ArticleOncoTargets and therapy2016
Comparison of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy with chemotherapy alone in advanced non-small-lung cancer patients.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of clinical benefit, cost and uptake of biosimilars versus reference biologics in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases in China.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Use of Real-World Evidence for Drug Regulatory Decisions in China: Current Status and Future Directions.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2023Review
- Integrating Real-World Evidence in the Regulatory Decision-Making Process: A Systematic Analysis of Experiences in the US, EU, and China Using a Logic Model.Frontiers in medicine · 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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bevacizumab plus chemotherapy was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a first-line treatment for advanced nonsquamous, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in 2006. This study retrospectively compared the efficacy of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy with chemotherapy alone as the first-line and second-line treatment as well as the maintenance treatment for advanced NSCLC patients. A total of 1,352 patients were included and we analyzed the efficacy evaluation according to the criteria of the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST), survival, and adverse reactions. The data showed that for bevacizumab plus chemotherapy as the first-line treatment, the median progression-free survival (mPFS) and median overall survival (mOS) were 11.5 and 17.0 months, respectively, compared to 7.0 and 14 months, respectively, in patients who received chemotherapy alone (P<0.01). With bevacizumab plus chemotherapy as maintenance treatment, the mPFS and mOS were 6.0 and 17.4 months, respectively, compared to 3.0 and 15.0 months, respectively, with chemotherapy alone (P<0.01). With bevacizumab plus chemotherapy as the second-line treatment, the mPFS was 3.0 months compared to only 2.0 months with chemotherapy alone (P<0.01). The overall responses to the different regimens showed that the remission rate with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy was higher than that with chemotherapy alone (31.8% vs 25.5%, P<0.05), although there was no statistical difference in the disease control rate with either first- or second-line treatment. In conclusion, chemotherapy plus bevacizumab as the first-line and maintenance treatment, led to better curative rates and tolerable adverse reactions compared with chemotherapy alone in advanced NSCLC patients. Bevacizumab combined with cytotoxic drugs was suitable as the second-line treatment for such 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.