ArticleThe oncologist2026
Comparison of 6 cycles with 4 cycles of chemotherapy and atezolizumab in the first-line treatment of ES-SCLC: a retrospective multicenter analysis.
Article in The oncologist, 2026. 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
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimIMpower133 was designed with 4 cycles of chemoimmunotherapy with atezolizumab, unlike many other studies permitted 6-cycle induction. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of a 4-cycle regimen with an extended 6-cycle regimen of carboplatin, etoposide, and atezolizumab in the first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC).
methodsThis retrospective multicenter study was conducted across 13 oncology centers in Turkey. A total of 181 patients with ES-SCLC who received first-line treatment with chemotherapy plus atezolizumab were analyzed and grouped into those receiving 4 cycles (n = 101) and 6 cycles (n = 80) of treatment.
resultsThe median follow-up time was 20.9 months. The objective response rates were similar between the 4- and 6-cycle groups (79.2% vs 78.8%, P = .940). The disease control rates were also comparable (84.2% vs 86.3%, P = .940). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.3 months in the 4-cycle and 8.1 months in the 6-cycle group (P = .357). The median overall survival (OS) was 16.6 months for the 4-cycle and 13.6 months for the 6-cycle group (P = .583). Intracranial progression was higher in the 4-cycle group (50.0% vs 25.5%, P = .007). Immune-related adverse events were similar between the groups.
conclusionThis is one of the largest real-world datasets comparing the efficacy and safety of 4 versus 6 cycles of induction chemoimmunotherapy. Although there were no significant improvements in PFS or OS, the 6-cycle regimen was associated with a lower observed rate of intracranial progression, predominantly among patients without baseline brain metastases. Further studies are needed to identify this subject in future.
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.