studies

lung cancer : non small cell (NSCLC), ... vs. all, meta-analysis of study results

OutcomeTE95% CInkI2ROBPub. bias deaths (OS)detailed resultsA7471028, 2012 (REV) 1.25 [0.88; 1.78] ARCHER 1009 (all population), 2014 (REV) 0.93 [0.78; 1.09] ARCHER 1009 (KRAS wild type), 2014 (REV) 0.91 [0.74; 1.13] CTONG 0901, 2017 0.84 [0.63; 1.12] DELTA, 2014 0.91 [0.68; 1.22] ENSURE, 2015 0.91 [0.62; 1.33] LUX-LUNG 8, 2015 (REV) 1.23 [1.05; 1.45] NCIC CTG BR.21, 2005 0.70 [0.58; 0.85] RADIANT, 2015 1.13 [0.88; 1.45] TOPICAL, 2012 0.92 [0.79; 1.08] WJOG 5108L, 2016 (REV) 0.96 [0.77; 1.20] ZEST, 2011 (REV) 1.03 [0.91; 1.17] 0.96[0.88; 1.06]A7471028, 2012 (REV), ARCHER 1009 (all population), 2014 (REV), ARCHER 1009 (KRAS wild type), 2014 (REV), CTONG 0901, 2017, DELTA, 2014, ENSURE, 2015, LUX-LUNG 8, 2015 (REV), NCIC CTG BR.21, 2005, RADIANT, 2015, TOPICAL, 2012, WJOG 5108L, 2016 (REV), ZEST, 2011 (REV)1259%7,327moderatelow progression or deaths (PFS)detailed resultsA7471028, 2012 (REV) 1.52 [1.09; 2.11] ARCHER 1009 (all population), 2014 (REV) 1.06 [0.91; 1.25] ARCHER 1009 (KRAS wild type), 2014 (REV) 0.98 [0.80; 1.20] CTONG 0901, 2017 0.81 [0.62; 1.05] DELTA, 2014 1.22 [0.97; 1.54] ENSURE, 2015 0.34 [0.22; 0.52] LUX-LUNG 8, 2015 (REV) 1.23 [1.05; 1.46] NCIC CTG BR.21, 2005 0.61 [0.51; 0.73] TOPICAL, 2012 0.80 [0.68; 0.94] TORCH, 2008 1.53 [1.32; 1.78] WJOG 5108L, 2016 (REV) 0.89 [0.74; 1.06] ZEST, 2011 (REV) 1.02 [0.91; 1.15] 0.95[0.80; 1.13]A7471028, 2012 (REV), ARCHER 1009 (all population), 2014 (REV), ARCHER 1009 (KRAS wild type), 2014 (REV), CTONG 0901, 2017, DELTA, 2014, ENSURE, 2015, LUX-LUNG 8, 2015 (REV), NCIC CTG BR.21, 2005, TOPICAL, 2012, TORCH, 2008, WJOG 5108L, 2016 (REV), ZEST, 2011 (REV)1290%7,114moderatelow DCRdetailed resultsLUX-LUNG 8, 2015 (REV) 0.64 [0.48; 0.85] WJOG 5108L, 2016 (REV) 0.98 [0.70; 1.38] 0.78[0.52; 1.19]LUX-LUNG 8, 2015 (REV), WJOG 5108L, 2016 (REV)272%1,354moderatenot evaluable events or deaths (EFS)detailed resultsRADIANT, 2015 0.90 [0.74; 1.10] 0.90[0.74; 1.10]RADIANT, 201510%973NAnot evaluable objective responses (ORR)detailed resultsA7471028, 2012 (REV) 0.27 [0.10; 0.78] ARCHER 1009 (all population), 2014 (REV) 0.69 [0.44; 1.09] ARCHER 1009 (KRAS wild type), 2014 (REV) 0.84 [0.49; 1.42] CTONG 0901, 2017 1.33 [0.81; 2.18] DELTA, 2014 0.96 [0.53; 1.76] LUX-LUNG 8, 2015 (REV) 0.49 [0.23; 1.02] NCIC CTG BR.21, 2005 10.18 [2.43; 42.54] TOPICAL, 2012 2.00 [0.81; 4.98] WJOG 5108L, 2016 (REV) 0.93 [0.65; 1.33] ZEST, 2011 (REV) 1.00 [0.71; 1.40] 