ArticleCancer management and research2018
Does the use of targeted agents in advanced gastroesophageal cancer increase complete response? A meta-analysis of 18 randomized controlled trials.
Article in Cancer management and research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of meta-analyses assessing the validity of tumour response endpoints as surrogates for progression-free or overall survival in cancer.British journal of cancer · 2020Pooled it
- Recent Progress of Basic Studies of Natural Products and Their Dental Application.Medicines (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Review
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe aimed to investigate whether the use of targeted agents (TAs) in advanced gastroesophageal cancer (GEC) increased the complete response (CR) and to assess the surrogate endpoints for survival in the targeted treatment of GEC by using a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
methodsEligible studies were identified using Medline, PubMed, and meeting abstracts. Searches were last updated on April 30, 2018. We calculated the incidence and Peto odds ratio (Peto OR) of CR events in patients assigned to TAs compared with controls. Simple linear regression models were fitted for median overall survival (OS) and each surrogate [median progression-free survival (PFS), CRs, objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR), respectively].
resultsA total of 7,892 GEC patients from 18 RCTs were included for analysis. The incidence of CR in GEC patients treated with TAs was 2.0% (95% CI, 1.3%-3.0%) compared with 1.7% (95% CI, 1.0%-2.7%) in the control arms. The use of TAs in advanced GEC had a tendency to improve the possibility of archiving CR (Peto OR 1.42; 95% CI, 0.98-2.04;
conclusionAlthough the CR is a rate event in advanced GEC patients, adding the TAs to therapies, especially for anti-EGFR agents, increases the chance of archiving CR in comparison with the controls. PFS, ORR, and DCR are significantly correlated with OS and could be used as surrogate endpoints in patients with GEC who have received TA therapy, but not for CR.
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.