TABLE 1.

The characteristics of studies included in this meta-analysis.

Author, year	Country	Phase	Line	Tumour	Sample size		Interventions		Median follow-up (weeks)
					Experimental	Control	Experimental	Control
Boku, 2021	USA	III	2L, 3L	GEJ, G	330	163	Nivolumab	Placebo	5.3	4.1
Janjigian, 2021	USA	III	1L	E, GEJ, G	789	792	Nivolumab + Chemotherapy	Chemotherapy	13.8	11.6
Kang, 2022	South Korea	III	1L	GEJ, G	362	362	Nivolumab + Chemotherapy	Placebo + Chemotherapy	17.45	17.15
Shitara, 2020	Spain	III	1L	GEJ, G	257; 256	250	Pembrolizumab + Chemotherapy; Pembrolizumab	Placebo + Chemotherapy	12.5a, 12.3c; 10.6a, 17.4c	11.1a, 10.8c
Sun, 2021	South Korea	III	1L	E, GEJ	373	376	Pembrolizumab + Chemotherapy	Placebo + Chemotherapy	12.4	9.8
Doki, 2022	Japan	III	1L	E	321	324	Nivolumab + Chemotherapy	Chemotherapy	13.2	10.7
Wang, 2022	China	III	1L	E	257	257	Toripalimab + Chemotherapy	Placebo + Chemotherapy	17	11
Luo, 2021	China	III	1L	E	298	298	Camrelizumab + Chemotherapy	Placebo + Chemotherapy	15.3	12.0
Chung, 2022	South Korea	III	2L	GEJ, G	47	47	Pembrolizumab	Chemotherapy	8	8
Fuchs, 2022	USA	III	2L	GEJ, G	294	296	Pembrolizumab	Chemotherapy	9.1a, 10.4b,c	8.3a,b, 10.8c
Bang, 2018	South Korea	III	3L	GEJ, G	185	186	Avelumab + BSC	Chemotherapy + BSC	4.6	5.0
Moehler, 2021	Germany	III	1L	GEJ, G	249	250	Avelumab	Chemotherapy + BSC	10.4	10.9
Kojima, 2020	Japan	III	1L	E, GEJ	314	314	Pembrolizumab	Chemotherapy	7.1	7.1
Huang, 2020	China	III	2L	E	228	220	Camrelizumab	Chemotherapy	8.3	6.2
Okada, 2022	Japan	III	2L	E	210	209	Nivolumab	Chemotherapy	10.9	8.5
Xu, 2022	China	II	2L	E	95	95	Sintilimab	Chemotherapy	7.2	6.2

1L, first line; 2L, second line; 3L, third line; E, esophageal cancer; GEJ, gastroesophageal junction cancer; G, gastric cancer; BSC, best supportive care; PD-L1, programmed death ligand-1; CPS, PD-L1 combined positive score.

^aMedian follow-up duration in patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1.

^bMedian follow-up duration in patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 5.

^cMedian follow-up duration in patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10.