ArticleOncoTargets and therapy2024
The Efficacy and Safety of Apatinib and Anlotinib in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.
Article in OncoTargets and therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Anlotinib and apatinib, both vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs), are clinically established in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in China, with anlotinib emerging as a standard treatment strategy. This study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of apatinib and anlotinib, and to compare their differences in treating patients with advanced NSCLC. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the data of patients with advanced NSCLC treated with apatinib or anlotinib at a hospital in Eastern China from January 2017 to December 2021. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), while secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), and safety profile. Results: A total of 145 patients were included in this study. Median PFS (mPFS) was 3.53 months for the apatinib group and 5.3 months for the anlotinib group (HR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.41-0.84; P = 0.004), and median OS (mOS) was 7.6 months versus 15.6 months (HR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.46-1.00; P = 0.048), which all showed significant differences after adjusting for confounders (P < 0.05). Subgroup analysis revealed that the presence or absence of bone metastases significantly influenced PFS in both treatment groups. The ORR was 3.03% in the anlotinib group versus 10.13% in the apatinib group (P = 0.12), the DCR was 72.73% versus 51.90% (P = 0.21). No unanticipated adverse events (AEs) were observed. The incidence of grade 3-4 AEs was significantly higher in the apatinib group (31.65% vs 13.64%, P < 0.05). Conclusion: Anlotinib demonstrated greater efficacy and safety compared to apatinib in the treatment of advanced NSCLC, particularly in patients with bone metastases and EGFR(-).
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.