PERSEE: Pembro + Chemo PFS HR 0.56 vs Pembro, PD-L1 ≥50% NSCLC (ESMO 2026)

Q: What is the PERSEE trial?

PERSEE (GFPC 01-2020, NCT04547504) is an academic, open-label, randomized phase 3 trial run at 28 centers in France. It compared pembrolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy with pembrolizumab alone as first-line treatment in 321 patients with advanced NSCLC, PD-L1 ≥50% and no EGFR, ALK or ROS1 alteration. Design: Trial Design.

Q: What did PERSEE show at ESMO 2026?

The primary endpoint was met: PFS by blinded central review was 16.1 vs 6.9 months (HR 0.56; P<0.001). Overall survival, a secondary endpoint the trial was not powered for, was 50.2 vs 29.9 months (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.56–1.05), not statistically significant. Figures: At a Glance.

Q: Did patients with PD-L1 90% or higher also benefit from adding chemotherapy?

In the descriptive PD-L1 90–100% subgroup (109 patients), median PFS was 25.4 vs 7.1 months, HR 0.6 (95% CI 0.36–1). Subgroup results are descriptive and were not formally tested. Values: At a Glance.

Q: Are pembrolizumab alone and pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy FDA approved for this population?

Yes, both are FDA-approved first-line options. KEYTRUDA (pembrolizumab) is approved as a single agent for NSCLC with PD-L1 TPS ≥1% and no EGFR or ALK aberrations, and in combination with pemetrexed and platinum (nonsquamous) or carboplatin and paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel (squamous) for metastatic NSCLC. PERSEE compared these two strategies head to head; it did not lead to a new approval.

Q: How much more toxic was the combination?

Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 54% with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy vs 19% with pembrolizumab alone; grade ≥3 immune-related adverse events were 13% in each arm, and 48% of patients stopped chemotherapy because of adverse events. Details: At a Glance.

Q: Did the pembrolizumab-alone arm underperform?

Physicians debated this after the presentation (see Discussion Threads). The authors report that the median PFS of 6.9 months with pembrolizumab alone is consistent with KEYNOTE-024 at 5-year follow-up (7.7 months) and KEYNOTE-042 (7.1 months).

Endpoint (DCO Apr 7, 2026)	Pembro + chemo (N=160)	Pembro alone (N=161)	Effect (95% CI)
ORR by blinded central review	77.5% (124)	50.3% (81)	OR 3.48 (2.15–5.72)
Early progression at the first 6-week scan (exploratory)	5.8% (9/154)	26.5% (41/155)	OR 0.17 (0.07–0.35)
Median duration of response	30.0 mo (13.1–NR)	15.6 mo (9.8–32.8)	HR 0.88 (0.60–1.29), Annals; abstract: 0.86 (0.59–1.24)
Median PFS2 (exploratory)	39.5 mo (26.2–NR)	15.9 mo (13.2–29.9)	HR 0.68 (0.5–0.91)

Safety population, n (%) (DCO Apr 7, 2026)	Pembro + chemo (n=158)	Pembro alone (n=159)
Treatment-related AEs, any grade	149 (94)	119 (75)
Treatment-related AEs, grade ≥3	86 (54)	31 (19)
Treatment-related AEs, grade 5	3 (1.9)	3 (1.9)
Immune-related AEs, grade ≥3	21 (13)	20 (13)
AEs leading to pembrolizumab discontinuation	44 (28)	38 (24)
AEs leading to chemotherapy discontinuation	76 (48)	—

Influence Leaders

Top KOLs Discussing PERSEE

The presenter, Chantal Decroisette, MD, and the invited discussant, Benjamin Levy, MD, first, followed by the physicians whose PERSEE posts drew the most views. Their posts are in Discussion Threads and Physician Reactions below.

Masahiro TORASAWA, MD. PhD.

Conference Presentations

PERSEE Key Slides & Visuals

ESMO 2026 slides

The 2614O presentation (presenter: Chantal Decroisette, MD) and the discussion by Benjamin Levy, MD, as photographed and shared on X by physicians during the October 25 session, plus the Annals of Oncology graphical abstract and figures and the abstract. Survival curves are summarized in number tables under the slides. Click any image to view it full size, and open the transcribed text under each group. All ESMO 2026 PERSEE slides in the KOL Pulse slide library →

Dr Rishabh Jain @DrRishabhOnco

PERSEE (GFPC 01-2020) · ESMO 2026 slides

Oct 25, 2026 · ESMO 2026

View on X ↗

🚨 PD-L1 ≥50% NSCLC: Is pembrolizumab alone enough? 🔥 PERSEE Phase III | #ESMO26 Pembrolizumab + chemotherapy vs pembrolizumab alone: 📊 PFS: 16.1 vs 6.9 months (HR 0.56; p<0.001) 📊 OS: 50.2 vs 29.9 months (HR 0.77; CI crosses 1) 🎯 PFS benefit persisted even with PD-L1 ≥90%. 💡 Verdict: Strong PFS benefit, but OS advantage remains unproven. @myesmo @ESMO_open @ASCO @oncoalert Full paper link in comment below ⬇️

PERSEE (GFPC 01-2020) ESMO 2026 slide: Study Design (shared by Dr Rishabh Jain, @DrRishabhOnco)

PERSEE (GFPC 01-2020) ESMO 2026 slide: Primary endpoint: PFS by BCR (RECIST 1.1) (shared by Dr Rishabh Jain, @DrRishabhOnco)

PERSEE (GFPC 01-2020) ESMO 2026 slide: The PFS benefit was observed regardless of PD-L1 expression level (shared by Dr Rishabh Jain, @DrRishabhOnco)

PERSEE (GFPC 01-2020) ESMO 2026 slide: Secondary endpoint : Overall survival (ITT) (shared by Dr Rishabh Jain, @DrRishabhOnco)

[Slide 1] Study Design A phase III, multicenter, open-label, randomized trial Key eligibility criteria • Stage IV and unresectable or not amenable to definitive radiotherapy stage III NSCLC • TPS PD-L1 ≥50% (local assessment) • ECOG Performance Status ≤1 • No EGFR, ALK or ROS1 alteration R 1:1 PEMBROLIZUMAB 200 mg, Q3W → Up to 35 cycles • Non-squamous NSCLC: PEMBROLIZUMAB 200mg Q3W + PEMETREXED 500 mg/m2 + CARBOPLATIN AUC5 Q3W or CISPLATIN 75 mg/m2 Q3W • Squamous NSCLC: PEMBROLIZUMAB 200 mg Q3W + PACLITAXEL 200 mg/m2 Q3W + CARBOPLATIN AUC 6 Q3W Up to 4 cycles Maintenance treatment • Non-squamous: PEMBROLIZUMAB up to 31 cycles and PEMETREXED • Squamous: PEMBROLIZUMAB up to 31 cycles Stratification factors: • Squamous vs non-squamous • Brain metastases yes vs no Primary endpoint: PFS by BCR per RECIST v1.1. Key Secondary endpoints: PFS by investigators, OS, ORR, DoR, DCR, efficacy according to PD-L1 sub-groups expression, safety. Key Exploratory endpoints: incidence of early progression, PFS2, QoL, translational analyses PFS: Progression Free Survival; OS: Overall Survival; ORR: Objective Response rate; BCR: Blinded Central Review; DoR: Duration of Response, DCR: Disease Control Rate; QoL: quality-of-life questionnaires Early progression rate, defined as the proportion of patients with clinical and/or radiological tumor progression according to RECIST v1.1 before or at the first radiological evaluation at 6 weeks Chantal Decroisette [Slide 2] Primary endpoint: PFS by BCR (RECIST 1.1) Median follow-up was 38.7 (35.3-41.6) months Arm | Events n (%) | Median PFS (95% CI), months | HR (95% CI) Two-sided P value Pembro + CT | 93 (58.1) | 16.1 (11–34.1) | 0.56 (0.43–0.74) Pembro | 117 (72.7) | 6.9 (5.5–9.3) | P < 0.001 Landmarks: 12 mo 54.6% (47.3–63.1) vs 33.9% (27.1–42.5); 24 mo 45.2% (37.9–53.9) vs 24.9% (18.7–33.1); 36 mo 39.2% (31.8–48.4) vs 20.8% (15.0–28.9) No. at Risk (0–60 months, every 3) Pembro + CT | 160 | 141 | 113 | 90 | 82 | 77 | 71 | 66 | 60 | 52 | 48 | 41 | 34 | 28 | 20 | 15 | 10 | 9 | 6 | 1 | 0 Pembro | 161 | 99 | 84 | 63 | 47 | 44 | 40 | 36 | 32 | 29 | 26 | 24 | 22 | 19 | 12 | 10 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 PFS assessed by BCR was significantly longer in the pembro-CT group than in the pembro group, with a clinically meaningful benefit sustained over time. The PFS benefit was consistent with investigators assessment with a HR 0.59 (0.46-0.77). Chantal Decroisette [Survival data captured as a table — no point estimates read from the curve] Endpoint: PFS by BCR (RECIST 1.1) Pembro + CT | 160 | 16.1 | 11–34.1 Pembro | 161 | 6.9 | 5.5–9.3 HR: 0.56 HR CI: 0.43–0.74 P: <0.001 (two-sided) Landmark 12 mo | Pembro + CT | 54.6% (47.3–63.1) Landmark 12 mo | Pembro | 33.9% (27.1–42.5) Landmark 24 mo | Pembro + CT | 45.2% (37.9–53.9) Landmark 24 mo | Pembro | 24.9% (18.7–33.1) Landmark 36 mo | Pembro + CT | 39.2% (31.8–48.4) Landmark 36 mo | Pembro | 20.8% (15.0–28.9) Note: Median follow-up 38.7 (35.3-41.6) months. Investigator-assessed PFS HR 0.59 (0.46-0.77). [Slide 3] The PFS benefit was observed regardless of PD-L1 expression level PD-L1 50% - 74% Arm | Events n (%) | mPFS months (IC 95 %) | HR (IC 95 %) Pembro + CT | 32 (59.3) | 17.8 (9.3–NC) | 0.46 (0.29–0.74) Pembro | 44 (75.9) | 7.0 (3.6–10) Landmarks: 57.2% vs 32.8% (12 mo); 45.4% vs 21.9% (24 mo); 39.7% vs 15.3% (36 mo) No. at Risk: Pembro + CT 54 49 42 32 29 27 25 22 19 16 15 14 10 7 4 3 2 2 1; Pembro 58 34 30 21 15 14 13 12 10 8 8 8 7 7 3 1 1 0 0 PD-L1 75% - 100% Pembro + CT | 51 (56.0) | 16.9 (11.1–NC) | 0.62 (0.43–0.91) Pembro | 65 (68.4) | 7.1 (5.1–11.2) Landmarks: 56.2% vs 36.5% (12 mo); 46.9% vs 29.0% (24 mo); 41.9% vs 26.4% (36 mo) PD-L1 90% - 100% Pembro + CT | 26 (50.0) | 25.4 (11–NC) | 0.6 (0.36–1) Pembro | 39 (68.4) | 7.1 (4.9–18.8) Landmarks: 58.3% vs 40.2% (12 mo); 52.0% vs 30.3% (24 mo); 49.4% vs 28.2% (36 mo) [landmark CIs and some number-at-risk rows too small to transcribe] Chantal Decroisette [Slide 4] 10:15 - 11:45 Proffered paper 1: NSCLC, metastatic - CHAIR: SURESH SENAN Secondary endpoint : Overall survival (ITT) Arm | Events n (%) | Median OS (95% CI), months | HR (95% CI) Pembro + CT | 74 (46.3) | 50.2 (32.6–NC) | 0.77 (0.56–1.05) Pembro | 89 (55.3) | 29.9 (23.4–47.9) Landmarks: 12 mo 78.8% (72.7–85.4) vs 73.3% (66.8–80.5); 24 mo 64.4% (57.3–72.2) vs 56.2% (49.0–64.5); 36 mo 55.4% (47.9–63.9) vs 44.9% (37.5–53.7); 48 mo 50.9% (43.1–60.1) vs 38.9% (30.8–49.0) No. at Risk (0–60 months, every 3) Pembro + CT | 160 | 151 | 144 | 136 | 126 | 121 | 110 | 108 | 102 | 90 | 84 | 64 | 55 | 46 | 39 | 28 | 26 | 15 | 11 | 5 | 1 Pembro | 161 | 145 | 134 | 126 | 118 | 108 | 103 | 97 | 87 | 74 | 68 | 57 | 45 | 39 | 31 | 22 | 19 | 10 | 4 | 2 | 0 A numerically longer median OS of 50.2 months in the pembro-CT group was observed compared with 29.9 months in the pembro group. The trial was not powered to demonstrate an overall survival difference. Chantal Decroisette [Survival data captured as a table — no point estimates read from the curve] Endpoint: Overall survival (ITT) Pembro + CT | 160 | 50.2 | 32.6–NC Pembro | 161 | 29.9 | 23.4–47.9 HR: 0.77 HR CI: 0.56–1.05 Landmark 12 mo | Pembro + CT | 78.8% (72.7–85.4) Landmark 12 mo | Pembro | 73.3% (66.8–80.5) Landmark 24 mo | Pembro + CT | 64.4% (57.3–72.2) Landmark 24 mo | Pembro | 56.2% (49.0–64.5) Landmark 36 mo | Pembro + CT | 55.4% (47.9–63.9) Landmark 36 mo | Pembro | 44.9% (37.5–53.7) Landmark 48 mo | Pembro + CT | 50.9% (43.1–60.1) Landmark 48 mo | Pembro | 38.9% (30.8–49.0) Note: Trial not powered for OS difference.

