ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2020
Comparative Efficacy of Targeted Therapies in Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Post-operative survival and use of systemic therapy in metastatic long-bone disease: 12 years of institutional experience.Journal of bone oncology · 2026Article
- CypA Mediates Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Chemoresistance by Attenuating Ferroptosis via Stabilizing SLC7A11.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Surgical treatment of IIIb (N2), ROS1(+) non-small cell lung cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with targeted therapy: a case report.AME case reports · 2025Article
- EGFR-TKIs or EGFR-TKIs combination treatments for untreated advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC: a network meta-analysis.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Genomic Alteration Spectrum of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients in East-China Characterized by Tumor Tissue DNA and Cell-Free DNA.OncoTargets and therapy · 2022Article
- Comparison of Comorbidities in Relation to Critical Conditions among Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients: A Network Meta-Analysis.Infection & chemotherapy · 2021Review
- Testing forOncoTargets and therapy · 2021Review
- Comparative Efficacy and Acceptability of Anti-inflammatory Agents on Major Depressive Disorder: A Network Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
- Imaging Biomarkers of Tumour Proliferation and Invasion for Personalised Lung Cancer Therapy.Journal of personalized medicine · 2020Review
- The Role of Nutritional Support in Malnourished Patients With Lung Cancer.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to investigate the efficacy of targeted therapies in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) by using a network meta-analysis of clinical trials. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched by using keywords related to the topic on 19 September 2018. Two investigators independently selected relevant trials by pre-determined criteria. A pooled response ratio (RR) for overall response rate (ORR) and a hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival (PFS) were calculated based on both the Bayesian and frequentist approaches. A total of 128 clinical trials with 39,501 participants were included in the final analysis of 14 therapeutic groups. Compared with chemotherapy, both ORR and PFS were significantly improved for afatinib, alectinib, and crizotinib, while only PFS was significantly improved for cabozantinib, ceritinib, gefitinib, and osimertinib. Consistency was observed between the direct and indirect comparisons based on the Bayesian approach statistically and the frequentist approach visually. Cabozantinib and alectinib showed the highest probability for the first-line treatment ranking in ORR (62.5%) and PFS (87.5%), respectively. The current network meta-analysis showed the comprehensive evidence-based comparative efficacy of different types of targeted therapies, which would help clinicians use targeted therapies in clinical practice.
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.