ArticleCancer cell international2020
Prediction of the VeriStrat test in first-line therapy of pemetrexed-based regimens for advanced lung adenocarcinoma patients.
Article in Cancer cell international, 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.
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
27 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients have significantly better survival outcomes after pemetrexed based treatment, a subset of patients still show intrinsic resistance and progress rapidly. Therefore we aimed to use a blood-based protein signature (VeriStrat, VS) to analyze whether VS could identify the subset of patients who had poor efficacy on pemetrexed therapy.
methodsThis study retrospectively analysed 72 advanced lung adenocarcinoma patients who received first-line pemetrexed/platinum or combined with bevacizumab treatment.
resultsPlasma samples from these patients were analysed using VS and classified into the Good (VS-G) or Poor (VS-P) group. The relationship between efficacy and VS status was further investigated. Of the 72 patients included in this study, 35 (48.6%) were treated with pemetrexed plus platinum and 37 (51.4%) were treated with pemetrexed/platinum combined with bevacizumab. Among all patients, 60 (83.3%) and 12 (16.7%) patients were classified as VS-G and VS-P, respectively. VS-G patients had significantly better median progression-free survival (PFS) (Unreached vs. 4.2 months; P < 0.001) than VS-P patients. In addition, the partial response (PR) rate was higher in the VS-G group than that in the VS-P group (46.7% vs. 25.0%, P = 0.212). Subgroup analysis showed that PFS was also significantly longer in the VS-G group than that in the VS-P group regardless of whether patients received chemotherapy alone or chemotherapy plus bevacizumab.
conclusionsOur study indicated that VS might be considered as a novel and valid method to predict the efficacy of pemetrexed-based therapy and identify a subset of advanced lung adenocarcinoma patients who had intrinsic resistance to pemetrexed based regimens. However, larger sample studies are still needed to further confirm this result.
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.