Yakup Ergün @dr_yakupergun

PERSEE (GFPC 01-2020) · ESMO 2026 slides

Oct 25, 2026 · ESMO 2026

View on X ↗

#ESMO26 PERSEE trial- concomitant published @Annals_Oncology https://t.co/mOJIdN4OCq https://t.co/cpEdDJI6GD https://t.co/Z817K9Uii9

PERSEE (GFPC 01-2020) ESMO 2026 slide: The addition of chemotherapy to pembrolizumab significantly prolonged PFS compared with pembrolizumab monother (shared by Yakup Ergün, @dr_yakupergun)

[Slide 1] The addition of chemotherapy to pembrolizumab significantly prolonged PFS compared with pembrolizumab monotherapy in treatment-naive patients with advanced NSCLC and high PD-L1 expression (>=50% of tumor cells) PERSEE is an academic, prospective, multicenter, randomized, phase III trial conducted across 28 sites in France comparing pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy and pembrolizumab monotherapy as first-line in treatment-naive patients with NSCLC. Key eligibility criteria - Age >=18 years - Stage IV NSCLC OR Unresectable Stage III NSCLC not eligible for radiotherapy - PD-L1 expression on >=50% of tumor cells - No known EGFR mutations, no ALK or ROS1 rearrangements - ECOG PS 0-1 Pembro + CT | Pembro Randomized ITT population | N = 160 | N = 161 Received >=1 dose Safety population | n = 158 (Carbo + pacli (n = 32); Carbo + pemet (n = 111); Cispl + pemet (n = 15)) | n = 159 Planned treatment completed | n = 45 | n = 27 Conclusion: The addition of platinum-based chemotherapy to pembrolizumab significantly prolonged PFS compared with pembrolizumab monotherapy. Median follow-up: 38.7 months Primary endpoint: Progression-Free Survival* Arm | Events n (%) | Median PFS (95% CI), months | HR (95% CI) Two-sided P value Pembro + CT | 93 (58.1) | 16.1 (11-34.1) | 0.56 (0.43-0.74) Pembro | 117 (72.7) | 6.9 (5.5-9.3) | P < 0.001 Curve labels: Pembro + CT 54.6%, 45.2%, 39.2%; Pembro 33.9%, 24.9%, 20.8% *PFS according to blinded central review Overall Survival Arm | Events n (%) | Median OS (95% CI), months | HR (95% CI) Two-sided P value Pembro + CT | 74 (46.3) | 50.2 (32.6-NC) | 0.77 (0.56-1.05) Pembro | 89 (55.3) | 29.9 (23.4-47.9) | NC Curve labels: Pembro + CT 78.8%, 64.4%, 55.4%, 50.9%; Pembro 73.3%, 56.2%, 44.9%, 38.9% Treatment response (ITT population) Objective response rate (ORR): Pembro + CT 124 (77.5%); Pembro 81 (50.3%); OR 3.48 (95% CI, 2.15-5.72) Early disease progression: Pembro + CT 9 (5.6%); Pembro 41 (25.5%); OR 0.17 (95% CI, 0.07-0.35) Adverse Events (Safety population) | Pembro + CT (N = 158) | Pembro (N = 159) Treatment-related AE Any grade | 149 (94) | 119 (75) Grade >=3 | 86 (54) | 31 (19) Grade 5 | 3 (1.9) | 3 (1.9) Immune related AE Any grade | 39 (25) | 32 (20) Grade >=3 | 21 (13) | 20 (13) Grade 5 | 0 (0) | 2 (1.3) Treatment action (All AEs) leading to Pembro discontinuation | 44 (28) | 38 (24) Pembro pause | 78 (49) | 39 (25) CT discontinuation | 76 (48) | NA CT pause | 72 (46) | NA CT dose reduction | 72 (46) | NA [Survival data captured as a table — no point estimates read from the curve] Endpoint: PFS (blinded central review) Pembro + CT | 160 | 16.1 | 11-34.1 Pembro | 161 | 6.9 | 5.5-9.3 HR: 0.56 HR CI: 0.43-0.74 P: <0.001 Note: OS also shown: median 50.2 (32.6-NC) vs 29.9 (23.4-47.9) mo, HR 0.77 (0.56-1.05), p NC; events 74 (46.3) vs 89 (55.3). Landmark % labels printed on curves but timepoints not labeled legibly, so not tabulated. Number-at-risk rows too small to read.

Balazs Halmos @BalazsHalmosMD

PERSEE (GFPC 01-2020) · ESMO 2026 slides

Oct 25, 2026 · ESMO 2026

View on X ↗

PARSEE trial- while we might be parseeing the data for a while, on surface they seem per se immediately practice-changing! Chemo/IO led to impressive benefits for tps score>50 pts over pembro alone when it comes to primary endpoint of PFS, trends for OS, dramatic reduction in early progression (25 to 5% or so) - at cost of anticipated toxicities Benefit surprisingly just as much in tps >90! Only subset of note w limited benefits - pts>70 yrs So it seems chemo/IO is now the best SOC for pts w non-AGA tps>50 advanced NSCLC w IO likely most appropriate for frail elderly Special kudos to Dr. Decroisette and the French GFPC study team for completing such an important trial! Merci! #lcsm #ESMO26

PERSEE (GFPC 01-2020) ESMO 2026 slide: PERSEE treatment exposure by regimen (1 of 2) (shared by Balazs Halmos)

PERSEE (GFPC 01-2020) ESMO 2026 slide: PERSEE PFS subgroup forest plot (2 of 2) (shared by Balazs Halmos)

[Slide 1] Treatment Exposure | Pembrolizumab + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel (N = 32) | Pembrolizumab + Carboplatin + Pemetrexed (N = 113) | Pembrolizumab + Cisplatin + Pemetrexed (N = 15) | Pembrolizumab Monotherapy (N = 161) Median number of cycles (Q1–Q3) Pembrolizumab | 7.5 (5.0–28.0) | 13.0 (7.0–32.0) | 34.0 (26.0–35.0) | 10.0 (4.0–23.0) Carboplatin | 4.0 (3.0–4.0) | 4.0 (4.0–4.0) | NA | NA Cisplatin | NA | NA | 4.0 (3.0–4.0) | NA Pemetrexed | NA | 8.0 (4.0–14.0) | 10.0 (6.0–16.0) | NA Paclitaxel | 4.0 (3.0–4.0) | NA | NA | NA Duration of treatment, months Median (95% CI) | 10.5 (8.5–16.1) [pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy groups] | 6.3 (4.7–8.4) [pembrolizumab monotherapy] HR (95% CI) | 0.57 (0.45–0.71) CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; N, total number of patients; NA, not applicable; Q, quartile. Duration of treatment is presented for the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy and pembrolizumab monotherapy groups. Chantal Decroisette [Slide 2] The PFS benefit was observed across all subgroups Subgroup | # Event/# Total Pembro+CT | Pembro | Hazard ratio Est. (95%CI) Overall | 93/160 | 117/161 | 0.56 (0.43 ; 0.74) Age <70 yr | 71/126 | 86/116 | 0.48 (0.35 ; 0.67) Age ≥70 yr | 22/34 | 31/45 | 0.83 (0.47 ; 1.46) Sex Male | 60/107 | 78/110 | 0.55 (0.39 ; 0.77) Sex Female | 33/53 | 39/51 | 0.58 (0.36 ; 0.93) ECOG PS 0 | 43/76 | 50/75 | 0.58 (0.38 ; 0.88) ECOG PS 1 | 50/84 | 67/86 | 0.52 (0.35 ; 0.75) Stage 3 | 6/11 | 5/10 | 0.99 (0.30 ; 3.27) Stage 4 | 87/149 | 112/151 | 0.55 (0.41 ; 0.73) Smoker Non-smoker | 3/4 | 3/3 | 0.27 (0.03 ; 2.70) Smoker Smoker | 31/56 | 44/64 | 0.52 (0.33 ; 0.84) Smoker Quit smoking | 59/99 | 70/94 | 0.60 (0.42 ; 0.85) Liver metastasis Yes | 18/23 | 24/26 | 0.63 (0.32 ; 1.25) Liver metastasis No | 75/137 | 93/135 | 0.56 (0.41 ; 0.76) Bone metastasis Yes | 36/61 | 43/49 | 0.42 (0.27 ; 0.68) Bone metastasis No | 57/99 | 74/112 | 0.62 (0.43 ; 0.88) Brain metastasis Yes | 26/39 | 31/36 | 0.54 (0.31 ; 0.93) Brain metastasis No | 67/121 | 86/125 | 0.57 (0.42 ; 0.79) Histology Squamous | 23/31 | 28/32 | 0.70 (0.40 ; 1.24) Histology Non-squamous | 70/129 | 89/129 | 0.53 (0.39 ; 0.72) Tumor cell PD-L1 Between 50% and 74% | 32/54 | 44/58 | 0.46 (0.29 ; 0.74) Tumor cell PD-L1 Between 75% and 100% | 51/91 | 65/95 | 0.62 (0.43 ; 0.91) Tumor cell PD-L1 Between 90% and 100% | 26/52 | 39/57 | 0.60 (0.36 ; 1.00) Number of metastatic sites ≤1 | 17/38 | 19/41 | 0.84 (0.44 ; 1.63) Number of metastatic sites >1 | 76/122 | 98/120 | 0.45 (0.33 ; 0.62) Number of metastatic sites ≤3 | 70/126 | 89/129 | 0.57 (0.41 ; 0.78) Number of metastatic sites >3 | 23/34 | 28/32 | 0.53 (0.30 ; 0.94) Pembro+CT Better <- -> Pembro Better Chantal Decroisette

RyosukeTsugitomi @Rtsugitom

PERSEE (GFPC 01-2020) · ESMO 2026 slides

Oct 25, 2026 · ESMO 2026

View on X ↗

Impressive results! Even in patients with high PD-L1 expression (TPS ≥50%), the addition of chemotherapy prolonged PFS! Congratulations on the publication as well! https://t.co/nareDD5zm7 #ESMO26 https://t.co/4Bqo4eiM0G

PERSEE (GFPC 01-2020) ESMO 2026 slide: Conclusion (shared by RyosukeTsugitomi, @Rtsugitom)

[Slide 1] Conclusion • PERSEE is the first positive randomized phase III trial comparing pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy with pembrolizumab alone as 1st-line treatment in advanced NSCLC with PD-L1 ≥50%, with a superiority design, and PFS as primary endpoint • Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy significantly improved PFS, with a durable and clinically meaningful benefit (16.1 vs 6.9 months; HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.43-0.74; P<0.001) • The PFS benefit was associated with a higher ORR (77.5% vs 50.3%) and a substantial reduction in early disease progression (5.8% vs 26.5%) • OS was numerically improved with pembro-CT : median OS of 50.2 months vs 29.9 months with pembro (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.56–1.05) • These efficacy gains were achieved at the cost of increased treatment-related toxicity, particularly grade ≥3 TRAEs (54% vs 19%), largely attributable to chemotherapy • QoL analyses and translational studies exploring immunosenescence and predictive biomarkers are ongoing PERSEE supports first line treatment with pembrolizumab-chemotherapy which should be routinely considered in patients eligible for chemotherapy Chantal Decroisette

Yakup Ergün@dr_yakupergun

Study design, primary endpoint PFS, PFS by PD-L1 level, overall survival

Oct 25, 2026 · ESMO 2026 · 2614O

View post on X ↗

PERSEE ESMO 2026 slide: study design, phase III open-label 1:1 randomization of pembrolizumab alone vs pembrolizumab plus platinum chemotherapy (shared by Yakup Ergün, MD)

PERSEE ESMO 2026 slide: primary endpoint PFS by blinded central review, 16.1 vs 6.9 months, HR 0.56 (shared by Yakup Ergün, MD)

PERSEE ESMO 2026 slide: PFS by PD-L1 expression level 50-74%, 75-100% and 90-100% (shared by Yakup Ergün, MD)

PERSEE ESMO 2026 slide: overall survival ITT, 50.2 vs 29.9 months, HR 0.77 (shared by Yakup Ergün, MD)

PFS by blinded central review (primary endpoint), as printed on the 2614O slide (DCO Apr 7, 2026)

	Pembro + chemo (N=160)	Pembro alone (N=161)	HR (95% CI)
Events, n (%)	93 (58.1)	117 (72.7)	0.56 (0.43–0.74), two-sided P < 0.001
Median PFS, months (95% CI)	16.1 (11–34.1)	6.9 (5.5–9.3)	—
12-month PFS rate	54.6% (47.3–63.1)	33.9% (27.1–42.5)	—
24-month PFS rate	45.2% (37.9–53.9)	24.9% (18.7–33.1)	—
36-month PFS rate	39.2% (31.8–48.4)	20.8% (15.0–28.9)	—

PFS by blinded central review within PD-L1 expression strata (descriptive), as printed on the 2614O slide

PD-L1 stratum (local test)	Pembro + chemo: events, median PFS	Pembro alone: events, median PFS	HR (95% CI)
50–74%	32 (59.3%), 17.8 mo (9.3–NC)	44 (75.9%), 7.0 mo (3.6–10)	0.46 (0.29–0.74)
75–100%	51 (56.0%), 16.9 mo (11.1–NC)	65 (68.4%), 7.1 mo (5.1–11.2)	0.62 (0.43–0.91)
90–100%	26 (50.0%), 25.4 mo (11–NC)	39 (68.4%), 7.1 mo (4.9–18.8)	0.6 (0.36–1)

Overall survival, ITT (secondary endpoint; trial not powered for OS), as printed on the 2614O slide

	Pembro + chemo (N=160)	Pembro alone (N=161)	HR (95% CI)
Deaths, n (%)	74 (46.3)	89 (55.3)	0.77 (0.56–1.05)
Median OS, months (95% CI)	50.2 (32.6–NC)	29.9 (23.4–47.9)	—
12-month OS rate	78.8% (72.7–85.4)	73.3% (66.8–80.5)	—
24-month OS rate	64.4% (57.3–72.2)	56.2% (49.0–64.5)	—
36-month OS rate	55.4% (47.9–63.9)	44.9% (37.5–53.7)	—
48-month OS rate	50.9% (43.1–60.1)	38.9% (30.8–49.0)	—

Same slides also posted by @HHorinouchi, @JulienMazieres, @StephenVLiu, @DrRiyazShah, @dr_yakupergun, @RobertoFerrara_, @AdamJanuszewski, @Alfdoc2, @dplanchard, @NReguart.

Slide text (transcribed from the slide images) [Study Design] A phase III, multicenter, open-label, randomized trial Key eligibility criteria: Stage IV and unresectable or not amenable to definitive radiotherapy stage III NSCLC; TPS PD-L1 ≥50% (local assessment); ECOG Performance Status ≤1; No EGFR, ALK or ROS1 alteration R 1:1 → PEMBROLIZUMAB 200 mg, Q3W → Up to 35 cycles R 1:1 → Non-squamous NSCLC: PEMBROLIZUMAB 200mg Q3W + PEMETREXED 500 mg/m2 + CARBOPLATIN AUC5 Q3W or CISPLATIN 75 mg/m2 Q3W; Squamous NSCLC: PEMBROLIZUMAB 200 mg Q3W + PACLITAXEL 200 mg/m2 Q3W + CARBOPLATIN AUC 6 Q3W; Up to 4 cycles → Maintenance treatment: Non-squamous: PEMBROLIZUMAB up to 31 cycles and PEMETREXED; Squamous: PEMBROLIZUMAB up to 31 cycles Stratification factors: Squamous vs non-squamous; Brain metastases yes vs no Primary endpoint: PFS by BCR per RECIST v1.1. Key Secondary endpoints: PFS by investigators, OS, ORR, DoR, DCR, efficacy according to PD-L1 sub-groups expression, safety. Key Exploratory endpoints: incidence of early progression, PFS2, QoL, translational analyses Early progression rate, defined as the proportion of patients with clinical and/or radiological tumor progression according to RECIST v1.1 before or at the first radiological evaluation at 6 weeks [Primary endpoint: PFS by BCR (RECIST 1.1)] Median follow-up was 38.7 (35.3-41.6) months Pembro + CT: events 93 (58.1), median PFS 16.1 (11–34.1) months | Pembro: 117 (72.7), 6.9 (5.5–9.3) | HR 0.56 (0.43–0.74), two-sided P < 0.001 (Kaplan-Meier curve: landmark values are in the number table above.) PFS assessed by BCR was significantly longer in the pembro-CT group than in the pembro group, with a clinically meaningful benefit sustained over time. The PFS benefit was consistent with investigators assessment with a HR 0.59 (0.46-0.77). [The PFS benefit was observed regardless of PD-L1 expression level] PD-L1 50% - 74%: Pembro + CT 32 (59.3), mPFS 17.8 (9.3–NC); Pembro 44 (75.9), 7.0 (3.6–10); HR 0.46 (0.29–0.74) PD-L1 75% - 100%: Pembro + CT 51 (56.0), 16.9 (11.1–NC); Pembro 65 (68.4), 7.1 (5.1–11.2); HR 0.62 (0.43–0.91) PD-L1 90% - 100%: Pembro + CT 26 (50.0), 25.4 (11–NC); Pembro 39 (68.4), 7.1 (4.9–18.8); HR 0.6 (0.36–1) (Kaplan-Meier curves per stratum: see the number table above.) [Secondary endpoint: Overall survival (ITT)] Pembro + CT: events 74 (46.3), median OS 50.2 (32.6–NC) months | Pembro: 89 (55.3), 29.9 (23.4–47.9) | HR 0.77 (0.56–1.05) (Kaplan-Meier curve: landmark values are in the number table above.) A numerically longer median OS of 50.2 months in the pembro-CT group was observed compared with 29.9 months in the pembro group. The trial was not powered to demonstrate an overall survival difference.

