ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2026
Reanalysis of LUNAR progression-free survival using reconstructed individual patient data: time-varying treatment effects.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess whether treatment effects in the LUNAR trial are time-varying and to contextualize a single hazard ratio (HR) using complementary, clinically interpretable summaries of when and for how long separation is supported by available information, in a secondary methodological reassessment.
methodsIndividual patient data were reconstructed by digitalizing published progression-free survival (PFS) Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves. Proportional hazards (PH) were assessed, and treatment effects were summarized using Fleming-Harrington weighted log-rank tests, a piecewise Cox summary, and restricted mean survival time (RMST) at a priori horizons.
resultsThe reconstructed and published KM curves closely matched the trajectories, and the reconstructed Cox HR was consistent with the published HR. PH diagnostics suggested non-proportional hazards (global Schoenfeld test p = 0.001). The early-weighted Fleming-Harrington test showed the strongest separation (χ
conclusionThis reconstruction-based, hypothesis-generating reanalysis supported the primary inference of PFS benefit while suggesting time-varying effects. Weighted tests, piecewise summaries, and RMST may provide interpretable complements to a single HR. Late follow-up interpretation remains uncertain because of sparse late risk sets and events.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41986776What 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.