Efficacy of PD-(L)1 blockade monotherapy compared with PD-(L)1 blockade plus chemotherapy in first-line PD-L1-positive advanced lung adenocarcinomas: a cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Single-agent PD-(L)1 blockade (IO) alone or in combination with chemotherapy (Chemotherapy-IO) is approved first-line therapies in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinomas (LUADs) with PD-L1 expression ≥1%. These regimens have not been compared prospectively. The primary objective was to compare first-line efficacies of single-agent IO to Chemotherapy-IO in patients with advanced LUADs. Secondary objectives were to explore if clinical, pathological, and genomic features were associated with differential response to Chemotherapy-IO versus IO. METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study. Inclusion criteria were patients with advanced LUADs with tumor PD-L1 ≥1% treated with first-line Chemotherapy-IO or IO. To compare the first-line efficacies of single-agent IO to Chemotherapy-IO, we conducted inverse probability weighted Cox proportional hazards models using estimated propensity scores. RESULTS: The cohort analyzed included 866 patients. Relative to IO, Chemotherapy-IO was associated with improved objective response rate (ORR) (44% vs 35%, p=0.007) and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with tumor PD-L1≥1% (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97, p=0.021) or PD-L1≥50% (ORR 55% vs 38%, p<0.001; PFS HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.87, p=0.002). Using propensity-adjusted analyses, only never-smokers in the PD-L1≥50% subgroup derived a differential survival benefit from Chemotherapy-IO vs IO (p=0.013). Among patients with very high tumor PD-L1 expression (≥90%), there were no differences in outcome between treatment groups. No genomic factors conferred differential survival benefit to Chemotherapy-IO versus IO. CONCLUSIONS: While the addition of chemotherapy to PD-(L)1 blockade increases the probability of initial response, never-smokers with tumor PD-L1≥50% comprise the only population identified that derived an apparent survival benefit with treatment intensification.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".