↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Tyrosine kinase inhibitor combination therapy in first-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer: systematic review and network meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in OncoTargets and therapy, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
Title
Tyrosine kinase inhibitor combination therapy in first-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer: systematic review and network meta-analysis
Published in
OncoTargets and therapy, May 2017
DOI 10.2147/ott.s134382
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah Batson, Stephen A Mitchell, Ricarda Windisch, Elisabetta Damonte, Veronica C Munk, Noemi Reguart

Abstract

The introduction of epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) has improved the outlook for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR+ mutations. However, most patients develop resistance, with the result that median progression-free survival (PFS) iŝ12 months. Combining EGFR-TKIs with other agents, such as bevacizumab, is a promising approach to prolonging remission. This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) were undertaken to assess available evidence regarding the benefits of first-line combination therapy involving EGFR-TKIs in patients with advanced NSCLC. Literature searches were performed using relevant search terms. Study-level pseudo-individual patient-level data (IPD) were recreated from digitized Kaplan-Meier curve data, using a published algorithm. Study IPD were analyzed using both the proportional hazards and the acceleration failure time (AFT) survival models, and it was concluded that the AFT model was most appropriate. An NMA was performed based on acceleration factors (AFs) using a Bayesian framework to compare EGFR-TKIs and chemotherapy. Nine randomized controlled trials were identified that provided data for EGFR-TKI therapy in patients with EGFR+ tumors. These included studies of afatinib (n=3), erlotinib (n=3), erlotinib plus bevacizumab (n=1) and gefitinib (n=2). Erlotinib plus bevacizumab produced the greatest increase in PFS compared with chemotherapy, with 1/AF being 0.24 (95% credible interval [CrI] 0.17, 0.34). This combination also produced greater increases in PFS compared with EGFR-TKI monotherapy: 1/AF versus afatinib, 0.51 (95% CrI 0.35, 0.73); versus erlotinib, 0.53 (95% CrI 0.39, 0.72) and versus gefitinib, 0.46 (95% CrI 0.32, 0.66). All three EGFR-TKI monotherapies prolonged PFS compared with chemotherapy; estimates of treatment effect ranged from 1/AF 0.53 (95% CrI 0.48, 0.60) for gefitinib to 1/AF 0.46 (95% CrI 0.40, 0.53) for erlotinib. There was no evidence for differences between EGFR-TKI monotherapies, as all 95% CrIs included the null value. Although data for erlotinib plus bevacizumab came from a single Phase 2 study, the results of the NMA suggest that adding bevacizumab to erlotinib may be a promising approach to improving the outcomes achieved with EGFR-TKI monotherapy in patients with advanced EGFR+ NSCLC.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 16%
Other 10 14%
Unspecified 7 10%
Student > Master 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 19 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 34%
Unspecified 7 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 21 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 November 2023.
All research outputs
#7,436,279
of 25,604,262 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#382
of 3,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,582
of 325,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#13
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,604,262 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,012 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,113 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.