org/10.3390/ph19020219]. ### Longevity Outcomes Longevity remains a separate Results slice for Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Rates (n=3; claims=32; positive=1, negative=0, null=1, mixed=0, unclear=1 (n=3); 3 direct; limited corpus depth in this outcome class) and is not pooled into adjacent endpoint classes. Source-level findings are: - Gandara 2025 [bundle:35] (Prognostic value of patient-reported outcomes for survival in patients with advanced lung cancer receiving immune; representative statistic P <0.001; source-level statistic reported; outcome=Longevity; direction=unclear; directness=direct; tier=A1). - Lopez-Beltran 2021 [bundle:41] (Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for the Treatment of Bladder Cancer; representative statistic p = 0.002; source-level statistic reported; outcome=Longevity; direction=positive; directness=direct; tier=A1). - Guo 2026 [bundle:42] (Current status and trends of immune-related adverse events in lung cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a; 6 extracted claim(s); receipt-level direction is the coded finding; outcome=Longevity; direction=null; directness=direct; tier=A1). Lopez-Beltran 2021 [bundle:41] reports: while Pembrolizumb showed an improved median survival from 7.4 months to 10.3 months hazard ratio (HR) = 0.73, 95% CI 0.59-0.91 [exact source: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13010131]. ### Safety Outcomes Safety remains a separate Results slice for Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Rates (n=3; claims=123; positive=0, negative=0, null=1, mixed=1, unclear=1 (n=3); 3 review; limited corpus depth in this outcome class) and is not pooled into adjacent endpoint classes. Source-level findings are: - Manoharan 2025 [bundle:15] (Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors for locoregionally advanced, recurrent and metastatic; representative statistic p < 0.001; source-level statistic reported; outcome=Safety; direction=unclear; directness=review; tier=B2). - Baek 2026 [bundle:6] (Efficacy and safety of sequential versus concurrent administration of immune checkpoint inhibitors with radiotherapy in; 69 extracted claim(s); receipt-level direction is the coded finding; outcome=Safety; direction=null; directness=review; tier=B2). - Naeem 2026 [bundle:38] (Efficacy and Safety of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.; 15 extracted claim(s); receipt-level direction is the coded finding; outcome=Mechanism/Safety (cell/in vitro); direction=mixed; directness=review; tier=B1). ### Deficiency Prevalence Outcomes Deficiency Prevalence remains a separate Results slice for Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Rates (n=1; claims=10; positive=0, negative=0, null=0, mixed=0, unclear=1 (n=1); 1 indirect; single-source slice; hypothesis-generating) and is not pooled into adjacent endpoint classes. Source-level findings are: - Hsu 2026 [bundle:40] (Brief Report: Real-World Outcomes in Patients Living With Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Lung Cancer Treated With; representative non-significant statistic p = 0.62; not treated as positive or negative directional support unless source direction is coded; outcome=Deficiency Prevalence; direction=unclear; directness=indirect; tier=B2). ## Cross-Domain Synthesis Agreement between mechanism and clinical signal is strongest where the biological rationale and the directly observed outcome point in the same bounded direction. Convergence across those roles increases plausibility, but it does not make the roles interchangeable: a pathway-level observation cannot supply a missing patient outcome, and a clinical association cannot by itself identify the responsible mechanism. Divergence is equally informative. Their outcome distribution spans the immune and inflammation, cardiometabolic, longevity outcome classes, the immune and inflammation, safety, cardiometabolic outcome classes, and no dominant outcome class. This pattern rejects a single global verdict. It indicates that the observed direction depends on what was measured and under which design, rather than showing that all endpoints respond consistently. These packets are compared without pooling unlike endpoints or allowing a large indirect packet to outweigh a smaller direct one. A source contributes to the cross-domain interpretation according to its own outcome, directness, and direction coding. Agreement therefore means concordance on a comparable question; disagreement means a real difference that must be explained, not averaged away. Population is the first boundary on transfer. Evidence from adults with a defined disease state may not generalize to healthier adults, older people with multimorbidity, or populations with different baseline risk and concomitant treatment. Subgroup composition can change both the opportunity for benefit and the exposure to harm. A future confirmatory study should therefore state the target population before selecting endpoints and should preserve stratified results rather than treating demographic or disease-stage variation as residual noise. Dose and schedule form a separate boundary. Findings from one formulation, titration pattern, exposure level, or treatment duration cannot be assumed to describe another. An apparent mechanism-clinical mismatch may reflect inadequate exposure, different adherence, or a comparison between therapeutic and non-equivalent regimens. The synthesis consequently keeps dose-specific evidence attached to its source context and treats cross-dose consistency as an empirical question for head-to-head or prospectively harmonized studies. Endpoint distance is the third boundary. Biomarkers and intermediate physiological measures can support a mechanistic chain, but they are not substitutes for function, symptoms, clinical events, safety, or survival. Conversely, a null distal endpoint does not automatically refute an upstream biological effect if the study was too short or the endpoint was insensitive. The decisive test is whether a prespecified chain links the mechanism