Impact of pembrolizumab treatment duration on overall survival and prognostic factors in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a nationwide retrospective cohort study
Abstract
Summary Background The efficacy of front-line pembrolizumab has been established in studies that limit treatment duration to 2 years, but decision to stop pembrolizumab after 2 years is often at physician's discretion. ATHENA is a retrospective cohort study using a comprehensive administrative database aimed firstly at exploring the optimal duration of pembrolizumab and secondly real-life prognosis factors in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods Using the French National Health Insurance database (SNDS), we identified patients with incident lung cancer in France from 2015 to 2022. Treatments and patients' characteristics were extracted or inferred from hospital, outpatient care, pharmacy delivery reports. The duration's hazard ratio (HR) was estimated with Cox model weighted by inverse of propensity score to account for confounding. Prognostics factors in first line population were identified with Cox model selected by a LASSO procedure. Findings 391,106 patients with lung cancer were identified, of whom 43,359 received up-front pembrolizumab for an advanced disease. There were 67% (29,040/43,359) of male and the median age at diagnosis was 65 years old. After a median follow-up time of 25.9 months (min–max, [0–97.6]), the median overall survival (OS) after pembrolizumab initiation in first line was 15.7 [CI 95, 15.3–16.0] months. In multivariable analysis, several covariables were independently associated with worse OS, including male sex with…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 391,106 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Safety and efficacy of COVID‐19 vaccines: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of controlled and randomized clinical trials
- Accuracy Comparison between Robot-Assisted Dental Implant Placement and Static/Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies
- Determinants of passive antibody efficacy in SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Cleaning efficacy of EDDY versus ultrasonically-activated irrigation in root canals: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Bonding Efficacy of Universal Resin Adhesives to Zirconia Substrates: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- In vitro antimicrobial activity of extracts and essential oils of Cinnamomum, Salvia, and Mentha spp. against foodborne pathogens: A meta-analysis study
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.