Pembrolizumab Every 6 Weeks Versus Every 3 Weeks in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The survival benefits and adverse effects of pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg intravenously (IV) every 3 weeks (Q3W) in advanced non-small lung cancer (NSCLC) are well documented in the literature. Based on pharmacokinetic models, a pembrolizumab 4 mg/kg IV every 6 weeks (Q6W) dosing regimen is also approved in some countries. To date, there is no direct comparison in the literature between these 2 regimens in advanced NSCLC. METHODS: This retrospective study included 80 patients with advanced NSCLC who received pembrolizumab monotherapy 4 mg/kg Q6W between March 1, 2020 and December 31, 2021 and 80 patients with advanced NSCLC who received pembrolizumab monotherapy 2 mg/kg Q3W between January 1, 2017 and January 15, 2019 at Institut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec (IUCPQ). The primary outcomes of this study were to compare overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) as well as the occurrence and severity of immune-mediated adverse events (AEs) in patients with advanced NSCLC who received pembrolizumab Q6W vs Q3W. Data cutoff date was December 15, 2022. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 14.5 ± 8.6 months in the Q6W group and 18.3 ± 19.6 months in the Q3W group. Median PFS was 6.9 months (CI 95% 5.0-10.7) in the Q6W group vs 8.9 months (CI 95% 5.6-14.1) in the Q3W group (adjusted HR 1.27 (CI 95% 0.85-1.89), P = .25). Median OS was not reached in the Q6W group vs 20.5 months (CI 95% 13.7-29.8) in the Q3W group (adjusted HR 0.80 (CI 95% 0.50-1.29), P = .36). Immune-mediated AEs of grade ≥ 3 occurred in 18% of patients in the Q6W group and in 19% of those in the Q3W group. CONCLUSIONS: In this unicentric retrospective study, the pembrolizumab Q6W dosing regimen was comparable to the Q3W in terms of OS, PFS, and toxicity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".