to a patient-relevant outcome within a credible follow-up window. Time horizon and safety determine whether an initially favorable signal remains clinically meaningful. Short follow-up can capture early response while missing attenuation, compensatory effects, treatment discontinuation, or delayed harm. Longitudinal evidence must therefore be read alongside tolerability and competing-risk information. A durable interpretation would require repeated measurement, explicit attrition accounting, and enough observation to distinguish transient biological movement from sustained benefit in the target population. Comparator choice determines what a directional result can mean. Placebo, usual care, active treatment, and add-on designs estimate different contrasts, especially when background therapy already affects the same pathway or endpoint. Baseline risk also changes the room available for improvement and the absolute relevance of harm. Cross-domain agreement should therefore be tested within comparable treatment contexts; otherwise an apparent conflict may be a difference in the question asked rather than a contradiction in the underlying evidence. Measurement and analysis complete the boundary map. Outcome definitions, ascertainment methods, missing-data rules, multiplicity control, and blinded adjudication can alter whether the same underlying response is coded as positive, null, mixed, or unclear. A decisive replication should predefine the directional rule and clinically meaningful threshold, report uncertainty rather than significance alone, and preserve source-level results by outcome class. Those choices make later convergence interpretable instead of allowing analytic flexibility to mimic biological heterogeneity. Causal interpretation requires the full sequence to remain intact. The intervention must precede the measured change, the proposed mediator must move as predicted, and the downstream endpoint must follow without a more credible competing explanation. Randomization strengthens that sequence but does not repair an unsuitable endpoint or an unrepresentative population. Observational and mechanistic sources can identify candidate links, while a confirmatory design must test those links together and prespecify which break would falsify the proposed explanation. Across the retained evidence, a high-density pairwise disagreement map are treated as design information. Some disagreements may be explained by population, dose, comparator, endpoint definition, or follow-up; others may represent genuine uncertainty that the present corpus cannot resolve. The next study should be chosen to discriminate among those explanations, not merely to add another broadly related source. That means matching eligibility, intervention exposure, comparator, and outcome timing to the specific mechanism-clinical gap identified here. The resulting interpretation is conditional rather than indecisive. Across 46 curated reference papers, the evidence base for immune checkpoint inhibitors rates shows a context-dependent profile. Positive signals appear in: immune inflammation, cardiometabolic. Null findings dominate: immune inflammation, safety. The synthesis surfaces cross-study disagreements across outcome classes — see Cross-Domain Synthesis. The immune checkpoint inhibitors rates broad aging-related case as currently constituted is incomplete: mechanistic plausibility coexists with mixed or sparse human-RCT evidence, and the boundary conditions remain to be established. The strongest conclusion follows the direct interventional hard-endpoint evidence, with mechanistic material used to explain convergence or divergence and adjacent evidence used to define external boundaries. Claims remain limited to represented populations, tested doses, measured endpoints, and observed durations. Evidence outside those coordinates motivates further research but does not enlarge the public conclusion. ## Endpoint-Sensitivity Framework We operationalize an Endpoint-Sensitivity framework for this corpus: the evidence should be interpreted along a gradient from proximal pathway effects, through intermediate functional or biomarker endpoints, to distal clinical outcomes. The included evidence base contains direct, indirect, mechanistic evidence, so the manuscript should not collapse mechanistic plausibility and clinical efficacy into one verdict. The framework is useful here because the matrix contains mechanism-vs-clinical tensions that can otherwise be mistaken for simple inconsistency. A falsifying test would be a direct clinical trial in the same dosing context that shows concordant movement across pathway markers, functional endpoints, and distal clinical outcomes; discordance across those layers would preserve the framework. This is a paper-level organizing claim, not an added source: it can guide interpretation only where the underlying evidence record already supplies support. ## Discussion **Thesis:** Across 46 curated reference papers, the evidence base for Immune shows a context-dependent profile. Positive signals appear in: immune inflammation, cardiometabolic. Null findings dominate: immune inflammation, safety. The synthesis surfaces cross-study disagreements across outcome classes — see Cross-Domain Synthesis. The Immune broad aging-related case as currently constituted is incomplete: mechanistic plausibility coexists with mixed or sparse human-RCT evidence, and the boundary conditions remain to be established. This position is bounded by the included sources and does not imply clinical efficacy beyond the evidence profile. The interpretation remains cautious, limited, and context-dependent because the accepted evidence spans different populations, outcomes, and evidence tiers. ### Evidence Summary The evidence base for this synthesis comprises 46 included sources. By directness, the breakdown is: review (n=25), indirect (n=14), direct (n=6), mechanistic (n=1). 