↓ Skip to main content

Adjuvant chemotherapy for resected early-stage non-small cell lung cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
110 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
151 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Adjuvant chemotherapy for resected early-stage non-small cell lung cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011430
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah Burdett, Jean Pierre Pignon, Jayne Tierney, Helene Tribodet, Lesley Stewart, Cecile Le Pechoux, Anne Aupérin, Thierry Le Chevalier, Richard J Stephens, Rodrigo Arriagada, Julian PT Higgins, David H Johnson, Jan Van Meerbeeck, Mahesh KB Parmar, Robert L Souhami, Bengt Bergman, Jean-Yves Douillard, Ariane Dunant, Chiaki Endo, David Girling, Harubumi Kato, Steven M Keller, Hideki Kimura, Aija Knuuttila, Ken Kodama, Ritsuko Komaki, Mark G Kris, Thomas Lad, Tommaso Mineo, Steven Piantadosi, Rafael Rosell, Giorgio Scagliotti, Lesley K Seymour, Frances A Shepherd, Richard Sylvester, Hirohito Tada, Fumihiro Tanaka, Valter Torri, David Waller, Ying Liang

Abstract

To evaluate the effects of administering chemotherapy following surgery, or following surgery plus radiotherapy (known as adjuvant chemotherapy) in patients with early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC),we performed two systematic reviews and meta-analyses of all randomised controlled trials using individual participant data. Results were first published in The Lancet in 2010. To compare, in terms of overall survival, time to locoregional recurrence, time to distant recurrence and recurrence-free survival:A. Surgery versus surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapyB. Surgery plus radiotherapy versus surgery plus radiotherapy plus adjuvant chemotherapyin patients with histologically diagnosed early stage NSCLC.(2)To investigate whether or not predefined patient subgroups benefit more or less from cisplatin-based chemotherapy in terms of survival. We supplemented MEDLINE and CANCERLIT searches (1995 to December 2013) with information from trial registers, handsearching relevant meeting proceedings and by discussion with trialists and organisations. We included trials of a) surgery versus surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy; and b) surgery plus radiotherapy versus surgery plus radiotherapy plus adjuvant chemotherapy, provided that they randomised NSCLC patients using a method which precluded prior knowledge of treatment assignment. We carried out a quantitative meta-analysis using updated information from individual participants from all randomised trials. Data from all patients were sought from those responsible for the trial. We obtained updated individual participant data (IPD) on survival, and date of last follow-up, as well as details of treatment allocated, date of randomisation, age, sex, histological cell type, stage, and performance status. To avoid potential bias, we requested information for all randomised patients, including those excluded from the investigators' original analyses. We conducted all analyses on intention-to-treat on the endpoint of survival. For trials using cisplatin-based regimens, we carried out subgroup analyses by age, sex, histological cell type, tumour stage, and performance status. We identified 35 trials evaluating surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy versus surgery alone. IPD were available for 26 of these trials and our analyses are based on 8447 participants (3323 deaths) in 34 trial comparisons. There was clear evidence of a benefit of adding chemotherapy after surgery (hazard ratio (HR)= 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI)= 0.81 to 0.92, p< 0.0001), with an absolute increase in survival of 4% at five years.We identified 15 trials evaluating surgery plus radiotherapy plus chemotherapy versus surgery plus radiotherapy alone. IPD were available for 12 of these trials and our analyses are based on 2660 participants (1909 deaths) in 13 trial comparisons. There was also evidence of a benefit of adding chemotherapy to surgery plus radiotherapy (HR= 0.88, 95% CI= 0.81 to 0.97, p= 0.009). This represents an absolute improvement in survival of 4% at five years.For both meta-analyses, we found similar benefits for recurrence outcomes and there was little variation in effect according to the type of chemotherapy, other trial characteristics or patient subgroup.We did not undertake analysis of the effects of adjuvant chemotherapy on quality of life and adverse events. Quality of life information was not routinely collected during the trials, but where toxicity was assessed and mentioned in the publications, it was thought to be manageable. We considered the risk of bias in the included trials to be low. Results from 47 trial comparisons and 11,107 patients demonstrate the clear benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for these patients, irrespective of whether chemotherapy was given in addition to surgery or surgery plus radiotherapy. This is the most up-to-date and complete systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis that has been carried out.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 151 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 146 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 34 23%
Student > Bachelor 19 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Student > Master 14 9%
Other 13 9%
Other 36 24%
Unknown 21 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 84 56%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 4%
Unspecified 3 2%
Other 14 9%
Unknown 29 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 02 August 2020.
All research outputs
#1,966,293
of 15,766,637 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,633
of 11,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,716
of 217,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#119
of 250 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,766,637 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,281 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
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 217,923 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 250 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.