SynthesisMedicine2016
The Efficacy of Erlotinib Versus Conventional Chemotherapy for Advanced Nonsmall-Cell Lung Cancer: A PRISMA-Compliant Systematic Review With Meta-Regression and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- First-Generation EGFR-TKI Plus Chemotherapy Versus EGFR-TKI Alone as First-Line Treatment in Advanced NSCLC With EGFR Activating Mutation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Pooled it
- Cigarette smoking as a risk factor for diabetic nephropathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- Moderate hypofractionated radiotherapy is more effective and safe for localized prostate cancer patients: a meta-analysis.Oncotarget · 2017Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of icotinib in treating non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic evaluation and meta-analysis based on 15 studies.Oncotarget · 2016Pooled it
- Efficacy of D5F3 IHC for detecting ALK gene rearrangement in NSCLC patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Oncotarget · 2016Pooled it
- Genomic, epigenomic and transcriptomic landscape of glioblastoma.Metabolic brain disease · 2024Review
- Cross-omics strategies and personalised options for lung cancer immunotherapy.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Review
- Fatal ventricular arrhythmias after osimertinib treatment for lung adenocarcinoma: a case report.Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2023Article
- Prevalence and Significance of Potential Pharmacokinetic Drug-Drug Interactions Among Patients with Lung Cancer: Implications for Clinical Trials.Clinical drug investigation · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the leading cause of cancer deaths. Erlotinib is the first-generation epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs), the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend it as a first-line agent in patients with sensitizing EGFR mutations.We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of erlotinib and chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC, and evaluated the efficacy of them to provide references for further clinical practice and research.PubMed, EMBASE, CBM, CNKI, WanFang database, The Cochrane library, and Web of Science, as well as abstracts presented at ASCO conferences and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched to identify relevant studies. HR with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), relative risk (RR) with 95% CIs for objective response rate (ORR) and 1-year survival rate (OSR) were all extracted. If the I was ≤40%, then the trial was considered to be heterogeneous, and a fixed-effects model was selected. Otherwise, a random-effects model was used. Meta-regression and sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine the possible heterogeneity causes and to further identify the influence of the various exclusion criteria on the overall risk estimate.The pooled analysis demonstrated a PFS HR of 0.93 (95% CI = 0.73, 1.19) for erlotinib versus chemotherapy and an ORR of 18.43% versus 22.07%, respectively. The OS HR was 1.02 (95%CI = 0.93, 1.12). The HRs for PFS estimated based on 10 trials involving 1101 patients were 0.22 (95% CI = 0.15, 0.29) and 1.27 (95% CI = 1.04, 1.48) in EGFR mutation-type and wild-type patients, respectively. The HRs for OS calculated from 4 studies including 681 participants were 0.83 (95% CI = 0.61, 1.05) and 0.86 (95% CI = 0.68, 1.04) in EGFR mutation-type and wild-type patients, respectively. The 1-year survival rates were 31.31% and 32.41%, respectively.Overall, the present meta-analysis suggested that erlotinib did not improve the ORR, PFS, OS or the 1-year survival rate for whole patients. However, erlotinib could benefit patients with EGFR mutation in terms of PFS, but the OS does not benefit from it for these patients. Further studies of erlotinib for these subgroup patients are warranted.
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.