A meta-analysis of @entity3866 versus XXXX for @entity1149 with poor prognosis.

@entity1 @entity137 @entity1149 @entity1349 @entity1205 @entity3866
BACKGROUND: The extent of the benefit of @entity3866 in the treatment of @entity1149 ( @entity1149 ) is still controversial when compared with @entity1205 . This meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy of @entity3866 with @entity1205 for different @entity1 with advanced @entity1149 . MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched Cochrane Library, PubMed, CNKI, and identified 23 randomized controlled clinical trials from 2008 to 2015. According to our further full-text screening, 6 clinical trials were included in the final meta-analysis. RESULTS: Six papers were included in this study. The progression-free survival (PFS), @entity1349 ( @entity1349 ), objective response rate (ORR), and @entity137 were included in our outcomes. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) of PFS was 1.57 (95% confidential index [CI] = 1.47-1.69). The pooled HR of @entity1349 was 1.66 (95% CI = 1.43-1.92). The pooled risk ratio of ORR was 0.56 (95% CI = 0.35-0.91). The @entity137 analysis showed odds ratio = 1.79 (95% CI = 1.20-2.69). CONCLUSIONS: In terms of PFS, @entity1349 , and @entity137 the effect of @entity3866 in the treatment of advanced @entity1149 @entity1 is superior to @entity1205 .
