ArticleDiscover oncology2025
Evaluating the safety and efficacy of combination immune checkpoint inhibitors and chemotherapy treatment in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer.
Article in Discover oncology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis research effort was designed to retrospectively analyze the safety and efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) deployed in combination with chemotherapy in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC).
methodsES-SCLC patients diagnosed at Guangzhou Chest Hospital from January 1, 2018, through June 30, 2022, were divided into two groups: an IEP group (administered ICIs with etoposide and platinum-based chemotherapy) and an EP group (chemotherapy only). Median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) served as the primary endpoints for analysis, while secondary endpoints that were assessed included objective response rate (ORR), 1- and 2-year OS, and safety. Subgroup analyses explored sites of metastatic progression and ICI types.
resultsIn total, 102 patients were enrolled, including 33 in the IEP group and 69 in the EP group. The median OS was significantly longer in the IEP group (14.3 vs. 10.8 months, P = 0.028), while the median PFS showed no significant difference (5.9 vs. 5.3 months, P = 0.746). In subgroup analyses, those patients with brain metastases were found to have derived benefit from IEP treatment (median OS 15.9 vs. 8.3 months, hazard ratio [HR], 0.266 [95% CI, 0.087 to 0.817], P = 0.014). The PFS of patients administered PD-L1 inhibitors was longer than that of those administered PD-1 inhibitors (median 7.0 vs. 3.5 months; HR, 0.342 [95% CI, 0.141 to 0.832], P = 0.014). The safety profile of the IEP regimen was favorable, although these patients were more likely to experience immune-related pneumonia (12.1% vs. 1.4%, P = 0.020). Subgroups analyses showed that patients with a history of smoking (HR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.31-0.94) and brain metastases (HR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.09-0.82) were more likely to benefit from IEP treatment.
conclusionThe combination of ICIs and chemotherapy can afford better survival outcomes for ES-SCLC patients, especially in individuals suffering from brain metastases, and they should thus be considered as promising first-line treatment options. However, careful management of immune-related adverse events is crucial.
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.