ArticleThe oncologist2025
Safety and clinical outcomes of pembrolizumab standard-interval dosing versus extended-interval dosing in patients with breast cancer.
Article in The oncologist, 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.
- Toward adaptive therapeutic timing: integration of mechanistic pharmacology and artificial intelligence in precision dosing.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionExtended-interval (EI) dosing of pembrolizumab (400 mg IV every 6 weeks) was approved across all solid tumors based on pharmacokinetic modeling and exposure-response analyses. Although EI dosing is more convenient for patients, whether the higher dose and extended dosing interval impacts immune-related adverse events (irAE) and clinical outcomes in patients with breast cancer is unknown.
methodsIn this retrospective cohort study, patients with breast cancer treated with pembrolizumab between 2017 and 2024 were included. Safety (irAE) and clinical outcomes including event-free survival (EFS), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between patients who received only standard-interval (SI) dosing (200 mg IV every 3 weeks) pembrolizumab and those who received ≥ 1 cycle of EI dosing.
resultsOf the 355 patients included, 59 (17%) received ≥ 1 cycle of EI and 296 (83%) received ≥ 1 cycle of only SI. Of those who received ≥ 1 cycle of pembrolizumab EI, 27 (45.8%) started with 200 mg, 7 (11.9%) started with 400 mg, 9 (15.2%) received only 400 mg, and 16 (27.1%) switched between dosing schedules. The majority (71%) of patients had early-stage disease, and 92% had triple-negative breast cancer. In patients with early-stage disease, rates of any-grade irAE were similar (p = 0.3), while grade 3 or higher irAE was lower in EI dosing versus SI (4% vs. 20%; p = 0.01). EFS and OS were similar between the two dosing regimens (p = 0.8 and p = 0.5, respectively). In patients with metastatic disease, any-grade irAE (p = 0.5), grade 3 or higher irAE (p = 0.1), PFS (p = 0.8), and OS (p = 0.5) were similar between the dosing regimens.
conclusionIn this real-world study in which patients were often switched to EI dosing after initial SI therapy, safety and efficacy of EI dosing were maintained in patients with breast cancer. As more patients are treated with EI dosing, this data provides new evidence that switching to EI dosing is safe and effective, while improving medication burden for patients.
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.