| Title |
The role of maintenance therapy in the treatment of elderly non-small-cell lung cancer patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/dddt.s145025 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Liangzhe Zhang, Shugeng Gao, Jie He |
| Abstract |
Maintenance therapy is an effective treatment strategy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aim to investigate whether age would affect the efficacy of maintenance therapy in the treatment of advanced NSCLC. Relevant trials were identified by searching electronic databases and conference meetings. Prospective randomized controlled trials assessing maintenance therapy in elderly patients with advanced NSCLC were included. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in elderly patients with advanced NSCLC. A total of 2,724 patients from 5 randomized controlled trials were included for analysis, with 897 patients aged ≥65 years and 1,577 patients aged <65 years. Single-agent maintenance therapy in elderly patients significantly improved PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.65, 95% CI: 0.43-0.98, p=0.04) and OS (HR 0.81, 95% CI: 0.68-0.97, p=0.024) when compared with placebo. In addition, doublet maintenance therapy significantly improved PFS (HR 0.81, 95% CI: 0.68-0.97, p=0.024) in comparison with single-agent maintenance therapy. However, doublet maintenance did not improve OS in comparison with single-agent maintenance therapy (HR 1.05, 95% CI: 0.60-1.83, p=0.86). The findings of this study suggest that single-agent maintenance therapy in elderly patients with advanced NSCLC offers an improved PFS and OS when compared with placebo. Further trials are recommended to clearly investigate the efficacy of combination maintenance therapy for advanced NSCLC in this setting. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 18 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 17% |
| Unknown | 5 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 11% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 6% |
| Psychology | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 17% |
| Unknown | 6 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 15 December 2017.
All research outputs
#19,951,180
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#1,310
of 2,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#320,491
of 444,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#26
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 444,941 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.