ArticleOncology letters2025
Immunotherapy beyond progression following first‑line chemotherapy plus immunotherapy in advanced non‑small cell lung cancer: A retrospective study.
Article in Oncology letters, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Immunotherapy has paved the way for new treatment options for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, for patients who have progressed following first-line immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy, little is known about the benefits of the continuation of immunotherapy. Thus, the current study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of immunotherapy beyond progression (IBP) in patients with advanced NSCLC. A retrospective review of patients with advanced NSCLC who experienced disease progression after receiving a combination of ICIs and chemotherapy was conducted. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to estimate progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) times, and log-rank tests were employed to compare inter-group differences. Cox regression analyses were performed to identify independent factors associated with OS and PFS. In total, 136 patients who had disease progression after prior immunotherapy were included. A comparison of patients who were treated with ICIs after disease progression (IBP group) and those who received other treatments (non-IBP group) demonstrated a higher disease control rate after second-line treatment for the IBP group (89.8 vs. 70.8%, respectively; P=0.005). Kaplan-Meier curve analysis showed statistical differences in PFS2 (interval from the second-line treatment to progression or death for any reason; P=0.012) and OS (P=0.041). Subgroup analyses indicated superior clinical outcomes for the IBP group. Multivariate analyses revealed IBP to be an independent factor associated with improved PFS2 (hazard ratio, 0.613; 95% confidence interval, 0.403-0.933; P=0.022). In conclusion, favorable clinical outcomes for IBP were observed, and IBP remains a viable choice for patients with advanced NSCLC.
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.