PERSEE
pembrolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy in first-line advanced NSCLC with PD-L1 ≥50%
PERSEE tested adding chemotherapy to first-line pembrolizumab in PD-L1-high non-small-cell lung cancer; discussion weighs better disease control against unproven survival benefit and substantially greater toxicity. The report cites 44 physicians, including 28 medical oncologists, and contributors described in the sources reviewed for this edition as a PERSEE principal investigator or results authors. Views differ on a chemoimmunotherapy default, with PD-L1-only selection also questioned. Who gains enough early disease control to justify chemotherapy’s burden, who can choose pembrolizumab alone, and how should survival and subgroup uncertainty be explained?
- NCT04547504 ↗
- v1.0.0 · edition 1
- updated Nov 3, 2026 UTC
- Standard
10 findings, and what sits behind each
01. Speakers distinguish better disease control from unproven survival benefit and substantially greater toxicity
11 statements · 9 passages · 9 sources · 9 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 2. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Secondary endpoints, Safety and tolerability, Primary endpoint: Progression-free survival (PFS) according to RECIST 1.1 assessed by blinded inependant centra review (BICR).
02. Whether comparator choice, conflicting endpoint accounts and historical benchmarks change interpretation
13 statements · 11 passages · 6 sources · 4 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Primary endpoint: Progression-free survival (PFS) according to RECIST 1.1 assessed by blinded inependant centra review (BICR), The comparison, Design and conduct.
03. Speakers see PERSEE as changing practice but disagree about a chemoimmunotherapy default
8 statements · 8 passages · 6 sources · 7 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 2. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: The comparison, Population and setting, Primary endpoint: Progression-free survival (PFS) according to RECIST 1.1 assessed by blinded inependant centra review (BICR), Design and conduct.
04. Speakers question PD-L1-only selection and propose clinical or molecular exceptions
15 statements · 13 passages · 8 sources · 13 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Population and setting, Primary endpoint: Progression-free survival (PFS) according to RECIST 1.1 assessed by blinded inependant centra review (BICR), Safety and tolerability.
05. Speakers question whether a negative molecular result adequately excludes a driver
8 statements · 8 passages · 1 sources · 5 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 2. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
06. Speakers disagree over RNA-testing standards, feasibility and educational priorities
12 statements · 12 passages · 1 sources · 5 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 2. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
07. Speakers choose different first-line sequences for a high-PD-L1 never-smoker with CNS disease
16 statements · 16 passages · 2 sources · 10 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 2. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Secondary endpoints.
08. Speakers raise alternative regimens while warning against indirect extrapolation
7 statements · 8 passages · 3 sources · 7 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
09. Speakers say earlier comparisons did not settle the chemotherapy question
12 statements · 10 passages · 8 sources · 8 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
10. Speakers praise academic evidence and emphasize patient-centered trade-offs
11 statements · 8 passages · 8 sources · 7 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: The comparison, Safety and tolerability.
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 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 10
Speakers distinguish better disease control from unproven survival benefit and substantially greater toxicity
- statements
- 11
- passages
- 9
- sources
- 9
- named voices
- 9
What the statements areViews 8Questions and uncertainty 0Clinical experience 1Comparisons 1Restated results and context 1Statement-to-passage links (a passage can back several statements)Supporting a statement 11Giving context 0Recorded with the finding- Counterview: recorded
- Limitations: 2
- Feeds the Medical Affairs question
- 9 posts and articles
Draws on: Secondary endpoints, Safety and tolerability, Primary endpoint: Progression-free survival (PFS) according to RECIST 1.1 assessed by blinded inependant centra review (BICR).
In the full report: the interpretation in full, all 11 statements cited to source and date, and the 9 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.
Abbreviations BICR, blinded independent central review; CNS, central nervous system; HCP, healthcare professional; MCP, Model Context Protocol, how AI agents read the report; NPI, National Provider Identifier, the US registry number for clinicians; NSCLC, non-small cell lung cancer; OS, overall survival; PD-L1, programmed death-ligand 1; PFS, progression-free survival; RECIST, Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors.
The full PERSEE report gives each finding its interpretation, the attributed views behind it, counterviews, limits and the verified statements, each linked to the original. One report in the catalog, IDeate-Lung01, is free in full, so you can see what a paid report holds before you buy: read the free IDeate-Lung01 report.
Which patients gain enough early disease control to justify chemotherapy's burden, which can reasonably choose monotherapy, and how should that trade-off be explained without overstating survival or subgroup certainty?
