ReviewCancer pathogenesis and therapy2025
A Bayesian network meta-analysis of EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatments in patients with
Review in Cancer pathogenesis and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Osimertinib plus anlotinib for advanced NSCLC with acquired EGFR T790M mutation: results from a multicenter phase II study with ctDNA analysis.BMC medicine · 2025Trial
- Risk factors for short-term survival inTranslational cancer research · 2026Article
- Updated incidence of EGFR mutation in Middle Eastern patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a 7-year study in a Lebanese institution.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- Article
- Third-generation versus first-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors in Asian patients with advanced EGFR mutant non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To date, no direct comparisons have been performed to compare the effectiveness of all epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) against Methods: We conducted a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing osimertinib, lazertinib, aumolertinib, befotertinib, furmonertinib, dacomitinib, afatinib, erlotinib, gefitinib, icotinib, and chemotherapy. Pooled estimations of progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and toxicity (grade ≥ 3 adverse events) were performed within the Bayesian framework. Results: Twenty-three trials involving 11 treatments were included. All EGFR-TKIs improved PFS relative to chemotherapy, except for icotinib (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.26-1.44). All EGFR-TKIs demonstrated significant ORR benefits over chemotherapy. Osimertinib seemed to prolong PFS compared with icotinib (HR = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.1-0.86), gefitinib (HR = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.21-0.74), and erlotinib (HR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.29-1.0). In addition, osimertinib showed favorable superiority in improving OS compared with chemotherapy (HR = 0.6, 95% CI: 0.43-0.82), gefitinib (HR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.45-0.83), erlotinib (HR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.48-0.89), and afatinib (HR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.44-0.94). Among these regimens, afatinib showed the highest ORR (cumulative probability: 96.96%). Icotinib was associated with minimal toxicity among the EGFR-TKIs, followed by furmonertinib and osimertinib. Moreover, the toxicity spectra differed among the EGFR-TKIs. Subgroup analyses of patients with two common types of Conclusions: Osimertinib is the first choice of treatment with considerable efficacy and safety for
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.