IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i21p14324-d960931.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing the Therapeutic Efficacies of Lung Cancer: Network Meta-Analysis Approaches

Author

Listed:
  • Chuan-Hsin Chang

    (Research Center for Chinese Herbal Medicine, Graduate Institute of Healthy Industry Technology, College of Human Ecology, Chang Gung University of Science and Technology, Taoyuan 33303, Taiwan)

  • Yue-Cune Chang

    (Department of Mathematics, Tamkang University, New Taipei City 25137, Taiwan)

Abstract

Background: In recent years, reduction of nuclear power generation and the use of coal-fired power for filling the power supply gap might have increased the risk of lung cancer. This study aims to explore the most effective treatment for different stages of lung cancer patients. Methods: We searched databases to investigate the treatment efficacy of lung cancer. The network meta-analysis was used to explore the top three effective therapeutic strategies among all collected treatment methodologies. Results: A total of 124 studies were collected from 115 articles with 171,757 participants in total. The results of network meta-analyses showed that the best top three treatments: (1) in response rate, for advanced lung cancer were Targeted + Targeted, Chemo + Immuno, and Targeted + Other Therapy with cumulative probabilities 82.9, 80.8, and 69.3%, respectively; for non-advanced lung cancer were Chemoradio + Targeted, Chemoradi + Immuno, and Chemoradio + Other Therapy with cumulative probabilities 69.0, 67.8, and 60.7%, respectively; (2) in disease-free control rate, for advanced lung cancer were Targeted + Others, Chemo + Immuno, and Targeted + Targeted Therapy with cumulative probabilities 93.4, 91.5, and 59.4%, respectively; for non-advanced lung cancer were Chemo + Surgery, Chemoradio + Targeted, and Surgery Therapy with cumulative probabilities 80.1, 71.5, and 43.1%, respectively. Conclusion: The therapeutic strategies with the best effectiveness will be different depending on the stage of lung cancer patients.

