ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2024
PD-(L)1 inhibitors plus bevacizumab and chemotherapy as first-line therapy in PD-L1-negative metastatic lung adenocarcinoma: a real-world data.
Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus bevacizumab plus chemotherapy versus PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a phase 3 RCT based meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- 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 (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Anti-Programmed Cell Death-1 Versus Anti-Programmed Death-Ligand 1 (PD-L1) in PD-L1-Negative Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.World journal of oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChemotherapy combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors (IC), bevacizumab (BC), or both (IBC) is the preferred first-line therapy for PD-L1-negative and oncogenic-driver wild-type metastatic lung adenocarcinoma. However, the optimal strategy is still undetermined.
methodsThis retrospective study enrolled PD-L1-negative metastatic lung adenocarcinoma patients from four cancer centers between January 1, 2018 and June 30, 2022. All the patients received IC, BC, or IBC as the first-line therapies. The efficacy and safety were evaluated.
resultsA total of 205 patients were included, with 60, 83, and 62 patients in IC, BC, and IBC groups, respectively. The baseline characteristics among three groups were well balanced. Patients treated with IBC had the highest objective response rate (ORR) (43.5%) and disease control rate (DCR) (100%) relative to those treated with IC (40.4%, 84.2%) or BC (40.5%, 96.2%) (ORR: P = 0.919, DCR: P < 0.01). Compared with the IC (6.74 m) or BC (8.28 m), IBC treatment significantly improved median progression-free survival (mPFS) (9.53 m, P = 0.005). However, no difference in overall survival (OS) was observed. When stratified by different clinical and molecular information, we found that male gender, ever smoking, wild-type genes mutations, and adrenal metastasis predict superior PFS benefit when treated with IBC. In patients with liver metastasis, IBC or BC treatment displayed better PFS compared with IC. No additional adverse reactions were observed in IBC group compared with other two groups.
conclusionCombined IBC treatment achieved superior DCR and PFS compared with IC or BC in patients with PD-L1-negative metastatic lung adenocarcinoma, while did not increase the adverse events.
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.