ReviewDrug safety2012
Benefit-risk assessment of bevacizumab in the treatment of breast cancer.
Review in Drug safety, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of a novel macromolecular cascade-polymer contrast medium for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI monitoring of antiangiogenic bevacizumab therapy in a human melanoma model.Academic radiology · 2013Article
- Targeting the tumor microenvironment: from understanding pathways to effective clinical trials.Cancer research · 2013Review
- Breast cancer as a systemic disease: a view of metastasis.Journal of internal medicine · 2013Review
- Cardiovascular complications associated with novel angiogenesis inhibitors: emerging evidence and evolving perspectives.Trends in cardiovascular medicine · 2013Review
- Bevacizumab and Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of First-Line Phase III Studies and a Critical Reappraisal of Available Evidence.Journal of oncology · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An evaluation of the benefit-versus-risk of bevacizumab in the treatment of advanced breast cancer is timely and relevant. Recently, the US FDA has withdrawn the approval of bevacizumab as a therapeutic option for the treatment of advanced breast cancer, generating controversy in the scientific community. Although the pivotal study (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 2100 trial [E2100]) had shown doubling of the progression-free survival when bevacizumab was added to chemotherapy, this magnitude of benefit could not be replicated in subsequent studies. Furthermore, individual studies and meta-analyses failed to demonstrate an overall survival benefit with the addition of bevacizumab to different chemotherapy regimens. In addition, this agent is associated with an increased incidence of serious adverse events such as hypertension, congestive heart failure and thromboembolism, and its cost is likely to be a consideration in its use for many patients worldwide. Retrospective biomarker-based studies aiming to identify the subpopulation of patients most likely to benefit from the addition of bevacizumab to standard chemotherapy in breast cancer should be a research priority.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.