04152026Wed
Last updateThu, 22 Jan 2026 4am

The updated network meta‑analysis of the therapeutic efficacies of lung cancer: A systematic review and meta‑analysis

Chuan‑Hsin Changa,b, Chih‑Cheng Chienc, Yue‑Cune Changd*

aDepartment of Research, Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, New Taipei, Taiwan, bResearch Center for Chinese Herbal Medicine, Graduate Institute of Healthy Industry Technology, College of Human Ecology, Chang Gung University of Science and Technology, Taoyuan, Taiwan, cInstitute of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, dDepartment of Mathematics, Tamkang University, New Taipei, Taiwan

Download PDF

Open Access funded by Buddhist Compassion Relief Tzu Chi Foundation

 

Abstract
 
Objectives: Lung cancer is one of the most common malignancies worldwide. We aim to investigate the most effective treatments for advanced/nonadvanced stages of lung cancer patients. Materials and Methods: We searched electronic databases to investigate the treatment efficacies of lung cancer. The network meta‑analysis was used to identify the top five most effective therapeutic strategies. A total of 157 studies were collected with a cumulative total of 164,678 participants. Results: The results showed that the best top five treatments: (1) for advanced lung cancer in response rate, were Chemo + Chemotherapy + Targeted Therapy, Cell therapy + Immunotherapy, Targeted Therapy + Radiotherapy, Chemoradiotherapy + Immunotherapy, and Chemotherapy + Chemoradiotherapy with cumulative probabilities 50.5, 49.6, 47.7, 46.0, and 45.6%; (2) for advanced lung cancer in progression‑free survival (PFS) rate, were Targeted + Radiotherapy, Targeted + Others Therapy, Targeted + Targeted Therapy, Immu + Immu + Chemo Therapy, and Chemoradiotherapy with cumulative probabilities 99.5, 82.8, 44.9, 36.5, and 33.6%; (3) for nonadvanced lung cancer in response rate, were Chemoradiotherapy + Immu, Chemoradiotherapy + Targeted therapy, Chemoradiotherapy + Others, Chemotherapy + Surgery, and Radiotherapy + Others with cumulative probabilities 79.1, 74.9, 66.9, 60.4, and 54.2%; (4) for non‑advanced lung cancer in PFS rate, were Chemo + Surgery, Chemoradiotherapy + Targeted, Surgery, Surgery + Radiotherapy, and Chemoradiotherapy + Others with cumulative probabilities 88.3, 86.1, 78.3, 73.1, and 50.8%. Conclusion: We present the latest and most effective therapeutic strategies for patients with advanced or nonadvanced stages of lung cancer.
 
Keywords: Lung cancer, Network meta‑analysis, Therapeutic efficacy

 

On the Cover

Search all Issue