ArticleClinical lung cancer2026
Real-World Effectiveness of Second-Line Therapies in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Insights From Propensity-Weighted Comparative Analyses of Longitudinal EHR Data.
Article in Clinical lung cancer, 2026. 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.
- Capturing durable benefits: interpreting six-year treatment-free survival and restricted mean survival time in CheckMate 227.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
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
backgroundWhile substantial research has focused on first-line (1L) therapies for advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC), less is known about the effectiveness of second-line (2L) treatments following disease progression on 1L. The poor prognosis after 1L progression, limited guidance for 2L treatment, and constraints of clinical trials in addressing these questions underscore the need for real-world comparative effectiveness research.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis to compare real-world overall survival (rwOS) associated with 2L treatments among patients with disease progression during 1L. Eligible patients were selected from Flatiron Health's nationwide electronic health record (EHR)-derived de-identified database. 1L and 2L treatments were categorized as chemotherapy-only (Chemo-alone), combination chemo- and immunotherapy (Chemo + Immuno), immunotherapy-only (IO-alone), targeted-alone therapy, or targeted-plus therapy. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting to adjust for extensive static and longitudinal patient-level confounding and compared rwOS using Kaplan-Meier curves and restricted mean survival time (RMST).
resultsAmong patients previously treated with 1L Targeted therapy, those receiving 2L Targeted-alone therapy had longer life expectancies than those receiving a nontargeted (ΔRMST-36 + 2.61 months) or Targeted-plus regimen (ΔRMST-36 + 3.11 months). For patients progressing on 1L Chemo + Immuno, 2L Chemo + Immuno outperformed Chemo-alone (ΔRMST-36 + 2.98 months). Among patients progressing ≥1 year after initiating 1L IO-alone, 2L Chemo + Immuno again showed better life expectancy than Chemo-alone (ΔRMST-36 + 5.70 months).
conclusionsLongitudinal real-world data can enhance assessment of 2L therapy effectiveness. After confounder adjustment, we found clinically meaningful survival differences by 2L choice. These findings underscore the importance of 2L treatment selection and the need for prospective validation.
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.