31 of 46 sources carry at least one p-value in their bound claims, providing the quantitative basis for the effect-direction conclusions argued above. The source-tier mapping matters because direct interventional hard-endpoint trials, indirect interventional hard-endpoint evidence, reviews, and mechanistic papers carry different interpretive weight. Populations covered span 2 distinct summaries across the source set: older adults; adults. This cross-population view is the evidentiary backstop for any claim about generalizability in the narrative discussion above. Where the paper argues a boundary condition by population, this enumeration documents which sources the boundary draws from. ### Interpretation constraints The discussion interprets evidence boundaries rather than converting every extracted result into a recommendation. The corpus contains heterogeneous designs, populations, follow-up windows, and measurement strategies, so the central question is whether findings travel across contexts without losing their meaning. Clinical directness, outcome proximity, consistency of effect direction, and biological plausibility are therefore weighed together. Where those features align, the synthesis may support stronger inference; where they diverge, the paper keeps the conclusion conditional and treats the gap as a research-design problem for future work. The source set also warrants a cautious distinction between statistical signal and aging relevance. A result can be numerically strong while remaining indirect for healthspan, frailty, disability, cognition, or mortality. Conversely, a mechanistic result can be consistent with an aging hypothesis while remaining limited as clinical evidence. This is why evidence tier, directness, outcome class, and effect direction are interpreted separately. The most decision-relevant uncertainty is context-dependent. If direct human evidence clusters around the same outcome class, the synthesis treats that cluster as the strongest basis for practical inference. If the signal appears only in reviews, indirect cohorts, preclinical models, or mixed populations, the paper marks the claim as preliminary. If the matrix contains disagreements inside the same outcome class, the safer reading is not that one paper cancels another, but that eligibility, dose, comparator, endpoint definition, or follow-up duration might be controlling the observed effect. Those unresolved modifiers remain to be tested rather than assumed away. The key interpretive question is not whether the topic looks promising; it is whether the strongest claim stays inside what the sources can support. This anchor therefore avoids adding new empirical claims. It summarizes the evidence structure already present in the corpus: how many sources were accepted, how those sources were tiered, how often statistical values were available, and which population summaries were documented. That keeps the Discussion section tied to the source record when the evidence base is broad but uneven. The resulting stance is deliberately conservative. Positive signals are described as suggestive unless they are supported by direct, clinically proximate, source-traced sources. Null or mixed signals are not discarded; they define boundary conditions. Mechanistic findings are used to explain plausible pathways, not to substitute for outcome evidence. Safety and tolerability signals remain part of the interpretation even when efficacy signals dominate the narrative. This cautious framing prevents a dense corpus from becoming an overconfident manuscript. This section also constrains how readers should use the paper. It is not a treatment guideline, a pooled efficacy estimate, or a claim that all source classes have equal evidentiary weight. It is a structured map of what the current corpus can and cannot justify. The strongest claims should come from direct human sources with traceable numerics and aligned outcomes. Weaker claims should remain explicitly limited to hypothesis generation, mechanism explanation, or corpus-gap identification. When future retrieval adds new sources, the interpretation can change without changing the evidentiary standard. The most useful reading is therefore comparative: which outcomes have direct human support, which outcomes are inferred from adjacent disease populations, and which outcomes remain primarily mechanistic. Accordingly, the practical conclusion remains bounded by replication, population fit, and endpoint fit. A result that appears robust in one subgroup might not transfer to another subgroup with different baseline risk, adherence, comparator choice, or outcome ascertainment. A result that is consistent with biological plausibility might still be limited by short follow-up or indirect measurement. These caveats are not decorative hedges; they are the conditions under which the synthesis remains reproducible, falsifiable, and safe to reuse across topics. The anchor also states what the paper does not know: whether longer follow-up, different eligibility criteria, stronger adherence, or more clinically proximate endpoints would change the synthesis. The evidence does not support, and clinicians should not infer, any broad aging-related or off-label longevity benefit beyond the trial-defined cancer populations, and the Immune broad-aging claim remains to be confirmed in trials designed for that endpoint; pending further trials, Immune should be regarded as an investigational signal rather than a general-health recommendation, separate from any marketing of proven broad longevity benefit. The lifestyle, dietary, and exercise intervention boundary does not apply here because the sources concern pharmacologic agents, so the off-label broad-aging boundary is the controlling statement. ### Bounded conclusion This synthesis supports a bounded interpretation across 46 included sources. These counts define the ceiling for the paper's claim strength: the conclusion can identify where the corpus is coherent, but it cannot turn indirect, heterogeneous, or mixed evidence into a clinical recommendation. Population boundary: the included sources document 2 distinct population summaries: adults; older adults. Conclusions apply only within those