Prof Tom John@TommyJohn00

Patient demographics and disease characteristics (ITT)

Oct 25, 2026 · ESMO 2026 · 2614O

View post on X ↗

PERSEE ESMO 2026 slide photo: study design (shared by Tom John, MD)

PERSEE ESMO 2026 slide photo: patient demographic and disease characteristics, ITT population of 321 patients at 28 centers in France (shared by Tom John, MD)

PERSEE ESMO 2026 slide photo: PFS benefit regardless of PD-L1 expression level (shared by Tom John, MD)

PERSEE ESMO 2026 slide photo: overall survival ITT (shared by Tom John, MD)

Same slides also posted by @DrRiyazShah.

Slide text (transcribed from the slide images) [Study Design] A phase III, multicenter, open-label, randomized trial Key eligibility criteria: Stage IV and unresectable or not amenable to definitive radiotherapy stage III NSCLC; TPS PD-L1 ≥50% (local assessment); ECOG Performance Status ≤1; No EGFR, ALK or ROS1 alteration R 1:1 → PEMBROLIZUMAB 200 mg, Q3W → Up to 35 cycles R 1:1 → Non-squamous NSCLC: PEMBROLIZUMAB 200mg Q3W + PEMETREXED 500 mg/m2 + CARBOPLATIN AUC5 Q3W or CISPLATIN 75 mg/m2 Q3W; Squamous NSCLC: PEMBROLIZUMAB 200 mg Q3W + PACLITAXEL 200 mg/m2 Q3W + CARBOPLATIN AUC 6 Q3W; Up to 4 cycles → Maintenance treatment: Non-squamous: PEMBROLIZUMAB up to 31 cycles and PEMETREXED; Squamous: PEMBROLIZUMAB up to 31 cycles Stratification factors: Squamous vs non-squamous; Brain metastases yes vs no Primary endpoint: PFS by BCR per RECIST v1.1. Key Secondary endpoints: PFS by investigators, OS, ORR, DoR, DCR, efficacy according to PD-L1 sub-groups expression, safety. Key Exploratory endpoints: incidence of early progression, PFS2, QoL, translational analyses Early progression rate, defined as the proportion of patients with clinical and/or radiological tumor progression according to RECIST v1.1 before or at the first radiological evaluation at 6 weeks [Patient Demographic and Disease Characteristics (ITT Population)] From December 22, 2020, to December 21, 2023, a total of 321 patients at 28 centers in France were randomized. Pembrolizumab plus Chemotherapy (N = 160) | Pembrolizumab Monotherapy (N = 161) Age, median (range): 63 (38-83) | 64 (39-86); <70 years: 126 (78.8) | 116 (72.0) Male: 107 (66.9) | 110 (68.3) ECOG 0: 76 (47.5) | 75 (46.6); ECOG 1: 84 (52.5) | 86 (53.4) Stage III: 11 (6.9) | 10 (6.2); Stage IV: 149 (93.2) | 151 (93.7) Current smoker 56 (35.2) | 64 (39.8); former smoker 99 (62.3) | 94 (58.4); non-smoker 4 (2.5) | 3 (1.9) Non squamous 129 (80.6) | 129 (80.1); squamous 31 (19.4) | 32 (19.9) Median metastasis sites 2 (0-8) | 2 (0-7); >3 metastatic sites 34 (21.3) | 32 (19.9); brain 39 (24.4) | 36 (22.4); liver 23 (14.4) | 26 (16.1); bone 61 (38.1) | 49 (30.4) PD-L1 ≥50%*: 50-74% 54 (33.8) | 58 (36.0); 75-100% 91 (56.9) | 95 (59.0); 90-100% 52 (32.5) | 57 (35.4); not evaluated 15 (9.4) | 8 (5.0) NGS mutation, n/N (%): No 54/139 (38.8) | 59/136 (43.4); Yes 85/139 (61.2) | 77/136 (56.6); Missing 21 | 25 KRAS mutation: 58/139 (41.7) | 57/136 (41.9) # Smoking status missing in one patient in chemotherapy group. * PD-L1 expression level locally measured. "Not evaluated" indicates that the measurement was reported as ≥50% without an exact value. [The PFS benefit was observed regardless of PD-L1 expression level] PD-L1 50% - 74%: Pembro + CT 32 (59.3), mPFS 17.8 (9.3–NC); Pembro 44 (75.9), 7.0 (3.6–10); HR 0.46 (0.29–0.74) PD-L1 75% - 100%: Pembro + CT 51 (56.0), 16.9 (11.1–NC); Pembro 65 (68.4), 7.1 (5.1–11.2); HR 0.62 (0.43–0.91) PD-L1 90% - 100%: Pembro + CT 26 (50.0), 25.4 (11–NC); Pembro 39 (68.4), 7.1 (4.9–18.8); HR 0.6 (0.36–1) (Kaplan-Meier curves per stratum: see the number table above.) [Secondary endpoint: Overall survival (ITT)] Pembro + CT: events 74 (46.3), median OS 50.2 (32.6–NC) months | Pembro: 89 (55.3), 29.9 (23.4–47.9) | HR 0.77 (0.56–1.05) (Kaplan-Meier curve: landmark values are in the number table above.) A numerically longer median OS of 50.2 months in the pembro-CT group was observed compared with 29.9 months in the pembro group. The trial was not powered to demonstrate an overall survival difference.

Dr. Antonio Calles 🫁🚭@Tony_Calles

PFS2, safety, response and early progression

Oct 25, 2026 · ESMO 2026 · 2614O

View post on X ↗

PERSEE ESMO 2026 slide photo: PFS2 prolonged with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, HR 0.68 (shared by Antonio Calles, MD)

PERSEE ESMO 2026 slide photo: safety table, grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events 54% vs 19% (shared by Antonio Calles, MD)

PERSEE ESMO 2026 slide photo: objective response rate 77.5% vs 50.3%, duration of response and early progression 5.8% vs 26.5% (shared by Antonio Calles, MD)

PERSEE ESMO 2026 slide photo: overall survival ITT (shared by Antonio Calles, MD)

PFS2 (prespecified exploratory endpoint, investigator assessed), as printed on the 2614O slide

	Pembro + chemo (N=160)	Pembro alone (N=161)	HR (95% CI)
Events, n (%)	79 (49.3)	101 (62.7)	0.68 (0.5–0.91)
Median PFS2, months (95% CI)	39 (26.2–NR)	15.9 (13.2–29.9)	—
12 / 24 / 36-month PFS2 rate	70.6% / 59.1% / 51.1%	60.6% / 43.3% / 37.0%	—

Slide text (transcribed from the slide images) [PFS2 is prolonged with Pembro-CT] Pembro + CT: events 79 (49.3), median PFS2 39 (26.2–NR) months | Pembro: 101 (62.7), 15.9 (13.2–29.9) | HR 0.68 (0.5-0.91) (Kaplan-Meier curve: landmark values are in the number table above.) [Safety] Overall | Pembro + CT | Pembro Intention-to-Treat population: N = 321 | N = 160 | N = 161 Any grade AE, any cause: 320 (100) | 160 (100) | 160 (99); Grade ≥3 AE: 214 (67) | 118 (74) | 96 (60); Serious AE: 179 (56) | 95 (59) | 84 (52) Safety population: N = 317 | N = 158 | N = 159 Treatment-related AE: any grade 268 (85) | 149 (94) | 119 (75); grade ≥3 117 (37) | 86 (54) | 31 (19); grade 5 6 (1.9) | 3 (1.9) | 3 (1.9) Immune related AE: any grade 71 (22) | 39 (25) | 32 (20); grade ≥3 41 (13) | 21 (13) | 20 (13); grade 5 2 (0.6) | 0 (0) | 2 (1.3) Treatment action (all AEs): leading to pembro discontinuation 82 (26) | 44 (28) | 38 (24); leading to pembro interruption 117 (37) | 78 (49) | 39 (25); leading to CT discontinuation 76 (24) | 76 (48) | 0 (0); leading to CT interruption 72 (23) | 72 (46) | 0 (0); leading to CT dose reduction 72 (23) | 72 (46) | 0 (0) No unexpected toxicity was observed. More grade 3 TRAEs were reported in the pembro-CT group (54%) compared to the pembro group (19%). Immune-related AEs occurred at similar frequency in both study groups. 48% of patients discontinued chemotherapy due to adverse events. [Pembro-CT resulted in higher ORR, longer DoR, and lower Early Progression Rate] Objective response rate: 124 (77.5%) pembrolizumab + chemotherapy vs 81 (50.3%) pembrolizumab monotherapy; OR 3.48 (95% CI, 2.15-5.72) Early disease progression*: 9 (5.8%) vs 41 (26.5%); OR 0.17 (95% CI, 0.07-0.35). *Based on non missing values: pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, n = 154; pembrolizumab monotherapy, n = 155 DoR: median 30.0 (13.1-NR) months with pembrolizumab + chemotherapy vs 15.6 (9.8-32.8) with pembrolizumab Abbreviations: OR, odd ratio; DoR, duration of response [Secondary endpoint: Overall survival (ITT)] Pembro + CT: events 74 (46.3), median OS 50.2 (32.6–NC) months | Pembro: 89 (55.3), 29.9 (23.4–47.9) | HR 0.77 (0.56–1.05) (Kaplan-Meier curve: landmark values are in the number table above.) A numerically longer median OS of 50.2 months in the pembro-CT group was observed compared with 29.9 months in the pembro group. The trial was not powered to demonstrate an overall survival difference.

Gerry Hanna@gerryhanna

Presenter’s conclusions

Oct 25, 2026 · ESMO 2026 · 2614O

View post on X ↗

PERSEE ESMO 2026 slide: study design (shared by Gerry Hanna, MD)

PERSEE ESMO 2026 slide: primary endpoint PFS by blinded central review (shared by Gerry Hanna, MD)

PERSEE ESMO 2026 slide: overall survival ITT (shared by Gerry Hanna, MD)

PERSEE ESMO 2026 slide: presenter conclusions, PERSEE supports first-line pembrolizumab-chemotherapy in patients eligible for chemotherapy (shared by Gerry Hanna, MD)

Same slides also posted by @Alfdoc2.

Slide text (transcribed from the slide images) [Study Design] A phase III, multicenter, open-label, randomized trial Key eligibility criteria: Stage IV and unresectable or not amenable to definitive radiotherapy stage III NSCLC; TPS PD-L1 ≥50% (local assessment); ECOG Performance Status ≤1; No EGFR, ALK or ROS1 alteration R 1:1 → PEMBROLIZUMAB 200 mg, Q3W → Up to 35 cycles R 1:1 → Non-squamous NSCLC: PEMBROLIZUMAB 200mg Q3W + PEMETREXED 500 mg/m2 + CARBOPLATIN AUC5 Q3W or CISPLATIN 75 mg/m2 Q3W; Squamous NSCLC: PEMBROLIZUMAB 200 mg Q3W + PACLITAXEL 200 mg/m2 Q3W + CARBOPLATIN AUC 6 Q3W; Up to 4 cycles → Maintenance treatment: Non-squamous: PEMBROLIZUMAB up to 31 cycles and PEMETREXED; Squamous: PEMBROLIZUMAB up to 31 cycles Stratification factors: Squamous vs non-squamous; Brain metastases yes vs no Primary endpoint: PFS by BCR per RECIST v1.1. Key Secondary endpoints: PFS by investigators, OS, ORR, DoR, DCR, efficacy according to PD-L1 sub-groups expression, safety. Key Exploratory endpoints: incidence of early progression, PFS2, QoL, translational analyses Early progression rate, defined as the proportion of patients with clinical and/or radiological tumor progression according to RECIST v1.1 before or at the first radiological evaluation at 6 weeks [Primary endpoint: PFS by BCR (RECIST 1.1)] Median follow-up was 38.7 (35.3-41.6) months Pembro + CT: events 93 (58.1), median PFS 16.1 (11–34.1) months | Pembro: 117 (72.7), 6.9 (5.5–9.3) | HR 0.56 (0.43–0.74), two-sided P < 0.001 (Kaplan-Meier curve: landmark values are in the number table above.) PFS assessed by BCR was significantly longer in the pembro-CT group than in the pembro group, with a clinically meaningful benefit sustained over time. The PFS benefit was consistent with investigators assessment with a HR 0.59 (0.46-0.77). [Secondary endpoint: Overall survival (ITT)] Pembro + CT: events 74 (46.3), median OS 50.2 (32.6–NC) months | Pembro: 89 (55.3), 29.9 (23.4–47.9) | HR 0.77 (0.56–1.05) (Kaplan-Meier curve: landmark values are in the number table above.) A numerically longer median OS of 50.2 months in the pembro-CT group was observed compared with 29.9 months in the pembro group. The trial was not powered to demonstrate an overall survival difference. [Conclusion] • PERSEE is the first positive randomized phase III trial comparing pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy with pembrolizumab alone as 1st-line treatment in advanced NSCLC with PD-L1 ≥50%, with a superiority design, and PFS as primary endpoint • Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy significantly improved PFS, with a durable and clinically meaningful benefit (16.1 vs 6.9 months; HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.43-0.74; P<0.001) • The PFS benefit was associated with a higher ORR (77.5% vs 50.3%) and a substantial reduction in early disease progression (5.8% vs 26.5%) • OS was numerically improved with pembro-CT : median OS of 50.2 months vs 29.9 months with pembro (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.56–1.05) • These efficacy gains were achieved at the cost of increased treatment-related toxicity, particularly grade ≥3 TRAEs (54% vs 19%), largely attributable to chemotherapy • QoL analyses and translational studies exploring immunosenescence and predictive biomarkers are ongoing PERSEE supports first line treatment with pembrolizumab-chemotherapy which should be routinely considered in patients eligible for chemotherapy

Alfredo Addeo MD@Alfdoc2

Discussant Benjamin Levy: treatment intensification and “the rules for my clinic”

Oct 25, 2026 · ESMO 2026 · 2614O

View post on X ↗

ESMO 2026 discussant title slide by Benjamin Levy: Treatment intensification for advanced NSCLC, the more the merrier (shared by Alfredo Addeo, MD)

ESMO 2026 discussant slide by Benjamin Levy: the rules for my clinic next week, a much lower threshold to discuss pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in PD-L1 50% or higher NSCLC (shared by Alfredo Addeo, MD)

Slide text (transcribed from the slide images) [Discussant slides, Benjamin Levy] Treatment Intensification for advanced NSCLC. The more the merrier? [The rules for my clinic next week] For a patient with driver-negative oligometastatic NSCLC: I will no longer routinely refer for local consolidative RT/SABR solely because a patient meets oligometastatic criteria For a patient with PD-L1 ≥50% advanced NSCLC: I will have a much lower threshold to discuss pembrolizumab + chemotherapy For everyone: The future of treatment intensification for advanced NSCLC will be predicated on enrichment strategies grounded in better understanding of tumor biology that will go beyond genomic alterations, PD-L1 cutoffs or number of sites of disease

Stephen V Liu, MD@StephenVLiu

Discussant Benjamin Levy: SARON and PERSEE discussion, INSIGNA design

Oct 25, 2026 · ESMO 2026 · 2614O

View post on X ↗

Benjamin Levy discussing SARON and PERSEE at the ESMO 2026 podium (shared by Stephen V Liu, MD)

ESMO 2026 discussant slide by Benjamin Levy: potential explanations for the SARON result (shared by Stephen V Liu, MD)

ESMO 2026 discussant slide by Benjamin Levy: my take, these results are not a fluke, escalation is not for everyone (shared by Stephen V Liu, MD)

ESMO 2026 discussant slide: INSIGNA trial design of pembrolizumab sequencing strategies (shared by Stephen V Liu, MD)

Slide text (transcribed from the slide images) [Image 1: discussant at the podium; no slide text] [Potential explanations] (SARON discussion) 1. Conventional imaging modalities currently leveraged to define the oligometastatic state cannot detect micro-metastatic disease 2. Spatial tumor heterogeneity is inherent in the oligometastatic state and could lead to differential responses to radiation in the patient 3. Despite earlier data suggesting synergy, there has been more recent data suggesting a negative interaction with IO and radiation [My take] 1. These results are not a fluke 2. Escalation is not for everyone 3. Future trials in this space will be informative [INSIGNA TRIAL DESIGN] (slide courtesy of Hossein Borghaei) Arm A: pembrolizumab, then pemetrexed + carboplatin at second line. Arm B: pembrolizumab, then pembrolizumab + pemetrexed + carboplatin at second line. Arm C: induction pembrolizumab + pemetrexed + carboplatin (4 cycles), then maintenance pembrolizumab + pemetrexed. Stratification: PD-L1 status (TPS 1-49% vs ≥50%), smoking status. Accrual goal = 846 patients.

