Evidence Hub

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the benefit of celecoxib in treating advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

Lilan Yi, Wei Zhang, Hong-Man Zhang, Jie Shen, J. Zou, P. Luo, Jian Zhang

Drug Design, Development and Therapy, 2018

1,559 participants · 19 citations

Abstract

Background The clinical benefit of a selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, celecoxib, combined with anticancer therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains unclear. A meta-analysis was performed to address the efficacy and safety of celecoxib in patients with advanced NSCLC. Materials and methods Three databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, were systematically searched for available literature until March 1, 2018. Data on tumor response rates, one-year survival, overall survival, progression-free survival, and toxicities were extracted from the included randomized clinical trials. Subgroup analysis was carried out according to the line of treatment. Review Manager 5.3 software was applied to conduct the meta-analysis. Results A total of 7 randomized controlled trials involving 1,559 patients with advanced NSCLC were enrolled for analysis. The pooled overall response rate (ORR) of celecoxib added to systemic therapy was not significantly improved (risk ratio [RR] =1.14, 95% CI =0.96–1.35, P=0.13). Additionally, no differences were observed between the celecoxib and placebo groups regarding 1-year survival (RR =0.99, 95% CI =0.88–1.12, P=0.91). Subgroup analysis showed that adding celecoxib to the first-line treatment significantly improved the ORR (RR =1.21, 95% CI =1.01–1.44, P=0.04) and partial response rate (RR =1.26, 95% CI =1.01–1.58, P=0.04). The aggregated Kaplan–Meier analysis found no significant difference between celecoxib…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 1,559 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free