Crude and risk-adjusted hazard ratio of BEV comparing to C/E/G.

<p><b>*</b>HR_adjusted was adjusted by ln(OR_ORR).</p>**<p>HR_adjusted was adjusted by ln(HR_PFS).</p

Begg's funnel plot.

<p>Begg's funnel plot.</p

Response rate, PFS, OS of Bevacizumab versus other targeted drugs in EGFR untested NSCLC patients.

<p>Response rate, PFS, OS of Bevacizumab versus other targeted drugs in EGFR untested NSCLC patients.</p

Forest plots of individual trials.

<p>A: Odds ratio of response rate; B: Hazard ratio of progression free survival; C: Hazard ratio of overall survival.</p

The Efficacy of Bevacizumab Compared with Other Targeted Drugs for Patients with Advanced NSCLC: A Meta-Analysis from 30 Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials

<div><p>Background</p><p>The extent of the benefit of bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is still unclear. We performed this meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of bevacizumab with other commonly used targeted drugs for different patients with advanced NSCLC.</p><p>Methods</p><p>We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and abstracts from the proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and identified 30 randomized controlled clinical trials published within 1999 to 2011 for meta-analysis.</p><p>Results</p><p>The outcomes of treatment efficacy included response rate, PFS and OS. Comparing bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) with chemotherapy to standard chemotherapy alone, for chemotherapy-naïve patients, the pooled OR of response rate was 2.741(95%CI: 2.046, 3.672), the pooled HR for disease progression was 0.645 (95%CI: 0.561, 0.743), and the pooled HR for death was 0.790 (95%CI: 0.674, 0.926), respectively. In addition, the adjusted HR for previously-treated patients was 0.680 (95%CI: 0.492, 0.942) comparing bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy to standard chemotherapy alone.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>Bevacizumab accompanied by chemotherapy was found to significantly improve patients' response rate, progression free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) among chemotherapy-naïve patients compared to other targeted drugs in the treatment of non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC).</p></div

Baseline characteristics of the thirty trials.

<p>NR: not reported.</p>*<p>unbalanced between groups.</p><p>CT: chemotherapy; bev: bevacizumab; erl: erlotinib; cet: cetuximab; gef: gefitinib.</p><p>GP: Cisplatin-Gemcitabine; PCp: Paclitaxel-carboplatin; TC: Taxane-carboplatin; NP: cisplatin-vinorelbine; D/M:docetaxel/pemetrexed.</p

Results of meta-regression.

<p>A: ln(HR_PFS) – ln(OR_ORR), in chemotherapy-naïve patients; B: ln(HR_PFS) – ln(OR_ORR), in previously-treated patients; C: ln(HR_OS) – ln(HR_PFS), in chemotherapy-naïve patients; D: ln(HR_OS) – ln(HR_PFS), in previously-treated patients.</p

Response rate, PFS, OS of Bevacizumab versus Gefitinib in NSCLC patients with different EGFR status.

<p>Response rate, PFS, OS of Bevacizumab versus Gefitinib in NSCLC patients with different EGFR status.</p

Flow chart showing the progress of trials through the review.

<p>Flow chart showing the progress of trials through the review.</p

c-Met as a Prognostic Marker in Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

<div><p>Background</p><p>c-Met has been recognized as an important therapeutic target in gastric cancer, but the prognostic property of the c-Met status is still unclear. We aimed to characterize the prognostic effect of c-Met by systematic review and meta-analysis.</p> <p>Methods</p><p>We identified 15 studies assessing survival in gastric cancer by c-Met status. Effect measure of interest was hazard ratio (HR) for survival. Meta-regression was performed to estimate the relationship between HR and disease stage. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to account for heterogeneity.</p> <p>Results</p><p>15 eligible studies provided outcome data stratified by c-Met status in 2210 patients. Meta-analysis of the HRs indicated a significantly poorer Os in patients with high c-Met expression (average HR=2.112, 95%CI: 1.622–2.748). Subgroup analysis showed the prognostic effect of c-Met was identical in protein-level and gene-level based methodology. The same effect was also seen in Asian and Western ethnicity subgroup analysis. Meta-regression showed HR was not associated with disease stage.</p> <p>Conclusions</p><p>Patients with tumors that harbor high c-Met expression are more likely to have a worse Os, with this prognostic effect independent of disease stage. c-Met status should be evaluated in clinical prognosis.</p> </div