Masahiro TORASAWA, MD. PhD.@M_Torasawa

Annals of Oncology graphical abstract

Oct 25, 2026 · ESMO 2026 · 2614O

View post on X ↗

PERSEE Annals of Oncology 2026 graphical abstract: design, PFS and OS curves, response, adverse events (shared by Masahiro Torasawa, MD)

Same slides also posted by @HHorinouchi, @Dr_Doc_, @RManochakian.

Slide text (transcribed from the slide images) [Annals of Oncology graphical abstract] The addition of chemotherapy to pembrolizumab significantly prolonged PFS compared with pembrolizumab monotherapy in treatment-naïve patients with advanced NSCLC and high PD-L1 expression (≥50% of tumor cells) PERSEE is an academic, prospective, multicenter, randomized, phase III trial conducted across 28 sites in France comparing pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy and pembrolizumab monotherapy as first-line in treatment-naïve patients with NSCLC. Key eligibility criteria: Age ≥18 years; Stage IV NSCLC OR Unresectable Stage III NSCLC not eligible for radiotherapy; PD-L1 expression on ≥50% of tumor cells; No known EGFR mutations, no ALK or ROS1 rearrangements; ECOG PS 0-1 Randomized ITT population: Pembro + CT N = 160 | Pembro N = 161. Received ≥1 dose (safety population): n = 158 (Carbo + pacli n = 32; Carbo + pemet n = 111; Cispl + pemet n = 15) | n = 159. Planned treatment completed: n = 45 | n = 27 Primary endpoint PFS (blinded central read): 93 (58.1) vs 117 (72.7) events; median 16.1 (11–34.1) vs 6.9 (5.5–9.3) months; HR 0.56 (0.43–0.74), P < 0.001. Median follow-up: 38.7 months Overall survival: 74 (46.3) vs 89 (55.3) events; median 50.2 (32.6–NC) vs 29.9 (23.4–47.9); HR 0.77 (0.56–1.05), P NC Treatment response: ORR 124 (77.5%) vs 81 (50.3%), OR 3.48 (95% CI, 2.15–5.72); early disease progression 9 (5.8%) vs 41 (26.5%), OR 0.17 (95% CI, 0.07–0.35) Adverse events (safety population, N = 158 vs N = 159): TRAE any grade 149 (94) vs 119 (75); grade ≥3 86 (54) vs 31 (19); grade 5 3 (1.9) vs 3 (1.9). Immune related AE any grade 39 (25) vs 32 (20); grade ≥3 21 (13) vs 20 (13); grade 5 0 (0) vs 2 (1.3). Pembro discontinuation 44 (28) vs 38 (24); pembro pause 78 (49) vs 39 (25); CT discontinuation 76 (48); CT pause 72 (46); CT dose reduction 72 (46) Conclusion: The addition of platinum-based chemotherapy to pembrolizumab significantly prolonged PFS compared with pembrolizumab monotherapy.

Dr Rishabh Jain@DrRishabhOnco

Annals of Oncology publication: article page, PFS by PD-L1 and OS figures

Oct 25, 2026 · ESMO 2026 · 2614O

View post on X ↗

PERSEE Annals of Oncology 2026 article page, open access, published October 25, 2026 (shared by Rishabh Jain, MD)

PERSEE Annals of Oncology 2026 Figure 2: PFS by PD-L1 expression status by blinded central review (shared by Rishabh Jain, MD)

PERSEE Annals of Oncology 2026 Figure 3: overall survival Kaplan-Meier estimates (shared by Rishabh Jain, MD)

Same slides also posted by @RManochakian.

Slide text (transcribed from the slide images) [Image 1: Annals of Oncology article page] ORIGINAL ARTICLE · Articles in Press, October 25, 2026 · Open Access. Pembrolizumab with or without platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment in advanced NSCLC expressing PD-L1 ≥50%: The PERSEE randomized phase III trial (GFPC 01-2020). Renaud Descourt, Alice Mogenet, Maelys Consigny, … Christos Chouaid, Laurent Greillier, Chantal Decroisette [Image 2: Figure 2, PFS by PD-L1 expression (50–74%, 75–100%, 90–100%); values as in the PD-L1 number table above] [Image 3: Figure 3, Overall survival, Kaplan-Meier estimates; values as in the OS number table above]

Dr Riyaz Shah@DrRiyazShah

Abstract 2614O results (released before the congress)

Oct 21, 2026 · ESMO 2026 · 2614O

View post on X ↗

PERSEE ESMO 2026 abstract 2614O results excerpt: 321 patients, PFS HR 0.56, OS HR 0.77 (shared by Riyaz Shah, MD)

Same slides also posted by @dr_yakupergun.

Slide text (transcribed from the slide images) [Abstract 2614O, Results excerpt] Between December 2020 and December 2023, 321 pts were randomised across 28 French centres. Median age was 64 years (59-69), 32.4% of pts were female, 2.2% were non-smokers, 23.4% had brain metastases, and 19.6% had squamous histology. At the cut-off date of 7 April 2026, the median follow-up was 38.7 (35.3-41.6) months. By BCR, pembro-CT significantly improved PFS compared with pembro: HR 0.56; 95% CI 0.43-0.74; p <0.001; median 16.1 (11.0-34.1) vs 6.9 (5.5-9.3) months. Median PFS by investigators was 13.7 (9.3-25.4) vs 6.9 (4.7-9.2) months (HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.46-0.78). Median OS was 50.2 (32.6-NR) vs 29.9 (23.4-47.9) months (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.57-1.05), ORR 77.5% vs 50.3%, DoR 30 (13.1-NR) vs 15.6 (9.8-32.8) months (HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.59-1.24) for pembro-CT and pembro, respectively. Grade ≥ 3 TRAEs occurred in 53.8% and 19.3% of pts in the pembro-CT and pembro arms, respectively.

KOL-Made Infographics

Physician-authored summary graphics from ESMO 2026 · click to enlarge

PERSEE (GFPC 01-2020) ESMO 2026 slide: PERSEE (shared by Jeff Ryckman, @jryckman3) — @jryckman3 · Oct 25, 2026 · ESMO 2026

KOL-Made Infographics

Summary graphics designed by a physician (not conference slides), made from the abstract before the presentation. Values are as the author drew them. Click to enlarge.

MV Onco infographic on PERSEE: pembrolizumab alone vs pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, PFS, response and toxicity (made by MV Chandrakanth, MD)

@ChandrakanthMv

MV Onco infographic on PERSEE part 1: is pembrolizumab alone enough, trial design and population (made by MV Chandrakanth, MD)

@ChandrakanthMv

MV Onco infographic on PERSEE part 2: does adding chemotherapy improve PFS, OS and response, and the toxicity cost (made by MV Chandrakanth, MD)

@ChandrakanthMv

MV Onco infographic on PERSEE part 3: who really needs chemotherapy, selection considerations (made by MV Chandrakanth, MD)

@ChandrakanthMv

Discussion Threads · ESMO 2026

PERSEE conversations on X

Full reply chains, in order, each post shown verbatim under its own author. In the first thread the presenter, Chantal Decroisette, answers Alfredo Addeo on how the pembrolizumab-alone arm compares with KEYNOTE-024.

The KEYNOTE-024 benchmark: did the pembrolizumab arm underperform?

5 posts · 3 physicians · 2K views

Stephen V Liu, MD @StephenVLiu · Oct 25, 2026

Off the rousing #ESMO26 oral presentation from Dr. @decroisette, the phase III PERSEE trial with simultaneous publication @Annals_Oncology. Combination of chemotherapy + pembrolizumab superior to pembro in PDL1 high NSCLC: PFS 16.1 vs 6.9m, HR 0.56! https://t.co/l2d3Sdd9CH

Alfredo Addeo MD @Alfdoc2 · Oct 25, 2026 replying in thread

Very disappointed to see how poorly Pembro performed in the standard arm. Even in very high PD-L1 the mPFS was only 7.1 months which is a lot lower of the 10 months seen in Keynote 024

chantal decroisette @decroisette · Oct 25, 2026 replying in thread

The update of the mPFS of the KN 024 is 7.7 months ( not 10 months) in the update datas ( Reck JCO 2021) . So our Pembrolizumab arm is consistent to KN 024 outcomes .

Alfredo Addeo MD @Alfdoc2 · Oct 25, 2026 replying in thread

Absolutely correct regarding the updated KEYNOTE-024 results. However, the initial analysis, with a median follow-up of 11.2 months, reported a mPFS of 10.3 months, compared with 7.7 months after nearly 5 years of follow-up. I wonder whether the maturity of the PERSEE data might also be relevant when choosing the most appropriate historical benchmark. Interesting discussion!

Alfredo Addeo MD @Alfdoc2 · Oct 25, 2026 replying in thread

And what I find particularly interesting is that even in patients with PD-L1 ≥90%, pembrolizumab monotherapy achieved a mPFS of only 7.1 months in PERSEE, whereas some published cohorts have reported substantially longer outcomes in this population.Of course, cross-trial comparisons have limitations. Importantly, we also lack information on potentially adverse molecular features, such as STK11 and KEAP1 alterations, which might have influenced outcomes. These factors could be particularly relevant when interpreting the performance of the control arm. Congratulations to you and the entire team on this excellent and important study! 👏 I genuinely look forward to further translational and molecular subgroup analyses that may help us better understand these findings. #ESMO26 #ESMOAmbassadors #NSCLC

Practice changing, and for whom?

2 posts · 2 physicians · 615 views

Prof Tom John @TommyJohn00 · Oct 25, 2026

Practice changing PERSEE trial. Chemo/IO vs IO in PDL1>50%. Trial powered for PFS, which was positive regardless of PDL1. OS not significant but favours chemo. More AEs with chemo. Hard to ignore these results but would’ve liked OS as primary. #LCSM #ESMO26 https://t.co/Al6qUUeocy

Patrick Forde @FordePatrick · Oct 25, 2026 replying in thread

Agree, great study and practice changing for ECOG 0-1 Pts. If anything one might have thought the very low number of non smokers in the study would have favored Pembro mono - but chemo Pembro still better

Before the presentation: the abstract and the PD-L1 subgroups

3 posts · 3 physicians · 1.6K views

Dr Riyaz Shah @DrRiyazShah · Oct 21, 2026

PERSEE abstract is a stunner with a clear signal favouring chemoIO combo over single agent IO in PDL1 high; strong PFS, trend OS: really looking forward to the presentation. Will be looking at subgroups with mag glass. Sunday morning @BTOGORG #ESMO26 https://t.co/Lxmk8V3ac2

Posted on October 21 from the abstract, before the presentation.

Simon C @scserendipity1 · Oct 21, 2026 replying in thread

Wow! That does look impressive. Is the percentage of sqamous low? See you in Madrid

Dionysis Papadatos-Pastos @DionysisPastos · Oct 21, 2026 replying in thread

Agree...the mag glass should be in the subgroups of PDL1... 50% not the same as 90 or 100% https://t.co/HKL9K6vI2m

Physician Reactions · ESMO 2026

Physician reactions to PERSEE

Full, verbatim posts, newest first, linked to the originals; posts that are part of a reply chain are in Discussion Threads above. In all, 45 posts from 29 physicians. Where a post’s statement differs from the presentation or paper, a note sits under it.

Yakup Ergün@dr_yakupergun

#ESMO26 | PERSEE We expected chemotherapy to add benefit, but the magnitude of PFS improvement even in PD-L1 ≥90% patients is striking. Despite the limitations of subgroup analyses, these findings challenge the routine preference for ICI monotherapy in this population. https://t.co/0h3Tn6bVp6 https://t.co/Z817K9TKsB

408 views 9 likes0 RT 2026-10-25

Rami Manochakian MD, FASCO@RManochakian

🔥🚨@OncoAlert Hot off the press. Just published @Annals_Oncology in conjunction with presentation @myESMO #ESMO26 results of: ⭐️#PERSEE phase 3 trial of: ❇️#Pembrolizumab monotherapy Vs #Pembrolizumab + #Chemotherapy 🎯For #1stLine Tx of advanced non-small-cell #LungCancer (#NSCLC) with HIGH #PDL1 (PD-L1 ≥50%). Study showed: ‼️Statistically significant & clinically meaningful ⬆️#ProgressionFreeSurvival Benefit. ✅#mPFS: 16.1 vs 6.9 mo (HR 0.56) ❓#mOS: 50.2 vs 29.9 mo NOT Statistical Significant (HR 0.77; 95% CI, 0.56–1.05) Study not powered for #OverallSurvival 👇🏻 https://t.co/V3yc1U84Bi

335 views 10 likes9 RT 2026-10-25

Gerard ZALCMAN@gzalcman

@decroisette @FordePatrick Congrats Chantal ! Great study superbly presented 👏🏻👏🏻 A really practice changing academic study funded by the French NCI (INCa)

10 views 0 likes0 RT 2026-10-25

Alfred So@AlfredSo12

Very well conducted study with hard to ignore results. Differences aren’t due to post-PD access. Definitely will change how we approach discussions with patients but I don’t think we can adopt a one-size-fits-all. Some patients still get excellent benefit from monotherapy. https://t.co/NySE2fyNVc

25 views 0 likes0 RT 2026-10-25

Roberto Ferrara@RobertoFerrara_

Unclear whether mono arm underperformed and the exact role of PD-L1 in Persee. Median PFS mono ICI in PD-L1 >90 : 10-15 months vs 7 months in Persee in all high PD-L1 subcategories. OS>50 months with chemo-ICI unrealistic..need more follow up https://t.co/MP90Br4qTj

