SynthesisMedicine2020
Erlotinib plus tivantinib versus erlotinib alone in patients with previously treated stage IIIb/IV non-small-cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Advanced lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) patient with EGFR mutations benefited from multiline combination targeted therapies after osimertinib (AZD9291) resistance: a case report.Translational cancer research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhether erlotinib plus tivantinib (ET) can achieve better clinical benefits than erlotinib plus placebo (EP) among participants with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is still disputed. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the anticancer efficacy and safety of both regimens. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe searched for pertinent trials at PubMed, ScienceDirect, The Cochrane Library, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Endpoints mainly included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and adverse events (AEs).
resultsWe included 1522 patients who previously received ≥1 systemic anti-cancer regimen that included platinum-based chemotherapy. Although ET failed to improve OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75-1.10, P = .35), the ET group had better PFS (HR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.67-0.80, P < .00001), higher ORR (HR = 1.50, 95% CI: 1.06-2.12, P = .02), and better DCR (HR = 1.38, 95% CI: 1.20-1.59, P < .00001). Our subanalysis suggested that the ET group may have had better OS among patients with high Mesenchymal to epithelial transition factor (MET) expression (HR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.58-0.99, P = .04) and good VeriStrat (HR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.83-0.93, P < .0001). AEs were roughly similar except for specific hematological toxicities: more neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were observed in the ET group, both of which should not be overlooked.
conclusionsET appears to be superior to EP due to better PFS and higher response rates, especially for patients with high MET expression and good VeriStrat. The greater hematological toxicity in the ET regimen is non-negligible.
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.