| Title |
The efficacy and safety of pemetrexed-based doublet therapy compared to pemetrexed alone for the second-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: an updated meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/dddt.s88218 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anyuan Zhong, Xiaolu Xiong, Minhua Shi, Huajun Xu |
| Abstract |
Pemetrexed is currently recommended as the second-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, it is unclear whether pemetrexed-based doublet therapy improves treatment efficacy and safety. Thus, this meta-analysis was performed to resolve this controversial question. Electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for relevant articles before April 2015. Hazard ratios (HRs) were used to estimate overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and odds ratios (ORs) were used to analyze the overall response rate (ORR) and grade ≥3 toxicities. Subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias were also evaluated. A total of 2,519 patients from ten randomized controlled trials were included. Compared to pemetrexed alone, PFS and ORR significantly improved in the pemetrexed-based doublet group (HR, 0.86; 95% CI [confidence interval], 0.75-0.99; P=0.038; and OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.25-3.12; P=0.003, respectively). However, no statistically significant differences in OS were observed between groups (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.83-1.02; P=0.132). In addition, subgroup analyses indicated that improved OS was only observed in nonsquamous NSCLC patients who received the combination of pemetrexed and erlotinib. An increasing incidence of grade ≥3 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia was observed in the pemetrexed-based doublet group. Among patients with advanced NSCLC, pemetrexed-based doublet treatment tended to be associated with improved PFS, ORR, and increased toxicity, but not OS. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 6 | 25% |
| Researcher | 5 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 38% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 13% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 7 | 29% |
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 19 April 2016.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#1,437
of 2,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,785
of 277,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#108
of 157 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 277,613 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 157 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.