280 views 8 likes2 RT 2026-10-25

Dr. Poetic 🩺 Oncology 🇮🇱@Dr_Doc_

המשך עדוכנים מהכנס: #ESMO2026 #ESMO26 @myESMO מחקר PERSEE ששאל האם כדאי להוסיף כימותרפיה לאימונותרפיה גם כש־PD-L1 ≥50%? המחקר שסיפק השוואה ישירה בין pembrolizumab בלבד לבין השילוב עם כימותרפיה ב־NSCLC מתקדם בחולים עם NSCLC מתקדם וביטוי PD-L1 של 50% ומעלה, ללא שינויים אונקוגניים הניתנים לטיפול ממוקד בהתאם לקריטריוני המחקר, שתי אסטרטגיות טיפול מרכזיות עומדות זו לצד זו: pembrolizumab כמונותרפיה, או pembrolizumab בשילוב כימותרפיה מבוססת פלטינום. עד PERSEE, לא היו נתונים מניסוי Phase III שהשלים השוואה ישירה בין שתי האסטרטגיות באוכלוסייה זו. השאלה הקלינית הייתה מרכזית: האם הוספת כימותרפיה משפרת את השליטה במחלה, ומה המחיר מבחינת רעילות? מה למדנו מהמחקרים הקודמים? 1. KEYNOTE-024 ביסוס המונותרפיה המחקר השווה pembrolizumab לכימותרפיה מבוססת פלטינום בחולים עם PD-L1 ≥50%, והדגים יתרון לטובת pembrolizumab ב־PFS ובהישרדות הכוללת. בכך ביסס את המונותרפיה כאפשרות טיפול מרכזית בקו הראשון. 2. KEYNOTE-189 ו־KEYNOTE-407 ביסוס השילוב מחקרים אלה הראו כי הוספת pembrolizumab לכימותרפיה משפרת תוצאות לעומת כימותרפיה בלבד, הן ב־NSCLC שאינו קשקשי והן במחלה קשקשית. התועלת נצפתה גם בחולים עם PD-L1 ≥50%. עם זאת, מחקרים אלה לא השוו ישירות בין השילוב לבין pembrolizumab בלבד אלא מול כימותרפיה בלבד 3. KEYNOTE-598 שאלה טיפולית אחרת הוספת ipilimumab ל־pembrolizumab לא שיפרה את התוצאות והגבירה את הרעילות. חשוב לזכור שמדובר בהוספת אימונותרפיה מסוג אחר, ולא בהוספת כימותרפיה. לכן אין להסיק ממחקר זה ישירות לגבי התועלת האפשרית של כימותרפיה בשילוב עם pembrolizumab. מה בדק המחקר PERSEE? מדובר במחקר פאזה 3 אקראי, פתוח, שנערך ב־28 מרכזים בצרפת. במחקר השתתפו 321 חולים עם NSCLC מתקדם, שלא קיבלו טיפול סיסטמי קודם למחלה המתקדמת, עם PD-L1 ≥50% ו־ECOG 0–1. החולים הוקצו ל־pembrolizumab בלבד או ל־pembrolizumab בשילוב כימותרפיה מבוססת פלטינום. נקודת הסיום הראשית הייתה PFS, בהערכה מרכזית סמויה להקצאת הטיפול. חציון המעקב היה 38.7 חודשים. התוצאות המרכזיות: PFS נקודת הסיום הראשית חציון PFS היה 16.1 חודשים בשילוב לעומת 6.9 חודשים במונותרפיה של אינותרפיה בלבד HR 0.56 (95% CI 0.43–0.74; P<0.001). כלומר, השילוב הפחית בכ־44% את הסיכון היחסי להתקדמות המחלה או למוות בהשוואה ל־pembrolizumab בלבד. ORR שיעור התגובה האובייקטיבית 77.5% בשילוב לעומת 50.3% במונותרפיה. התקדמות מוקדמת: שיעור ההתקדמות המוקדמת היה 5.8% בשילוב לעומת 26.5% במונותרפיה. מדובר בנקודת סיום חקרנית, שהוגדרה כהתקדמות קלינית ו/או רדיולוגית לפני בדיקת ההדמיה הראשונה או במועד הבדיקה, סביב שישה שבועות. משך התגובה: חציון משך התגובה היה 30.0 חודשים בשילוב לעומת 15.6 חודשים במונותרפיה. עם זאת, ה־HR לאובדן תגובה או מוות היה 0.88 (95% CI 0.60–1.29), ולכן אין לקבוע שההבדל במשך התגובה מובהק סטטיסטית. הישרדות כוללת OS חציון OS היה 50.2 חודשים בשילוב לעומת 29.9 חודשים במונותרפיה. HR 0.77 (95% CI 0.56–1.05). ההבדל המספרי נוטה לטובת השילוב, אך לא הודגם יתרון מובהק סטטיסטית ב־OS. המחקר תוכנן לבחון את ה־PFS ולא היה בעל עוצמה מספקת להוכחת הבדל בהישרדות הכוללת. בטיחות: תופעות לוואי הקשורות לטיפול בדרגה 3 ומעלה התרחשו ב־54% מהחולים שקיבלו את השילוב, לעומת 19% במונותרפיה. שיעור תופעות הלוואי החיסוניות בדרגה 3 ומעלה היה 13% בשתי הקבוצות. המשמעות הקלינית: מחקר PERSEE מוסיף ראיות אקראיות ישירות לשאלה שלא נפתרה במחקרים הקודמים. בחולים עם NSCLC מתקדם ו־PD-L1 גבוה, הוספת כימותרפיה ל־pembrolizumab שיפרה באופן מובהק את ה־PFS והייתה קשורה לשיעור תגובה גבוה יותר ולשיעור נמוך יותר של התקדמות מוקדמת. יתרונות אלה עשויים להיות חשובים במיוחד בחולים שבהם יש צורך בשליטה מוקדמת במחלה. מנגד, יש להביא בחשבון את העלייה המשמעותית ברעילות. חשוב להדגיש כי המחקר לא הוכיח יתרון מובהק סטטיסטית ב־OS, ונתוני איכות החיים לא נכללו בדיווח הנוכחי. כמו כן, תוצאות המחקר אינן קובעות שהשילוב עדיף לכל חולה עם PD-L1 ≥50%. בחירת הטיפול צריכה להיות מותאמת למאפייני המחלה, לעומס הגידולי ולקצב התקדמותה, למצבו התפקודי של המטופל, לתחלואה הנלווית, לסבילות הצפויה לטיפול ולהעדפות המטופל. בשורה התחתונה: המסר המרכזי של PERSEE: הוספת כימותרפיה ל־pembrolizumab משפרת באופן מובהק את השליטה במחלה, אך במחיר של רעילות מוגברת. המחקר מחזק את מקומו של השילוב כאפשרות טיפול בקו הראשון גם בחולים עם PD-L1 גבוה, במיוחד כאשר נדרשת שליטה מוקדמת במחלה והמטופל מסוגל לשאת את הטיפול. עם זאת, הוא אינו מבטל את מקומה של מונותרפיה ב־pembrolizumab. ההחלטה בין שתי האסטרטגיות צריכה להתקבל באופן פרטני, תוך שקילת התועלת הצפויה מול הסיכון.

264 views 4 likes1 RT 2026-10-25

Nurullah İlhan,MD@drnurullahilhan

PD-L1 ≥50% does not make the chemotherapy question disappear. PERSEE directly compared pembrolizumab + platinum-based chemotherapy with pembrolizumab alone in untreated EGFR/ALK-negative advanced NSCLC. • Primary BICR-PFS: 16.1 vs 6.9 months • HR 0.56; P<0.001 • OS: 50.2 vs 29.9 months, but NOT statistically significant: HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.57–1.05 • Grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs: 53.8% vs 19.3% A clear PFS benefit comes with substantially more toxicity. Which PD-L1-high patients can reasonably avoid chemotherapy—and which need the higher response rate and longer disease control? @StephenVLiu @CharuAggarwalMD @myESMO @OncoAlert #PERSEE #ESMO26 #LCSM

35 views 0 likes0 RT 2026-10-25

Dr Rishabh Jain@DrRishabhOnco

🚨 PD-L1 ≥50% in NSCLC: Is pembrolizumab alone enough? 🔥 PERSEE Phase III | #ESMO26 Concomitant publication in Annals of Oncology. Pembrolizumab + chemotherapy vs pembrolizumab alone: 📊 PFS: 16.1 vs 6.9 months (HR 0.56) 🎯 ORR: 77.5% vs 50.3% ⚠️ Grade ≥3 toxicity: 54% vs 19% OS: 50.2 vs 29.9 months (HR 0.77), not statistically significant. 💡 Verdict: Better disease control, but at a substantial toxicity cost. Is PD-L1 ≥50% alone sufficient to omit chemotherapy? @ESMO_open @myesmo @ASCO @oncoalert #ESMO26 #LungCancer

1.5K views 14 likes4 RT 2026-10-25

Julien Mazieres@JulienMazieres

‼️ In first line treatment of advanced PD-L1 ≥50% NSCLC, PERSEE demonstrates a significant improvement of PFS with pembro-CT compared to pembro monotherapy regardless of PDL1 level of (over)expression. Practise changing trial. @myESMO @OncoAlert #ESMO26 👏👏👏 @decroisette https://t.co/PXSKgrImYX

923 views 14 likes10 RT 2026-10-25

Noemi Reguart@NReguart

Impressive results Academic III PERSEE #ESMO26 @Annals_Oncology First positive random trial adding chemo to pembro in PD-L1 ≥50% NSCLC: 🔹 PFS: 16.1 vs 6.9 mo HR 0.56 🔹 OS: 50.2 vs 29.9 mo HR 0.77, NS 🔹 G≥3 TRAEs: 54% vs 19% Outstanding discussion Prof. Levy @benlevylungdoc. https://t.co/w7SQ8w75QT

510 views 15 likes10 RT 2026-10-25

d.planchard@dplanchard

Academic & pragmatic phase III trial (PERSEE) #ESMO26 reshaping therapeutic choices for PD-L1 high patients (including ultra-high PD-L1 80/90%). Convincing & impressive results. Huge congrats to the GFPC group 🇫🇷 for leading this unique and crucial study! 👏@decroisette https://t.co/GhrgWTxf8Q

332 views 10 likes7 RT 2026-10-25

Alfredo Addeo MD@Alfdoc2

🎯 #ESMO26 | Excellent discussion by @benlevylungdoc on SARON and PERSEE! Two trials, two important lessons for advanced NSCLC. 🔹 SARON: Consolidative radiotherapy improved PFS and local disease control in oligo metastatic NSCLC, but no OS benefit (HR 0.99). 🔹 PERSEE: Pembrolizumab + chemo met its primary endpoint PFS but not OS though numerically better (not powered for OS) in PD-L1 ≥50% NSCLC. Key messages from @benlevylungdoc : • Oligometastatic disease needs better biological definition, beyond the number of lesions. • Treatment intensification should be guided by better patient selection. • More treatment does not automatically mean better outcomes! - Lower threshold to add chemo to pembro in PD-L1 >50% 👏 A thoughtful discussion with practical implications for our clinics. #ESMOAmbassador #LungCancer #NSCLC

481 views 10 likes7 RT 2026-10-25

Prof Tom John@TommyJohn00

Fantastic discussion from @benlevylungdoc. On SARON, tumour heterogeneity may explain negative results. On PERSEE, agree that it is practice changing and clean data. Where do ADCs fit when design removes chemo? Also can we use ctDNA and adaptive design? #LCSM #ESMO26

272 views 5 likes3 RT 2026-10-25

Stephen V Liu, MD@StephenVLiu

#ESMO26 Dr. @benlevylungdoc guides a thoughtful discussion on escalation of therapy for driver negative NSCLC. Notes limitations of current tools to guide proper use of local consolidative radiation. Addition of chemotherapy as done in PERSEE is a real win, even in ultra high. Awaiting other studies, including INSIGNA. #ESMOAmbassadors

453 views 4 likes3 RT 2026-10-25

Masahiro TORASAWA, MD. PhD.@M_Torasawa

これはPD-L1高発現のNSCLCにおける日常診療での治療選択を考える上で非常に大事な論文 https://t.co/wIaTSqQr8W

3.2K views 42 likes1 RT 2026-10-25

Masahiro TORASAWA, MD. PhD.@M_Torasawa

#ESMO26 2614O PERSEE Head-to-head comparison of 1L treatments for NSCLC with PD-L1 ≥50% 📚Ann Oncol 2026 https://t.co/l4gbarp7a1 🔑Key Results 🎯 Population: 321 treatment-naïve advanced NSCLC patients with PD-L1≥50% and no driver mutations 📈 Median PFS: 16.1 months (Combo) vs 6.9 months (Mono) (HR 0.56, P<0.001) 🏆 ORR: 77.5% (Combo) vs 50.3% (Mono) ⏱️ Early progression rate (at 6 weeks): Drastically reduced with Combo (5.8%) vs Mono (26.5%) ⚠️ Grade ≥3 TRAEs: 54% (Combo) vs 19% (Mono) 🔥 The PFS benefit of Combo was maintained even in the ultra-high PD-L1 (90-100%) subgroup (25.4 vs 7.1 months)

4.9K views 48 likes9 RT 2026-10-25

Gerry Hanna@gerryhanna

Randomised phase 3 Persée study presented at #ESMO26 this morning ➡️ chemotherapy and Pembrolizumab improved OS when compared with Pembro alone in patients with local advanced NSCLC with PD-L1 ≥50% https://t.co/QqFeHafmUH

Context: OS was a secondary endpoint and the difference was not statistically significant: median 50.2 vs 29.9 months, HR 0.77 (95% CI 0.56–1.05). The trial was not powered for OS.

592 views 12 likes8 RT 2026-10-25

Hidehito HORINOUCHI@HHorinouchi

🔥PERSEE: Pembrolizumab + chemo vs pembrolizumab monotherapy in PD-L1 ≥50% advanced NSCLC 🆙 @Annals_Oncology #ESMO26 ☑Phase 3 RCT (GFPC); N=321; mFU 38.7 mo 🎯mPFS 16.1 vs 6.9 mo (HR 0.56, p<0.001); mOS 50.2 vs 29.9 mo (HR 0.77) — chemo adds significant PFS benefit 💡Grade ≥3 irAEs equal (13% each); tolerable combination profile 🎙Dr. Renaud Descourt & Dr. Chantal Decroisette #LCSM @OncoAlert @Larvol @IASLC https://t.co/6ScnxKoasY

435 views 6 likes2 RT 2026-10-25

Dr. Antonio Calles 🫁🚭@Tony_Calles

Is more better in PD-L1 >50% PD-L1 NSCLC? 🇫🇷 PERSEE trial demonstrated that compared to pembro monotherapy, chemo-pembro showed better ORR and PFS, less early progressions, and numerically longer OS although not statistically significant (secondary endpoint, not powered). Really every patient needs chemo-IO? Is this the end of the discussion or just more data to debate? #ESMO26 #LCSM

129 views 2 likes0 RT 2026-10-25

Yakup Ergün@dr_yakupergun

#ESMO26 | PERSEE For patients fit enough to tolerate chemotherapy, these results strengthen my preference for pembro + CT, even with very high PD-L1. The sustained PFS benefit and encouraging OS separation deserve attention. Heartfelt congratulations to the investigators for conducting this academic, multicentre trial addressing a question we face every day👏

1.3K views 8 likes2 RT 2026-10-25

Dr Adam Januszewski@AdamJanuszewski

🫁 PERSEE phase III: Pembro + chemo vs pembro alone in PD-L1 ≥50% NSCLC. 📈 PFS: 16.1 vs 6.9m (HR 0.56) OS: HR 0.77 (95% CI 0.57–1.05) 29.9vs50 mo ⚠️ Grade ≥3 TRAEs: 54% vs 19% Better disease control, numerical better OS. Patient selection key - practice informing #ESMO2026 https://t.co/OTWMrmzFVd

65 views 0 likes0 RT 2026-10-25

Dr Riyaz Shah@DrRiyazShah

PERSÉE; massive benefit for chemoIO over IO in all PDL1 strata in PFS; OS highly suggestive of benefit but NS; I think this is globally practice influencing #ESMO26 @BTOGORG https://t.co/ZigjqMKvbA

210 views 2 likes1 RT 2026-10-25

Alfredo Addeo MD@Alfdoc2

🚨 #ESMO26 | PERSEE phase III trial Dr Decroisette presents PERSEE, comparing pembrolizumab + chemo vs pembrolizumab alone in 1L advanced NSCLC with PD-L1 ≥50%. Numerically better PFS with the combination, but the primary endpoint was NOT met. The study was stopped prematurely, limiting its statistical power. 📉 Importantly, the pembrolizumab-alone arm substantially underperformed expectations in terms of PFS, raising important questions about the interpretation and generalisability of these findings. A numerically longer OS was also observed (50.2 vs 29.9 months), but the trial was not powered to demonstrate an OS difference. A thought-provoking study reminding us that numerical differences, statistical significance and clinical relevance are not always the same thing IMO #ESMOAmbassadors #ESMO26 #PERSEE #NSCLC #LungCancer

Context: in the presentation and the Annals of Oncology paper, the primary endpoint (PFS by blinded central review) was met: HR 0.56 (95% CI 0.43–0.74), P<0.001. The final analysis was run at the planned end of the study with 210 of the 249 planned PFS events, which lowered power from 80% to 73%.

