ArticleTanaffos2017
Prospective Randomized Phase II Parallel Study of Vinorelbine Maintenance Therapy versus Best Supportive Care in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.
Article in Tanaffos, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cell Free Tumoral DNA Versus Paraffin Block Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutation Detection in Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2019Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMaintenance strategy has been used to improve survival in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We investigated whether switch maintenance therapy with vinorelbine improved progression free survival (PFS) after first-line chemotherapy with gemcitabine plus carboplatin. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this single blind, parallel, phase 2, randomized trial, patients with NSCLC pathology, age >18 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) score of 0-2, and advanced stage (IIIB and IV) were treated with up to 6 cycles of gemcitabine 1250 mg/m
resultsA total of 100 patients were registered, of whom 34 had a non-progressive response to first-line chemotherapy and randomly received maintenance vinorelbine (n=19) or best supportive care (n=15). The hazard ratio of PFS in the vinorelbine group relative to the best supportive care group was 1.097 (95% confidence interval = 0.479-2.510; P-value =0.827). There was no significant difference between the overall survival for the two groups (P=0.068).
conclusionSwitch maintenance strategies are beneficial, but defining the right candidates for treatment is a problem. Moreover, the trial designs do not always reflect the real-world considerations. Switch maintenance therapy with vinorelbine, though had tolerable toxicity, did not improve PFS in patients with NSCLC. Therefore, other agents should be considered in this setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29849674PMC5960225W2979419766What 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.