Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31239839›Full record

ReviewJournal of oncology2019

Efficacy and Safety of Gefitinib in Patients with Advanced Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Xiaoxia Tang, Juan He, Bo Li, Yi Zheng, Kejia Li, Shun Zou, Long Chen

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Xiaoxia TangDepartment of Pharmacy, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming, Yunnan, China.
Juan HeDepartment of Pharmacy, The 920th Hospital of PLA, Kunming, Yunnan, China.ORCID 0000-0001-7060-086X
Bo LiCollege of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, China.
Yi ZhengAdvanced Analytics Institute, University of Technology Sydney, Australia.
Kejia LiDepartment of Pharmacy, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming, Yunnan, China.
Shun ZouDepartment of Pharmacy, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming, Yunnan, China.
Long ChenDepartment of PET/CT Center, Yunnan Cancer Hospital, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Yunnan, China.ORCID 0000-0001-8677-803X
Kunming Medical University · CN82th Hospital of Pla · CNUniversity of Technology Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTrials on assessing the benefits of EGFR inhibitors in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients have gradually been published. Nevertheless, the benefits of gefitinib in advanced HNSCC are still unknown.

methodsThe Cochrane library, PubMed, and EMBASE databases were systematically searched from the inception dates to 17 July 2017, 18 July 2017, and 19 July 2017, respectively. The keywords "head and neck" and gefitinib were used to retrieve in articles and abstracts. An additional search for recently published randomized trials was performed from July 17, 2017, to April 18, 2018. Then we assessed the risk of bias of the included studies based on the Cochrane "Risk of Bias" tool. Quantitative analysis was carried out to evaluate the overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), and grade 3-4 adverse effects by Review Manager 5.0.2 and the quality-of-life was analyzed in the included studies.

resultsSeven randomized controlled trials and a total number of 1287 patients were involved. There were no significant differences in OS, PFS, or ORR between gefitinib and no gefitinib group (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.22, and P=0.35; HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.04, and P=0.11; RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.20, and P =0.60, respectively). However, gefitinib alone was equivalent to chemotherapeutics (i.e., methotrexate; methotrexate + fluorouracil) in ORR in patients with recurrent HNSCC, and a trend of improvement in QOL in gefitinib group was showed. Toxicities revealed no differences except for diarrhea and skin toxicity (p=0.0003; p=0.03, respectively).

conclusionFor patients with advanced HNSCC, gefitinib cannot prolong the OS and PFS or improve ORR, and odds of skin toxicity and diarrhea increased. However, gefitinib alone is equivalent to methotrexate or methotrexate + fluorouracil and tends to improve QOL for recurrent patients.

Identifiers

PMID31239839
PMCPMC6556337
OpenAlexW2945709908

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.