405 views 7 likes6 RT 2026-10-25

Stephen V Liu, MD@StephenVLiu

#ESMO26 Dr. @decroisette with the important PERSEE trial: pembrolizumab +/- chemotherapy in PDL1 high NSCLC. Enrolled 321 pts in 3y at 28 sites. Pembro-chemo PFS 16.1 vs 6.9m (HR 0.56), better across strata. OS 50.2 vs 29.9m (HR 0.77, ns) - not powered for OS. #ESMOAmbassadors https://t.co/B9NBt7E1bP

657 views 15 likes8 RT 2026-10-25

Hidehito HORINOUCHI@HHorinouchi

🆙#ESMO26 Proffered Paper I: #LCSM Mets 🔥PERSEE (GFPC 01-2020): Pembrolizumab With or Without Platinum-Based Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment in Advanced NSCLC With PD-L1 ≥50%, Phase 3 Trial 🎙️ @decroisette 🔢2614O 🎯Pembro-Chemo Improved BCR-PFS vs Pembro Alone 🎯PFS HR 0.56, mPFS 16.1 vs 6.9m 🎯OS HR 0.77 not significant; mOS 50.2 vs 29.9mo 🎯Grade≥3 TRAEs 53.8% vs 19.3% ☑️NCT04547504 🔗 https://t.co/uGHKJfjhvW @OncoAlert @Larvol @myESMO @IASLC

979 views 7 likes5 RT 2026-10-25

Charles Ricordel@C_Ricordel

@myGFPC PRESEE trial is now presented by @decroisette #ESMO26. Publication in annals of oncology simultaneously ! So proup of our cooperative group 💪🇨🇵 https://t.co/ZnqX7HeAGH

71 views 2 likes1 RT 2026-10-25

Tejas Patil@TejasPatilMD

⭐️Optimal integration and duration of pembrolizumab will be evaluated in two critical studies that I believe address very practical concerns for thoracic oncologists. 1⃣PERSEE phase 3 trial (GFPC 01-2020) - will address the value of pembrolizumab in PD-L1 ≥50% 2⃣IFCT-2103 DIAL phase 2-3 randomized trial - will address value of continuing maintenance pem/pembro beyond 2 yrs in a prospective fashion. @lcsmchat @OncoAlert @OncLive @Onco_Nexus @LungCancerEu @Lung_Cancers @LungCancerRx @MedwatchHQ @YoungLungCancer

205 views 1 likes0 RT 2026-10-24

Dra. María Natalia Gandur Quiroga@nataliagandur

🫁 PD-L1 ≥50% has long supported pembrolizumab monotherapy — but PERSEE asks whether some of these patients should receive more upfront. @OncoAlert At #ESMO26, phase III PERSEE compared pembrolizumab + platinum-based chemotherapy versus pembrolizumab alone in first-line advanced #NSCLC with PD-L1 ≥50%. 📊 n=321 ➡️ Median PFS: 16.1 vs 6.9 months HR 0.56 (0.43–0.74), p<0.001 ➡️ Median OS: 50.2 vs 29.9 months HR 0.77 (0.57–1.05) ➡️ ORR: 77.5% vs 50.3% But the trade-off is substantial: ⚠️ Grade ≥3 TRAEs: 53.8% vs 19.3% 🎯 Why this matters: PD-L1 ≥50% may not be enough, by itself, to decide between pembrolizumab alone and chemo-immunotherapy. For me, the real clinical question is now: Which PD-L1–high patients need the deeper and faster disease control of chemotherapy upfront — and which can safely avoid the added toxicity? That is where tumor burden, symptoms, pace of disease, comorbidities and better biomarkers will matter most. Excellent work from @decroisette @BenjaminBesseMD @LGreillier @C_Ricordel @FGuisier and the PERSEE investigators. Pinging @christine_lovly @GlopesMd @DrSanjayPopat @StephenVLiu @jillfeldman4 @CharuAggarwalMD @peters_solange @BRicciutiMD @VanitaNoronha @JordiRemon #OncoAlert #ESMO26 #LungCancer #NSCLC #Immunotherapy #PDL1 #PrecisionOncology

205 views 6 likes4 RT 2026-10-23

Johan Pluvy | Thoracic Oncology News@johanpluvy

Can pembrolizumab monotherapy still be considered the optimal control arm in actual and future phase III trials for chemotherapy-eligible patients with advanced NSCLC and PD-L1 ≥50%? Looking forward to detailed results! #LCSM @decroisette @myGFPC @myESMO @Larvol @OncoAlert https://t.co/KOZVJ3uFvE

274 views 3 likes3 RT 2026-10-22

MV Chandrakanth@ChandrakanthMv

PERSEE | ESMO 2026 PD-L1 ≥50% NSCLC: Is Adding Chemotherapy Worth It? Phase III | 321 patients | Pembrolizumab ± chemotherapy 🔹 PFS: 16.1 vs 6.9 months (HR 0.56; p<0.001) 🔹 ORR: 77.5% vs 50.3% 🔹 OS: 50.2 vs 29.9 months (HR 0.77; not statistically significant) 🔹 Grade ≥3 toxicity: 53.8% vs 19.3% TAKE-HOME: Adding chemotherapy substantially improves disease control but increases severe toxicity, without a statistically proven OS benefit. Better PFS ≠ Proven Longer Survival. Patient selection remains crucial. 📖 Reference: Decroisette C et al. PERSEE (GFPC 01-2020), Phase III trial. ESMO Congress 2026, Proffered Paper — Metastatic NSCLC. #ESMO2026 #PERSEE #NSCLC #LungCancer #Immunotherapy #MVOnco

855 views 7 likes4 RT 2026-10-21

d.planchard@dplanchard

Hard not to add the PERSEE study, (a GFPC trial 🇫🇷) so eagerly awaited for our daily practice and so often cited for its design and the anticipation of its results (1st in place for the PD-L1 high patient strategy) which are finally here and truly impressive #ESMO26 ! 📈🔥 https://t.co/gbcXhNRn8r

927 views 7 likes3 RT 2026-10-21

d.planchard@dplanchard

Superb French pragmatic study by the GFPC 🇫🇷 and the only one asking this crucial question: combination therapy vs. mono-pembro in our PD-L1 High patients! 👏 Kudos, and a top highlight from #ESMO26 for lung cancer 🫁✨ https://t.co/5KBL9UbRuF

1.2K views 23 likes7 RT 2026-10-21

Yakup Ergün@dr_yakupergun

#ESMO26 | PERSEE – Phase III In advanced NSCLC with PD-L1 ≥50%, adding chemotherapy to pembrolizumab improved median PFS from 6.9 to 16.1 months (HR 0.56). The numerical OS difference was notable (50.2 vs 29.9 months; HR 0.77), but not statistically significant. However, we should remember that OS was not the primary endpoint! Grade ≥3 toxicity: 53.8% vs 19.3%. I think adding chemotherapy provides benefit, but at the cost of increased toxicity. We need to better identify the patients for whom this toxicity is worth it.

Posted on October 20 from the 2614O abstract, before the presentation.

4.1K views 45 likes12 RT 2026-10-20

chantal decroisette@decroisette

PERSEE, GFPC academic phase III trial meets its primary endpoint! In 1L advanced NSCLC with PD-L1 ≥50%, pembrolizumab + chemotherapy significantly improved PFS vs pembrolizumab alone: 16.1 vs 6.9 months; HR 0.56; p<0.001. 📍 Join us at #ESMO26 !! https://t.co/HBW9zbos6H

205 views 7 likes6 RT 2026-10-19

chantal decroisette@decroisette

Very honored to present the results of the PERSEE phase III trial (GFPC 01-2020) in an oral session at #ESMO26 in Madrid 🇪🇸 📅 Sunday, October 25 🕙 10:15 AM 🎤 Abstract 2614O https://t.co/HBW9zbnUh9 Thank you to the investigators, the GFPC, Brest CHU and Centre Leon Bérard !

121 views 7 likes6 RT 2026-09-24

Trial Design

PERSEE Trial Design

PERSEE asked whether adding platinum-based chemotherapy to pembrolizumab improves outcomes over pembrolizumab alone for patients with untreated advanced NSCLC whose tumors express PD-L1 on at least 50% of tumor cells. Both approaches are standard first-line options, but no completed phase 3 trial had compared them directly. The academic trial is sponsored by University Hospital, Brest, with the Groupe Français de Pneumo-Cancérologie (GFPC), and was funded by the French Hospital Clinical Research Program (PHRC K 20-147) and the GFPC. Between December 22, 2020, and December 21, 2023, 321 patients were randomized at 28 centers in France. Results were presented by Chantal Decroisette, MD, at ESMO 2026 (2614O, Proffered paper 1: NSCLC, metastatic, October 25, 2026), with Benjamin Levy, MD, as discussant, and published simultaneously in Annals of Oncology.

Study Design

Randomized 1:1, open-label, multicenter phase 3 (NCT04547504); 160 vs 161 patients. Stratified by histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and brain metastases. Superiority design for PFS assuming HR 0.70, 80% power, two-sided α 0.05; 249 events planned, 210 observed at the planned end of the study.

Population

Treatment-naive stage IV, or unresectable stage III not amenable to definitive radiotherapy, NSCLC; PD-L1 TPS ≥50% by local test; ECOG 0–1; no EGFR, ALK or ROS1 alteration. Median age 64; 19.6% squamous; 23.4% brain metastases; 2.2% never smokers; PD-L1 90–100% in 34%.

Interventions

Pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles, alone or with 4 cycles of chemotherapy: pemetrexed with carboplatin AUC 5 or cisplatin (non-squamous; then pembrolizumab + pemetrexed maintenance) or carboplatin AUC 6 + paclitaxel (squamous; then pembrolizumab).

Endpoints

Primary: PFS by blinded central review (RECIST v1.1). Secondary: investigator PFS, iRECIST PFS, OS, ORR, DoR, duration of treatment, safety, PD-L1 subgroups. Exploratory: early progression at 6 weeks, PFS2, quality of life, biomarkers.

Presenter & Discussant

Presenter: Chantal Decroisette, MD (Department of Medical Oncology, Léon Bérard Cancer Center, Lyon), who contributed equally to the Annals of Oncology paper with its first author, Renaud Descourt, MD (Brest University Hospital). Invited discussant: Benjamin Levy, MD (Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Sibley Memorial Hospital).

Data Cut

Single analysis; database lock and data cutoff April 7, 2026; median follow-up 38.7 months (35.3–41.6). No interim analysis was planned or performed.

ESMO 2026 programme (2614O) Annals of Oncology paper ClinicalTrials.gov HARMONi-2 profile

Major Media & Publications

PERSEE in the News

Publication

Pembrolizumab with or without platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment in advanced NSCLC expressing PD-L1 ≥50%: the PERSEE randomized phase III trial (GFPC 01-2020)

Annals of OncologyOct 25, 2026

Abstract

2614O: Pembrolizumab with or without platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment in advanced NSCLC with PD-L1 ≥50%: PERSEE phase 3 trial (GFPC 01-2020)

ESMO 2026Oct 25, 2026

Design paper

First-line pembrolizumab with or without platinum doublet chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer patients with PD-L1 expression ≥50% (PERSEE protocol)

Future Oncology2021

FDA label

KEYTRUDA (pembrolizumab) US prescribing information: first-line NSCLC indications as a single agent and with platinum chemotherapy

FDARevised 02/2026

Registry

PEmbRolizumab verSus chEmotherapy and pEmbrolizumab in NSCLC with PD-L1 ≥50% (PERSEE)

ClinicalTrials.govNCT04547504

FAQ

PERSEE Questions

What is the PERSEE trial?

PERSEE (GFPC 01-2020, NCT04547504) is an academic, open-label, randomized phase 3 trial run at 28 centers in France. It compared pembrolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy with pembrolizumab alone as first-line treatment in 321 patients with advanced NSCLC, PD-L1 ≥50% and no EGFR, ALK or ROS1 alteration. Design: Trial Design.

What did PERSEE show at ESMO 2026?

The primary endpoint was met: PFS by blinded central review was 16.1 vs 6.9 months (HR 0.56; P<0.001). Overall survival, a secondary endpoint the trial was not powered for, was 50.2 vs 29.9 months (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.56–1.05), not statistically significant. Figures: At a Glance.

Did patients with PD-L1 90% or higher also benefit from adding chemotherapy?

In the descriptive PD-L1 90–100% subgroup (109 patients), median PFS was 25.4 vs 7.1 months, HR 0.6 (95% CI 0.36–1). Subgroup results are descriptive and were not formally tested. Values: At a Glance.

Are pembrolizumab alone and pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy FDA approved for this population?

Yes, both are FDA-approved first-line options. KEYTRUDA (pembrolizumab) is approved as a single agent for NSCLC with PD-L1 TPS ≥1% and no EGFR or ALK aberrations, and in combination with pemetrexed and platinum (nonsquamous) or carboplatin and paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel (squamous) for metastatic NSCLC. PERSEE compared these two strategies head to head; it did not lead to a new approval.

How much more toxic was the combination?

Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 54% with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy vs 19% with pembrolizumab alone; grade ≥3 immune-related adverse events were 13% in each arm, and 48% of patients stopped chemotherapy because of adverse events. Details: At a Glance.

Did the pembrolizumab-alone arm underperform?

Physicians debated this after the presentation (see Discussion Threads). The authors report that the median PFS of 6.9 months with pembrolizumab alone is consistent with KEYNOTE-024 at 5-year follow-up (7.7 months) and KEYNOTE-042 (7.1 months).

Physician Opinions

Key KOL Sentiments - PERSEE

23 positive, 19 neutral and 3 negative posts from physicians, each shown verbatim.

