SynthesisMedicine2018
Gefitinib provides similar effectiveness and improved safety than erlotinib for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Erlotinib Treatment in Colorectal Cancer Suppresses Autophagy Based onCurrent issues in molecular biology · 2024Article
- ANGPTL4 Regulates Lung Adenocarcinoma Pyroptosis and Apoptosis via NLRP3\ASC\Caspase 8 Signaling Pathway to Promote Resistance to Gefitinib.Journal of oncology · 2022Article
- Exploring the chemotherapeutic potential of currently used kinase inhibitors: An update.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Review
- EGFR variant allele frequency predicts EGFR-TKI efficacy in lung adenocarcinoma: a multicenter study.Translational lung cancer research · 2021Article
- Quinazoline Derivatives as Potential Therapeutic Agents in Urinary Bladder Cancer Therapy.Frontiers in chemistry · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors gefitinib and erlotinib are effective for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This meta-analysis compared their effectiveness and safety.
methodsWe searched systematically in PubMed, ScienceDirect, The Cochrane Library, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for relevant clinical trials regarding gefitinib versus erlotinib for NSCLC. Antitumor effectiveness (overall survival [OS], progression-free survival [PFS], objective response rate [ORR] and disease control rate [DCR]) and adverse effects [AEs]) were assessed.
resultsForty studies comprising 9376 participants were included. The results suggested that gefitinib and erlotinib are effective for advanced NSCLC with comparable PFS (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.98-1.11, P = .15), OS (95% CI: 0.93-1.19, P = .45), ORR (95% CI: 0.99-1.16, P = .07), and DCR (95% CI: 0.92-1.03, P = .35). For erlotinib, dose reduction was significantly more frequent (95% CI: 0.10-0.57, P = .001) as were grade 3 to 5 AEs (95% CI: 0.36-0.79, P = .002). In the subgroup analysis, the erlotinib group had a significant higher rate and severity of skin rash, nausea/vomiting, fatigue, and stomatitis.
conclusionsGefitinib was proven to be the better choice for advanced NSCLC, with equal antitumor effectiveness and fewer AEs compared with erlotinib. Further large-scale, well-designed randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm our validation.
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.