Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29082855›Full record

SynthesisBMC medicine2017

Comparative efficacy and safety of second-line treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with wild-type or unknown status for epidermal growth factor receptor: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Perrine Créquit, Anna Chaimani, Amélie Yavchitz, Nassima Attiche, Jacques Cadranel, Ludovic Trinquart, Philippe Ravaud

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudySystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Bayesian Multiparameter Evidence Synthesis to Inform Decision Making: A Case Study in Metastatic Hormone-Refractory Prostate Cancer.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2018
    Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Perrine CréquitCentre de Recherche Epidémiologie et Statistique Paris Sorbonne Cité, INSERM U1153, Paris, France. perrine.crequit@aphp.fr.
Anna ChaimaniCentre de Recherche Epidémiologie et Statistique Paris Sorbonne Cité, INSERM U1153, Paris, France.
Amélie YavchitzCentre de Recherche Epidémiologie et Statistique Paris Sorbonne Cité, INSERM U1153, Paris, France.
Nassima AtticheCentre de Recherche Epidémiologie et Statistique Paris Sorbonne Cité, INSERM U1153, Paris, France.
Jacques CadranelService de Pneumologie, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Tenon, Paris, France.
Ludovic TrinquartCochrane France, Paris, France.
Philippe RavaudCentre de Recherche Epidémiologie et Statistique Paris Sorbonne Cité, INSERM U1153, Paris, France.
Sorbonne Paris Cité · FRDélégation Paris 5 · FRHôtel-Dieu de Paris · FRLaboratoire Jean Perrin · FRSorbonne Université · FRUniversité Paris Cité · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDocetaxel, pemetrexed, erlotinib, and gefitinib are recommended as second-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with wild-type or unknown status for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). However, the number of published randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on this topic is increasing. Our objective was to assess the comparative effectiveness and tolerability of all second-line treatments for advanced NSCLC with wild-type or unknown status for EGFR by a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the US Food and Drug Administration website, as well as other sources, were searched for available reports up to June 6, 2017. Two reviewers independently selected published and unpublished reports of RCTs comparing any second-line treatments, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of all included trials. We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes included objective response (ObR), the number of serious adverse events, and quality of life.

resultsWe included 102 RCTs involving 36,058 patients (62% male, median age 61 years, 81% with stage IV cancer, 80% smokers, and 92% with performance status 0-1). We revealed a differential reporting of outcomes between efficacy and safety outcomes. Half of the trials reported safety outcomes and less than 20% quality of life. For OS, nivolumab was more effective than docetaxel (hazard ratio (HR) 0.69, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.56-0.83), pemetrexed (0.67, 0.52-0.83), erlotinib (0.68, 0.53-0.86), and gefitinib (0.66, 0.53-0.83). Pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and pemetrexed plus erlotinib were also significantly more effective than docetaxel, pemetrexed, erlotinib, and gefitinib. For PFS, erlotinib plus cabozantinib was more effective than docetaxel (HR 0.39, 95% CrI 0.18-0.84), pemetrexed (0.38, 0.18-0.82), erlotinib (0.37, 0.18-0.78), and gefitinib (0.38, 0.18-0.82). Cabozantinib and pemetrexed plus erlotinib were also significantly more effective than the four recommended treatments. For ObR, no treatment was significantly more effective. The effectiveness of the four recommended treatments was similar and they were ranked among the 25 less-effective treatments. For safety, evidence is insufficient to draw certain conclusions.

conclusionsNivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and pemetrexed plus erlotinib may be the most effective second-line treatments for NSCLC in terms of OS. The four recommended treatments seem to have relatively poor performance. However, the impact on life expectancy of immunotherapy versus other treatments should be further explored by future analyses, and more trials comparing the novel treatments are needed to reduce uncertainty in these results.

trial registrationRegistration number: PROSPERO ( CRD42015017592 ).

Indexed as

Genes, erbB-1AgedAntineoplastic AgentsCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedAntineoplastic AgentsComparative effectiveness reviewImmunotherapyNSCLCSystematic reviewTreatmentsWild-type EGFR

Identifiers

PMID29082855
PMCPMC5662096
OpenAlexW2767143738

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.