ArticleDrug design, development and therapy2026
Ivonescimab Plus Chemotherapy versus Bevacizumab Plus Chemotherapy in EGFR-Mutant Lung Adenocarcinoma After EGFR-TKI Failure: A Two-Center Retrospective Real-World Propensity Score-Matched Study.
Article in Drug design, development and therapy, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ivonescimab plus chemotherapy versus bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in advanced EGFR-mutant lung adenocarcinoma after EGFR-TKI failure, and provide the first real-world head-to-head comparative evidence. Methods: This two-center retrospective propensity score-matched (PSM) study enrolled 390 eligible patients, including 130 receiving ivonescimab plus chemotherapy and 260 receiving bevacizumab plus chemotherapy. A 1:1 PSM was performed to balance baseline confounders. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Results: After PSM, 120 patients were included in each group with balanced characteristics. The ivonescimab group had significantly longer median PFS (7.6 vs 5.9 months, HR=0.77, 95% CI 0.60-0.997, P=0.042) and overall survival (18.0 vs 15.1 months, HR=0.72, 95% CI 0.56-0.94, P=0.010), as well as higher objective response rate (45.0% vs 28.3%, P=0.007) and disease control rate (91.7% vs 81.7%, P=0.023). In exploratory subgroup analysis, patients with PD-L1 TPS≥50% derived the greatest benefit. Safety profiles were comparable between groups. Multivariate analysis confirmed ivonescimab plus chemotherapy as an independent protective factor for both survival endpoints. Conclusion: Compared with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy, ivonescimab plus chemotherapy prolongs survival with manageable safety in this population, and may serve as a potential second-line treatment option. However, given the retrospective observational design, these findings require further prospective validation.
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.