ArticleInvestigational new drugs2023
Necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin in previously treated lung squamous cell carcinoma.
Article in Investigational new drugs, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cisplatin re-challenge following recovery from carboplatin-induced, biopsy-proven acute tubular necrosis in a 57-year-old patient with squamous-transformed non-small cell lung cancer: a case report.Translational lung cancer research · 2026Article
- Clinical impact of hypomagnesemia induced by necitumumab plus cisplatin and gemcitabine treatment in patients with advanced lung squamous cell carcinoma: a subanalysis of the NINJA study.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2025Article
- Skin disorder within 30 days is a favorable prognostic factor in patients with lung squamous cell carcinoma treated with necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin: a sub-analysis of the NINJA study.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2025Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe efficacy and safety of the anti-EGFR antibody necitumumab combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin (N + GC) in the first-line treatment of advanced lung squamous cell carcinoma (LSCC) have been proven. However, the efficacy and safety of N + GC in the second line or later treatment remain unclear.
methodsEleven patients who received N + GC for advanced-stage or recurrent LSCC were enrolled. We retrospectively assessed the patients' clinical characteristics and efficacy and safety of treatment.
resultsThe median patient age was 73 years (range, 63-77 years). The cohort included nine (81.8%) men and two (18.2%) women. Two (18.2%) patients had postoperative recurrence, and one (9.1%), three (27.3%), one (9.1%), and four (36.4%) patients were diagnosed with stage IIIA, IIIB, IVA, and IVB disease, respectively. Concerning the best overall response, partial response was achieved in five (45.5%) patients, four (36.4%) patients displayed stable disease, and two (18.2%) patients were not evaluable. Median progression-free survival was 6.8 months (range, 1.4-10.3 months). The grade 3 or higher neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia occurred in six (54.5%), three (27.3%), and two (18.2%) patients, respectively. Additionally, grade 3 skin reaction, rash, lung infection, duodenal ulcer, and febrile neutropenia were observed in one (9.1%) patient each. Two (18.2%) patients required treatment interruption because of adverse events.
conclusionN + GC displayed good efficacy in the second line or later treatment among patients with LSCC. This study suggested that N + GC is a useful option even after second-line treatment of advanced-stage or recurrent LSCC, although the management of adverse events is essential.
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.