ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Composite patient-reported outcomes and risk prediction for overall survival in advanced non-small cell lung cancer with first-line cemiplimab.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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.
- RoboticJournal of thoracic disease · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are associated with overall survival (OS) in advanced cancer. Risk modeling of OS based on a single PRO scale was previously evaluated in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in two pivotal cemiplimab ± chemotherapy phase III trials. Here we report evaluation of predictive performance for a composite of two PRO scales. Methods: Data from two previously published phase III clinical trials (EMPOWER-Lung 1 and EMPOWER-Lung 3) were used to develop a Cox proportional hazards model evaluating the association between baseline PRO burden and OS, stratified by treatment, histology, and programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) level. PRO data were collected using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13) modules. Single-scale PROs and composite PROs based on a combination of one functioning and one symptom scale were evaluated for prognostic value for OS using hazard ratios (HRs; a higher HR indicates a higher risk of death). Results: The top 10 composite PROs that predicted the highest risk for death (nominal Discussion: In patients with advanced NSCLC receiving first-line cemiplimab-based therapy, composite PROs consisting of one functioning and one symptom scale had greater prognostic value than single PRO scales. Further development and analysis of composite PROs for clinical trials is warranted.
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.