MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4394400215 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.21339104

Efficacy and safety of osimertinib for patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

2022· review· en· W4394400215 on OpenAlexaff
Li Li, Qin Huang, Jianhai Sun, Fei Yan, Wujie Wei, Zihui Li, Li Liu, Jie Deng

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsimertinibMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialOncologyMedicineInternal medicinePsychologyEpidermal growth factor receptorCancerErlotinib

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Osimertinib is a recently approved third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) that selectively inhibits both EGFR-TKI-sensitizing and EGFR-T790M resistance mutations. The aim of the present meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy and safety of osimertinib for patients with EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Databases were searched for randomized controlled studies that reported the efficacy and safety of osimertinib versus other treatments (chemotherapy, other EGFR-TKIs, etc.) in treating EGFR-mutated NSCLC. The measured effects included objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), central nervous system progression-free survival (CNS-PFS), and overall survival (OS). Additional outcome was the incidence of adverse event. Relative risk (RR) for incidence and hazard ratio (HR) for survival outcomes were pooled. Seven studies containing 3335 participants were finally included. Osimertinib tended to improve ORR and DCR (RRs >1) as compared with other treatments. Osimertinib was also a significant protective factor for PFS, CNS-PFS, and OS (HRs <1 and p < .05). Osimertinib showed similar advantages in improving tumor response and patient survival when used as first-line, second-line, and third-line/adjuvant therapy, respectively, as compared with other treatments (RRs >1 for ORR and DCR; HRs <1 for PFS, CNS-PFS, and OS). Osimertinib also had better therapeutic effects as compared with chemotherapy, other EGFR TKIs, docetaxel + bevacizumab, and placebo, respectively. The five most common adverse events with pooled incidence > 20% were diarrhea, rash, nail effects, dry skin, and stomatitis, yet the pooled incidence of serious adverse events was less than 2%. This meta-analysis suggests that osimertinib has a positive effect in disease control and survival for patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC with acceptable toxicities.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.030
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations→French-language works237,207→