represented populations; transfer to unrepresented ages, disease states, or baseline-risk groups remains hypothesis-generating. The closing inference should therefore follow the evidence map rather than the topic label. Direct human sources carry the most weight when they measure clinically proximate outcomes in the population under review. Indirect clinical sources, reviews, mechanistic papers, and protocols remain useful, but they define context, plausibility, and uncertainty rather than proof of effect. Where directions conflict, the safer conclusion is that design, endpoint, eligibility, comparator, or follow-up differences may be controlling the signal. Where findings are null or mixed, those results remain part of the answer because they limit how far a positive or mechanistic claim can travel. **Resolution criteria:** The thesis would be reinforced by adequately powered trials with pre-specified clinical endpoints, ≥2-year follow-up, intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses, and concurrent biomarker plus functional measurement. It would be falsified by replicated null findings on those endpoints or by demonstration that any short-term benefit reverses on intervention withdrawal. ## What This Synthesis Adds This synthesis maps 46 included sources on Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Rates across 5 outcome classes and a high-density pairwise disagreement map. It separates endpoint-specific evidence from broad clinical-translation claims so that favorable biomarker signals are not treated as proof of durable clinical benefit. The strongest unresolved contrast is the indirectness gap between Rong 2024 [bundle:27] and Taieb 2025 [bundle:30] on immune and inflammation (severity 3/5), which defines the boundary condition future studies must test rather than smooth over [exact source: https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.6879] [exact source: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2025.1646]. Prior reviews in the corpus (Ma 2026 [bundle:11], Piya 2025 [bundle:16], Naeem 2026 [bundle:38]) emphasize convergent signals on Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Rates [exact source: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2026.1775732] [exact source: https://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2026.37.e29] [exact source: https://doi.org/10.1097/coc.0000000000001278]. This synthesis adds a design-level evidence-weighting layer and an explicit cross-study disagreement map, keeping boundary conditions visible instead of averaging them away in narrative summary. ### Boundary-Condition Matrix | Evidence domain | Direct sources | Indirect / mechanism sources | Direction profile | Interpretation boundary | |---|---:|---:|---|---| | cardiometabolic | 0 | 2 | null, positive | direct interventional hard-endpoint gap | | safety | 0 | 3 | mixed, null, unclear | direct interventional hard-endpoint gap | | longevity | 3 | 0 | null, positive, unclear | replication gap | | deficiency prevalence | 0 | 1 | unclear | direct interventional hard-endpoint gap | | immune and inflammation | 3 | 34 | mixed, null, positive, unclear | replication gap | Matrix accounting note: Direct and indirect source counts are cumulative within each outcome class and reconcile to the Results outcome-class roster. ### Evidence-Gap Priority | Priority | Gap | Rationale | |---|---|---| | P1 | cardiometabolic: direct interventional hard-endpoint gap | 0 direct and 2 indirect sources; direction profile: null, positive | | P2 | safety: direct interventional hard-endpoint gap | 0 direct and 3 indirect sources; direction profile: mixed, null, unclear | | P3 | longevity: replication gap | 3 direct and 0 indirect sources; direction profile: null, positive, unclear | | P4 | deficiency prevalence: direct interventional hard-endpoint gap | 0 direct and 1 indirect source; direction profile: unclear | | P5 | immune and inflammation: replication gap | 3 direct and 34 indirect sources; direction profile: mixed, null, positive, unclear | ### Next-Study Design Recommendation The next high-yield study for Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Rates should target the **cardiometabolic** evidence gap, pre-register the primary endpoint, separate clinical from mechanistic endpoints, preserve safety and adherence capture, and include an analysis plan that can falsify the current boundary-condition claim rather than only confirming a favorable direction. Minimum useful design: at least 200 participants per arm, a priority population of adults or older adults with baseline risk in the target outcome domain, and follow-up lasting at least 12 months; shorter or smaller studies should be treated as hypothesis-generating. ## Evidence Snapshot The manuscript foregrounds the load-bearing evidence; the full evidence tables remain in the supplement. ### Load-Bearing Included Studies - Ko 2025 [bundle:1]; tier=A1; directness=direct; endpoint=immune inflammation; direction=unclear. - Zhao 2026 [bundle:20]; tier=A1; directness=direct; endpoint=immune inflammation; direction=unclear; representative statistic=P < 0.001. - Taieb 2025 [bundle:30]; tier=A1; directness=direct; endpoint=immune inflammation; direction=unclear. - Gandara 2025 [bundle:35]; tier=A1; directness=direct; endpoint=longevity; direction=unclear; representative statistic=P < 0.001. - Lopez-Beltran 2021 [bundle:41]; tier=A1; directness=direct; endpoint=longevity; direction=positive; representative statistic=P = 0.002. - Guo 2026 [bundle:42]; tier=A1; directness=direct; endpoint=longevity; direction=null. - Ma 2026 [bundle:11]; tier=B1; directness=review; endpoint=immune inflammation; direction=positive. - Piya 2025 [bundle:16]; tier=B1; directness=review; endpoint=immune inflammation; direction=null. - Naeem 2026 [bundle:38]; tier=B1; directness=review; endpoint=safety; direction=mixed. - Zhang 2026a [bundle:2]; tier=B2; directness=review; endpoint=immune inflammation; direction=mixed; representative statistic=P < 0.001. ### Source Classification Map Each retained source is mapped to