ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2015
Efficacy of different monotherapies in second-line treatment for small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identification of a RNA-Seq based prognostic signature with five lncRNAs for lung squamous cell carcinoma.Oncotarget · 2017Article
- [Advances in the Treatment of Relapsed Small Cell Lung Cancer].Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Second-line chemotherapy has been proved to be effective on patients with relapsed or refractory small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Although topotecan has been approved by many countries for the monotherapy with an acknowledged efficacy, its efficacy of low response rate and short median survival time is disappointing. Considering the optimal regimen of second-line therapy is yet uncertain, we conducted this meta-analysis to provide theoretical basis for making clinical decisions. A comprehensive electronic search was performed to identify eligible studies. The ending points included response, overall survival (OS), and adverse events. Odds ratios and 95% confidence interval were calculated to compare the effects. Six trials with 1369 patients were included. With regard to response rate, only amrubicin showed a significant improvement compared with topotecan. Irinotecan and etoposide did not show any advantages. When targeted on OS, neither of these monotherapy regimens exhibited any advantage when compared to topotecan. When aimed at toxicity, amrubicin showed a better effect on reducing hematologic toxicity, but a worse outcome on increasing the nonhematologic toxicity, whereas others showed equal efficacy. There is no strong evidence that any advantage for second-line treatment of SCLC when compared with topotecan, except amrubicin. And amrubicin seems to be superior to topotecan in terms of response rates, with a lower toxicity than topotecan, which is of high value in clinical application, and may be the direction of second-line monotherapy in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26770633PMC4694533W2417140226What 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.