ArticleOncoTargets and therapy2016
Icotinib versus docetaxel used in lung adenocarcinoma patients who failed platinum-based chemotherapy: a retrospective study.
Article in OncoTargets and therapy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe efficacy and safety of epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been studied worldwide. However, there are few reports directly comparing the efficacy and safety between icotinib and docetaxel as second-line treatment in lung adenocarcinoma patients who have failed platinum-based chemotherapy. This article offers insight into this field.
methodsA total of 137 patients with stage III or IV lung adenocarcinoma who had progressed on first-line platinum-based therapies and received icotinib or docetaxel therapy between October 2011 and February 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients in the icotinib group received oral icotinib at a dose of 125 mg tid, while patients in the docetaxel group received infusion docetaxel at a dose of 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 of every 21 days (four to six cycles) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred after which best supportive care was given.
resultsThere was no statistically significant difference in the objective response rate (23.3% vs 12.5%, P=0.103), progression-free survival (121 days vs 106 days, P=0.083), and overall survival (307 days vs 254 days, P=0.070) between the two groups. As compared to the docetaxel group, the disease control rate (75.3% vs 54.7%, P=0.011) was significantly better in the icotinib group. In the icotinib group, the most common adverse events were rash (35.62%) and diarrhea (24.66%), whereas in the docetaxel group, elevation of transaminase (37.50%), leukopenia (50.00%), and anemia (54.69%) were the most common.
conclusionIcotinib had similar efficacy and a lower adverse events rate in epidermal growth factor receptor-unselected patients as compared to docetaxel, thereby making it an effective second-line therapy option for lung adenocarcinoma.
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.