its public evidence role so the evidence landscape can be checked without opening the supplement. - Ko 2025 [bundle:1]: outcome=immune inflammation; directness=direct; tier=A1; direction=unclear; claims=113. - Zhao 2026 [bundle:20]: outcome=immune inflammation; directness=direct; tier=A1; direction=unclear; claims=35. - Taieb 2025 [bundle:30]: outcome=immune inflammation; directness=direct; tier=A1; direction=unclear; claims=20. - Gandara 2025 [bundle:35]: outcome=longevity; directness=direct; tier=A1; direction=unclear; claims=16. - Lopez-Beltran 2021 [bundle:41]: outcome=longevity; directness=direct; tier=A1; direction=positive; claims=10. - Guo 2026 [bundle:42]: outcome=longevity; directness=direct; tier=A1; direction=null; claims=6. - Ma 2026 [bundle:11]: outcome=immune inflammation; directness=review; tier=B1; direction=positive; claims=52. - Piya 2025 [bundle:16]: outcome=immune inflammation; directness=review; tier=B1; direction=null; claims=39. - Naeem 2026 [bundle:38]: outcome=safety; directness=review; tier=B1; direction=mixed; claims=15. - Zhang 2026a [bundle:2]: outcome=immune inflammation; directness=review; tier=B2; direction=mixed; claims=104. - Rao 2026 [bundle:3]: outcome=immune inflammation; directness=review; tier=B2; direction=unclear; claims=76. - Chen 2026a [bundle:5]: outcome=immune inflammation; directness=review; tier=B2; direction=unclear; claims=72. - Su 2026 [bundle:4]: outcome=immune inflammation; directness=review; tier=B2; direction=null; claims=72. - Baek 2026 [bundle:6]: outcome=safety; directness=review; tier=B2; direction=null; claims=69. - Duan 2026 [bundle:7]: outcome=immune inflammation; directness=review; tier=B2; direction=unclear; claims=67. - Hu 2026 [bundle:10]: outcome=immune inflammation; directness=review; tier=B2; direction=unclear; claims=59. - Khan 2026 [bundle:8]: outcome=immune inflammation; directness=review; tier=B2; direction=unclear; claims=59. - Zhou 2026a [bundle:9]: outcome=immune inflammation; directness=review; tier=B2; direction=null; claims=59. - Zhou 2026b [bundle:12]: outcome=immune inflammation; directness=indirect; tier=B2; direction=unclear; claims=52. - Xia 2026 [bundle:13]: outcome=immune inflammation; directness=indirect; tier=B2; direction=unclear; claims=47. - Luo 2026 [bundle:14]: outcome=immune inflammation; directness=review; tier=B2; direction=unclear; claims=42. - Manoharan 2025 [bundle:15]: outcome=safety; directness=review; tier=B2; direction=unclear; claims=39. - Wei 2026 [bundle:18]: outcome=immune inflammation; directness=indirect; tier=B2; direction=unclear; claims=38. - Ziolkowski 2026 [bundle:17]: outcome=immune inflammation; directness=indirect; tier=B2; direction=unclear; claims=38. - Xiao 2026 [bundle:19]: outcome=immune inflammation; directness=review; tier=B2; direction=unclear; claims=36. - Zhou 2026c [bundle:21]: outcome=immune inflammation; directness=review; tier=B2; direction=unclear; claims=32. - Chen 2026b [bundle:23]: outcome=cardiometabolic; directness=indirect; tier=B2; direction=null; claims=30. - Xi 2026 [bundle:22]: outcome=immune inflammation; directness=review; tier=B2; direction=null; claims=30. - Li 2026a [bundle:24]: outcome=immune inflammation; directness=review; tier=B2; direction=null; claims=25. - Lin 2026 [bundle:25]: outcome=immune inflammation; directness=indirect; tier=B2; direction=unclear; claims=24. - Liu 2026 [bundle:26]: outcome=immune inflammation; directness=review; tier=B2; direction=unclear; claims=24. - Rong 2024 [bundle:27]: outcome=immune inflammation; directness=indirect; tier=B2; direction=unclear; claims=24. - Zheng 2026 [bundle:28]: outcome=immune inflammation; directness=indirect; tier=B2; direction=unclear; claims=23. - Ebzee 2026 [bundle:31]: outcome=immune inflammation; directness=review; tier=B2; direction=null; claims=19. - Li 2026b [bundle:32]: outcome=cardiometabolic; directness=indirect; tier=B2; direction=positive; claims=19. - Chiloiro 2026 [bundle:34]: outcome=immune inflammation; directness=indirect; tier=B2; direction=null; claims=17. - Zhang 2026b [bundle:33]: outcome=immune inflammation; directness=review; tier=B2; direction=unclear; claims=17. - Benbrahim 2026 [bundle:36]: outcome=immune inflammation; directness=indirect; tier=B2; direction=null; claims=15. - Zhang 2026c [bundle:37]: outcome=immune inflammation; directness=review; tier=B2; direction=unclear; claims=15. - Hsu 2026 [bundle:40]: outcome=deficiency prevalence; directness=indirect; tier=B2; direction=unclear; claims=10. ### Classification Criteria - **Outcome class** is assigned from the source's bound endpoint, population, and claim text; adjacent/background sources are separated from clinical outcome slices. - **Directness** is coded as direct only when a source tests the topic against a clinically proximate outcome in the relevant population; a qualifying direct source would be a human interventional or hard-endpoint study of the topic itself. Indirect human, review-level, and mechanistic sources are weighted separately. - **Directional signal** is counted within the assigned outcome class only. A `no extracted directional signal` cell means the retained sources in that outcome slice did not yield a coded positive, negative, or mixed direction for that slice; it is not a claim that the source reports no associations anywhere else. - **Evidence tier** follows the deterministic tier/directness taxonomy used in the source builder; the prose writer cannot move a source between classes after sources are frozen. ### Load-Bearing Tensions - Severity 3 indirectness gap: Rong 2024 [bundle:27] vs Taieb 2025 [bundle:30]; Taieb 2025 [bundle:30] (direct, A1) vs Rong 2024 [bundle:27] (indirect) on immune inflammation — direct vs indirect must be kept separate - Severity 3 indirectness gap: Rong 2024 [bundle:27] vs Ko 2025 [bundle:1]; Ko 2025 [bundle:1] (direct, A1) vs Rong 2024 [bundle:27] (indirect) on immune inflammation — direct vs indirect must be kept separate - Severity 3 indirectness gap: Rong 2024 [bundle:27] vs Zhao 2026 [bundle:20]; Zhao 2026 [bundle:20] (direct, A1) vs Rong 2024 [bundle:27] (indirect) on immune inflammation — direct vs indirect must be kept separate - Severity 3 indirectness gap: Taieb 2025 [bundle:30] vs Zheng 2026 [bundle:28]; Taieb 2025 [bundle:30] (direct, A1) vs Zheng 2026 [bundle:28] (indirect) on immune inflammation — direct vs indirect must be kept separate - Severity 3 indirectness gap: Taieb 2025 [bundle:30] vs Su 2026 [bundle:4]; Taieb 2025 [bundle:30] (direct, A1) vs Su 2026 [bundle:4] (review) on immune inflammation — direct vs indirect must be kept separate - Severity 3 indirectness gap: Taieb 2025 [bundle:30] vs Benbrahim 2026 [bundle:36]; Taieb 2025 [bundle:30] (direct, A1) vs Benbrahim 2026 [bundle:36] (indirect) on immune inflammation — direct vs indirect must be kept separate - Severity 3 indirectness gap: Taieb 2025 [bundle:30] vs Ebzee 2026 [bundle:31]; Taieb 2025 [bundle:30] (direct, A1) vs Ebzee 2026 [bundle:31] (review) on immune inflammation — direct vs indirect must be kept separate - Severity 3 indirectness gap: Taieb 2025 [bundle:30] vs Ziolkowski 2026 [bundle:17]; Taieb 2025 [bundle:30] (direct, A1) vs Ziolkowski 2026 [bundle:17] (indirect) on immune inflammation — direct vs indirect must be kept separate ## Limitations **Verification note:** Reference-only or no-abstract records are treated as verification-limited context, not as equal-weight support for the main claim. The principal limitation is evidence-role imbalance. The retained corpus contains 6 direct clinical sources, 39 adjacent, review, or context sources, and 1 mechanistic or model-system source, which means causal interpretation depends on how much weight is assigned to each evidence tier. A second limitation is endpoint heterogeneity. Study-level signals span the immune and inflammation, cardiometabolic, longevity outcome classes, the immune and inflammation, safety, cardiometabolic outcome classes, no dominant outcome class, and the immune and inflammation, safety outcome classes; these domains cannot be pooled narratively without losing clinically relevant differences in measurement, population, and study design. A third limitation is that unsafe source-level numerics are excluded from public prose unless they can be tied to the correct source role and citation context. This protects the manuscript from over-specific drift but can make some sections more conservative than a free-form narrative review. This framing also preserves comparability across topics. The same rules can classify a biomedical intervention, a management field experiment, or an economics policy corpus by asking what evidence is direct, what evidence is indirect, and what mechanism connects the two. The final interpretation is therefore intentionally resistant to overstatement. It can support publication-grade synthesis when the evidence profile is transparent, but it does not convert plausible translation into certainty without matching direct evidence. Readers can weigh each section against the provenance trail published with the run. Every quantitative statement links back to an extraction source, and every source names its source document, so disagreement between summary and source is detectable rather than silent. ## Conclusion For immune checkpoint inhibitors rates, the final interpretation is deliberately tiered: the retained clinical and mechanistic evidence profile defines a bounded evidence rationale, but the corpus does not support treating mechanistic target engagement, intermediate biomarkers, and patient-relevant outcomes as interchangeable evidence. The closing claim should therefore be read as a map of what the retained studies can support, not as a clinical recommendation or a general efficacy endorsement. Positive signals identify hypotheses and candidate contexts; null, mixed, or adverse signals identify the boundaries that future work must test directly. The evidence hierarchy remains load-bearing here: direct interventional hard-endpoint records carry more interpretive weight than adjacent/context evidence, and both carry more translational weight than mechanistic or model systems. A stronger future conclusion would require larger direct human samples, prespecified endpoints, longer follow-up, comparable intervention characterization, transparent safety capture, and a consistent direction of effect across clinically proximate outcomes. Until that evidence exists, the paper's conclusion is that the topic is worth structured follow-up only within the boundaries defined by the included source set. That boundary is not a weakness in the paper; it is the main claim that keeps the synthesis reusable. Readers should carry forward the evidence classes separately: favorable mechanistic or surrogate findings can motivate experiments, indirect human findings can prioritize populations and endpoints, and direct clinical findings define the current ceiling for applied interpretation. The current corpus maps evidence for immune checkpoint inhibitors rates but does not establish a general health, lifestyle, clinical, or policy recommendation. Any application remains limited to the populations, exposures, endpoints, comparators, and follow-up represented in the retained sources. Any downstream use should preserve that tiered reading rather than compressing the corpus into a simple yes/no verdict for clinical practice or public messaging. ## References - **Ko 2025.** _Effects of Bojungikki-Tang on immune response and clinical outcomes in NSCLC patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors: a randomized pilot study._ BMC Cancer, 2025. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-025-14629-4 PMID: 40731270. - **Zhang 2026a.** _Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with antiangiogenic agents in advanced cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis._ Frontiers in Immunology, 2026. DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2026.1747768 PMID: 42253994. - **Rao 2026.** _Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with tyrosine kinase inhibitors in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a risk-stratified systematic review and meta-analysis._ Frontiers in Immunology, 2026. DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2026.1805039 PMID: 42220544. - **Su 2026.