Abstract This study aimed to perform a meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of gefitinib in combination with chemotherapy versus gefitinib alone in patients with advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC). We searched databases for clinical studies that reported the efficacy or safety of gefitinib plus chemotherapy in comparison with gefitinib alone. Raw data from included studies were extracted and pooled to calculate the Odds Ratio (OR) for Objective Response Rate (ORR) and Disease Control Rate (DCR), the Hazard Ratio (HR) for Progression-Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS), and OR for complication ≥ Grade 3. A total of 10 studies containing 1,528 patients with NSCLC were identified and included in the analysis. Gefitinib plus chemotherapy showed significantly better efficacy in improving ORR (OR = 1.54; 95% CI [Confidence Interval], 1.13‒2.1; p = 0.006), DCR (OR = 1.62; 95% CI 1.14‒2.29; p = 0.007), PFS (HR=1.67; 95% CI 1.45‒1.94; p < 0.001) and OS (HR = 1.49; 95% CI 1.2‒1.87; p < 0.001) as compared with gefitinib alone. Consistent results were observed in the sub-population with positive EGFR mutation. The combination of gefitinib with chemotherapy had a significantly higher risk of complication (≥ Grade 3) with an OR of 3.29 (95% CI 2.57‒4.21; p < 0.001). The findings in the present study suggest that the combination of gefitinib with chemotherapy can provide better disease response and survival outcomes for patients with advanced NSCLC. metaanalysis meta analysis NonSmall Non Small . (NSCLC) (ORR DCR, , (DCR) HR ProgressionFree Progression Free (PFS OS, (OS) 3 1 1528 528 1,52 1.54 154 54 95 Confidence Interval, Interval Interval] 1.13‒2.1 11321 13 2 0.006, 0006 0.006 0 006 0.006) 1.62 162 62 1.14‒2.29 114229 14 29 0.007, 0007 0.007 007 0.007) HR=1.67 HR167 67 (HR=1.67 1.45‒1.94 145194 45 94 0.001 0001 001 1.49 149 49 1.2‒1.87 12187 87 subpopulation sub population mutation ( 329 3.2 (95 2.57‒4.21 257421 57 4 21 0.001. (NSCLC (DCR (OS 152 52 1,5 1.5 15 5 9 1.13‒2. 1132 000 0.00 00 1.6 16 6 1.14‒2.2 11422 HR=1.6 HR16 (HR=1.6 1.45‒1.9 14519 1.4 1.2‒1.8 1218 8 32 (9 2.57‒4.2 25742 1, 1. 1.13‒2 113 0.0 1.14‒2. 1142 HR=1. HR1 (HR=1. 1.45‒1. 1451 1.2‒1. 121 2.57‒4. 2574 1.13‒ 11 0. 1.14‒2 114 HR=1 (HR=1 1.45‒1 145 1.2‒1 12 2.57‒4 257 1.13 1.14‒ HR= (HR= 1.45‒ 1.2‒ 2.57‒ 25 1.1 1.14 1.45 1.2 2.57 2.5 2.

Chemical investigation on the root of R. laevigata led the isolation and identification of two new flavonoids, (+)-catechin-8-acetic acid (1) and guibourtacacidine 4-methyl ether (2), one known flavonoid, guibourtacacidine (3), along with seven known triterpenoids, euscaphic acid (4), kajiichigoside F1 (5), nigaichigoside F2 (6), rubuside J (7), tomentic acid (8), rosamutin (9) and betulinic acid (10). Their structures were established on the basis of spectroscopic evidence and comparisons with literature data. Compounds 1, 2 and 3 showed considerable radical scavenging activity in the 1, 1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) assay.

La investigación química de las raíces de R. laevigata condujo al aislamiento de dos nuevos flavonoides, 8-(+)-catequin-ácido acético (1) y éter 4-metílico de guibourtacacidina (2); un flavonoide conocido, guibourtacacidina (3), y siete triterpenos conocidos, ácido euscáfico (4), kajichi-gósido F1 (5), nigaichigósido F2 (6), rubúsido J (7), ácido toméntico (8), rosamutina (9) y ácido betulínico (10). Las estructuras fueron establecidas de acuerdo a las evidencias espectroscópicas y comparaciones con los datos informados en la literatura. Los compuestos 1, 2 y 3 mostraron actividad atrapadora de radicales en el ensayo del 1,1-difenil-2-picrilhidracilo (DFPH).