Targeted drugs for unselected patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a network meta-analysis
Open Access
- 1 January 2016
- journal article
- research article
- Vol. 8 (1) , 98-115-U383
Abstract
Targeted drugs for unselected patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a network meta-analysisKeywords
This publication has 51 references indexed in Scilit:
- The Efficacy of Bevacizumab Compared with Other Targeted Drugs for Patients with Advanced NSCLC: A Meta-Analysis from 30 Randomized Controlled Clinical TrialsPLOS ONE, 2013
- First-line erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer unsuitable for chemotherapy (TOPICAL): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trialThe Lancet Oncology, 2012
- Erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment for European patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (EURTAC): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trialThe Lancet Oncology, 2012
- The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trialsBMJ, 2011
- Erlotinib versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (OPTIMAL, CTONG-0802): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 studyThe Lancet Oncology, 2011
- Outcome of advanced NSCLC patients harboring sensitizing EGFR mutations randomized to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors or chemotherapy as first-line treatment: a meta-analysisAnnals of Oncology, 2011
- Overall survival with cisplatin–gemcitabine and bevacizumab or placebo as first-line therapy for nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer: results from a randomised phase III trial (AVAiL)Annals of Oncology, 2010
- Reduced Erlotinib Sensitivity of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor-Mutant Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer following Cisplatin Exposure: A Cell Culture Model of Second-line Erlotinib TreatmentClinical Cancer Research, 2008
- GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendationsBMJ, 2008
- Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysesBMJ, 2003