Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10711838›Full record

ReviewDrugs1999

The role of oral etoposide in non-small cell lung cancer.

R L Comis, D M Friedland, B C Good

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drugs, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 87% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

R L ComisClinical Trials Research Center, MCP Hahnemann University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19146, USA.
D M Friedland
B C Good
Hahnemann University Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Oral etoposide has been tested alone and in combination in a number of tumour types since the late 1980s because of its mild toxicity, high response rates, ease of administration, and comparatively low cost. Encouraging early results with protracted oral etoposide therapy in small cell lung cancer have not been borne out in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), particularly in the advanced-disease setting. However, in stage IV NSCLC, oral etoposide does appear to be as compatible with most of the newer agents as it has been with platinum compounds; these combinations continue to be explored, although they have not penetrated into standard usage. In stage III NSCLC, large combined-modality studies are ongoing. Other investigations examining protracted administration in combination with radiation 'sensitisers' are planned. It is possible that by exploiting the 'radiosensitising effect' of prolonged low dose oral etoposide, combined with that of other proven radiosensitisers such as paclitaxel, gemcitabine, and topotecan, we may identify a niche for oral etoposide in the future.

Indexed as

Administration, OralAnimalsAntineoplastic Agents, PhytogenicAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungClinical Trials as TopicEtoposideHumansLung NeoplasmsAntineoplastic Agents, PhytogenicEtoposide

Identifiers

PMID10711838
OpenAlexW2088216779

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.