Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29455269›Full record

ReviewGastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association2018

The efficacy and safety of targeted therapy with or without chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer treatment: a network meta-analysis of well-designed randomized controlled trials.

Ting-Ting Zhao, Hao Xu, Hui-Mian Xu, Zhen-Ning Wang, Ying-Ying Xu, Yong-Xi Song, Song-Cheng Yin, Xing-Yu Liu, Zhi-Feng Miao

Abstract readMulticenter StudyNetwork Meta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

39 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Ting-Ting ZhaoDepartment of Breast Surgery, First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning, China.
Hao XuDepartment of Medical Oncology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning, China.
Hui-Mian XuDepartment of Surgical Oncology, First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, 110001, Liaoning, China.
Zhen-Ning WangDepartment of Surgical Oncology, First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, 110001, Liaoning, China.
Ying-Ying XuDepartment of Breast Surgery, First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning, China.
Yong-Xi SongDepartment of Surgical Oncology, First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, 110001, Liaoning, China.
Song-Cheng YinDepartment of Surgical Oncology, First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, 110001, Liaoning, China.
Xing-Yu LiuDepartment of Surgical Oncology, First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, 110001, Liaoning, China.
Zhi-Feng MiaoDepartment of Surgical Oncology, First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, 110001, Liaoning, China. zfmiao@cmu.edu.cn.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81272718National Natural Science Foundation of China 81302125National Natural Science Foundation of China 81372550
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdvanced gastric cancer (AGC) is a severe malignant tumor associated with high mortality. Targeted therapy is an important approach for improving the therapeutic effects of AGC treatment. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of targeted agents for AGC patients.

methodsPubMed, EmBase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of AGC treatments published prior to July 2017. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and severe adverse effects (AEs) were evaluated to determine the efficacy and safety of targeted agents. A network meta-analysis with a frequentist framework was performed to assess the effects of various targeted agents for AGC treatment.

resultsOur analysis included 16 articles involving 5371 patients and 11 types of agents. The network meta-analysis showed that apatinib (97.5%) was most likely to improve PFS, followed by regorafenib (86.3%) and rilotumumab (65.4%). Apatinib was similarly best for OS outcome, (95.5%) followed by rilotumumab (74.7%) and regorafenib (70%). Apatinib (89.6%) also had the best improvement on ORR, followed by rilotumumab (75.4%) and everolimus (68.4%). Bevacizumab (85.5%) was likely to get the lowest severe AEs, followed by sunitinib (63%).

conclusionsApatinib, regorafenib, and rilotumumab improved patient PFS and OS. When combined with chemotherapy, ramucirumab and rilotumumab had high efficacy but low tolerability, and bevacizumab had moderate efficacy and tolerability for PFS. Without chemotherapy, ramucirumab and regorafenib had relatively high therapeutic efficacy tolerability for PFS.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsMolecular Targeted TherapyStomach NeoplasmsDisease-Free SurvivalHumansAntineoplastic AgentsAdvanced gastric cancerClinical treatmentMeta-analysisTargeted therapy

Identifiers

PMID29455269

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.