| Title |
EGFR-TKIs in adjuvant treatment of lung cancer: to give or not to give?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
OncoTargets and therapy, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ott.s91627 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Aleksandar Milovancev, Vladimir Stojsic, Bojan Zaric, Tomi Kovacevic, Tatjana Sarcev, Branislav Perin, Konstantinos Zarogoulidis, Katerina Tsirgogianni, Lutz Freitag, Kaid Darwiche, Drosos Tsavlis, Athanasios Zissimopoulos, Grigoris Stratakos, Paul Zarogoulidis |
| Abstract |
Epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) brought a significant revolution in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In a short period of time, EGFR-TKIs became the standard of treatment for mutation-positive, advanced stage non-squamous NSCLC. In recent years, second- and third-generation EGFR-TKIs are emerging, further widening the clinical use. However, the question of EGFR-TKIs efficiency in the treatment of early stage NSCLC still remains open. Early clinical trials failed to approve the use of EGFR-TKIs in adjuvant setting. The majority of these early trials were performed in unselected NSCLC populations and without standardized biomarker identification. One should certainly not rely solely on these results and dismiss the use of EGFR-TKIs as adjuvant therapy. Many important questions are still unanswered. Most important issues such as stage heterogeneity (IA-IIIA), timing (after or concomitantly with chemotherapy), and type of administration (monotherapy or combination) need to be answered in near future. Adjuvant TKIs in the treatment of lung cancer might offer significant number of advancements. Having in mind the significant duration of response observed in advance disease setting, there could be place for prolongation of response in adjuvant setting potentially, leading to improvement in survival. TKIs could offer less-toxic adjuvant treatment with better efficiency than chemotherapy. However, there is a chronic lack of randomized controlled trials in this field, leading to inability to draw any scientifically sound conclusion with regard to the adjuvant treatment. For now, the use of EGFR-TKIs outside clinical trial setting is not recommended. The purpose of this review is to evaluate current and available data. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 11% |
| Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Researcher | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 30% |
| Unknown | 5 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 41% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 7% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Unknown | 5 | 19% |
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 14 October 2015.
All research outputs
#22,759,802
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#2,078
of 3,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#245,759
of 286,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#65
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 286,876 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 105 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.