Cited by 604Lung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentLung Cancer Treatments and MutationsLung Cancer Research Studies

Chemotherapy in addition to supportive care improves survival in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data from 16 randomized controlled trials

Open access
NSCLC Meta-Analyses Collaborative Group·2008·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose Since our individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis (MA) of supportive care and chemotherapy for non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), published in 1995, many trials have been completed. An updated, IPD MA has been carried out to assess newer regimens and determine conclusively the effect of chemotherapy. Methods Systematic searches for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were undertaken, followed by central collection, checking, and reanalysis of updated IPD. Results from RCTs were combined to calculate individual and pooled hazard ratios (HRs). Results Data were obtained from 2,714 patients from 16 RCTs. There were 1,293 deaths among 1,399 patients assigned supportive care and chemotherapy and 1,240 among 1,315 assigned supportive care alone. Results showed a significant benefit of chemotherapy (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.83; P ≤ .0001), equivalent to a relative increase in survival of 23% or an absolute improvement in survival of 9% at 12 months, increasing survival from 20% to 29%. There was no clear evidence that this effect was influenced by the drugs used (P = .63) or whether they were used as single agents or in combination (P = .40). Despite changes in patient demographics, the effect of chemotherapy in recent trials did not differ from those included previously (P = .77). There was no clear evidence of a difference or trend in the relative effect of chemotherapy across patient subgroups. Conclusion This MA of chemotherapy in the supportive care setting demonstrates conclusively that chemotherapy improves overall survival in all patients with advanced NSCLC. Therefore, all patients who are fit enough and wish to receive chemotherapy should do so.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2008.17.7162

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
NSCLC Meta-Analyses Collaborative Group
Corresponding author
NSCLC Meta-Analyses Collaborative Group
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2008-10-01
Volume
26
Issue
28
Pages
4617-4625
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2626223149
Cited by
604
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 59 · 2014: 52 · 2013: 59 · 2012: 51
FWCI
6.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Institut Gustave-Roussy
  • Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Lung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Lung Cancer Research Studies
Keywords
non-small cell lung cancer, chemotherapy, supportive care, overall survival, advanced lung cancer, chemotherapy regimens, subgroup analysis
MeSH terms
Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung, Humans, Lung Neoplasms, Palliative Care, Survival Analysis, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review