| Title |
Angiogenesis inhibitors rechallenge in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
OncoTargets and therapy, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ott.s88102 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lingdi Zhao, Wei Li, Huiying Zhang, Nan Hou, Lanwei Guo, Quanli Gao |
| Abstract |
Data on the role of angiogenesis inhibitors (AIs) rechallenge in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who previously received bevacizumab remain limited. We aim to investigate the efficacy of AIs in the treatment of advanced NSCLC in this setting. Studies from PubMed, Web of Science, and abstracts presented at American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting up to December 1, 2014 were searched to identify relevant studies. Eligible studies included prospective randomized controlled trials evaluating AIs in advanced NSCLC, with survival data on patients who previously received bevacizumab. The end points were overall survival and progression-free survival. Statistical analyses were conducted by using either random effects or fixed effect models according to the heterogeneity of included studies. A total of 452 patients with advanced NSCLC who previously received bevacizumab were identified for analysis. The meta-analysis results demonstrated that AI rechallenge significantly improved progression-free survival (hazard ratio: 0.72, 95% confidence interval: 0.58-0.89, P=0.002) when compared to non-AI containing regimens. Additionally, a nonsignificant improvement in overall survival was also observed in advanced NSCLC in this setting (hazard ratio: 0.82, 95% confidence interval: 0.65-1.03, P=0.087). Similar results were also observed in subgroup analysis according to treatment regimens. The findings of this study suggest that NSCLC patients who relapsed after a first-line bevacizumab-containing chemotherapy obtain improved clinical benefits from AI rechallenge. Prospective clinical trials investigating the role of AI rechallenge in this setting are recommended. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 7 | 27% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 19% |
| Researcher | 3 | 12% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 23% |
| Unknown | 1 | 4% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 42% |
| Unspecified | 7 | 27% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Philosophy | 1 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 2 | 8% |
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 23 October 2015.
All research outputs
#22,758,309
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#2,078
of 3,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#245,757
of 286,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#65
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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.