ArticleZhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer2024
[Real-world Study of the Safety and Efficacy of Pembrolizumab in the Treatment of Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer].
Article in Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPembrolizumab (PEM) has been shown to be effective in clinical trials for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but clinical trials were based on cohorts of patients selected on specific criteria, and whether the findings are consistent with real-world patients is debatable. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PEM in the treatment of advanced NSCLC based on real-world data.
methodsA retrospective collection of real-world data from patients with advanced NSCLC receiving PEM was conducted. Propensity score matching was used to eliminate inter-group differences and assess the efficacy and safety of PEM compared to chemotherapy.
resultsAmong 450 matched patients, the incidence rates of any-grade adverse events were 79.87% in the PEM group and 86.71% in the chemotherapy group, while the incidence rates of grade ≥3 adverse events were 4.03% and 7.31%, respectively. The objective response rates were 48.63% for PEM and 36.00% for chemotherapy (P=0.011). The median progression-free survival was 15.5 months for PEM and 8.8 months for chemotherapy (P<0.001), and the median overall survival was not reached for PEM and 26.2 months for chemotherapy (P<0.001).
conclusionsPEM treatment for advanced NSCLC demonstrates favorable survival outcomes and acceptable safety in real-world clinical practice.
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.