ArticleFrontiers in immunology2025
Immune checkpoint inhibitors continuation beyond progression as second-line treatment for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: a real-world, multicenter analysis.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 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.
- Spleen volume change as a prognostic and immunologic imaging biomarker in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer receiving chemo-immunotherapy.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Optimal management of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) following progression on first-line (1L) chemoimmunotherapy remains undefined. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) continuation in a second-line (2L) treatment setting. Methods: A total of 211 ES-SCLC patients with disease progression after 1L chemoimmunotherapy were analyzed retrospectively after stratifying them into ICIs continuation (n = 118) and ICIs discontinuation (n = 93) cohorts. The primary endpoint was 2L overall survival (2L-OS), and the secondary endpoints included 2L progression-free survival (2L-PFS), objective response rate (2L-ORR), disease control rate (2L-DCR), and safety. Propensity score matching (PSM, 1:1) ensured balanced baseline characteristics. Survival analyses were conducted based on Kaplan-Meier curves. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed to identify the factors associated with 2L-PFS and 2L-OS. Results: ICIs continuation significantly improved 2L-OS (8.66 vs 7.90 months; P = 0.016) and 2L-PFS (3.92 vs. 2.15 months; P < 0.001). The benefits of ICIs continuation persisted after PSM (2L-OS: 10.31 vs. 8.95 months, P = 0.027; 2L-PFS: 4.22 vs.2.12 months, P < 0.001). In addition, the ICIs continuation group demonstrated superior tumor response (2L-ORR: 28.8% vs. 11.8%, P = 0.003; 2L-DCR: 65.3% vs. 44.1%, P = 0.002), which remained significant post-PSM. Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were comparable between the groups, while immune-related AEs were predominantly low grade in the ICIs continuation group. Multivariate analysis revealed that baseline liver metastasis and 1L-PFS were independent risk factors for 2L-PFS and 2L-OS, whereas overweight (BMI 25.0-29.9) was an independent prognostic factor for 2L-OS. The exploratory analysis conducted for the ICIs continuation cohort revealed no significant difference in patient survival between the continuing ICIs treatment group and switching ICIs treatment group (2L-OS: P = 0.668; 2L-PFS: P = 0.346). Conclusion: In patients with ES-SCLC who exhibit disease progression after 1L chemoimmunotherapy, continuation of ICIs significantly improves survival and tumor response while achieving a manageable safety profile. Therefore, ICIs continuation may be considered a viable strategy in 2L settings.
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.