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- 129commentary sources screened
- 76sources cited by verified statements
- 64named in screened sources
- 64voices cited in the report
- 60cited voices with a verified identity
44 cited clinicians, voices with a confirmed clinical role, of them 44 physicians. By role and specialty:
- 28 physician, Medical oncology
- 12 physician
- 3 physician, Radiation oncology
- 1 physician, Pathology
A verified identity says who a voice is. A cited clinician also has a clinical role confirmed by the NPI registry or their own institution's staff page. Verified voices without such a role, such as researchers, advocates, company staff, or clinicians whose role only a source or their own profile states, are not counted as clinicians.
Also in the sources: 8 organizational or shared accounts, not counted as people.
- 217verified statements, each linked to its source
- 155of them from speakers with a confirmed clinical role
- 10findings
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 217 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. In the summary, clinicians are the cited voices with a confirmed clinical role, physicians are those whose confirmed role is a physician's (not physician assistants, nurses or pharmacists), and each specialty count is a role and specialty row under People.
What's inside
free| Section | Items | Access |
|---|---|---|
| Findings with interpretation, counterviews and limits | 10 | Titles free |
| Detailed analysis | 11 sections | Paid |
| Verified statements with short source quotes and links | 217 | Paid |
| Who said each statement, with each cited voice's role and what confirmed it (NPI registry or staff page) | 64 | Every edition |
| Trial aspects mapped | 15 | Free |
| Sources with links | 76 | Counts free |
| MCP access for your AI agent, same license key | Included | Every edition |
| Verified speaker IDs as data (NPI, social and scholarly IDs) | 60 | 12-month plan add-on |
Every edition, the free report included, names who said each statement, as the source shows them. Each named voice's card gives a clinical role only when the NPI registry or the person's own institution's staff page confirms it, and says which; a role only a source states is labelled as the source's. Here 44 of the 64 cited voices have a role confirmed that way. Every edition also comes with MCP access, so your AI agent reads the same evidence with your license key. The verified speaker identities add-on, sold with 12-month plans, adds each verified person's IDs as data (the NPI number, X, Bluesky and LinkedIn accounts, ORCID and institutional pages), so your team can check each attribution itself. It is for checking attribution inside your organization, never for outreach or targeting, and it does not unlock who said what.
Trial aspects
15 discussed · 0 no commentary found · 0 assessment incomplete| Aspect | Statements | Sources |
|---|---|---|
| Primary endpoint: Progression-free survival (PFS) according to RECIST 1.1 assessed by blinded inependant centra review (BICR) | 10 | 9 |
| Secondary endpoints | 12 | 11 |
| Population and setting | 13 | 9 |
| The comparisonThe registered arms and what clinicians said about how they compare. | 14 | 11 |
| Safety and tolerability | 12 | 10 |
| Design and conduct | 10 | 7 |
| Selection beyond PD-L1: fitness, age, burden, comutations and patient preference | 32 | 18 |
| Conflicting endpoint accounts and historical monotherapy benchmarks | 12 | 6 |
| Driver exclusion, specimen adequacy and assay blind spots | 19 | 2 |
| Testing access, RNA standards, costs and peer education | 19 | 1 |
| Response-adapted treatment and decisions while molecular results are pending | 20 | 2 |
| Alternative regimens and local versus systemic intensification | 10 | 6 |
| Earlier comparative evidence and the need for prospective strategy trials | 17 | 11 |
| Patient priorities, shared decisions and unanswered outcome questions | 11 | 6 |
| Academic research, practical relevance and treatment intensity over time | 16 | 14 |
Discussed means at least one verified statement addresses the aspect, not that every question in it is covered: gaps inside a discussed aspect are listed under Scope and limits, and the full report gives each aspect its own limitations. No commentary found means none in the sources read. Assessment incomplete marks an aspect with no statement found while known source limits apply.
