SynthesisPloS one2012
Combined EGFR and VEGFR versus single EGFR signaling pathways inhibition therapy for NSCLC: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Novel considerations on EGFR-based therapy as a contributor to cancer cell death in NSCLC.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- Recent advances in targeted therapy of colorectal cancer: impacts of monoclonal antibodies nanoconjugates.BioImpacts : BI · 2019Article
- Molecularly targeted therapies for advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung carcinoma.World journal of clinical oncology · 2013Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLung cancer is a heterogeneous disease with multiple signaling pathways influencing tumor cell survival and proliferation, and it is likely that blocking only one of these pathways allows others to act as salvage or escape mechanisms for cancer cells. Whether combined inhibition therapy has greater anti-tumor activity than single inhibition therapy is a matter of debate. Hence, a meta-analysis comparing therapy inhibiting both VEGFR and EGFR signaling pathways with that inhibiting EGFR signaling pathway alone was performed. METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL
findingsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE database and the proceedings of major conferences for relevant clinical trials. Outcomes analyzed were objective tumor response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and toxicity. Besides, subgroup analyses were performed to investigate whether the combined inhibition therapy is best performed using combination of selective agents or a single agent with multiple targets. Six trials recruiting 3,302 patients were included in the analysis. Combined inhibition therapy was associated with a 3% improvement in OS as compared with single-targeted therapy, but this difference was not statistically significant (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.89-1.05; P=0.472). Patients receiving combined inhibition therapy had significant longer PFS than the group with single-targeted therapy (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67-0.95; P=0.011). There was no difference in the ORR between the groups (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.95-2.18; P=0.085). Subgroup analysis revealed that combined inhibition therapy using combination regimens was associated with statistically significant improvement in both ORR and PFS. Toxicity was greater in combined inhibition therapy.
conclusionsThere is no evidence to support the use of combined inhibition therapy in unselected patients with advanced NSCLC. However, given the significant advantage in ORR and PFS, combined inhibition therapy using combination regimens may be considered for further evaluation in subsets of patients who may benefit from this treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.