↓ Skip to main content

Second-line Treatments for Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis of Overall Survival Using Parametric Modelling Methods

Overview of attention for article published in Oncology and Therapy, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
Title
Second-line Treatments for Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis of Overall Survival Using Parametric Modelling Methods
Published in
Oncology and Therapy, June 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40487-017-0048-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca C. Harvey

Abstract

Advanced gastric cancer (AGC) is one of the most common forms of cancer and remains difficult to cure. There is currently no recommended therapy for second-line AGC in the UK despite the availability of various interventions. This paper aims to compare different interventions for treatment of second-line AGC using more complex methods to estimate relative efficacy, fitting various parametric models and to compare results to those published adopting conventional methods of synthesis. Seven studies were identified in an existing literature review evaluating seven comparators, which formed a connected network of evidence. Citations were limited to randomised controlled trials in previously-treated AGC patients. Evidence quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Studies were assessed for the availability of Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival. Individual patient data (IPD) were recreated using digitisation software along with a published algorithm in R. The data were analysed using multi-dimensional network meta-analysis (NMA) methods. A series of parametric models were fitted to the pseudo-IPD. Both fixed and random-effects models were fitted to explore long-term survival prospects based on extrapolation methods and estimated mean survival. Relative efficacy estimates were compared to those previously reported, which utilised conventional NMA methods. Results presented were consistent within findings from other publications and identified ramucirumab plus paclitaxel as the best treatment; however, all the treatments assessed were associated with poor survival prospects with mean survival estimates ranging from 5.0 to 12.7 months. Whilst the approach adopted in this paper does not adjust for differences in trial patient populations and is particularly data-intensive, use of such sophisticated methods of evidence synthesis may be more informative for subsequent cost-effectiveness modelling and may have greater impact when considering an indication where observed data is particularly immature or survival prospects are more positive, which may then lead to more informative decision-making for drug reimbursement.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 19%
Other 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Student > Master 2 10%
Researcher 2 10%
Other 4 19%
Unknown 5 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 5%
Other 5 24%
Unknown 6 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 June 2017.
All research outputs
#16,291,311
of 23,999,200 outputs
Outputs from Oncology and Therapy
#7
of 11 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,192
of 320,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oncology and Therapy
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,999,200 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.4. This one scored the same or higher as 4 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,486 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them