SynthesisMedicine2020
A meta-analysis of the safety and effectiveness of pemetrexed compared with gefitinib for pre-treated advanced or metastatic NSCLC.
Synthesis in Medicine, 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of the current meta-analysis was to compare the oncological outcomes of pemetrexed versus gefitinib in pre-treated advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients.
methodsSearch the online electronic databases on comparison the effectiveness and adverse effects of pemetrexed versus gefitinib in therapy outcomes of pre-treated NSCLC to September 2019. All studies analyzed the summary odds ratios (ORs) of the main outcomes, including survival efficacy and toxicity complications.
resultsIn all, 5 trials involving 676 subjects were included, with 332 receiving pemetrexed and 344 using gefitinib. The pooled analysis of overall survival (OS) (OR = 0.97, 95%CI = 0.77-1.21, P = .76) and progression-free survival (PFS) (OR = 1.17, 95%CI = 0.60-2.30, P = .65) showed that pemetrexed did not achieve benefit when compared with gefitinib. In the results of subgroup analysis among the EGFR mutation-positive patients, the comparison of gefitinib therapy versus pemetrexed did show PFS benefit 0.35 (95%CI 0.12-1.01; P = .05). In terms of grade 3 or 4 side effects, a similar toxicity profile of both pemetrexed and gefitinib was shown in the incidence rate of rash (P = .045), fatigue (P = .97), thrombocytopenia (P = .68) and anemia (P = .21) between the 2 groups.
conclusionPemetrexed was not associated with survival benefit than gefitinib therapy among pre-treated NSCLC patients. While, gefitinib showed superior PFS efficacy than pemetrexed for patients with EGFR mutation-type. Future investigations are required to identify relevant biomarkers in selected patients that would most likely benefit from pemetrexed or gefitinib treatment in pre-treated advanced NSCLC 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.