LungTIME-C01
pembrolizumab; sintilimab in advanced non-small cell lung cancer
Clinician commentary on LungTIME-C01 in the sources reviewed for this edition leads to one open question: How can timing research distinguish a reproducible benefit from protocol, assessment and patient-scheduling effects without delaying access to effective treatment? Its leading findings: (1) retraction limits clinical use of these results without resolving the underlying timing hypothesis. (2) criticism centers on prespecification, protocol chronology and data patterns—not effect-size surprise alone. (3) i-TIMES prompted both timing skepticism and disagreement about what a null interpretation means. 6 more findings follow. 93 sources screened, 71 cited; not all HCPs or all public discussion.
- NCT05549037 ↗
- v1.0.0 · edition 1
- updated Oct 30, 2026
- Standard
9 findings, and what sits behind each
01. Retraction limits clinical use of these results without resolving the underlying timing hypothesis
16 statements · 18 passages · 10 sources · 7 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 2. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Design and conduct, Primary endpoint: Progression-free survival (PFS), Secondary endpoint: Overall survival (OS).
02. Criticism centers on prespecification, protocol chronology and data patterns—not effect-size surprise alone
44 statements · 27 passages · 9 sources · 8 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 2. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Design and conduct, Primary endpoint: Progression-free survival (PFS), Safety and tolerability, Secondary endpoint: Overall survival (OS), Population and setting, The comparison.
03. i-TIMES prompted both timing skepticism and disagreement about what a null interpretation means
18 statements · 21 passages · 9 sources · 10 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 2. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Design and conduct.
04. Historical adoption views ranged from emphatic practice change to validation-first caution
47 statements · 43 passages · 28 sources · 31 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 2. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Primary endpoint: Progression-free survival (PFS), Secondary endpoint: Overall survival (OS), Design and conduct, The comparison, Population and setting, Secondary endpoint: Objective Response Rate (ORR), Safety and tolerability.
05. Design and generalizability concerns include attribution to ICI versus co-timed chemotherapy
33 statements · 28 passages · 13 sources · 20 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 2. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Design and conduct, Population and setting, The comparison, Primary endpoint: Progression-free survival (PFS), Secondary endpoint: Overall survival (OS), Secondary endpoint: Objective Response Rate (ORR), Safety and tolerability.
06. Circadian immune plausibility coexists with pharmacologic objections and alternative explanations
52 statements · 51 passages · 32 sources · 37 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 2. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Secondary endpoint: Overall survival (OS), Primary endpoint: Progression-free survival (PFS), Safety and tolerability, Population and setting, Secondary endpoint: Objective Response Rate (ORR), The comparison, Design and conduct.
07. Before 15:00 is not synonymous with morning, circadian phase or the timing of every dose
26 statements · 24 passages · 13 sources · 15 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 2. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: The comparison, Secondary endpoint: Overall survival (OS), Design and conduct, Primary endpoint: Progression-free survival (PFS), Population and setting.
08. Cost-neutral treatment is not necessarily cost-neutral service delivery
33 statements · 34 passages · 25 sources · 24 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: The comparison, Secondary endpoint: Overall survival (OS), Primary endpoint: Progression-free survival (PFS), Population and setting, Safety and tolerability, Design and conduct, Secondary endpoint: Objective Response Rate (ORR).
09. Actual scheduling preferences retained exceptions for access, attendance and treatment continuity
14 statements · 14 passages · 8 sources · 10 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 2. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: The comparison, Population and setting, Safety and tolerability, Design and conduct, Primary endpoint: Progression-free survival (PFS), Secondary endpoint: Overall survival (OS).
Counts overlap, since one statement can back several findings. They show what the report kept, not how many clinicians agree. The full report includes the interpretations and source links.
Select a finding to see what the full report holds for it: how many verified HCP statements and of what kind, the passages behind them, the sources and voices, and the counterview and limits it records. Select a part of the trial to see which findings draw on it.
- Finding 1 of 9
Retraction limits clinical use of these results without resolving the underlying timing hypothesis
- statements
- 16
- passages
- 18
- sources
- 10
- named voices
- 7
What the statements areViews 12Questions and uncertainty 1Clinical experience 0Comparisons 0Restated results and context 3How passages are usedSupporting a statement 19Giving context 3Recorded with the finding- Counterview: recorded
- Limitations: 2
- Feeds the Medical Affairs question
- 8 posts and articles
- 2 podcasts and video
Draws on: Design and conduct, Primary endpoint: Progression-free survival (PFS), Secondary endpoint: Overall survival (OS).
