ArticleCancer medicine2023
Efficacy of post-first-line agents for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors following imatinib failure: A network meta-analysis.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2023. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Mechanisms of Imatinib Resistance in Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumours: Theoretical Basis and Therapeutic Aspect.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2025Review
- Efficacy of post-first-line agents for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors following imatinib failure: A network meta-analysis.Cancer medicine · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImatinib is the standard first-line treatment for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs); however, most patients eventually develop imatinib resistance, leading to considerable clinical challenges. Few direct comparisons have been made between different post-first-line therapies on clinical efficacy in advanced GIST following imatinib failure.
methodsDatabases including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholars, and Cochrane Library from inception to February 2023 were retrieved for randomized controlled trials evaluating the clinical efficacy of different post-first-line agents for advanced GIST following imatinib failure. Network and conventional meta-analysis were carried out using Stata/MP 16.0.
resultsRipretinib showed significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) rates from the 2nd to the 12th month compared to placebo, while there was virtually no evidence that the rest active agents had a significant benefit at the 12th month. Masitinib, ripretinib, sunitinib, regorafenib, and pimitespib exhibited significantly longer median PFS than placebo, and pairwise comparisons indicated there were no significant differences among masitinib, ripretinib, and sunitinib. These post-first-line agents decreased the risk of disease progression or death by 65% (HR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.26-0.47) compared to placebo. Ripretinib and sunitinib came into effect earlier and exhibited more consistent overall survival (OS) rate improvements than masitinib and pimitespib, while pairwise comparisons revealed no significant differences in these four active agents concerning the improvement in OS rate. These post-first-line agents decreased the risk of death by 39% (HR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.44-0.83) over placebo for advanced GIST following imatinib failure.
conclusionThe active agents in our analysis as post-first-line therapies are able to provide superior clinical efficacy, with improved PFS rate and OS rate at certain time points, as well as absolute values of PFS and OS for advanced GIST. Ripretinib might be the optimal recommendation as a post-first-line treatment for advanced GIST following imatinib failure.
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.