ReviewArchives of medical science : AMS2020
A pooled analysis of molecularly targeted agents for treatment of metastatic oesophago-gastric cancer in elderly patients.
Review in Archives of medical science : AMS, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim of the present study was to assess the efficacy of molecularly targeted agents (MTAs) in the treatment of elderly patients with metastatic oesophago-gastric cancer (mOGC). MATERIAL AND
methodsWe systematically searched electronic databases and abstracts presented at American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) meetings up to January 31, 2017. Hazard ratios (HRs) were used to estimate overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Subgroup analysis and publication bias were also evaluated. All statistical analysis was conducted using Comprehensive Meta Analysis software (Version 2.0).
resultsA total of 2,149 elderly patients with mOGC from thirteen trials were included. Compared to non-MTA-containing regimens, OS was significantly improved in the MTA-containing regimens (HR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.75-0.99,
conclusionsOur results indicate that the MTA-containing therapies significantly improve OS but not for PFS in elderly mOGC patients. Sub-group analysis shows that improved efficacy is only observed in the second-line setting and not in the first-line setting. Our findings support the use of angiogenesis as second-line treatment for elderly mOGC patients.
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.