Physician	Date	Sentiment	Post (verbatim)
Yakup Ergün @dr_yakupergun	Oct 25, 2026	● POSITIVE	#ESMO26 \| PERSEE We expected chemotherapy to add benefit, but the magnitude of PFS improvement even in PD-L1 ≥90% patients is striking. Despite the limitations of subgroup analyses, these findings challenge the routine preference for ICI monotherapy in this population. https://t.co/0h3Tn6bVp6 https://t.co/Z817K9TKsB
Rami Manochakian MD, FASCO @RManochakian	Oct 25, 2026	● POSITIVE	🔥🚨@OncoAlert Hot off the press. Just published @Annals_Oncology in conjunction with presentation @myESMO #ESMO26 results of: ⭐️#PERSEE phase 3 trial of: ❇️#Pembrolizumab monotherapy Vs #Pembrolizumab + #Chemotherapy 🎯For #1stLine Tx of advanced non-small-cell #LungCancer (#NSCLC) with HIGH #PDL1 (PD-L1 ≥50%). Study showed: ‼️Statistically significant & clinically meaningful ⬆️#ProgressionFreeSurvival Benefit. ✅#mPFS: 16.1 vs 6.9 mo (HR 0.56) ❓#mOS: 50.2 vs 29.9 mo NOT Statistical Significant (HR 0.77; 95% CI, 0.56–1.05) Study not powered for #OverallSurvival 👇🏻 https://t.co/V3yc1U84Bi
Gerard ZALCMAN @gzalcman	Oct 25, 2026	● POSITIVE	@decroisette @FordePatrick Congrats Chantal ! Great study superbly presented 👏🏻👏🏻 A really practice changing academic study funded by the French NCI (INCa)
Alfred So @AlfredSo12	Oct 25, 2026	● POSITIVE	Very well conducted study with hard to ignore results. Differences aren’t due to post-PD access. Definitely will change how we approach discussions with patients but I don’t think we can adopt a one-size-fits-all. Some patients still get excellent benefit from monotherapy. https://t.co/NySE2fyNVc
Stephen V Liu, MD @StephenVLiu	Oct 25, 2026	● POSITIVE	Off the rousing #ESMO26 oral presentation from Dr. @decroisette, the phase III PERSEE trial with simultaneous publication @Annals_Oncology. Combination of chemotherapy + pembrolizumab superior to pembro in PDL1 high NSCLC: PFS 16.1 vs 6.9m, HR 0.56! https://t.co/l2d3Sdd9CH
Julien Mazieres @JulienMazieres	Oct 25, 2026	● POSITIVE	‼️ In first line treatment of advanced PD-L1 ≥50% NSCLC, PERSEE demonstrates a significant improvement of PFS with pembro-CT compared to pembro monotherapy regardless of PDL1 level of (over)expression. Practise changing trial. @myESMO @OncoAlert #ESMO26 👏👏👏 @decroisette https://t.co/PXSKgrImYX
Noemi Reguart @NReguart	Oct 25, 2026	● POSITIVE	Impressive results Academic III PERSEE #ESMO26 @Annals_Oncology First positive random trial adding chemo to pembro in PD-L1 ≥50% NSCLC: 🔹 PFS: 16.1 vs 6.9 mo HR 0.56 🔹 OS: 50.2 vs 29.9 mo HR 0.77, NS 🔹 G≥3 TRAEs: 54% vs 19% Outstanding discussion Prof. Levy @benlevylungdoc. https://t.co/w7SQ8w75QT
d.planchard @dplanchard	Oct 25, 2026	● POSITIVE	Academic & pragmatic phase III trial (PERSEE) #ESMO26 reshaping therapeutic choices for PD-L1 high patients (including ultra-high PD-L1 80/90%). Convincing & impressive results. Huge congrats to the GFPC group 🇫🇷 for leading this unique and crucial study! 👏@decroisette https://t.co/GhrgWTxf8Q
Prof Tom John @TommyJohn00	Oct 25, 2026	● POSITIVE	Fantastic discussion from @benlevylungdoc. On SARON, tumour heterogeneity may explain negative results. On PERSEE, agree that it is practice changing and clean data. Where do ADCs fit when design removes chemo? Also can we use ctDNA and adaptive design? #LCSM #ESMO26
Stephen V Liu, MD @StephenVLiu	Oct 25, 2026	● POSITIVE	#ESMO26 Dr. @benlevylungdoc guides a thoughtful discussion on escalation of therapy for driver negative NSCLC. Notes limitations of current tools to guide proper use of local consolidative radiation. Addition of chemotherapy as done in PERSEE is a real win, even in ultra high. Awaiting other studies, including INSIGNA. #ESMOAmbassadors
Masahiro TORASAWA, MD. PhD. @M_Torasawa	Oct 25, 2026	● POSITIVE	これはPD-L1高発現のNSCLCにおける日常診療での治療選択を考える上で非常に大事な論文 https://t.co/wIaTSqQr8W
Patrick Forde @FordePatrick	Oct 25, 2026	● POSITIVE	Agree, great study and practice changing for ECOG 0-1 Pts. If anything one might have thought the very low number of non smokers in the study would have favored Pembro mono - but chemo Pembro still better
Gerry Hanna @gerryhanna	Oct 25, 2026	● POSITIVE	Randomised phase 3 Persée study presented at #ESMO26 this morning ➡️ chemotherapy and Pembrolizumab improved OS when compared with Pembro alone in patients with local advanced NSCLC with PD-L1 ≥50% https://t.co/QqFeHafmUH
Hidehito HORINOUCHI @HHorinouchi	Oct 25, 2026	● POSITIVE	🔥PERSEE: Pembrolizumab + chemo vs pembrolizumab monotherapy in PD-L1 ≥50% advanced NSCLC 🆙 @Annals_Oncology #ESMO26 ☑Phase 3 RCT (GFPC); N=321; mFU 38.7 mo 🎯mPFS 16.1 vs 6.9 mo (HR 0.56, p<0.001); mOS 50.2 vs 29.9 mo (HR 0.77) — chemo adds significant PFS benefit 💡Grade ≥3 irAEs equal (13% each); tolerable combination profile 🎙Dr. Renaud Descourt & Dr. Chantal Decroisette #LCSM @OncoAlert @Larvol @IASLC https://t.co/6ScnxKoasY
Prof Tom John @TommyJohn00	Oct 25, 2026	● POSITIVE	Practice changing PERSEE trial. Chemo/IO vs IO in PDL1>50%. Trial powered for PFS, which was positive regardless of PDL1. OS not significant but favours chemo. More AEs with chemo. Hard to ignore these results but would’ve liked OS as primary. #LCSM #ESMO26 https://t.co/Al6qUUeocy
Yakup Ergün @dr_yakupergun	Oct 25, 2026	● POSITIVE	#ESMO26 \| PERSEE For patients fit enough to tolerate chemotherapy, these results strengthen my preference for pembro + CT, even with very high PD-L1. The sustained PFS benefit and encouraging OS separation deserve attention. Heartfelt congratulations to the investigators for conducting this academic, multicentre trial addressing a question we face every day👏
Dr Adam Januszewski @AdamJanuszewski	Oct 25, 2026	● POSITIVE	🫁 PERSEE phase III: Pembro + chemo vs pembro alone in PD-L1 ≥50% NSCLC. 📈 PFS: 16.1 vs 6.9m (HR 0.56) OS: HR 0.77 (95% CI 0.57–1.05) 29.9vs50 mo ⚠️ Grade ≥3 TRAEs: 54% vs 19% Better disease control, numerical better OS. Patient selection key - practice informing #ESMO2026 https://t.co/OTWMrmzFVd
Dr Riyaz Shah @DrRiyazShah	Oct 25, 2026	● POSITIVE	PERSÉE; massive benefit for chemoIO over IO in all PDL1 strata in PFS; OS highly suggestive of benefit but NS; I think this is globally practice influencing #ESMO26 @BTOGORG https://t.co/ZigjqMKvbA
Charles Ricordel @C_Ricordel	Oct 25, 2026	● POSITIVE	@myGFPC PRESEE trial is now presented by @decroisette #ESMO26. Publication in annals of oncology simultaneously ! So proup of our cooperative group 💪🇨🇵 https://t.co/ZnqX7HeAGH
d.planchard @dplanchard	Oct 21, 2026	● POSITIVE	Hard not to add the PERSEE study, (a GFPC trial 🇫🇷) so eagerly awaited for our daily practice and so often cited for its design and the anticipation of its results (1st in place for the PD-L1 high patient strategy) which are finally here and truly impressive #ESMO26 ! 📈🔥 https://t.co/gbcXhNRn8r
d.planchard @dplanchard	Oct 21, 2026	● POSITIVE	Superb French pragmatic study by the GFPC 🇫🇷 and the only one asking this crucial question: combination therapy vs. mono-pembro in our PD-L1 High patients! 👏 Kudos, and a top highlight from #ESMO26 for lung cancer 🫁✨ https://t.co/5KBL9UbRuF
Dr Riyaz Shah @DrRiyazShah	Oct 21, 2026	● POSITIVE	PERSEE abstract is a stunner with a clear signal favouring chemoIO combo over single agent IO in PDL1 high; strong PFS, trend OS: really looking forward to the presentation. Will be looking at subgroups with mag glass. Sunday morning @BTOGORG #ESMO26 https://t.co/Lxmk8V3ac2
chantal decroisette @decroisette	Oct 19, 2026	● POSITIVE	PERSEE, GFPC academic phase III trial meets its primary endpoint! In 1L advanced NSCLC with PD-L1 ≥50%, pembrolizumab + chemotherapy significantly improved PFS vs pembrolizumab alone: 16.1 vs 6.9 months; HR 0.56; p<0.001. 📍 Join us at #ESMO26 !! https://t.co/HBW9zbos6H
Alfredo Addeo MD @Alfdoc2	Oct 25, 2026	● NEUTRAL	And what I find particularly interesting is that even in patients with PD-L1 ≥90%, pembrolizumab monotherapy achieved a mPFS of only 7.1 months in PERSEE, whereas some published cohorts have reported substantially longer outcomes in this population.Of course, cross-trial comparisons have limitations. Importantly, we also lack information on potentially adverse molecular features, such as STK11 and KEAP1 alterations, which might have influenced outcomes. These factors could be particularly relevant when interpreting the performance of the control arm. Congratulations to you and the entire team on this excellent and important study! 👏 I genuinely look forward to further translational and molecular subgroup analyses that may help us better understand these findings. #ESMO26 #ESMOAmbassadors #NSCLC
Alfredo Addeo MD @Alfdoc2	Oct 25, 2026	● NEUTRAL	Absolutely correct regarding the updated KEYNOTE-024 results. However, the initial analysis, with a median follow-up of 11.2 months, reported a mPFS of 10.3 months, compared with 7.7 months after nearly 5 years of follow-up. I wonder whether the maturity of the PERSEE data might also be relevant when choosing the most appropriate historical benchmark. Interesting discussion!
chantal decroisette @decroisette	Oct 25, 2026	● NEUTRAL	The update of the mPFS of the KN 024 is 7.7 months ( not 10 months) in the update datas ( Reck JCO 2021) . So our Pembrolizumab arm is consistent to KN 024 outcomes .
Dr. Poetic 🩺 Oncology 🇮🇱 @Dr_Doc_	Oct 25, 2026	● NEUTRAL	המשך עדוכנים מהכנס: #ESMO2026 #ESMO26 @myESMO מחקר PERSEE ששאל האם כדאי להוסיף כימותרפיה לאימונותרפיה גם כש־PD-L1 ≥50%? המחקר שסיפק השוואה ישירה בין pembrolizumab בלבד לבין השילוב עם כימותרפיה ב־NSCLC מתקדם בחולים עם NSCLC מתקדם וביטוי PD-L1 של 50% ומעלה, ללא שינויים אונקוגניים הניתנים לטיפול ממוקד בהתאם לקריטריוני המחקר, שתי אסטרטגיות טיפול מרכזיות עומדות זו לצד זו: pembrolizumab כמונותרפיה, או pembrolizumab בשילוב כימותרפיה מבוססת פלטינום. עד PERSEE, לא היו נתונים מניסוי Phase III שהשלים השוואה ישירה בין שתי האסטרטגיות באוכלוסייה זו. השאלה הקלינית הייתה מרכזית: האם הוספת כימותרפיה משפרת את השליטה במחלה, ומה המחיר מבחינת רעילות? מה למדנו מהמחקרים הקודמים? 1. KEYNOTE-024 ביסוס המונותרפיה המחקר השווה pembrolizumab לכימותרפיה מבוססת פלטינום בחולים עם PD-L1 ≥50%, והדגים יתרון לטובת pembrolizumab ב־PFS ובהישרדות הכוללת. בכך ביסס את המונותרפיה כאפשרות טיפול מרכזית בקו הראשון. 2. KEYNOTE-189 ו־KEYNOTE-407 ביסוס השילוב מחקרים אלה הראו כי הוספת pembrolizumab לכימותרפיה משפרת תוצאות לעומת כימותרפיה בלבד, הן ב־NSCLC שאינו קשקשי והן במחלה קשקשית. התועלת נצפתה גם בחולים עם PD-L1 ≥50%. עם זאת, מחקרים אלה לא השוו ישירות בין השילוב לבין pembrolizumab בלבד אלא מול כימותרפיה בלבד 3. KEYNOTE-598 שאלה טיפולית אחרת הוספת ipilimumab ל־pembrolizumab לא שיפרה את התוצאות והגבירה את הרעילות. חשוב לזכור שמדובר בהוספת אימונותרפיה מסוג אחר, ולא בהוספת כימותרפיה. לכן אין להסיק ממחקר זה ישירות לגבי התועלת האפשרית של כימותרפיה בשילוב עם pembrolizumab. מה בדק המחקר PERSEE? מדובר במחקר פאזה 3 אקראי, פתוח, שנערך ב־28 מרכזים בצרפת. במחקר השתתפו 321 חולים עם NSCLC מתקדם, שלא קיבלו טיפול סיסטמי קודם למחלה המתקדמת, עם PD-L1 ≥50% ו־ECOG 0–1. החולים הוקצו ל־pembrolizumab בלבד או ל־pembrolizumab בשילוב כימותרפיה מבוססת פלטינום. נקודת הסיום הראשית הייתה PFS, בהערכה מרכזית סמויה להקצאת הטיפול. חציון המעקב היה 38.7 חודשים. התוצאות המרכזיות: PFS נקודת הסיום הראשית חציון PFS היה 16.1 חודשים בשילוב לעומת 6.9 חודשים במונותרפיה של אינותרפיה בלבד HR 0.56 (95% CI 0.43–0.74; P<0.001). כלומר, השילוב הפחית בכ־44% את הסיכון היחסי להתקדמות המחלה או למוות בהשוואה ל־pembrolizumab בלבד. ORR שיעור התגובה האובייקטיבית 77.5% בשילוב לעומת 50.3% במונותרפיה. התקדמות מוקדמת: שיעור ההתקדמות המוקדמת היה 5.8% בשילוב לעומת 26.5% במונותרפיה. מדובר בנקודת סיום חקרנית, שהוגדרה כהתקדמות קלינית ו/או רדיולוגית לפני בדיקת ההדמיה הראשונה או במועד הבדיקה, סביב שישה שבועות. משך התגובה: חציון משך התגובה היה 30.0 חודשים בשילוב לעומת 15.6 חודשים במונותרפיה. עם זאת, ה־HR לאובדן תגובה או מוות היה 0.88 (95% CI 0.60–1.29), ולכן אין לקבוע שההבדל במשך התגובה מובהק סטטיסטית. הישרדות כוללת OS חציון OS היה 50.2 חודשים בשילוב לעומת 29.9 חודשים במונותרפיה. HR 0.77 (95% CI 0.56–1.05). ההבדל המספרי נוטה לטובת השילוב, אך לא הודגם יתרון מובהק סטטיסטית ב־OS. המחקר תוכנן לבחון את ה־PFS ולא היה בעל עוצמה מספקת להוכחת הבדל בהישרדות הכוללת. בטיחות: תופעות לוואי הקשורות לטיפול בדרגה 3 ומעלה התרחשו ב־54% מהחולים שקיבלו את השילוב, לעומת 19% במונותרפיה. שיעור תופעות הלוואי החיסוניות בדרגה 3 ומעלה היה 13% בשתי הקבוצות. המשמעות הקלינית: מחקר PERSEE מוסיף ראיות אקראיות ישירות לשאלה שלא נפתרה במחקרים הקודמים. בחולים עם NSCLC מתקדם ו־PD-L1 גבוה, הוספת כימותרפיה ל־pembrolizumab שיפרה באופן מובהק את ה־PFS והייתה קשורה לשיעור תגובה גבוה יותר ולשיעור נמוך יותר של התקדמות מוקדמת. יתרונות אלה עשויים להיות חשובים במיוחד בחולים שבהם יש צורך בשליטה מוקדמת במחלה. מנגד, יש להביא בחשבון את העלייה המשמעותית ברעילות. חשוב להדגיש כי המחקר לא הוכיח יתרון מובהק סטטיסטית ב־OS, ונתוני איכות החיים לא נכללו בדיווח הנוכחי. כמו כן, תוצאות המחקר אינן קובעות שהשילוב עדיף לכל חולה עם PD-L1 ≥50%. בחירת הטיפול צריכה להיות מותאמת למאפייני המחלה, לעומס הגידולי ולקצב התקדמותה, למצבו התפקודי של המטופל, לתחלואה הנלווית, לסבילות הצפויה לטיפול ולהעדפות המטופל. בשורה התחתונה: המסר המרכזי של PERSEE: הוספת כימותרפיה ל־pembrolizumab משפרת באופן מובהק את השליטה במחלה, אך במחיר של רעילות מוגברת. המחקר מחזק את מקומו של השילוב כאפשרות טיפול בקו הראשון גם בחולים עם PD-L1 גבוה, במיוחד כאשר נדרשת שליטה מוקדמת במחלה והמטופל מסוגל לשאת את הטיפול. עם זאת, הוא אינו מבטל את מקומה של מונותרפיה ב־pembrolizumab. ההחלטה בין שתי האסטרטגיות צריכה להתקבל באופן פרטני, תוך שקילת התועלת הצפויה מול הסיכון.
Nurullah İlhan,MD @drnurullahilhan	Oct 25, 2026	● NEUTRAL	PD-L1 ≥50% does not make the chemotherapy question disappear. PERSEE directly compared pembrolizumab + platinum-based chemotherapy with pembrolizumab alone in untreated EGFR/ALK-negative advanced NSCLC. • Primary BICR-PFS: 16.1 vs 6.9 months • HR 0.56; P<0.001 • OS: 50.2 vs 29.9 months, but NOT statistically significant: HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.57–1.05 • Grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs: 53.8% vs 19.3% A clear PFS benefit comes with substantially more toxicity. Which PD-L1-high patients can reasonably avoid chemotherapy—and which need the higher response rate and longer disease control? @StephenVLiu @CharuAggarwalMD @myESMO @OncoAlert #PERSEE #ESMO26 #LCSM
Dr Rishabh Jain @DrRishabhOnco	Oct 25, 2026	● NEUTRAL	🚨 PD-L1 ≥50% in NSCLC: Is pembrolizumab alone enough? 🔥 PERSEE Phase III \| #ESMO26 Concomitant publication in Annals of Oncology. Pembrolizumab + chemotherapy vs pembrolizumab alone: 📊 PFS: 16.1 vs 6.9 months (HR 0.56) 🎯 ORR: 77.5% vs 50.3% ⚠️ Grade ≥3 toxicity: 54% vs 19% OS: 50.2 vs 29.9 months (HR 0.77), not statistically significant. 💡 Verdict: Better disease control, but at a substantial toxicity cost. Is PD-L1 ≥50% alone sufficient to omit chemotherapy? @ESMO_open @myesmo @ASCO @oncoalert #ESMO26 #LungCancer
Alfredo Addeo MD @Alfdoc2	Oct 25, 2026	● NEUTRAL	🎯 #ESMO26 \| Excellent discussion by @benlevylungdoc on SARON and PERSEE! Two trials, two important lessons for advanced NSCLC. 🔹 SARON: Consolidative radiotherapy improved PFS and local disease control in oligo metastatic NSCLC, but no OS benefit (HR 0.99). 🔹 PERSEE: Pembrolizumab + chemo met its primary endpoint PFS but not OS though numerically better (not powered for OS) in PD-L1 ≥50% NSCLC. Key messages from @benlevylungdoc : • Oligometastatic disease needs better biological definition, beyond the number of lesions. • Treatment intensification should be guided by better patient selection. • More treatment does not automatically mean better outcomes! - Lower threshold to add chemo to pembro in PD-L1 >50% 👏 A thoughtful discussion with practical implications for our clinics. #ESMOAmbassador #LungCancer #NSCLC
Masahiro TORASAWA, MD. PhD. @M_Torasawa	Oct 25, 2026	● NEUTRAL	#ESMO26 2614O PERSEE Head-to-head comparison of 1L treatments for NSCLC with PD-L1 ≥50% 📚Ann Oncol 2026 https://t.co/l4gbarp7a1 🔑Key Results 🎯 Population: 321 treatment-naïve advanced NSCLC patients with PD-L1≥50% and no driver mutations 📈 Median PFS: 16.1 months (Combo) vs 6.9 months (Mono) (HR 0.56, P<0.001) 🏆 ORR: 77.5% (Combo) vs 50.3% (Mono) ⏱️ Early progression rate (at 6 weeks): Drastically reduced with Combo (5.8%) vs Mono (26.5%) ⚠️ Grade ≥3 TRAEs: 54% (Combo) vs 19% (Mono) 🔥 The PFS benefit of Combo was maintained even in the ultra-high PD-L1 (90-100%) subgroup (25.4 vs 7.1 months)
Dr. Antonio Calles 🫁🚭 @Tony_Calles	Oct 25, 2026	● NEUTRAL	Is more better in PD-L1 >50% PD-L1 NSCLC? 🇫🇷 PERSEE trial demonstrated that compared to pembro monotherapy, chemo-pembro showed better ORR and PFS, less early progressions, and numerically longer OS although not statistically significant (secondary endpoint, not powered). Really every patient needs chemo-IO? Is this the end of the discussion or just more data to debate? #ESMO26 #LCSM
Stephen V Liu, MD @StephenVLiu	Oct 25, 2026	● NEUTRAL	#ESMO26 Dr. @decroisette with the important PERSEE trial: pembrolizumab +/- chemotherapy in PDL1 high NSCLC. Enrolled 321 pts in 3y at 28 sites. Pembro-chemo PFS 16.1 vs 6.9m (HR 0.56), better across strata. OS 50.2 vs 29.9m (HR 0.77, ns) - not powered for OS. #ESMOAmbassadors https://t.co/B9NBt7E1bP
Hidehito HORINOUCHI @HHorinouchi	Oct 25, 2026	● NEUTRAL	🆙#ESMO26 Proffered Paper I: #LCSM Mets 🔥PERSEE (GFPC 01-2020): Pembrolizumab With or Without Platinum-Based Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment in Advanced NSCLC With PD-L1 ≥50%, Phase 3 Trial 🎙️ @decroisette 🔢2614O 🎯Pembro-Chemo Improved BCR-PFS vs Pembro Alone 🎯PFS HR 0.56, mPFS 16.1 vs 6.9m 🎯OS HR 0.77 not significant; mOS 50.2 vs 29.9mo 🎯Grade≥3 TRAEs 53.8% vs 19.3% ☑️NCT04547504 🔗 https://t.co/uGHKJfjhvW @OncoAlert @Larvol @myESMO @IASLC
Tejas Patil @TejasPatilMD	Oct 24, 2026	● NEUTRAL	⭐️Optimal integration and duration of pembrolizumab will be evaluated in two critical studies that I believe address very practical concerns for thoracic oncologists. 1⃣PERSEE phase 3 trial (GFPC 01-2020) - will address the value of pembrolizumab in PD-L1 ≥50% 2⃣IFCT-2103 DIAL phase 2-3 randomized trial - will address value of continuing maintenance pem/pembro beyond 2 yrs in a prospective fashion. @lcsmchat @OncoAlert @OncLive @Onco_Nexus @LungCancerEu @Lung_Cancers @LungCancerRx @MedwatchHQ @YoungLungCancer
Dra. María Natalia Gandur Quiroga @nataliagandur	Oct 23, 2026	● NEUTRAL	🫁 PD-L1 ≥50% has long supported pembrolizumab monotherapy — but PERSEE asks whether some of these patients should receive more upfront. @OncoAlert At #ESMO26, phase III PERSEE compared pembrolizumab + platinum-based chemotherapy versus pembrolizumab alone in first-line advanced #NSCLC with PD-L1 ≥50%. 📊 n=321 ➡️ Median PFS: 16.1 vs 6.9 months HR 0.56 (0.43–0.74), p<0.001 ➡️ Median OS: 50.2 vs 29.9 months HR 0.77 (0.57–1.05) ➡️ ORR: 77.5% vs 50.3% But the trade-off is substantial: ⚠️ Grade ≥3 TRAEs: 53.8% vs 19.3% 🎯 Why this matters: PD-L1 ≥50% may not be enough, by itself, to decide between pembrolizumab alone and chemo-immunotherapy. For me, the real clinical question is now: Which PD-L1–high patients need the deeper and faster disease control of chemotherapy upfront — and which can safely avoid the added toxicity? That is where tumor burden, symptoms, pace of disease, comorbidities and better biomarkers will matter most. Excellent work from @decroisette @BenjaminBesseMD @LGreillier @C_Ricordel @FGuisier and the PERSEE investigators. Pinging @christine_lovly @GlopesMd @DrSanjayPopat @StephenVLiu @jillfeldman4 @CharuAggarwalMD @peters_solange @BRicciutiMD @VanitaNoronha @JordiRemon #OncoAlert #ESMO26 #LungCancer #NSCLC #Immunotherapy #PDL1 #PrecisionOncology
Johan Pluvy \| Thoracic Oncology News @johanpluvy	Oct 22, 2026	● NEUTRAL	Can pembrolizumab monotherapy still be considered the optimal control arm in actual and future phase III trials for chemotherapy-eligible patients with advanced NSCLC and PD-L1 ≥50%? Looking forward to detailed results! #LCSM @decroisette @myGFPC @myESMO @Larvol @OncoAlert https://t.co/KOZVJ3uFvE
MV Chandrakanth @ChandrakanthMv	Oct 21, 2026	● NEUTRAL	PERSEE \| ESMO 2026 PD-L1 ≥50% NSCLC: Is Adding Chemotherapy Worth It? Phase III \| 321 patients \| Pembrolizumab ± chemotherapy 🔹 PFS: 16.1 vs 6.9 months (HR 0.56; p<0.001) 🔹 ORR: 77.5% vs 50.3% 🔹 OS: 50.2 vs 29.9 months (HR 0.77; not statistically significant) 🔹 Grade ≥3 toxicity: 53.8% vs 19.3% TAKE-HOME: Adding chemotherapy substantially improves disease control but increases severe toxicity, without a statistically proven OS benefit. Better PFS ≠ Proven Longer Survival. Patient selection remains crucial. 📖 Reference: Decroisette C et al. PERSEE (GFPC 01-2020), Phase III trial. ESMO Congress 2026, Proffered Paper — Metastatic NSCLC. #ESMO2026 #PERSEE #NSCLC #LungCancer #Immunotherapy #MVOnco
Dionysis Papadatos-Pastos @DionysisPastos	Oct 21, 2026	● NEUTRAL	Agree...the mag glass should be in the subgroups of PDL1... 50% not the same as 90 or 100% https://t.co/HKL9K6vI2m
Simon C @scserendipity1	Oct 21, 2026	● NEUTRAL	Wow! That does look impressive. Is the percentage of sqamous low? See you in Madrid
Yakup Ergün @dr_yakupergun	Oct 20, 2026	● NEUTRAL	#ESMO26 \| PERSEE – Phase III In advanced NSCLC with PD-L1 ≥50%, adding chemotherapy to pembrolizumab improved median PFS from 6.9 to 16.1 months (HR 0.56). The numerical OS difference was notable (50.2 vs 29.9 months; HR 0.77), but not statistically significant. However, we should remember that OS was not the primary endpoint! Grade ≥3 toxicity: 53.8% vs 19.3%. I think adding chemotherapy provides benefit, but at the cost of increased toxicity. We need to better identify the patients for whom this toxicity is worth it.
chantal decroisette @decroisette	Sep 24, 2026	● NEUTRAL	Very honored to present the results of the PERSEE phase III trial (GFPC 01-2020) in an oral session at #ESMO26 in Madrid 🇪🇸 📅 Sunday, October 25 🕙 10:15 AM 🎤 Abstract 2614O https://t.co/HBW9zbnUh9 Thank you to the investigators, the GFPC, Brest CHU and Centre Leon Bérard !
Roberto Ferrara @RobertoFerrara_	Oct 25, 2026	● NEGATIVE	Unclear whether mono arm underperformed and the exact role of PD-L1 in Persee. Median PFS mono ICI in PD-L1 >90 : 10-15 months vs 7 months in Persee in all high PD-L1 subcategories. OS>50 months with chemo-ICI unrealistic..need more follow up https://t.co/MP90Br4qTj
Alfredo Addeo MD @Alfdoc2	Oct 25, 2026	● NEGATIVE	Very disappointed to see how poorly Pembro performed in the standard arm. Even in very high PD-L1 the mPFS was only 7.1 months which is a lot lower of the 10 months seen in Keynote 024
Alfredo Addeo MD @Alfdoc2	Oct 25, 2026	● NEGATIVE	🚨 #ESMO26 \| PERSEE phase III trial Dr Decroisette presents PERSEE, comparing pembrolizumab + chemo vs pembrolizumab alone in 1L advanced NSCLC with PD-L1 ≥50%. Numerically better PFS with the combination, but the primary endpoint was NOT met. The study was stopped prematurely, limiting its statistical power. 📉 Importantly, the pembrolizumab-alone arm substantially underperformed expectations in terms of PFS, raising important questions about the interpretation and generalisability of these findings. A numerically longer OS was also observed (50.2 vs 29.9 months), but the trial was not powered to demonstrate an OS difference. A thought-provoking study reminding us that numerical differences, statistical significance and clinical relevance are not always the same thing IMO #ESMOAmbassadors #ESMO26 #PERSEE #NSCLC #LungCancer

