ArticleOncotarget2017
Meta-analysis of efficacy and adverse events of erlotinib-based targeted therapies for advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.
Article in Oncotarget, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- G6PD and machine learning algorithms as prognostic and diagnostic indicators of liver hepatocellular carcinoma.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Safety profile of tyrosine kinase inhibitors used in non-small-cell lung cancer: An analysis from the Italian pharmacovigilance database.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A network meta-analysis evaluating efficacy and adverse events of eight erlotinib-based therapies (erlotinib+placebo, erlotinib+tivantinib, erlotinib+celecoxib, erlotinib+onartuzumab, erlotinib+sunitinib, erlotinib+entinostat, erlotinib+sorafenib, and erlotinib+bevacizumab) for advanced/metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was performed. PubMed and Cochrane Library were reviewed, and ten randomized controlled trials were identified in which patients receiving at least one erlotinib-based therapy. Efficacy outcomes, including progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and adverse outcomes were evaluated. Patients treated with erlotinib+tivantinib, or erlotinib+celecoxib had longer PFS than patients on erlotinib+placebo; patients on erlotinib+tivantinib had longer OS compared to erlotinib+placebo. For PFS, erlotinib+celecoxib had the highest value of surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). For OS, erlotinib+tivantinib had the highest SUCRA. For ORR, erlotinib+bevacizumab had the highest SUCRA, while erlotinib+entinostat ranked the lowest. For DCR, erlotinib+sorafenib had the highest SUCRA. Erlotinib+onartuzumab had the highest SUCRA for diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, decreased appetite, and dyspnea. Erlotinib+sunitinib had the lowest SUCRA for diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and decreased appetite. Erlotinib + entinostat had the lowest SUCRA for fatigue, asthenia, and dyspnea. Our study suggests erlotinib+tivantinib and erlotinib+celecoxib regimens have the best long-term efficacy, while erlotinib+sunitinib and erlotinib+entinostat have the fewest adverse effects in patients with advanced/metastatic 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.