Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23623280›Full record

Trial reportThe Lancet. Oncology2013

Chemoradiotherapy with or without cetuximab in patients with oesophageal cancer (SCOPE1): a multicentre, phase 2/3 randomised trial.

Thomas Crosby, Christopher N Hurt, Stephen Falk, Simon Gollins, Somnath Mukherjee, John Staffurth, Ruby Ray, Nadim Bashir, John A Bridgewater, J Ian Geh and 5 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIClinical Trial, Phase IIIComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Lancet. Oncology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 185 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
185citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
38.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

185 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 381 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Electrolyte disorders assessment in solid tumor patients treated with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies: a pooled analysis of 25 randomized clinical trials.Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine · 2015
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Phase II study of BKM120 in patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (EPOC1303).Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2022
    Trial
  14. Dose escalation based onRadiation oncology (London, England) · 2022
    Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Radiochemotherapy with or without cetuximab for unresectable esophageal cancer: final results of a randomized phase 2 trial (LEOPARD-2).Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2020
    Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

125 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 11 institutions in 1 country.

Thomas CrosbyVelindre Cancer Centre, Velindre Hospital, Cardiff, UK.
Christopher N Hurt
Stephen Falk
Simon Gollins
Somnath Mukherjee
John Staffurth
Ruby Ray
Nadim Bashir
John A Bridgewater
J Ian Geh
David Cunningham
Jane Blazeby
Rajarshi Roy
Tim Maughan
Gareth Griffiths
Cardiff University · GBVelindre Cancer Centre · GBAt Bristol · GBCRUK Lung Cancer Centre of Excellence · GBCRUK/MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology · GBDiana Princess of Wales Hospital · GBQueen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham · GBRoyal Marsden Hospital · GBUniversity of Bristol · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBVelindre NHS Trust · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 15954Cancer Research UK 7256Medical Research Council G0800800
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDefinitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is an alternative to surgery for the curative treatment of oesophageal carcinoma. The SCOPE1 trial aimed to investigate the addition of cetuximab to cisplatin and fluoropyrimidine-based definitive CRT in patients with localised oesophageal squamous-cell cancer and adenocarcinomas to assess activity, safety, and feasibility of use.

methodsIn this multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 2/3 trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years and older from UK radiotherapy centres who had non-metastatic, histologically confirmed carcinoma of the oesophagus (adenocarcinoma, squamous-cell, or undifferentiated; WHO status 0-1; stage I-III disease) and been selected to receive definitive CRT. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a central computerised system using stratified minimisation (with an 80:20 random element) to receive CRT alone or CRT with cetuximab (400 mg/m(2) on day 1 followed by 250 mg/m(2) weekly), stratified by recruiting hospital, primary reason for not having surgery, tumour histology, and tumour stage. CRT consisted of cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) (day 1) and capecitabine 625 mg/m(2) twice daily (days 1-21) for four cycles; cycles three and four were given concurrently with 50 Gy in 25 fractions of radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who were treatment failure free at week 24 for the phase 2 trial and overall survival for the phase 3 trial, both measured from randomisation. We analysed data by intention to treat. This trial is an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number 47718479.

findings258 patients (129 assigned to each treatment group) from 36 UK centres were recruited between Feb 7, 2008, and Feb 22, 2012. Recruitment was stopped without continuation to phase 3 because the trial met criteria for futility, but we continued to follow-up recruited patients until all had reached at least 24-week follow-up (median follow-up of patients who survived was 16.8 months [IQR 11.2-24.5]). Fewer patients were treatment failure free at 24 weeks in the CRT plus cetuximab group (79 of 119 patients [66·4%, 90% CI 58·6-73·6]) than in the CRT only group (93 of 121 patients [76.9%, 69.7-83.0]). The CRT plus cetuximab group also had shorter median overall survival (22.1 months [95% CI 15.1-24.5] vs 25.4 months [20.5-37.9]; adjusted HR 1.53 [95% CI 1.03-2.27]; p=0.035). Patients who received CRT plus cetuximab had more non-haematological grade 3 or 4 toxicities (102 [79%] of 129 patients vs 81 [63%] of 129 patients; p=0.004). The most common grade 3 or 4 toxicities were low white blood cell count (14 [11%] in the CRT plus cetuximab group vs 21 [16%] in the CRT only group), low absolute neutrophil count (15 [12%] vs 24 [19%]), fatigue (26 [20%] vs 25 [19%]), and dysphagia (35 [27%] vs 37 [29%]).

interpretationThe addition of cetuximab to standard chemotherapy and radiotherapy cannot be recommended for patients with oesophageal cancer suitable for definitive CRT.

fundingCancer Research UK.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCapecitabineCarcinoma, Squamous CellCetuximabChemoradiotherapyCisplatinDeoxycytidineEsophageal NeoplasmsFemaleFluorouracilFollow-Up StudiesAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedCapecitabineCetuximabCisplatinDeoxycytidineFluorouracil

Identifiers

PMID23623280
OpenAlexW2166559675

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.