Compiled and reviewed by the KOL Pulse research team, led by Brian Shields, Founder, KOL Pulse. Last updated October 25, 2026. Every quote verbatim; every number checked against the ESMO 2026 2614O abstract and presentation slides, the Annals of Oncology publication, ClinicalTrials.gov or the FDA label, with the source labelled.

PERSEE Trial

PERSEE Key Takeaways

Primary endpoint met: progression-free survival by blinded central review

Overall survival: numerically longer, not statistically significant (secondary endpoint)

PFS by PD-L1 level, including PD-L1 90–100% (descriptive subgroups)

Response, early progression and PFS2

Safety

Regulatory status & clinical implications

Top KOLs Discussing PERSEE

PERSEE Key Slides & Visuals

ESMO 2026 slides

KOL-Made Infographics

PERSEE conversations on X

Physician reactions to PERSEE

PERSEE Trial Design

Study Design

Population

Interventions

Endpoints

Presenter & Discussant

Data Cut

PERSEE in the News

PERSEE Questions

What is the PERSEE trial?

What did PERSEE show at ESMO 2026?

Did patients with PD-L1 90% or higher also benefit from adding chemotherapy?

Are pembrolizumab alone and pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy FDA approved for this population?

How much more toxic was the combination?

Did the pembrolizumab-alone arm underperform?

Key KOL Sentiments - PERSEE

PERSEE Key Takeaways

Primary endpoint met: progression-free survival by blinded central review

Overall survival: numerically longer, not statistically significant (secondary endpoint)

PFS by PD-L1 level, including PD-L1 90–100% (descriptive subgroups)

Response, early progression and PFS2

Safety

Regulatory status & clinical implications

Track oncology’s top KOLs in your specialty

Top KOLs Discussing PERSEE

PERSEE Key Slides & Visuals

ESMO 2026 slides

KOL-Made Infographics

PERSEE conversations on X

Physician reactions to PERSEE

PERSEE Trial Design

Study Design

Population

Interventions

Endpoints

Presenter & Discussant

Data Cut

PERSEE in the News

PERSEE Questions

What is the PERSEE trial?

What did PERSEE show at ESMO 2026?

Did patients with PD-L1 90% or higher also benefit from adding chemotherapy?

Are pembrolizumab alone and pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy FDA approved for this population?

How much more toxic was the combination?

Did the pembrolizumab-alone arm underperform?

Key KOL Sentiments - PERSEE

Related Trials in Lung Cancer