ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Gemcitabine Plus Anlotinib Is Effective and Safe Compared to Gemcitabine Plus Docetaxel in Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcoma.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Application of Anlotinib Combined with Docetaxel: Safe and Effective Treatment for Lung Carcinoma.Disease markers · 2022Trial
- Efficacies of anlotinib monotherapy versus gemcitabine-based chemotherapy for patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma after the failure of anthracycline-based chemotherapy.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Anlotinib Combined with Adriamycin and Ifosfamide as Conversion Therapy for Unresectable Soft Tissue Sarcomas.Cancers · 2023Article
- The efficacies and biomarker investigations of antiangiogenic agents and PD-1 inhibitors for metastatic soft tissue sarcoma: A multicenter retrospective study.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study is to compare gemcitabine (G) plus docetaxel (D) versus G plus anlotinib (A) for advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS). Methods: We retrospectively investigated 122 patients with locally advanced or metastatic STS who were treated with either G+D or G+A between July 2016 and October 2021 and compared the efficacy and toxicity of G+D and G+A. The primary endpoints were median progression-free survival (PFS) and the proportion of patients with grade ≥3 adverse events. We also analyzed differences in the clinical efficacy of G+D and G+A in leiomyosarcoma, and the differences in the clinical efficacy of G+D and G+A as first-line therapy. Results: Overall, 122 patients were included (81 patients receiving G+D and 41 patients receiving G+A) with a median age of 55 years. The main histological types are leiomyosarcoma, undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma, and liposarcoma. After a median follow-up of 25 months, PFS did not differ between patients treated with G+D and those treated with G+A (median PFS: 5.8 months and 6.8 months, Conclusion: Compared with gemcitabine plus docetaxel for advanced STS, gemcitabine plus anlotinib achieved a similar response rate on median PFS and OS, but lower toxicity. These results suggest that gemcitabine plus anlotinib may be an effective and safe strategy for advanced STS.
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.