ArticlePharmacoepidemiology and drug safety2024
Comparing survival in trial- versus routine-care advanced urothelial cancer patients on immune checkpoint blockade.
Article in Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAlthough recent trials involving first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors have expanded treatment options for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) who are ineligible for standard cisplatin-based chemotherapy, there exists limited evidence for whether trial efficacy translates into real-world effectiveness for patients seen in routine care. This retrospective cohort study compares differences in overall survival (OS) between KEYNOTE-052 trial participants and routine-care patients receiving first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy.
methodsA routine-care patient cohort was constructed from the Flatiron Health database using trial eligibility criteria and was weighted to balance EHR and trial patient characteristics using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons.
resultsThe routine-care cohort was older, more likely to be female, and more often cisplatin-ineligible due to renal dysfunction. ECOG performance status was comparable between the cohorts. Median OS was 9 months (95% CI 7-16) in the weighted routine-care cohort and 11.3 months (9.7-13.1) in the trial cohort. No significant differences between the Kaplan-Meier OS curves were detected (p = 0.76). Survival probabilities were similar between the weighted routine-care and trial cohorts at 12-, 24-, and 36- months (0.45 vs. 0.47, 0.31 vs. 0.31, 0.26 vs. 0.23, respectively). Notably, routine care patients had modestly lower survival at 3 months compared to trial participants (0.69 vs. 0.83, respectively).
conclusionOur results provide reassurance that cisplatin-ineligible aUC patients receiving first-line immunotherapy in routine care experience similar benefits to those observed in trial 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.