SynthesisPeerJ2023
Efficacy and safety of veliparib combined with traditional chemotherapy for treating patients with lung cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PeerJ, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Refining treatment strategies for non-small cell lung cancer lacking actionable mutations: insights from multi-omics studies.British journal of cancer · 2025Review
- Targeting regulated cell death pathways in cancers for effective treatment: a comprehensive review.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Lung cancer, originating from bronchial mucosa or lung glands, poses significant health risks due to its rising incidence and mortality. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of Veliparib combined with chemotherapy versus pharmacotherapy alone for lung cancer treatment, guiding clinical approaches for this severe disease. Methods: Comprehensive searches in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science were conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing Veliparib combined with standard chemotherapy to chemotherapy alone in lung cancer treatment, up until December 28, 2022. Two reviewers meticulously selected literature based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. The Cochrane tool was used to assess the bias risk of the included studies, and meta-analysis was performed using Stata 15.0. Results: Five RCTs (1,010 participants) were included. The analysis results showed that only Veliparib combinedwith chemotherapy prolonged the progression-free survival (PFS) in small cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients [HR = 0.72, 95% CI = (0.57, 0.90)]. No significant differences were observed in overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR). Veliparib and combined chemotherapy caused some side effects in patients with lung cancer, including leukopenia [RR = 2.12, 95% CI = (1.27, 3.55)], neutropenia [RR = 1.51, 95% CI = (1.01, 2.26)], anemia [RR = 1.71, 95% CI = (1.07, 3.07)], and thrombocytopenia [RR = 3.33, 95% CI = (1.19, 9.30)]. For non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, there were no statistically significant differences in PFS, OS, or ORR between the experimental and control groups [HR = 0.97, 95% CI = (0.75, 1.27)]. Conclusion: The strategy of combining Veliparib with chemotherapy may, to some extent, prolong the PFS in lung cancer patients. However, this benefit is not observed in OS or ORR. Additionally, there are evident adverse reactions. Due to a limited number of the included studies, additional extensive multicenter RCTs are required to validate these results. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023411510.
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.