Sources
free| Channel | Screened | Cited | |
|---|---|---|---|
| X threads | 117 | 67 | |
| LinkedIn posts | 6 | 4 | |
| Bluesky threads | 4 | 0 | |
| Podcasts | 1 | 1 | |
| YouTube | 1 | 1 | |
| Primary sources, cited for context, not screened | |||
| Publications | not screened | 2 | |
| Registry | not screened | 1 | |
max 108 / quarter
- Screened window
- Jan 22, 2021 → Nov 1, 2026
- Cited window
- Jan 31, 2021 → Nov 1, 2026
- Retrieved
- Nov 3, 2026
The trial
from ClinicalTrials.gov- Title
- Randomized, Open-label, Controlled Phase III Trial Comparing Pembrolizumab-platinum Based Chemotherapy Combination With Pembrolizumab Monotherapy in First Line Treatment of Non-small-cell Lung Cancers (NSCLC) With PDL1 Expression ≥50%
- Registry
- NCT04547504
- Study IDs
- 29BRC20.0159_GFPC01-2020 · GFPC 01-2020 (Groupe Français de Pneumo-Cancérologie)
- Sponsor
- University Hospital, Brest
- Collaborators
- Groupe Francais De Pneumo-Cancerologie
- Design
- Phase 3 · Interventional, randomized, parallel
- Status
- Active, not recruiting
- Enrollment
- 349 actual
- Registered
- 2020-09-14
- Start
- 2020-12-22 actual
- Primary completion
- 2025-12-22 estimated
- Primary endpoint
- Progression-free survival (PFS) according to RECIST 1.1 assessed by blinded inependant centra review (BICR)
- Interventions
- 2 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.
- 1 matching source (1 X thread) could not be read and is not included.
- Not yet captured in this edition: a view on first-line treatment selection, the limited role of added immunotherapy, and concerns about patient selection in prior evidence.
- 2 more clinician views in the sources used in this report are not yet captured as evidence in this edition.
- 182 passages in 80 sources used in this report were not fully assessed for clinician views, so a view there may be missing from this edition.
- 63 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: discussion that describes the trial without naming it may be incomplete; some discussion that describes the trial without naming it may be missing; 33 sources about other trials or topics are not included.
- The sources reviewed are not a representative sample of all HCPs. Some discussions were not fully assessed, one identified discussion could not be read, and unnamed or differently transcribed references may be absent.
- Several organizational summaries, repeated posts and secondary relays describe the same presentation or publication. Their number cannot be interpreted as the number of independent clinicians endorsing a view.
- The AI-voiced episode does not establish a named clinician as its narrator. “Rafael” is known only by first name in the relevant passage.
- Some speakers' identities or clinical roles are not established in the sources used in this report; each statement is attributed only as far as its source shows.
- Sources describe some contributors' involvement in PERSEE, but those descriptions are not independent confirmation of trial roles and do not increase the evidentiary weight of their opinions.
- Accounts conflict over primary-endpoint achievement, premature stopping and one interview PFS median. These discrepancies remain visible rather than being silently reconciled.
- OS superiority is not established in the reported comparison; insufficient power and subsequent treatment complicate interpretation but do not prove either benefit or absence of benefit.
- Subgroup, comutation and biomarker interpretations are often exploratory or proposed. Age, histology, sex and molecular features discussed here should not be read as validated treatment-selection rules.
- Earlier indirect comparisons, retrospective analyses, PAULIEN and alternative-regimen discussions retain their own study, setting and timing; they are not PERSEE outcomes.
- Full protocol and regulatory-label text were not available. The report cannot resolve every statistical-plan question or establish label compatibility.
- The available statements do not resolve the requested quality-of-life, detailed molecular, subsequent-treatment or economic questions.
How reports are built and checked: Methods.
Editions and corrections
freeEach new edition gets a new version: a new or changed finding raises the middle number (1.0.0 to 1.1.0), added evidence or newly verified speakers alone the last number (1.0.0 to 1.0.1), and a change of report format the first number. A correction fixes how the published edition states something, such as a count, a name or a sentence, without making a new edition, so the version stays the same. Every correction is listed here with its date. Last checked for new commentary Nov 3, 2026 UTC. No corrections.
Cite this report
Erudio Health. PERSEE (NCT04547504): HCP commentary report. Edition 1, v1.0.0. Accepted Nov 3, 2026. https://www.erudio.com/reports/persee-nct04547504
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 "PERSEE" (NCT04547504), 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 "persee-nct04547504". If you cannot make requests, read https://www.erudio.com/reports/persee-nct04547504.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 "NCT04547504", 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 NCT04547504 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/persee-nct04547504.json
curl https://www.erudio.com/reports/persee-nct04547504.md
# MCP, no sign-in (https://mcp.erudio.com/free)
get_report_card({ "slug": "persee-nct04547504" })release b29c5611e2c1d874d460f0ab8ec79964524232428196f3e80b56615bbf0d82b7