ArticleCureus2026
Efficacy and Safety of Low-Dose Versus Standard-Dose Immunotherapy in Advanced Solid Tumours: A Retrospective Real-World Study From a Resource-Constrained Setting.
Article in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Immunotherapy (IO) has revolutionised cancer treatment but is fairly expensive. This has prompted interest in the use of low-dose (LD) IO and is an area of active research. This study retrospectively evaluates the efficacy, safety, and survival outcomes of LD and regular-dose (RD) IO in advanced malignancies. Methods A total of 53 patients with advanced (n = 2) or metastatic (n = 51) solid malignancies received IO between November 2021 and January 2024 at a tertiary care centre in Northern India. Patients received either LD (n = 42) or RD (n = 11) IO regimens, alone or in combination with other therapies. Treatment outcomes were assessed using the Immune-modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (imRECIST) criteria, including progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity profiles. Results The overall response rate (ORR) was 52.3% in the LD group and 54.5% in the RD group. Clinical benefit rates (CBR) were 61.9% and 54.5%, respectively. Median PFS was 7.97 months (LD) versus 8.73 months (RD), and median OS was 13.26 months (LD) versus 9.6 months (RD). Log-rank comparison did not reach statistical significance for either PFS or OS. As the RD cohort comprised only 11 cases, the study was not powered for comparative inference, and the numerically similar outcomes between groups should not be interpreted as evidence of equivalence. Durable complete responses (CRs) exceeding one year were observed in bladder, renal, and triple-negative breast cancers with LD. While favourable responses were also seen in other cancers across both cohorts, Grade ≥3 toxicities occurred in 2 of 42 patients (4.8%) in the LD group and 2 of 11 patients (18.2%) in the RD group and were manageable in both cohorts. Conclusions LD IO demonstrated good efficacy and safety across multiple tumour types in the real world, especially for malignancies such as bladder, renal, breast, and certain gastrointestinal and head and neck cancers. These findings support the feasibility of LD IO in resource-constrained settings and provide a preliminary rationale for adequately powered prospective studies to formally evaluate dose optimisation strategies in IO.
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.