ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2026
Central nervous system efficacy of third generation
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Epidermal growth factor receptor ( Methods: A thorough literature search was performed for phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TGET and FGET in patients with Results: A total of 5 phase 3 RCTs (AENEAS, FLAURA, FURLONG, IBIO-103, and LASER301) met the inclusion criteria. TGET demonstrated superior efficacy in CNS-PFS [hazard ratio (HR): 0.44 (0.33, 0.58), P<0.001], PFS [HR: 0.44 (0.35, 0.54), P<0.001], CNS-objective response rate (ORR) [risk ratio (RR): 1.32 (1.15, 1.52), P<0.001], CNS-complete response (CR) [RR: 3.40 (1.39, 8.28), P=0.007], and CNS-duration of response (DOR) [HR: 0.39 (0.21, 0.73), P=0.003]. The CNS-PFS rate at 4-24 months and PFS at 10-24 months were significantly higher in the TGET group. OS data were available from only 2 of the 5 included phase 3 RCTs. In this analysis, OS numerically favored the TGET group but did not reach statistical significance [HR: 0.79 (0.55, 1.13), P=0.20]. At the cutoff time, more CNS progressions were found in the FGET [RR: 0.59 (0.44, 0.80), P=0.001]. Additionally, less grade 3-5 treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) were found in the TGET group [RR: 0.67 (0.46, 0.98), P=0.04]. Conclusions: TGET appeared to be better than FGET for patients with
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.