ArticleOncoTargets and therapy2016
Comparison of single agent versus combined chemotherapy in previously treated patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma: a meta-analysis.
Article in OncoTargets and therapy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and Safety of Chemotherapy Regimens in Advanced or Metastatic Bladder and Urothelial Carcinomas: An Updated Network Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2019Pooled it
- Second-line treatment strategy for urothelial cancer patients who progress or are unfit for cisplatin therapy: a network meta-analysis.BMC urology · 2019Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPlatinum-based chemotherapy is the standard treatment for advanced urothelial cancer (UC) and is generally used in the first-line setting. However, the optimal salvage treatment for previously treated UC patients is unclear. We conducted a systematic review of published clinical trials of single agent versus combined chemotherapy as salvage treatment in previously treated UC patients.
methodsTrials published between 1994 and 2015 were identified by an electronic search of public databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library). All relevant studies were independently identified by two authors for inclusion. Demographic data, treatment regimens, objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), median progression-free and overall survival (PFS, OS), and grade 3/4 toxicities were extracted and analyzed using Comprehensive Meta Analysis software (Version 2.0).
resultsFifty cohorts with 1,685 patients were included for analysis: 814 patients were treated with single agent chemotherapy and 871 with combined chemotherapy. Pooled OS was significantly higher at 1 year for combined chemotherapy than for single agent (relative risk [RR] 1.52; 95% CI: 1.01-2.37; P=0.03) but not for 2-year OS (RR 1.31; 95% CI: 0.92-1.85; P=0.064). Additionally, combined chemotherapy significantly improved ORR (RR 2.25; 95% CI: 1.60-3.18; P<0.001) and DCR (RR 1.12; 95% CI: 1.01-1.25, P=0.033) compared to single agent for advanced UC patients. As for grade 3 and 4 toxicities, more frequencies of leukopenia and thrombocytopenia were observed in the combined chemotherapy than in single agent group, while equivalent frequencies of anemia, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea were found between the two groups.
conclusionIn comparison with single agent alone, combined chemotherapy as salvage treatment for advanced UC patients significantly improved ORR, DCR, and 1-year OS, but not 2-year OS. Our findings support the need to compare combined chemotherapy with single agent alone in the salvage setting in large prospective trials due to its potential survival benefit in advanced UC patients.
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.