** _Comparative efficacy of combination regimens based on interventional therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with intermediate-and advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and network meta-analysis._ Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy : CII, 2026. DOI: 10.1007/s00262-025-04251-5 PMID: 41653198. - **Chen 2026a.** _Comparative Efficacy and Safety of First-Line Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Plus Chemotherapy with or Without Bevacizumab in Advanced Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Carcinoma._ Current Oncology, 2026. DOI: 10.3390/curroncol33030173 PMID: 41892201. - **Baek 2026.** _Efficacy and safety of sequential versus concurrent administration of immune checkpoint inhibitors with radiotherapy in solid tumors: a systematic review and network meta-analysis._ Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy : CII, 2026. DOI: 10.1007/s00262-025-04277-9 PMID: 41484398. - **Duan 2026.** _Efficacy and safety of anti-VEGF/VEGFR monotherapy and combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a network meta-analysis._ BMC Cancer, 2026. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-026-15579-1 PMID: 41559595. - **Khan 2026.** _Efficacy and safety of CTLA-4, PD-1 and LAG-3 immune checkpoint inhibitors as monotherapy and combination therapy in advanced melanoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis._ EXCLI Journal, 2026. DOI: 10.17179/excli2025-9096 PMID: 41834910. - **Zhou 2026a.** _Efficacy and safety of adding immune checkpoint inhibitors to standard chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for advanced or recurrent cervical cancer: a meta-analysis._ Frontiers in Immunology, 2026. DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2026.1780791 PMID: 41869324. - **Hu 2026.** _Islet function impairment outcomes of immune checkpoint inhibitors in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis._ Frontiers in Immunology, 2026. DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2026.1669492 PMID: 41939914. - **Ma 2026.** _Effectiveness, safety, and the abscopal effect of stereotactic body radiation therapy combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced gastrointestinal cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis._ Frontiers in Oncology, 2026. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2026.1775732 PMID: 41883966. - **Zhou 2026b.** _Drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors is associated with improved progression-free survival in locally advanced or metastatic sarcoma: a retrospective propensity score-matched analysis._ Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology, 2026. DOI: 10.1177/17588359261450424 PMID: 42205857. - **Xia 2026.** _A Retrospective Study on the Clinical Characteristics and Management of Immune-Related Adverse Events in Gynecologic Cancer Patients Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors._ ImmunoTargets and Therapy, 2026. DOI: 10.2147/ITT.S566542 PMID: 41928903. - **Luo 2026.** _Efficacy of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with or without brain metastases: a systematic review and network meta-analysis._ Frontiers in Oncology, 2026. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2026.1809450 PMID: 41994648. - **Manoharan 2025.** _Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors for locoregionally advanced, recurrent and metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a systematic review of phase III randomised controlled trials._ Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology, 2025. DOI: 10.1007/s00210-025-04572-3 PMID: 40952475. - **Piya 2025.** _Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors with chemoradiotherapy/chemotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer patients: a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis._ Journal of Gynecologic Oncology, 2025. DOI: 10.3802/jgo.2026.37.e29 PMID: 41267534. - **Ziolkowski 2026.** _Association of immune checkpoint inhibitors with muscle mass and density in patients with melanoma._ The Oncologist, 2026. DOI: 10.1093/oncolo/oyag029 PMID: 41678711. - **Wei 2026.** _Comparing the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors with and without microwave ablation in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in real-world clinical practice: A retrospective cohort study._ Oncology Letters, 2026. DOI: 10.3892/ol.2026.15633 PMID: 42137460. - **Xiao 2026.** _Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis._ Frontiers in Pharmacology, 2026. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2026.1766157 PMID: 41859340. - **Zhao 2026.** _Exploratory analysis of prognostic factors and hematologic dynamics in unresectable ESCC treated with concurrent versus interval immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with (chemo)radiotherapy: a multicenter real-world study._ Frontiers in Immunology, 2026. DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2026.1728912 PMID: 41909696. - **Zhou 2026c.** _Efficacy of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors for recurrent/metastatic head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis._ Immunotherapy, 2026. DOI: 10.1080/1750743X.2026.2643939 PMID: 41979190. - **Xi 2026.** _COVID-19 vaccination and clinical outcomes of immune checkpoint inhibitors therapy in cancer patients: a meta-analysis of real-world studies._ Frontiers in Immunology, 2026. DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2026.1807267 PMID: 42079577. - **Chen 2026b.** _Cardiac biomarkers in patients with renal cell carcinoma treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors._ The Oncologist, 2026. DOI: 10.1093/oncolo/oyag079 PMID: 41912436. - **Li 2026a.** _Effect of histology on the efficacy of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis._ Frontiers in Immunology, 2026. DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2026.1850384 PMID: 42317330. - **Rong 2024.