Trial reportCancer research and treatment2017
ERCC1 Expression-Based Randomized Phase II Study of Gemcitabine/Cisplatin Versus Irinotecan/Cisplatin in Patients with Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.
Trial report in Cancer research and treatment, 2017. 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.
- Meta-Analysis of ERCC1 Protein Expression and Platinum Chemosensitivity in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2020Article
- The shifting paradigm of biomarker-driven care in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Translational lung cancer research · 2019Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe evaluated the clinical utility of excision repair cross-complementation group 1 (ERCC1) expression as a predictive biomarker for platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MATERIALS AND
methodsEligible patients were randomly assigned to the GP (gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m
resultsA total of 279 patients were randomly assigned to the GP (n=139) and IP (n=140) arms, among which 63% were ERCC1-positive and 268 patients were assessable for the RR. The GP and IP arms did not differ significantly with respect to the RR (29.8% vs. 27.0%, respectively; p=0.082), median progression-free survival (PFS; 4.5 months vs. 3.9 months, respectively; p=0.117), and overall survival (OS; 16.5 months vs. 16.7 months, respectively; p=0.313). When comparing the efficacy between the ERCC1-positive and ERCC1-negative groups, there was no significant difference in the RR (GP, 28.2% vs. 32.6%, respectively, p=0.509; IP, 30.2% vs. 21.6%, respectively, p=0.536), median PFS (GP, 4.6 months vs. 5.0 months, respectively, p=0.506; IP, 3.9 months vs. 3.7 months, respectively, p=0.748), or median OS (GP, 18.6 months vs. 11.9 months, respectively, p=0.070; IP, 17.5 months vs. 14.0 months, respectively, p=0.821).
conclusionImmunohistochemical analysis of the ERCC1 expression level did not differentiate the efficacy of platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC.
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.