ArticleScientific reports2024
Efficacy of second-line chemotherapy in patients with pulmonary large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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
18 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The efficacy of second-line chemotherapy in patients with pulmonary large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of second-line chemotherapy in patients with pulmonary LCNEC. We retrospectively reviewed patients with pulmonary LCNEC or possible LCNEC (pLCNEC) who received platinum-based chemotherapy as the first-line treatment. Among these patients, we evaluated the efficacy of second-line treatment by comparing patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC group). Of the 61 patients with LCNEC or pLCNEC (LCNEC group) who received first-line chemotherapy, 39 patients were treated with second-line chemotherapy. Among the 39 patients, 61.5% received amrubicin monotherapy. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the LCNEC groups were 3.3 and 8.3 months, respectively. No significant differences in the PFS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.924, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.647-1.320; P = 0.664) and OS (HR: 0.926; 95% CI 0.648-1.321; P = 0.670) were observed between the LCNEC and SCLC groups. In patients treated with amrubicin, the PFS (P = 0.964) and OS (P = 0.544) were not different between both the groups. Second-line chemotherapy, including amrubicin, may be considered as a treatment option for patients with pulmonary LCNEC.
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.