ArticleFuture oncology (London, England)2025
Second line advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer treatment after chemo-immunotherapy: a retrospective study.
Article in Future oncology (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the shift to immunotherapy (IO) in first-line (1L) treatment for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC), this study aims to describe second-line (2L) treatment patterns and outcomes.
methodsThis retrospective study examined 2L outcomes in patients with stage IIIB-IV, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-/anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) wild-type aNSCLC who started 1L therapy between 2016 and 2019 and received subsequent 2L therapy. Follow-up continued through November 2020. Subgroups included: 2L IO, 2L non-IO, and IO re-challenge (1L and 2L).
resultsA total of 194 patients initiated 2L therapy; 93 received IO (12 also in 1L), and 101 did not. For IO and non-IO, respectively: overall response rate (ORR) was 28.0% and 25.7%; median follow-up was 23.7 and 20.0 months; median realworld progression-free survival (rwPFS) was 8.4 and 5.1 months (
conclusionsrwPFS and OS were consistent with clinical trials of 2L IO regimens. The few patients who received IO in 1L and 2L had favorable rwPFS and OS. Future research on sequential IO therapies in 1L and 2L aNSCLC is warranted.
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.