Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42433249›Full record

ArticleTranslational lung cancer research2026

Prognostic analysis and beneficiary population exploration of subsequent treatment regimens after third-generation EGFR-TKIs failure in EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a retrospective cohort study.

Zipeng Wu, Tianyi Liu, Ruofan Yu, Jingwen Li, Shuyi Hu, Caolu Liu, Xinyu Du, Xinhong Shi, Yingying Dai, Lin Lu and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational lung cancer research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Zipeng Wu *Department of Medical Oncology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital, Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research, Nanjing, China.
Tianyi Liu *Department of Radiation Oncology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital, Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research, Nanjing, China.
Ruofan Yu *Department of Medical Oncology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital, Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research, Nanjing, China.
Jingwen Li *Department of Medical Oncology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital, Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research, Nanjing, China.
Shuyi Hu *Department of Medical Oncology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital, Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research, Nanjing, China.
Caolu LiuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital, Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research, Nanjing, China.
Xinyu DuDepartment of Medical Oncology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital, Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research, Nanjing, China.
Xinhong ShiDepartment of Medical Oncology, Chongqing University Three Gorges Hospital, Chongqing, China.
Yingying DaiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital, Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research, Nanjing, China.
Lin LuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
Yuxin MaDepartment of Medical Oncology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital, Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research, Nanjing, China.
Yingying JiangDepartment of Oncology, Geriatric Hospital of Nangjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Yue ShiDepartment of Medical Oncology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital, Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research, Nanjing, China.
Guoren ZhouDepartment of Medical Oncology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital, Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research, Nanjing, China.
Cheng ChenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital, Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research, Nanjing, China.
Jiamin ShiDepartment of Medical Oncology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital, Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research, Nanjing, China.
Ning DingDepartment of Oncology, Huishan People Hospital, Wuxi, China.
Xiaohua WangDepartment of Medical Oncology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital, Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research, Nanjing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Lung cancer accounts for the highest cancer-related mortality worldwide. Third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) show significant efficacy in the treatment of lung cancer with EGFR mutations, but resistance inevitably occurs. Although immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment regimens have expanded post-resistance therapeutic options, head-to-head comparisons of diverse subsequent strategies and precise identification of beneficiary populations remain insufficient. This leads to inconsistent clinical decision-making. This study aimed to explore the efficacy of different subsequent treatment regimens and identify beneficiary populations for each regimen in patients at our center with resistance to third-generation EGFR-TKIs. Methods: The retrospective study enrolled 225 patients at Jiangsu Cancer Hospital from 2017 to 2023. All patients had pathologically confirmed EGFR-mutant lung adenocarcinoma and received multi-line subsequent treatment after third-generation EGFR-TKIs resistance. Patients were classified into an ICI (I+O) group (N=131) and a No ICIs group (N=94), further divided into immunotherapy plus bevacizumab plus chemotherapy (IBC), immunotherapy plus anlotinib (IA), immunotherapy plus chemotherapy (IC), bevacizumab plus chemotherapy (BC), chemotherapy alone (C), and Based on mutation subgroups. Baseline characteristics were compared using Chi-squared tests. Survival outcomes [progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS)] were analyzed via Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression was used to adjust for potential confounding variables. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression and Cox proportional hazard models were applied to screen prognostic factors. All follow-up data were analyzed using right-censoring methods. The cut-off date for the last follow-up was March 31, 2025. Results: The median progression-free survival (mPFS) of the I+O group (9.10 months) was significantly better than that of the No ICIs group (7.15 months, P<0.001); however, no significant difference in median overall survival (mOS) was observed between two groups. Among all subgroups, the IBC subgroup achieved the longest mPFS (11.40 months), which was significantly longer than that of the other subgroups. After multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression, its PFS remained significantly prolonged compared with other groups. Its disease control rate (DCR) reached 92.4%, while its objective response rate (ORR) was 29.11%. The statistical analyses revealed that in the IBC subgroup, patients aged 51-79 years, those receiving third-generation EGFR-TKIs monotherapy, and those without baseline liver metastasis derived the greatest treatment benefit. In the BC subgroup, patients without baseline liver metastasis derived the greatest treatment benefit (mPFS =8.50 months). In the IA subgroup, patients aged 51-79 years derived the greatest treatment benefit (mPFS =9.30 months). In the IC subgroup, male patients (mPFS =8.50 months) and patients with body mass index (BMI) >23.9 kg/m2 (mPFS =9.00 months) derived the greatest treatment benefit. Conclusions: In conclusion, the IBC regimen presents a favorable PFS trend in real-world post-resistance management. Each sequential treatment corresponds to unique beneficiary baseline features. Individualized regimen selection may improve clinical prognosis. Given the single-center retrospective nature and limited sample size of certain subgroups, these observational trends require further validation in large-scale prospective studies.

Indexed as

drug resistanceimmunotherapyNon-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)precision therapythird-generation epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (third-generation EGFR-TKIs)

Identifiers

PMID42433249
PMCPMC13351949

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.