SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Efficacy and safety of first- versus second-generation fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitors in advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma with FGFR alterations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: We reviewed the clinical studies on fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitors for the treatment of urothelial carcinoma to conduct the meta-analysis of clinical efficacy and safety, aiming to provide more precise treatment options for patients with FGFR alterations. Method: We performed the literature search and screening, then calculated and analyzed using the STATA 14.0 software and Review Manager 5.3 software. Results: A total of 1528 patients from seventeen studies focusing on seven different FGFR inhibitors were collected. The efficacy analysis indicated the pooled objective response rate (ORR) was 32% (95% CI 26% to 39%) and the pooled disease control rate (DCR) was 64% (95% CI 53% to 75%) for patients with FGFR alterations treated with FGFR inhibitors. The pooled ORR and DCR of second-generation FGFR inhibitors were both significantly higher than those of first-generation FGFR inhibitors (ORR: 0.35, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.41 versus 0.07, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.16, p < 0.001; DCR: 0.68, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.75 versus 0.27, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.40, p < 0.001). The safety analysis indicated any-grade TRAEs were comparable between first- and second-generation FGFR inhibitors, but grade ≥3 TRAEs were significantly less frequent with second-generation FGFR inhibitors versus first-generation FGFR inhibitors (0.49, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.57 versus 0.67, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.76; p = 0.006). The common target toxicities associated with FGFR inhibitors, such as hyperphosphatemia, stomatitis and PPES, were more frequently occurred in second-generation FGFR inhibitors compared to first-generation FGFR inhibitors. Conclusion: The second-generation FGFR inhibitors have advantages in both efficacy and safety, but special adverse reactions still require additional attention.
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.