Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30900826›Full record

ArticleThoracic cancer2019

First-line pemetrexed/carboplatin or cisplatin/bevacizumab compared with paclitaxel/carboplatin/bevacizumab in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer with wild-type driver genes: A real-world study in China.

Qing Chang, Yanwei Zhang, Jianlin Xu, Runbo Zhong, Huiping Qiang, Bo Zhang, Baohui Han, Jialin Qian, Tianqing Chu

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Thoracic cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Evaluation of TwoCancers · 2020
    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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Qing ChangPulmonary Department, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0002-6199-1157
Yanwei ZhangPulmonary Department, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Jianlin XuPulmonary Department, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Runbo ZhongPulmonary Department, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Huiping QiangPulmonary Department, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Bo ZhangPulmonary Department, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Baohui HanPulmonary Department, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Jialin QianPulmonary Department, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Tianqing ChuPulmonary Department, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0002-1383-0383
Shanghai Jiao Tong University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe study was conducted to compare the effectiveness and safety of pemetrexed/carboplatin or cisplatin/bevacizumab (PemPBev) and paclitaxel/carboplatin/bevacizumab (PacCBev) as first-line therapy for advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NS-NSCLC) patients with wild-type driver genes in a real-world setting.

methodsWe retrospectively collected the medical records of advanced NS-NSCLC patients with wild-type driver genes administered first-line PemPBev or PacCBev therapy at Shanghai Chest Hospital between January 2014 and June 2016, and analyzed the differences in survival outcomes, efficacy, and safety between PemPBev and PacCBev treatment.

resultsA total of 390 patients were included in our analysis: 249 in the PemPBev group and 141 in the PacCBev group. Patients administered PemPBev experienced significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to those administered PacCBev (PFS 7.5 vs. 6.2 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-0.84, P < 0.001; OS:18.6 vs. 16.0 months, HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52-0.90, P = 0.002). The objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were similar between the groups (ORR 21.7% vs. 30.5%, P = 0.053; DCR 69.1% vs. 67.4%, P = 0.728). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the groups (64.7% vs. 68.8%; P = 0.407), but the incidence of peripheral neuropathy in the PacCBev group was higher than in the PemPBev group (7.8% vs. 2.4%; P = 0.012).

conclusionOur study shows that for advanced NS-NSCLC patients with wild-type driver genes, first-line PemPBev might be a better treatment option compared to PacCBev.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBevacizumabCarboplatinCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungChinaCisplatinFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateLung NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm MetastasisNeoplasm StagingBevacizumabCarboplatinCisplatinPaclitaxelPemetrexedBevacizumabchemotherapynon-small cell lung cancer

Identifiers

PMID30900826
PMCPMC6501044
OpenAlexW2923629601

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.