ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
First-line treatment options for PD-L1-negative lung adenocarcinoma: a real-world analysis.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A radiotherapy-related fibrosis gene signature-based risk model for predicting prognosis and immunological features in lung adenocarcinoma.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the optimal first-line treatment options for programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) negative lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) patients without common gene-alterations. Methods: A total of 159 PD-L1-negative LUAD patients without common gene-alterations were included. Chemotherapy was administered in 44 cases (group A), immunotherapy-chemotherapy combinations in 55 cases (group B) and bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in 60 patients (group C). A head-to-head comparison of the clinical effectiveness and safety for these standard treatment regimens was conducted. Results: The median follow-up time was 30.9 months. For the entire cohort, median PFS was 6.67 months [95% CI 5.83-7.51], and median OS was 15.83 months [95% CI 13.46-18.21]. OS was significantly longer in group C versus others (C vs B median 21.6 months [95% CI 17.78-25.42] vs 12.63 months [95% CI 8.14-17.13]; HR 0.59 [95% CI 0.39-0.9], P = 0.01; C vs A median 21.6 months [95% CI 17.78-25.42] vs 13.47 months [95% CI 9.68-17.26], HR 0.47 [95% CI 0.3-0.71], P= 0.001), but no substantial difference was noted between group A and B (HR 0.78 [95% CI 0.51-1.2], P= 0.26). For PFS in pairwise comparison, group B and C were statistically superior to group A (B vs A median 5.6 months [95% CI 4.56-6.64] vs 5.17 months [95% CI 4.09-6.25]; hazard ratio (HR) 0.56 [95% CI 0.37-0.87], P = 0.009; C vs A median 8.57 months [95% CI 7.47-9.66] vs 5.17 months [95% CI 4.09-6.25]; HR 0.43 [95% CI 0.28-0.7], P< 0.001), whereas no significant difference was found between group B and C (HR 0.76 [95% CI 0.51-1.11], P= 0.16). The disease control rate (DCR) improvement was sustained with group C (A vs B vs C: 84.09% vs 83.64% vs 96.67%, respectively (P<0.05)). Multivariate analysis showed that the performance status score and treatment regimen were factors influencing PFS as well as OS. The treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) of grade 3-4 occurred in a similar proportion of patients in each group (P>0.05), and all AEs were manageable without fatal toxicities. Conclusions: Bevacizumab plus chemotherapy should be prioritized in PD-L1-negative LUAD patients without common driver gene alterations. These findings may facilitate individualized treatment options.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.