Suggested Citation

  • Chuan-Hsin Chang & Yue-Cune Chang, 2022. "Comparing the Therapeutic Efficacies of Lung Cancer: Network Meta-Analysis Approaches," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-20, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:21:p:14324-:d:960931
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/21/14324/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/21/14324/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Helen Davies & Graham R. Bignell & Charles Cox & Philip Stephens & Sarah Edkins & Sheila Clegg & Jon Teague & Hayley Woffendin & Mathew J. Garnett & William Bottomley & Neil Davis & Ed Dicks & Rebecca, 2002. "Mutations of the BRAF gene in human cancer," Nature, Nature, vol. 417(6892), pages 949-954, June.
    2. Charles T. Driscoll & Jonathan J. Buonocore & Jonathan I. Levy & Kathleen F. Lambert & Dallas Burtraw & Stephen B. Reid & Habibollah Fakhraei & Joel Schwartz, 2015. "US power plant carbon standards and clean air and health co-benefits," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(6), pages 535-540, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chia-Pin Chio & Wei-Cheng Lo & Ben-Jei Tsuang & Chieh-Chun Hu & Kai-Chen Ku & Yi-Sheng Wang & Yung-Jen Chen & Hsien-Ho Lin & Chang-Chuan Chan, 2022. "County-Wide Mortality Assessments Attributable to PM 2.5 Emissions from Coal Consumption in Taiwan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-16, January.
    2. Palistha Shrestha & Jeevan Kandel & Hilal Tayara & Kil To Chong, 2024. "Post-translational modification prediction via prompt-based fine-tuning of a GPT-2 model," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-13, December.
    3. Apergis, Nicholas & Mustafa, Ghulam & Dastidar, Sayantan Ghosh, 2021. "An analysis of the impact of unconventional oil and gas activities on public health: New evidence across Oklahoma counties," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    4. Shupeng Zhu & Michael Mac Kinnon & Andrea Carlos-Carlos & Steven J. Davis & Scott Samuelsen, 2022. "Decarbonization will lead to more equitable air quality in California," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-10, December.
    5. Feng, Tong & Sun, Yuechi & Shi, Yating & Ma, Jie & Feng, Chunmei & Chen, Zhenni, 2024. "Air pollution control policies and impacts: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    6. Wei, Xinyang & Tong, Qing & Magill, Iain & Vithayasrichareon, Peerapat & Betz, Regina, 2020. "Evaluation of potential co-benefits of air pollution control and climate mitigation policies for China's electricity sector," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    7. Josefine Radke & Elisa Schumann & Julia Onken & Randi Koll & Güliz Acker & Bohdan Bodnar & Carolin Senger & Sascha Tierling & Markus Möbs & Peter Vajkoczy & Anna Vidal & Sandra Högler & Petra Kodajova, 2022. "Decoding molecular programs in melanoma brain metastases," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-24, December.
    8. Yevheniia Ziabina & Aleksy Kwilinski & Oleksii Lyulyov & Tetyana Pimonenko & Yana Us, 2023. "Convergence of Energy Policies between the EU and Ukraine under the Green Deal Policy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-19, January.
    9. Wiser, Ryan & Bolinger, Mark & Heath, Garvin & Keyser, David & Lantz, Eric & Macknick, Jordan & Mai, Trieu & Millstein, Dev, 2016. "Long-term implications of sustained wind power growth in the United States: Potential benefits and secondary impacts," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 146-158.
    10. Jonathan J Buonocore & Kathleen F Lambert & Dallas Burtraw & Samantha Sekar & Charles T Driscoll, 2016. "An Analysis of Costs and Health Co-Benefits for a U.S. Power Plant Carbon Standard," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-11, June.
    11. Zhang, Hui & Zhang, Bing, 2020. "The unintended impact of carbon trading of China's power sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    12. Teagan Goforth & Destenie Nock, 2022. "Air pollution disparities and equality assessments of US national decarbonization strategies," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-14, December.
    13. Keyes, Amelia & Lambert, Kathleen & Burtraw, Dallas & Buonocore, Jonathan & Levy, Jonathan & Driscoll, Charles, 2018. "Carbon Standards Examined: A Comparison of At-the-Source and Beyond-the-Source Power Plant Carbon Standards," RFF Working Paper Series 18-20, Resources for the Future.
    14. Jiang, Xueting, 2023. "Rapid decarbonization in the Chinese electric power sector and air pollution reduction Co-benefits in the Post-COP26 Era," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    15. Wiser, Ryan & Millstein, Dev & Mai, Trieu & Macknick, Jordan & Carpenter, Alberta & Cohen, Stuart & Cole, Wesley & Frew, Bethany & Heath, Garvin, 2016. "The environmental and public health benefits of achieving high penetrations of solar energy in the United States," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 472-486.
    16. Mathias Mier & Jacqueline Adelowo & Christoph Weissbart, 2022. "Complementary Taxation of Carbon Emissions and Local Air Pollution," ifo Working Paper Series 375, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    17. Brown, Kristen E. & Henze, Daven K. & Milford, Jana B., 2017. "How accounting for climate and health impacts of emissions could change the US energy system," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 396-405.
    18. Sony Malhotra & Ali F Alsulami & Yang Heiyun & Bernardo Montano Ochoa & Harry Jubb & Simon Forbes & Tom L Blundell, 2019. "Understanding the impacts of missense mutations on structures and functions of human cancer-related genes: A preliminary computational analysis of the COSMIC Cancer Gene Census," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-22, July.
    19. Fischer, Carolyn & Hübler, Michael & Schenker, Oliver, 2021. "More birds than stones – A framework for second-best energy and climate policy adjustments," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    20. Mier, Mathias & Adelowo, Jacqueline & Weissbart, Christoph, 2024. "Complementary taxation of carbon emissions and local air pollution," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:21:p:14324-:d:960931. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.