SynthesisBMC cancer2025
Efficacy and safety comparison of small molecule anti-angiogenic drugs in the treatment of bone and soft tissue sarcomas : a network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Novel Pyrrolopyridazine Compounds as VEGFR Inhibitors for Treating Cancer.ACS medicinal chemistry letters · 2026Article
- Progression-free survival 3 of 22 months achieved through third-line therapy with adebrelimab in patient with recurrent chordoma: a case report.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
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
Abstract
backgroundAnti-angiogenic therapy, particularly small-molecule inhibitors targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR), has emerged as a promising approach for treating bone and soft tissue sarcomas. This study aimed to systematically compare the efficacy and safety of different small-molecule anti-angiogenic agents in the treatment of bone and soft tissue sarcomas through a network meta-analysis (NMA).
methodsWe conducted a comprehensive search of seven major databases, including China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, VIP Database (VIP), PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, to collect clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the use of small-molecule anti-angiogenic drugs in the treatment of bone and soft tissue tumors. R softwarewas used for data analysis. We combined all direct and indirect evidence to compare different treatments in terms of efficacy and safety, reported as hazard ratio (HR) for survival outcomes (progression-free survival and overall survival) and odds ratio (OR) for binary outcomes (objective response rate and disease control rate), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The P score was used to rank the side effect risk. This project has been registered on PROSPERO CRD42024584746.
resultsThe initial search yielded 946 records, and 16 studies, involving 1,291 patients, met all criteria. In terms of the disease control rate (DCR), apatinib + chemotherapy is better than chemotherapy alone (OR 0.13 (0.02, 0.92)). In terms of objective response rate (ORR), apatinib + chemo is better than pazopanib + chemotherapy (OR 0.15 (0.02, 0.94)), anlotinib is better than chemo (OR 0.26 (0.07, 0.92)) and pazopanib + chemo (OR 0.15 (0.03, 0.85)). The side effects of different treatments vary.
conclusionsShort-term efficacy of small-molecule anti-angiogenic TKIs varied across bone and soft tissue sarcomas, with trends favoring apatinib plus chemotherapy and anlotinib. However, substantial heterogeneity across studies, including sarcoma subtypes and prior therapies, limits definitive conclusions regarding comparative efficacy. A multidisciplinary team is needed to better manage the side effects.
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.