ArticleCancers2025
Real-World Comparative Study of Atezolizumab-Based Chemotherapy Regimens in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.
Article in Cancers, 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectiveCarboplatin, pemetrexed, and pembrolizumab are established as a key first-line regimen for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer, although selecting the optimal therapy for each patient remains challenging in real-world clinical practice. This retrospective multicenter study compared the efficacy and safety of two atezolizumab-based combination regimens, ACnP (carboplatin, nab-paclitaxel, atezolizumab) and ABCP (carboplatin, paclitaxel, bevacizumab, atezolizumab), in patients with non-small cell lung cancer in real-world clinical practice.
methodsA total of 91 patients treated between May 2018 and December 2023 at six Japanese hospitals were analyzed: 40 received ACnP and 51 received ABCP. Patient characteristics, treatment outcomes, and adverse events were compared, with subgroup analyses adjusted by inverse probability of treatment weighting using propensity scores.
resultsThe objective response rates were 55.0% with ACnP and 45.1% with ABCP. Median progression-free survival was 5.5 months for ACnP and 6.9 months for ABCP, while median overall survival was 16.2 and 18.3 months, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed significantly improved progression-free survival with ABCP in patients with brain metastases, liver metastases, EGFR-positive tumors, PD-L1-positive tumors, and impaired renal function (CCr < 45 mL/min). ABCP also conferred overall survival benefits in patients with brain and liver metastases. However, ACnP was associated with a lower incidence of neutropenia, peripheral neuropathy, and skin rash.
conclusionsThese findings suggest that ABCP may offer superior efficacy in specific non-small cell lung cancer subgroups, while ACnP remains a valuable option for patients requiring a more tolerable safety profile.
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.