| Title |
The impact of histological types on the efficacy of angiogenesis inhibitors in the treatment of advanced NSCLC: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
OncoTargets and therapy, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ott.s90407 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jian Zhang, Jie Liu, Huiguo Chen, Weibin Wu, Xiaojun Li, Yonghui Wu, Kai Zhang, Lijia Gu |
| Abstract |
We aimed at assessing the overall efficacy of angiogenesis inhibitor (AI)-containing regimens in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) according to histological types. Studies from PubMed and Web of Science, and abstracts presented at American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) meeting up to October 31, 2014 were searched to identify relevant studies. Eligible studies included prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating AIs in advanced NSCLC with survival data according to patients' histologies. The endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Statistical analyses were conducted by using either random effects or fixed effect models according to the heterogeneity of included studies. A total of 10,035 patients with advanced NSCLC from 13 RCTs were identified for analysis. The pooled results demonstrated that AI-containing regimens significantly improved the PFS (HR, 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78-0.91, P<0.001) and OS (HR, 0.92, 95% CI: 0.85-0.99, P=0.017) in lung adenocarcinoma when compared to non-AI-containing regimens. Additionally, there was a significantly improved PFS (HR, 0.87, 95% CI: 0.77-0.98, P=0.027) for AI-containing regimens in squamous cell lung carcinoma, but it did not translated into OS benefit (HR, 1.02, 95% CI: 0.92-1.15, P=0.68). For NSCLC patients with other histological types, the use of AIs did not significantly improve PFS (HR, 0.90, 95% CI: 0.75-1.09, P=0.27) and OS (HR, 0.90, 95% CI: 0.76-1.08, P=0.19). The findings of this study suggest that the addition of AIs to the treatment therapies for patients with lung adenocarcinoma offers improved survival benefits. Prospective clinical trials investigating the role of AIs in this setting are recommended. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 7 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 2 | 29% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 14% |
| Other | 1 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 14% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 1 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 43% |
| Philosophy | 1 | 14% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 1 | 14% |
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 18 September 2015.
All research outputs
#22,759,802
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#2,078
of 3,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,289
of 276,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#65
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,016 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 276,428 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.