↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
256 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
266 Mendeley
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, for the Non‐Small Cell Lung Cancer Collaborative Group

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 266 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 261 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 40 15%
Student > Bachelor 30 11%
Student > Master 23 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 8%
Other 20 8%
Other 43 16%
Unknown 88 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 108 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Other 19 7%
Unknown 97 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 19 December 2022.
All research outputs
#1,395,962
of 25,864,668 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,848
of 13,146 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,972
of 272,024 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#63
of 280 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,864,668 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,146 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 272,024 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 280 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.