In the full report: the interpretation in full, all 16 statements cited to source and date, and the 10 sources linked where public.
Thicker lines mean more shared statements. A finding without a line goes beyond the registered design. Counts overlap, since one statement can back several findings, and they show what the report kept, not how many clinicians agree.
The full LungTIME-C01 report gives each finding its interpretation, the attributed views behind it, counterviews, limits and the verified HCP statements, each linked to the original. Get a complete report free to see what you get.
How can timing research distinguish a reproducible benefit from protocol, assessment and patient-scheduling effects without delaying access to effective treatment?
Raised by the leading finding. The report shows what clinicians said and the sources behind it; it does not settle the question.
By the numbers
free- 93HCP commentary sources screened
- 71sources cited by verified HCP statements
- 80named in screened sources
- 79voices cited in the report
- 62cited voices matched to verified clinician profiles
Also in the sources: 6 organizational or shared accounts, not counted as people.
- 237verified statements, each linked to its source
- 108of them from speakers with a confirmed clinical role
- 9findings
Screened sources were retrieved for this trial. Cited sources back at least one verified statement and include primary sources used for context. No count estimates how many clinicians hold a view. Size (Standard) is set by the 237 verified statements. Statements from sponsors, hosts and organisations are labelled and count apart from identified clinicians. A confirmed clinical role is one verified by the NPI registry or by the person's own institution's staff page; a role a source only states is not counted.
What's inside
free| Section | Items | Access |
|---|---|---|
| Findings with interpretation, counterviews and limits | 9 | Titles free |
| Detailed analysis | 10 sections | Paid |
| Verified statements with short source quotes and links | 237 | Paid |
| Trial aspects mapped | 14 | Free |
| Sources with links | 71 | Counts free |
| Speaker attribution for cited voices | 79 | Paid |
Trial aspects
13 discussed · 1 no commentary · 0 incomplete| Aspect | Statements | Sources |
|---|---|---|
| Primary endpoint: Progression-free survival (PFS) | 46 | 37 |
| Secondary endpoint: Objective Response Rate (ORR) | 9 | 8 |
| Secondary endpoint: Overall survival (OS) | 45 | 36 |
| Secondary endpoint: Duration of Response (DoR)no commentary found | 0 | 0 |
| Population and setting | 21 | 12 |
| The comparison | 37 | 26 |
| Safety and tolerability | 20 | 16 |
| Design and conduct | 56 | 24 |
| Retraction, confidence in the results and clinical usability | 44 | 15 |
| Conflicting evidence and the i-TIMES comparison | 21 | 12 |
| Immune biology, pharmacology and alternative temporal explanations | 58 | 34 |
| Cutoff selection, individual circadian phase and first-dose timing | 25 | 13 |
| Practical uptake, capacity, delivery route and patient access | 45 | 27 |
| Scientific prominence, replication priorities and public trust | 38 | 21 |
An aspect marked incomplete is a question the public commentary did not let us answer. We show it rather than hide it.
Sources
free| Channel | Screened | Cited | |
|---|---|---|---|
| X threads | 69 | 52 | |
| LinkedIn posts | 10 | 10 | |
| Bluesky threads | 10 | 4 | |
| YouTube | 3 | 3 | |
| Podcasts | 1 | 1 | |
| Primary sources, cited for context, not screened | |||
| Registry | not screened | 1 | |
max 52 / quarter
- Screened window
- May 23, 2025 → Oct 21, 2026
- Cited window
- May 24, 2025 → Oct 21, 2026
- Retrieved
- Oct 30, 2026
The trial
from ClinicalTrials.gov- Title
- Progression Survival Time According to Time-of-Day (ToD) of Administration of Immunochemotherapy for Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase III Randomized Control Trial
- Registry
- NCT05549037
- Study IDs
- INJECTION
- Sponsor
- Hunan Province Tumor Hospital
- Design
- Phase 3 · Interventional, randomized, parallel
- Status
- Completed
- Enrollment
- 210 actual
- Registered
- 2022-09-22
- Start
- 2022-09-23 actual
- Primary completion
- 2024-12-02 actual
- Primary endpoint
- Progression-free survival (PFS)
- Interventions
- 1 registered
Scope and limits
freeThis report does not judge efficacy, estimate HCP prevalence or consensus or give treatment advice.
- Discussion that does not name the trial may be missing from this edition.
