SynthesisMedicine2017
The role of antiangiogenic agents in the treatment of gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety for Apatinib treatment in advanced gastric cancer: a real world study.Scientific reports · 2017Trial
- Comparative Retrospective Analysis of Immunotherapy Combined with Anti-Angiogenic Agents and Nab-Paclitaxel in Metastatic Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma.International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
- Tumor vessel normalization and immunotherapy in gastric cancer.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2022Review
- Tumor progression-dependent angiogenesis in gastric cancer and its potential application.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2019Review
- The Use of (Network) Meta-Analysis in Clinical Oncology.Frontiers in oncology · 2019Article
- Erratum: The role of antiangiogenic agents in the treatment of gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis: Erratum.Medicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe survival of advanced gastric cancer (GC) is dismal, and effects of antiangiogenic agents remain inconclusive. The purpose of this study is to assess combination of chemotherapy with antiangiogenic therapy versus traditional chemotherapy.
methodsTo achieve the goal of scientific rigor, statistics from both referenced works and experiments were analyzed. We carefully searched for the referenced works by retrieving, as well as analyzing, literature databases for information on antiangiogenic therapy compared to other therapeutic approaches used to treat GC patients. Two groups were defined in the experiment: experimental and control groups. The experimental group was treated with antiangiogenic drug, and the control group was treated with standard chemotherapy or placebo.
resultsThe study included a total of 3240 participants. Overall, there was significant improvement in overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67-0.91, P = 0.002), progression-free survival (HR 0.65, 95% CI: 0.52-0.81, P = 0.0002), objective response rate (risk ratio [RR] = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.33-1.88, P < 0.00001), and disease control rate (RR 2.44, 95% CI: 1.57-3.78, P < 0.0001) in the group with antiangiogenic drug versus the group with standard chemotherapy or placebo. Moreover, this new treatment approach showed tolerable toxicity.
conclusionThis study confirms the superior efficacy of combination therapy with antiangiogenic agents in comparison to traditional chemotherapy regimens for patients with GC. Moreover, this new treatment approach showed tolerable toxicity. This meta-analysis provides important information for clinicians who are interested in using antiangiogenic therapies to treat GC 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.