ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Impact of post-resistance molecular retesting strategies on treatment timeliness and clinical outcomes in EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC: a real-world study.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
Objective: To evaluate the association of ctDNA-based molecular retesting with treatment timeliness and clinical outcomes in patients with advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC after first-line EGFR-TKI resistance. Patients and methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients with advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC who had radiologically confirmed progression after first-line EGFR-TKIs between 2019 and 2024. Patients were classified as no retesting (n=86), tissue NGS (n=94), or ctDNA testing (n=49). Primary endpoints were second-line progression-free survival (2L-PFS) and overall survival from initiation of second-line therapy (2L-OS). Secondary endpoints included time to treatment initiation (TTI) and treatment patterns. Survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods; Cox models were used for exploratory subgroup analyses. A 1:1:1 propensity score-matched analysis and sensitivity analyses restricted to patients who initiated second-line therapy within 28 or 30 days after progression were performed. Results: Among 229 patients, median TTI was shorter with ctDNA than tissue NGS (11.0 vs. 20.5 days, P < 0.001). Subsequent targeted therapy was most frequently used in the ctDNA group (95.9%), followed by the tissue NGS (89.4%) and no-retesting groups (81.4%; P = 0.039). After matching, median 2L-PFS was 5.0, 9.0, and 9.0 months in the no-retesting, tissue NGS, and ctDNA groups, respectively (overall P = 0.005). Median 2L-OS was 12.0, 20.0, and 19.0 months, respectively (overall P = 0.074). No significant differences in 2L-PFS or 2L-OS were observed between ctDNA and tissue NGS, and findings were consistent in 28- and 30-day sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: Compared with tissue NGS, ctDNA testing was associated with shorter TTI, with no significant differences in 2L-PFS or 2L-OS. The ctDNA group had the highest observed targeted therapy use.
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.