MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414520286 · doi:10.3389/fphar.2025.1607255

Efficacy and safety of anlotinib in the treatment of brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4414520286 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Junzhu Wu, Tianliang Yao, Wen Jin, Wei Dai, Qionghui Yang, Ruixiang Chen, Qinghuan Li, Yuanyuan Zhong

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Pharmacology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLungCellCell growthLung cancerClinical trialSafety profile

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The presence of brain metastases is a significant factor contributing to the failure of lung cancer therapies. This study aims to systematically assess the efficacy and safety of anlotinib in the treatment of brain metastases resulting from non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wan fang, and VIP databases. This search encompassed the period from the establishment of the databases up until November 2024. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was employed to assess the quality of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in the study, while the quality of the cohort studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) score. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to evaluate the quality of evidence. The meta-analysis was conducted using the RevMan 5.3 software. Results A total of 18 studies (9 RCTs and 9 retrospective cohort studies; n = 1,480) were included in the analysis. The results demonstrated that, compared to the control group, anlotinib significantly prolonged intracranial progression-free survival (IPFS)[3 studies; HR = 0.52, 95% CI (0.36–0.75), P = 0.0004, I 2 = 0%, fixed-effect model] and improved overall survival (OS) [3 studies; HR = 0.69, 95% CI (0.54–0.88), P = 0.0003, I 2 = 0%, fixed-effect model]. Furthermore, anlotinib increased the objective response rate (ORR) [15 studies; RR = 1.55, 95% CI (1.30–1.84), P < 0.00001, I 2 = 58%, random-effects model] and disease control rate (DCR) [13 studies; RR = 1.33, 95% CI (1.23–1.44), P < 0.00001, I 2 = 29%, fixed-effect model]. Regarding safety outcomes, the anlotinib group showed a significantly reduced risk of nausea-vomiting [7 studies; RR = 0.52, 95% CI (0.29–0.92), P = 0.02, I 2 = 0%, fixed-effect model], while no significant differences were observed in other adverse reactions. Conclusion Anlotinib may prolong IPFS and OS in patients with brain metastases from NSCLC, and may improve ORR and DCR. In terms of safety, may reduce the risk of nausea-vomiting. The risk of bias in some of the included studies was unclear. The quality of OS and DCR was moderate, while that of IPFS, ORR and nausea-vomiting was low. Systematic Review Registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42025632195 , identifier [CRD42025632195].

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.760
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.375 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PharmacologySame topicLung Cancer Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207