ArticleIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
Pembrolizumab
Article in In vivo (Athens, Greece). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Immunotherapy for advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimThere are limited data on comprehensive assessments of several treatments as second-line therapy against advanced urothelial cancer (UC). The objective of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between advanced UC patients receiving either pembrolizumab (Pem) or combined chemotherapy with gemcitabine and paclitaxel (GP) as second-line therapy. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis study retrospectively analyzed the clinical outcomes of 89 patients with platinum-refractory advanced UC, consisting of 46 and 43 who received Pem and GP therapy, respectively, as second-line treatment.
resultsThere were no significant differences in major clinicopathological parameters between Pem and GP groups. No significant difference in the objective response rate was noted between the two groups. Progression-free survival (PFS) in the Pem group was significantly longer than that in the GP group; however, there was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) between them. Multivariate analyses identified performance status ≤2 and liver metastasis as independent factors associated with poor outcomes in both PFS and OS. The incidence of adverse events in the GP group was significantly higher than that in the Pem group.
conclusionPem could be regarded as standard agent for platinum-refractory advanced UC patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.