ReviewCancers2026
Comparative Efficacy of First-Line Therapeutic Options for ES-SCLC: An Indirect Comparison Using IPDfromKM-Reconstructed Individual Patient Data.
Review in Cancers, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExtensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) carries a poor prognosis, with fewer than 7% of patients surviving for five years. While immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) combined with platinum-etoposide have reshaped first-line treatment, no head-to-head trials exist comparing available regimens, leaving the optimal therapeutic choice undefined.
methodsA systematic literature search identified phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating first-line ICI-based regimens in ES-SCLC. Individual patient data (IPD) were reconstructed from Kaplan-Meier curves using the IPDfromKM algorithm. Indirect treatment comparisons were performed using Cox proportional hazards models, with chemotherapy alone as the common comparator. The indirect comparison of tiragolumab efficacy was unanchored due to the design of the SKYSCRAPER-02 study. Restricted mean survival time (RMST), truncated at 27 months, was calculated as an additional measure of treatment effect.
resultsSix RCTs were included. All ICI-based regimens improved overall survival (OS) compared to chemotherapy alone, except ipilimumab (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.86-1.09). Serplulimab demonstrated the most favorable OS benefit (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.48-0.64; RMST 16.73 months), representing a gain of approximately 4 months over chemotherapy alone and 1.8-2.3 months over atezolizumab and durvalumab. The addition of tiragolumab to atezolizumab plus chemotherapy yielded no significant advantage over atezolizumab alone.
conclusionsThis IPD-based indirect comparison suggests that serplulimab plus chemotherapy may offer the most favorable OS estimates S benefit among first-line ICI regimens for ES-SCLC, while durvalumab and atezolizumab remain effective standards of care. These findings are hypothesis-generating and highlight the need for prospective head-to-head comparative studies.
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.