ArticleTranslational cancer research2024
Efficacy and safety of anlotinib in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors or not as advanced non-small cell lung cancer treatment: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in Translational cancer research, 2024. 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.
- Anlotinib plus penpulimab versus sorafenib as first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Retrospective evaluation of anti-angiogenic and immune checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy in SMARCA4-deficient thoracic tumors: efficacy, safety, and biomarker considerations.Translational lung cancer research · 2025Article
- Combining Immunotherapy with Anlotinib in Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Multicenter Analysis of Efficacy and Safety.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains a leading cause of cancer mortality. Combined anlotinib and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) therapy may have synergistic antitumor effects in NSCLC. This study aimed to comparing the efficacy and safety of anlotinib and ICIs treatment, monotherapy and combination in NSCLC. Methods: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 14 studies involving 4,308 NSCLC patients across four regimens: anlotinib, ICIs, anlotinib plus ICIs, and placebo. Efficacy outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR). Safety outcomes included treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), TRAE grade three or higher (TRAE ≥3). Analyses were performed in RevMan 5.3 and R 3.5.1 (gemtc package). P<0.05 or effect estimate with 95% confidence interval (CI) that did not include 1 indicated statistical significance. Results: Fourteen publications involving 4,308 patients across four treatment regimens (anlotinib, ICIs, anlotinib plus ICIs, placebo) were included. For PFS, network meta-analysis showed all three interventions significantly improved PFS versus placebo. Anlotinib plus ICIs demonstrated the greatest PFS improvement [hazard ratio (HR) =0.24; 95% CI: 0.14, 0.36], followed by anlotinib (HR =0.37; 95% CI: 0.23, 0.58), and ICIs (HR =0.43; 95% CI: 0.27, 0.67). For OS, compared to placebo, anlotinib plus ICIs showed the greatest OS improvement (HR =0.52; 95% CI: 0.33, 0.74), followed by anlotinib (HR =0.66; 95% CI: 0.47, 0.95), and ICIs (HR =0.72; 95% CI: 0.54, 0.97). For ORR, anlotinib plus ICIs demonstrated the greatest improvement versus placebo [odds ratio (OR) =5.29; 95% CI: 3.32, 8.58], followed by anlotinib (OR =4.38; 95% CI: 2.42, 8.19), and ICIs (OR =2.17; 95% CI: 1.65, 2.89). For DCR, anlotinib plus ICIs showed the greatest improvement versus placebo (OR =13.32; 95% CI: 4.99, 45.09), followed by anlotinib (OR =5.56; 95% CI: 2.17, 14.38), and ICIs (OR =3.46; 95% CI: 1.29, 10.85). Compared to placebo, anlotinib was associated with the highest risk of TRAEs (OR =3.67, 95% CI: 1.12, 15.77), followed by ICIs (OR =1.83; 95% CI: 1.26, 2.69). Due to lack of data on anlotinib plus ICIs, no comparison was conducted. For grade ≥3 TRAEs, compared to placebo, anlotinib increased the risk (OR =3.67; 95% CI: 1.12, 15.77), while anlotinib plus ICIs (OR =2.45; 95% CI: 0.51, 11.6) and ICIs (OR =1.29; 95% CI: 0.33, 4.38) did not increase the risk. Conclusions: Anlotinib combined with ICIs demonstrates improved efficacy over monotherapy for NSCLC treatment, without increased adverse events.
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.