** _Incidence and risk factors of immune‐related adverse events induced by immune checkpoint inhibitors among older adults with non‐small cell lung cancer._ Cancer Medicine, 2024. DOI: 10.1002/cam4.6879 PMID: 38164655. - **Lin 2026.** _Age-Adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index Guides Risk Stratification for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients Treated with TACE Combined with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and Targeted Therapy: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study._ Liver Cancer, 2026. DOI: 10.1159/000550356 PMID: 42006604. - **Liu 2026.** _Baseline neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as a prognostic biomarker in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis._ Translational Cancer Research, 2026. DOI: 10.21037/tcr-2025-1-2871 PMID: 42180874. - **Zheng 2026.** _First-line immune checkpoint inhibitors in older adults (≥75 years) with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: efficacy and safety._ Frontiers in Oncology, 2026. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1753874 PMID: 41613527. - **Cao 2026.** _Application of immune checkpoint inhibitors in hepatocellular carcinoma: a landscape analysis of clinical trial databases._ Frontiers in Immunology, 2026. DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2026.1831229 PMID: 42358968. - **Taieb 2025.** _Early ctDNA and Survival in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors._ JAMA Oncology, 2025. DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2025.1646 PMID: 40531517. - **Ebzee 2026.** _Comparative Risks of Pneumonitis Amongst Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Patients with Lung Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials._ Pharmaceuticals, 2026. DOI: 10.3390/ph19020219 PMID: 41754762. - **Li 2026b.** _Association between obesity, sex, medical comorbidities, and survival in cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors._ Journal of Cancer, 2026. DOI: 10.7150/jca.130032 PMID: 42327585. - **Zhang 2026b.** _Efficacy and safety of perioperative immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for locally advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized phase III trials._ Frontiers in Oncology, 2026. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2026.1745875 PMID: 41924604. - **Chiloiro 2026.** _Endocrine toxicities in immune checkpoint inhibitors and tyrosine kinase inhibitors combined treatment: from clinical trials to real-life practice._ Endocrine, 2026. DOI: 10.1007/s12020-026-04635-2 PMID: 42067713. - **Gandara 2025.** _Prognostic value of patient-reported outcomes for survival in patients with advanced lung cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors._ Frontiers in Immunology, 2025. DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2025.1640595 PMID: 41194933. - **Benbrahim 2026.** _Brief report: immune checkpoint inhibitors use in lung cancer: a real-world outcome study in a middle-income country._ BMC Cancer, 2026. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-025-15008-9 PMID: 41588368. - **Zhang 2026c.** _First-line therapies for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a network meta-analysis of immune checkpoint inhibitors and transarterial therapies based on 35 randomized trials._ Frontiers in Oncology, 2026. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2026.1809232 PMID: 42137150. - **Naeem 2026.** _Efficacy and Safety of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis._ Am J Clin Oncol, 2026. DOI: 10.1097/coc.0000000000001278 PMID: 41423761. - **Pouthier 2026.** _Efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in paediatric, adolescent and young adults with primary refractory or relapsed classical Hodgkin lymphoma: A national multicentre real‐world study._ British Journal of Haematology, 2026. DOI: 10.1111/bjh.70379 PMID: 41704060. - **Hsu 2026.** _Brief Report: Real-World Outcomes in Patients Living With Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Lung Cancer Treated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors._ JTO Clinical and Research Reports, 2026. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtocrr.2026.100982 PMID: 42006281. - **Lopez-Beltran 2021.** _Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for the Treatment of Bladder Cancer._ Cancers, 2021. DOI: 10.3390/cancers13010131 PMID: 33401585. - **Guo 2026.** _Current status and trends of immune-related adverse events in lung cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a bibliometric analysis of the past decade (2016–2025)._ Frontiers in Immunology, 2026. DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2026.1846212 PMID: 42311664. - **Ismail 2026.** _Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: efficacy, safety, and biomarkers - a systematic review._ Frontiers in Oncology, 2026. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2026.1789760 PMID: 42245711. - **Yu 2026.** _Efficacy and Safety of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in the Treatment of Hematologic Malignancies: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses._ Cancer Medicine, 2026. DOI: 10.1002/cam4.71880 PMID: 42204802. - **Rouvinov 2026.** _Evaluating the Therapeutic Impact of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in the Management of Brain Metastases from Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer._ Biomedicines, 2026. DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines14030566 PMID: 41898213. - **Darvin 2018.** _Immune checkpoint inhibitors: recent progress and potential biomarkers._ Experimental & Molecular Medicine, 2018. DOI: 10.1038/s12276-018-0191-1 PMID: 30546008.
metadata
{
"article_type": "research_synthesis",
"domain_slug": "longevity",
"researka_object_type": "submission",
"researka_submission_id": "fb7028cd-3269-4ba6-bee0-1409f6cbf056",
"title": "Research Synthesis: Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Rates"
}