| Title |
Meta-analysis of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy without radiotherapy in early stage non-small cell lung cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
OncoTargets and therapy, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ott.s88700 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yuan-Yuan Chen, Lin-Wei Wang, Shu-Yi Wang, Bi-Bo Wu, Zhen-Meng Wang, Fang-Fang Chen, Bin Xiong |
| Abstract |
Many clinical trials have confirmed that postoperative adjuvant therapy can prolong survival of non-small cell lung cancer. However, the efficiency of postoperative chemotherapy without radiotherapy is unclear, especially in early stage (stages I and II). We aimed to assess the effect of postoperative chemotherapy without radiotherapy in early stage patients. Databases and manual searches were adopted to identify eligible randomized control trials. Hazard ratio (HR) was used to assess the advantage of disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) by fixed or random-effects models. Fourteen trials with 3,923 patients were included based on inclusion criteria. Compared with surgery alone, postoperative chemotherapy significantly improved DFS and OS with HR of 0.71 (P=0.005) and 0.74 (P<0.00001), respectively. Subgroup analysis showed both cisplatin-based (HR: 0.75, P<0.0001) and single tegafur-uracil (UFT) chemotherapy (HR: 0.72, P=0.002) yielded significant survival benefits, but the latter did not improve DFS (HR: 1.04, P=0.81). Indirect treatment comparison showed cisplatin-based chemotherapy was superior to single UFT in DFS, but comparable in OS. The benefits of postoperative chemotherapy were maintained in patients in stage I (HR: 0.74, P<0.00001) and IB (HR: 0.74, P=0.0003), but not in stage IA, although the trend supported chemotherapy (HR: 0.76, P=0.43). This meta-analysis demonstrates that postoperative chemotherapy without radiotherapy improves survival of stage I-II, I, and IB non-small cell lung cancer patients, but not for IA. Meanwhile, efficacy of cisplatin-based chemotherapy is comparable to single UFT in OS, but better in DFS, which should be paid more attention in future clinical practice. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 6 | 27% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 5% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 68% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 5 | 23% |
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 18 April 2019.
All research outputs
#7,356,343
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#378
of 3,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,575
of 276,431 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#14
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 3,016 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. 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 276,431 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.