SynthesisBMC pulmonary medicine2026
The optimal duration of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review of clinical trials.
Synthesis in BMC pulmonary medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) offer hope for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer; however, there is no consensus on the optimal course of treatment. This study aims to evaluate the optimal duration of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.
methodA systematic search of published studies was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP databases until January 2026. Retrieved articles were screened for final inclusion and relevant data were extracted, including median progression-free survival (mPFS), median overall survival (mOS), 1-year overall survival rate (%), 2-year overall survival rate (OS) (%), 1-year progression-free survival (%), 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) (%).
resultsSix studies were included: four cohort studies, one RCT, and one single-arm study. One cohort study showed no significant difference in OS between the two-year and greater-than-two-year groups. Another cohort study showed superior 1-year OS and PFS rates in the two-year ICI group compared to the less than two-year group. A third cohort study found that ICI use for greater than or equal to one year was superior to less than one year in terms of mPFS and mOS. In the fourth cohort study, compared to the 6–18 month group, the ≥ 18 month group demonstrated no significant difference in mPFS, but mOS was better.The RCT indicated that continuous ICI treatment was better than a 1-year fixed regimen in mPFS, mOS, 1-year and 2-year OS rates (%), and 1-year and 2-years PFS rates (%). The single-arm study reported 1-year and 2-year OS and PFS rates for patients treated with ICIs for more than 18 months. Only one study evaluated safety. The RCT reported a higher risk of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), including grade 3 or higher TRAEs and TRAEs leading to treatment discontinuation, in the continuous treatment group compared to the 1-year fixed treatment group.
conclusionsIn patients who respond to ICI and have received treatment for more than a year, good antitumor efficacy and safety were demonstrated.However, for patients who have been continuously receiving ICI treatment for more than two years, no significant difference in OS benefit seems to be observed.
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.