0.95[0.70; 1.29]A7471028, 2012 (REV), ARCHER 1009 (all population), 2014 (REV), ARCHER 1009 (KRAS wild type), 2014 (REV), CTONG 0901, 2017, DELTA, 2014, LUX-LUNG 8, 2015 (REV), NCIC CTG BR.21, 2005, TOPICAL, 2012, WJOG 5108L, 2016 (REV), ZEST, 2011 (REV)1065%6,049moderatelow AE (any grade)detailed resultsLUX-LUNG 8, 2015 (REV) 0.20 [0.04; 0.91] 0.20[0.04; 0.91]LUX-LUNG 8, 2015 (REV)10%787NAnot evaluable AE (grade 3-4)detailed resultsLUX-LUNG 8, 2015 (REV) 1.02 [0.77; 1.36] 1.02[0.77; 1.36]LUX-LUNG 8, 2015 (REV)10%787NAnot evaluable SAE (any grade)detailed resultsLUX-LUNG 8, 2015 (REV) 1.00 [0.75; 1.32] 1.00[0.75; 1.32]LUX-LUNG 8, 2015 (REV)10%787NAnot evaluable STRAE (any grade)detailed resultsLUX-LUNG 8, 2015 (REV) 0.43 [0.26; 0.73] 0.43[0.26; 0.73]LUX-LUNG 8, 2015 (REV)10%787NAnot evaluable TRAE (any grade)detailed resultsARCHER 1009 (all population), 2014 (REV) 0.56 [0.34; 0.94] LUX-LUNG 8, 2015 (REV) 0.31 [0.19; 0.49] 0.41[0.23; 0.75]ARCHER 1009 (all population), 2014 (REV), LUX-LUNG 8, 2015 (REV)266%1,659moderatenot evaluable TRAE (grade 3-4)detailed resultsARCHER 1009 (all population), 2014 (REV) 0.60 [0.44; 0.81] LUX-LUNG 8, 2015 (REV) 0.56 [0.40; 0.80] 0.58[0.46; 0.73]ARCHER 1009 (all population), 2014 (REV), LUX-LUNG 8, 2015 (REV)20%1,667lownot evaluable TRAE leading to death (grade 5)detailed resultsA7471028, 2012 (REV) 0.99 [0.14; 7.17] ARCHER 1009 (all population), 2014 (REV) 0.25 [0.03; 2.23] LUX-LUNG 8, 2015 (REV) 0.82 [0.25; 2.73] 0.69[0.27; 1.75]A7471028, 2012 (REV), ARCHER 1009 (all population), 2014 (REV), LUX-LUNG 8, 2015 (REV)30%1,846moderatenot evaluable TRAE leading to discontinuation (any grade)detailed resultsA7471028, 2012 (REV) 0.27 [0.05; 1.32] LUX-LUNG 8, 2015 (REV) 0.81 [0.56; 1.16] 0.62[0.24; 1.57]A7471028, 2012 (REV), LUX-LUNG 8, 2015 (REV)243%974moderatenot evaluable0.02.01.0relative treatment effectwww.metaEvidence.org2024-09-30 10:55 +02:00

TE: relative treatment effect (measured by a risk ratio, an odds ratio or an hazard ratio depending on what is reported in the papers); k: number of studies; n: total number of patients; ROB: risk of bias (ROB 2.0); Pub. bias: publication bias; OBS: observational studies; RCT: randomized clinical trials
studied treatment is better when TE > 1; studied treatment is better when TE < 1;

pathologies: 161,226,41,225,182,198,179,200,195,254,242,243,199,190,229,266,191,196,36,228,174,171,173,307,165,163,176,308,164,166,220,197,255,37,245,204,244,241,227,217,177,279,167,1,170,261,280,168,169,335,334 - treatments: 430