- Not yet captured in this edition: a remark on retraction-related uncertainty in the evidence supporting morning cancer-treatment scheduling.
- Some passages in the sources used in this report were not fully assessed for clinician views, so a view there may be missing from this edition.
- 44 statements in the sources reviewed for this edition are about other patients or topics, or only mention the trial, and are not counted.
- Further source limits apply, so some matching discussion may be missing.
- The sources reviewed for this edition are not a representative sample of HCP opinion. Search emphasis on the trial identifier and registered names may miss unnamed references or wording variants.
- Forty-four potentially relevant sources without an explicit trial name were not read, and some passages in otherwise reviewed discussions were not fully assessed for clinician views.
- The original results paper, complete protocol and patient-level data were not independently evaluated here. The registry supplies planned methods; numerical results and integrity concerns are attributed reports or interpretations.
- Historical numerical summaries, follow-up durations, assessment descriptions and phase labels differ. They have not been combined into a single corrected efficacy estimate.
- Retraction and editorial concerns do not independently establish fraud, a particular source of bias or exact equivalence between early and late administration.
- Named account identity does not necessarily establish a clinical role. Unverified roles, institutional relays, automated-account commentary and unidentified narration are not counted as additional confirmed HCP perspectives.
- Reposts, duplicated posts and multiple statements by one person do not establish independent corroboration or consensus.
- No matching regulatory document for the combined registry intervention entry was available. Suggestions involving subcutaneous or home administration do not establish approval, equivalence or administration requirements.
- No substantive commentary on duration of response was identified in the material reviewed.
How reports are built and checked: Methods.
Editions and corrections
freeLast checked for new commentary Oct 30, 2026. A new or changed finding gets a new version number; added evidence alone is a smaller update. No corrections.
Cite this report
Erudio Health. LungTIME-C01 (NCT05549037): HCP commentary report. Edition 1, v1.0.0. Accepted Oct 30, 2026. https://www.erudio.com/reports/lungtime-c01-nct05549037
For your AI agent
Paste this into ChatGPT, Claude, Microsoft Copilot or your own agent. It previews this report through the free Erudio MCP server, tells you whether it answers your question, and orders it if you ask. Some agents ask you to confirm pasted instructions before acting; that is expected.
Help me decide whether to buy the Erudio report "LungTIME-C01" (NCT05549037), and buy it for me if I ask. Erudio reports cover what clinicians say in public about one clinical trial, with every verified statement linked to its source.
1. Use the free Erudio MCP server at https://mcp.erudio.com/free; it needs no sign-in. Nothing needs installing: if it is not connected in this app and you can make HTTP requests, call it directly with JSON-RPC POSTs to that URL (initialize, then tools/call), sending "Accept: application/json, text/event-stream". Call get_report_card with slug "lungtime-c01-05549037". If you cannot make requests, read https://www.erudio.com/reports/lungtime-c01-nct05549037.md instead.
2. In a few lines, tell me what the report covers: its findings, its verified statements and sources, its evidence window, what it leaves out, and the price of each product (offer). Then ask what I need it for, and say plainly whether this report answers it.
3. If I want it, ask for my work email and the product: the current edition, or 3, 6 or 12 months of weekly updates. Call create_order with report "NCT05549037", that product and email, then show me the quote and the checkout_url to pay by card. If you have a payment client for HTTP 402 payments and I agree, you can pay the pay_url instead. Nothing is charged until one is paid.
4. Once it is paid, call get_order with the status_url: it returns my license key. Then use the Erudio MCP server at https://mcp.erudio.com/mcp with the header "Authorization: Bearer <key>". Call read_report with report_id erudio-nct05549037 and sections ["all"], and summarize the findings for me with their sources. The full report is large (about 500 KB): save the response to a file and work from it rather than printing it. If you cannot, read sections ["narratives"] first, the executive summary and analysis.
When you tell me what clinicians said, give each view as theirs, with its source. Counts are the sources the report kept, not the share of clinicians who agree. Reports are not medical advice.
Keep the key private to my organization.Or read the record directly: JSON, Markdown or MCP
curl https://www.erudio.com/reports/lungtime-c01-nct05549037.json
curl https://www.erudio.com/reports/lungtime-c01-nct05549037.md
# MCP, no sign-in (https://mcp.erudio.com/free)
get_report_card({ "slug": "lungtime-c01-05549037" })release 3368e006dc5fa3868c9b3d58d98bcc6a6086f2e059597e609369d68f25a6ec1a