Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22748098›Full record

Trial reportBMC cancer2012

XELIRI-bevacizumab versus FOLFIRI-bevacizumab as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group phase III trial with collateral biomarker analysis.

Dimitrios Pectasides, George Papaxoinis, Konstantine T Kalogeras, Anastasia G Eleftheraki, Ioannis Xanthakis, Thomas Makatsoris, Epaminondas Samantas, Ioannis Varthalitis, Pavlos Papakostas, Nikitas Nikitas and 10 more

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC cancer, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Oral versus intravenous fluoropyrimidines for colorectal cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Systemic Therapy for Metastatic Colon Cancer: New Frontiers.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2025
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

Dimitrios PectasidesOncology Section, Second Department of Internal Medicine, Hippokration Hospital, University of Athens School of Medicine, Athens, Greece. pectasid@otenet.gr
George Papaxoinis
Konstantine T Kalogeras
Anastasia G Eleftheraki
Ioannis Xanthakis
Thomas Makatsoris
Epaminondas Samantas
Ioannis Varthalitis
Pavlos Papakostas
Nikitas Nikitas
Christos N Papandreou
George Pentheroudakis
Eleni Timotheadou
Angelos Koutras
Joseph Sgouros
Dimitrios Bafaloukos
George Klouvas
Theofanis Economopoulos
Konstantinos N Syrigos
George Fountzilas

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim was to compare two standard chemotherapy regimens combined with bevacizumab as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

methodsPatients previously untreated for metastatic disease were randomized in: group A (irinotecan, capecitabine, bevacizumab, every 3 weeks; XELIRI-bevacizumab) and group B (irinotecan, leucovorin, fluorouracil, bevacizumab, every 2 weeks; FOLFIRI-bevacizumab). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Plasma concentrations of nitric oxide, osteopontin, TGF-β1 and VEGF-A were measured at baseline and during treatment.

resultsAmong 285 eligible patients, 143 were randomized to group A and 142 to group B. Fifty-five patients (38.5%) in group A and 57 (40.1%) in group B responded (p = 0.81). After a median follow-up of 42 months, median PFS was 10.2 and 10.8 months (p = 0.74), while median OS was 20.0 and 25.3 months (p = 0.099), for groups A and B, respectively. Most frequent grade 3-4 toxicities (group A vs group B) were neutropenia (13% vs 22%, p = 0.053) and diarrhea (19% vs 11%, p = 0.082). Baseline plasma osteopontin concentrations demonstrated prognostic significance for both PFS and OS.

conclusionsThis trial did not show significant differences in efficacy between the groups. However, the toxicity profile was different. Baseline plasma osteopontin concentrations demonstrated independent prognostic significance. ( REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12610000270011).

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAngiogenic ProteinsAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntineoplastic AgentsAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBevacizumabBiomarkersCamptothecinCapecitabineColorectal NeoplasmsDeoxycytidineFemaleFluorouracilHumansAngiogenic ProteinsAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntineoplastic AgentsBevacizumabBiomarkersCamptothecinCapecitabineDeoxycytidineFluorouracilIrinotecanLeucovorinOsteopontin

Identifiers

PMID22748098
PMCPMC3466131

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.