ArticleOncoTargets and therapy2026
Comparative Efficacy of First-Line versus Further-Line Icotinib Therapy in Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma: A Real-World Cohort Study.
Article in OncoTargets and therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The optimal sequencing of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in advanced lung adenocarcinoma remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of icotinib as first-line versus further-line therapy in a real-world setting. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at Quzhou People's Hospital involving 45 patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma, including 40 with EGFR‑mutant (exon 19 deletions or L858R) and 5 with wild‑type EGFR, treated with icotinib between January 2020 and December 2024. Patients were stratified into first-line (n=25) and further-line (n=20) groups. Efficacy endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Multivariate Cox regression analyses adjusted for potential confounders. Results: The first-line group demonstrated significantly superior outcomes: ORR 80.0% vs. 30.0% (p=0.0005), median PFS 18.9 months vs. 13.1 months (Cox regression: HR 2.82, 95% CI: 1.18-6.95, p=0.0239), and median OS 51.2 months vs. 35.15 months (Cox regression: HR 3.05, 95% CI: 1.09-8.53, p=0.0339). Multivariate analysis confirmed treatment line as an independent predictor of PFS and OS. Poor ECOG PS (HR 2.65, p=0.0234) and metastatic organs ≥3 (HR 1.77, p=0.0457) were additional negative prognostic factors for OS. Conclusion: Icotinib showed better efficacy as first-line therapy than as further-line therapy. However, considering the retrospective, single-center design and small sample size, the results should be interpreted with caution. Baseline clinical factors (ECOG PS and metastatic burden) remained critical for survival outcomes.
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.