Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39090722›Full record

SynthesisJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2024

Combination of pemetrexed with bevacizumab for non-small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis study.

Wei Fang, Xingqiao Peng, Qun Zhou

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Wei FangDepartment of Respiratory, Nan'an District People's Hospital, Chongqing, 400060, China.
Xingqiao PengComprehensive Cancer Center, Daping Hospital, Army Medical University, No. 10 Daping Changjiang branch Road, Yuzhong District, Chongqing, 400042, China. sorgofang@163.com.
Qun ZhouDepartment of Respiratory, Nan'an District People's Hospital, Chongqing, 400060, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCombining pemetrexed with bevacizumab may have some potential in improving the efficacy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and this meta-analysis aims to explore the impact of pemetrexed addition to bevacizumab on treatment efficacy for NSCLC.

methodsPubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases were systematically searched, and we included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of pemetrexed addition to bevacizumab on treatment efficacy in patients with NSCLC. Overall survival and progression-free survival were included in this meta-analysis.

resultsFour RCTs were finally included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with bevacizumab for NSCLC, pemetrexed addition showed significantly improved overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.76 to 0.99; P = 0.03), survival rate (odd ratio [OR] = 1.41; 95% CI = 1.06 to 1.86; P = 0.02), progression-free survival (HR = 0.63; 95% CI = 0.55 to 0.72; P < 0.00001) and progression-free survival rate (OR = 1.92; 95% CI = 1.38 to 2.67; P < 0.00001), but led to the increase in grade ≥ 3 adverse events (OR = 2.15; 95% CI = 1.62 to 2.84; P < 0.00001).

conclusionsPemetrexed addition may be effective to improve treatment efficacy for NSCLC compared to bevacizumab treatment.

Indexed as

BevacizumabCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungLung NeoplasmsPemetrexedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeBevacizumabPemetrexedBevacizumabNSCLCOverall survivalPemetrexedProgression-free survival

Identifiers

PMID39090722
PMCPMC11295867

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.