ArticleTranslational lung cancer research2024
Comparative efficacy and safety of anlotinib and topotecan as second-line treatment in small cell lung cancer: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Translational lung cancer research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Efficacy and Safety of Nab-Paclitaxel Plus Anlotinib in Small-Cell Lung Cancer for Second-Line Therapy.Thoracic cancer · 2026Article
- Efficacy and safety of anlotinib maintenance therapy in limited-stage small cell lung cancer.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- RNA-binding proteins and autophagy in lung cancer: mechanistic insights and therapeutic perspectives.Discover oncology · 2025Review
- Feasibility and Safety of Anlotinib Combined with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Patients with Previously Immunotherapy-Treated Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Retrospective Exploratory Study.Drug design, development and therapy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) presents considerable challenges regarding the availability of second-line treatment options, which remain limited. The paucity of effective therapeutic choices at this setting emphasizes the urgent requirement for rigorous research and investigation into novel treatment strategies. To address this clinical gap, the current study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of anlotinib with the standard second-line treatment, topotecan, in patients with relapsed SCLC. Methods: This retrospective collected data from SCLC patients who received either anlotinib or topotecan as second-line treatment. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), while the secondary endpoints included the overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety assessment. Results: The study included 46 SCLC patients, with 20 receiving anlotinib and 26 receiving topotecan as second-line treatment. The anlotinib group showed a significantly longer median PFS compared to the topotecan group [5.6 Conclusions: Anlotinib shows the potential to extend PFS and manageable adverse events (AEs) compared to topotecan in the second-line setting for relapsed SCLC.
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.