SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2025
The efficacy and safety of intrathecal pemetrexed for leptomeningeal metastasis from non-small cell lung cancer: a single-arm meta-analysis of Chinese patients.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Pathophysiology and treatment of leptomeningeal metastases in lung cancer.Translational lung cancer research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The purpose of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of intrathecal pemetrexed (IP) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer with leptomeningeal metastasis (NSCLC-LM). Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, the Cochrane library, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases was executed until December 11, 2024. The quality of the selected studies was evaluated using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies Of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Data extracted encompassed disease control rate (DCR), objective response rate (ORR), median overall survival (mOS), and adverse events (AEs). A random-effects model was used in the meta-analysis, which was conducted using STATA 15.1 software. Egger's and Begg's tests were used to analyze publication bias, and when significant publication bias was detected, the Trim and Fill method was employed to adjust for the bias. Results: This meta-analysis included 8 studies involving a total of 306 patients, with a pooled ORR of 57.6% (95% CI: 39.5%-74.7%). Further subgroup analysis revealed that a pemetrexed dosage of 40-50 mg exhibited superior efficacy, with an ORR of 84.5% (95% CI: 70.0%-95.6%), compared to an ORR of 46.6% (95% CI: 29.2%-64.4%) for dosages of 10-30 mg. Additionally, patients with EGFR mutations exhibited an ORR of 56.2% (95% CI: 34.7%-76.6%), while those with other genetic subtypes had an ORR of 44.8% (95% CI: 25.1%-65.1%). The combined DCR was 85.4% (95% CI: 76.5%-92.7). In terms of survival, the pooled data from 6 studies yielded a mOS of 8.12 months (95% CI: 6.07-10.17). Common adverse events associated with pemetrexed included myelosuppression (32.6%), headache (24.8%), abnormal transaminase (11.8%), nausea (7.3%), vomiting (11.7%), radiculitis (8.4%) and leukoencephalopathy (6.4%). Potential publication bias was identified for DCR and grade≥III myelosuppression. Subgroup analyses performed by DCR showed that the bias was related to drug dosage, while the Trim and Fill method for grade ≥III myelosuppression did not reverse the bias. These findings suggest that publication bias had minimal impact and that the results were relatively stable. Conclusions: This meta-analysis concludes that patients with NSCLC-LM benefit from intrathecal chemotherapy using pemetrexed.
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.