SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2024
The benefit and risk of addition of chemotherapy to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors for EGFR-positive non-small cell lung cancer patients with brain metastases: a meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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: Combining epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) with chemotherapy (ETC) offers more advantages for patients with EGFR-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) than using EGFR TKIs alone (ET). However, whether this conclusion applies to patients with brain metastases (BM) remains controversial. This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the benefits and risks of the two groups. Methods: Six databases were systematically searched for relevant literatures comparing ETC versus ET in treating EGFR-positive NSCLC patients with BM. The primary outcome assessed was overall survival (OS), while secondary outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), and central nervous system (CNS)-PFS, responses, progression status and safety. Results: Seven studies based on five randomized clinical trials with 550 patients were included. The ETC group exhibited better OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.64 [0.48, 0.87]), PFS (HR: 0.42 [0.34, 0.52]), and CNS-PFS (HR: 0.42 [0.31, 0.57]). The benefits in survival for OS, PFS, and CNS-PFS were validated in nearly all subgroups. Meanwhile, the overall objective response rate (ORR) (risk ratio [RR]: 1.25 [1.02, 1.52]) and CNS-ORR (RR: 1.19 [0.93, 1.51]) also tended to favor the ETC group. However, the addition of chemotherapy also brought about more grade 3-5/serious adverse events (AEs). The top five grade 3-5 AEs in the ETC group were alanine aminotransferase increase (11.25%), neutropenia (7.5%), nausea (7.5%), anorexia (5%), and diarrhea (5%). Conclusions: ETC appears to be better than ET in treating EGFR-positive NSCLC patients with BM, with better OS, PFS, CNS-PFS, and responses. However, its poorer safety profile also needs to be taken into consideration. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42024551073.
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.