Pembrolizumab alone or with chemotherapy for PD-L1 positive NSCLC: A network meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
9087 Background: Pembrolizumab (P) has replaced chemotherapy (C) as first-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with tumor PD-L1 expression > / = 50%. Among PD-L1 unselected patients, P+C is superior to C alone. This network meta-analysis compared P alone with P+C in patients with > / = 50% PD-L1 positive NSCLC. Methods: An indirect network was constructed to compare P and P+C through the control arms of the Keynote 024, 189 and 407 (PD-L1 > / = 50% subgroup) trials. Baseline characteristics and chemotherapy outcomes were examined for heterogeneity. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and toxicities including immune-related adverse events (irAE) were extracted from trial results. Toxicity results were unavailable for the PD-L1 > / = 50% subgroups of KN 189 & 407, so overall study results were used. Survival outcomes are expressed as hazard ratios (HRs) or restricted mean survival time (RMST) ratios, and toxicity and ORR as risk difference (RD). Results: 507 patients were included: 154 on P, 430 on C and 483 on P+C. Patient characteristics across trials were similar in age, sex, performance status and smoking history. All trials had similar chemotherapy outcomes (PFS 6, 4.9, 4.8 mos) suggesting similar populations. Network meta-analysis showed no difference between P+C and C alone in OS (HR 0.85, 95%CI 0.45-1.59, p = 0.60) or PFS (HR 0.73, 95%CI 0.48-1.1, p = 0.13), but P+C was associated with higher ORR (+16.9%, 95%CI 0.7-33%, p = 0.04). RMST analysis suggested fewer early PFS events with P+C (0-6 mo RMST ratio 1.25, RMST difference 1.02 mo, p = 0.002), with the difference disappearing at 1 year (0-12 mo RMST ratio 1.16, p = 0.07). No difference in RMST for OS was found. Overall toxicities, hematologic and grade 3-5 toxicities were higher with P+C compared with P alone (table). Conclusions: Among patients with > / = 50% PD-L1 positive NSCLC, P+C did not improve OS or PFS compared with P alone, but was associated with higher ORR. RMST analysis suggested fewer early progression events using P+C. [Table: see text]
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".