ArticleThe Indian journal of medical research2019
A comparative study on erlotinib & gefitinib therapy in non-small cell lung carcinoma patients.
Article in The Indian journal of medical research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recent Progress in Treating Airway Mucus Hypersecretion by Targeting the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Signaling Pathway.Pediatric discovery · 2026Review
- A Holistic Review of Oncological Drug Targets and Trajectories of Resistance in Cancer Therapy.Oncology research · 2026Review
- RELAY+: Final Overall Survival With Ramucirumab Plus Gefitinib in Patients With UntreatedJTO clinical and research reports · 2025Article
- Influence of genetic polymorphisms on gefitinib pharmacokinetics and adverse drug reactions in non-small cell lung cancer patients.Cancer metastasis reviews · 2025Review
- Design and investigation of novel iridoid-based peptide conjugates for targeting EGFR and its mutants L858R and T790M/L858R/C797S: an in silico study.Molecular diversity · 2025Article
- Observational
- Recent Advances in Structural Optimization of Quinazoline-Based Protein Kinase Inhibitors for Cancer Therapy (2021-Present).Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Unraveling the prevalence of various signalling pathways in non-small-cell lung cancer: a review.Molecular and cellular biochemistry · 2023Review
- A pharmacological exploration of targeted drug therapy in non-small cell lung cancer.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2022Review
- Comparison of gefitinib-induced skin adverse reactions (SAR) in C57BL/6 and FVB/N mice.Toxicology research · 2021Article
- The Regulatory Network and Potential Role of LINC00973-miRNA-mRNA ceRNA in the Progression of Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.Frontiers in immunology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background & objectives: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) have been evaluated in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Erlotinib and gefitinib are the first-generation EGFR-TKIs for patients with NSCLC. However, there is a paucity of studies comparing the effectiveness of these two drugs. Hence, this study was aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of erlotinib and gefitinib in NSCLC patients. Methods: This study included 71 NSCLC patients who received EGFR-TKIs between 2013 and 2016. Adverse drug reaction of both erlotinib (n=37) and gefitinib (n=34) was determined and graded according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grading system. Effectiveness was measured using response evaluation criteria in solid tumours and progression-free survival (PFS). Pharmacoeconomic analysis was performed by cost-effective analysis. Results: When comparing safety profile, both the drugs had similar adverse events except for dermal side effects such as acneiform eruption (51.4%), rash (54.05%) and mucositis (59.5%) for erlotinib and 20.6, 26.5 and 29.4 per cent for gefitinib, respectively. The PFS of the two drugs was compared to differentiate the effectiveness of erlotinib and gefitinib. There was no significant difference between the effectiveness of the two drugs. The pharmacoeconomic analysis showed that gefitinib was more cost-effective than erlotinib. Interpretation & conclusions: This study showed that erlotinib and gefitinib had similar effectiveness but gefitinib had a better safety profile compared to erlotinib. Therefore, gefitinib could be considered a better option for NSCLC patients compared to erlotinib. However, further studies need to be done with a large sample to confirm these findings.
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.