ReviewFuture oncology (London, England)2024
Are 19del and L858R really different disease entities?
Review in Future oncology (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Aumolertinib Versus Osimertinib as First-Line Treatment for EGFR-Mutant Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Retrospective Real-World Multicenter Study.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Real-World Outcomes and Progression Patterns with First-Line Osimertinib in Patients with AdvancedCancers · 2026Article
- A comprehensive comparison of third generation epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors in the treatment efficacy and adverse events: A Bayesian meta-analysis.Global medical genetics · 2025Article
- Real-World Outcomes of T790M Mutation Testing and Sequential Osimertinib in EGFR-Positive Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Revisited Strategy.Targeted oncology · 2025Article
- Clinical features and outcomes of first-line EGFR-TKI treatment in younger and older patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC.Future oncology (London, England) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinicians have recognized the similarities and differences between the two subtypes of common epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations, but actual treatment strategies have not yet changed. The L858R mutation can be understood by considering the pharmacological conformational plasticity of the receptor protein and the presence of other co-occurring mutations, whether subtypes of EGFR or non-EGFR mutations and differences in downstream signaling pathways. As long as we know that molecular differences lead to biological differences, it is a challenge for all of us that our treatment strategies must change.
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.