Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26765461›Full record

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.

Hu Ma, Xu Tian, Xian-Tao Zeng, Yu Zhang, Yi Wang, Fei Wang, Jian-Guo Zhou

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Hu MaFrom the Department of Oncology, Affiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical University, Zunyi, P.R. China (HM, YZ, YW, FW, JGZ); Center for Translational Medicine, Zunyi Medical University, Zunyi, P.R. China (JGZ, HM); Graduate College, Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tianjin, P.R. China (XT); School of Nursing, Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tianjin, P.R. China (XT); Center for Evidence-Based and Translational Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, P.R. China (XTZ); Center for Evidence-Based and Translational Medicine, Wuhan University, Wuhan, P.R. China (XTZ).
Xu Tian
Xian-Tao Zeng
Yu Zhang
Yi Wang
Fei Wang
Jian-Guo Zhou
X-Fab (Germany) · DETianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Antineoplastic AgentsCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungErlotinib HydrochlorideGenes, erbB-1HumansLung NeoplasmsSmokingTreatment OutcomeAntineoplastic AgentsErlotinib Hydrochloride

Identifiers

PMID26765461
PMCPMC4718287
OpenAlexW2323822030

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.