Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26267802›Full record

SynthesisCancer metastasis reviews2015

Optimal first-line chemotherapeutic treatment in patients with locally advanced or metastatic esophagogastric carcinoma: triplet versus doublet chemotherapy: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

N Haj Mohammad, E ter Veer, L Ngai, R Mali, M G H van Oijen, H W M van Laarhoven

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cancer metastasis reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The association between wearable activity monitor metrics and performance status in oncology: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Reporting of health-related quality of life in randomized controlled trials involving palliative systemic therapy for esophagogastric cancer: a systematic review.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2018
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Risks and Benefits of Multimodal Esophageal Cancer Treatments: A Meta-Analysis.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2017
    Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Increased assessment of HER2 in metastatic gastroesophageal cancer patients: a nationwide population-based cohort study.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2020
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

N Haj MohammadDepartment of Medical Oncology, Academic Medical Center, F4-222 Meibergdreef 9, PO box 22600, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. n.hajmohammad@amc.nl.
E ter VeerDepartment of Medical Oncology, Academic Medical Center, F4-222 Meibergdreef 9, PO box 22600, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
L NgaiDepartment of Medical Oncology, Academic Medical Center, F4-222 Meibergdreef 9, PO box 22600, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
R MaliDepartment of Medical Oncology, Academic Medical Center, F4-222 Meibergdreef 9, PO box 22600, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
M G H van OijenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Academic Medical Center, F4-222 Meibergdreef 9, PO box 22600, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
H W M van LaarhovenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Academic Medical Center, F4-222 Meibergdreef 9, PO box 22600, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Academic Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a debate whether triplet or doublet chemotherapy should be used as a first-line treatment in patients with advanced or metastatic esophagogastric cancer. Therefore, here we will review the available literature to assess the efficacy and safety of triplet versus doublet chemotherapy as a first-line treatment in patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) between 1980 and March 2015 for randomized controlled phase II and III trials comparing triplet with doublet chemotherapy and abstracts of major oncology meetings from 1990 to 2014. Twenty-one studies with a total of 3475 participants were included in the meta-analysis for overall survival. An improvement in overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio (HR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83-0.97) and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.69-0.93) was observed in favor of triplet. In addition, the use of triplet was associated with better objective response rate (ORR) (risk ratio 1.25, 95% CI 1.09-1.44) compared to doublet. The risks of grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia (6.2 vs 3.8%), infection (10.2 vs 6.4%), and mucositis (9.7 vs 4.7%) were statistically significantly increased with triplet compared to doublet. This review shows that first-line triplet therapy is superior to doublet therapy in patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer. However, the survival benefit is limited and the risks of grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia, infection, and mucositis are increased.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsDisease-Free SurvivalEsophageal NeoplasmsHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStomach NeoplasmsDoublet chemotherapyEsophageal cancerFirst-line treatmentGastric cancerPalliative chemotherapyTriplet chemotherapy

Identifiers

PMID26267802
PMCPMC4573655
OpenAlexW1817346453

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.