Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24965536›Full record

Trial reportMedical oncology (Northwood, London, England)2014

Catumaxomab with and without prednisolone premedication for the treatment of malignant ascites due to epithelial cancer: results of the randomised phase IIIb CASIMAS study.

Jalid Sehouli, Klaus Pietzner, Pauline Wimberger, Ignace Vergote, Per Rosenberg, Andreas Schneeweiss, Carsten Bokemeyer, Christoph Salat, Giovanni Scambia, Dominique Berton-Rigaud and 9 more

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Contemporary Management of Malignant Ascites.The Journal of surgical research · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Immunotherapy for ovarian cancer.Current treatment options in oncology · 2015
    Review
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

19 authors at 18 institutions in 9 countries.

Jalid SehouliDepartment of Gynecology, European Competence Center for Ovarian Cancer, Charité-University Medicine of Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Klaus Pietzner
Pauline Wimberger
Ignace Vergote
Per Rosenberg
Andreas Schneeweiss
Carsten Bokemeyer
Christoph Salat
Giovanni Scambia
Dominique Berton-Rigaud
Armando Santoro
Andrés Cervantes
Olivier Trédan
Christophe Tournigand
Nicoletta Colombo
Alexander S Dudnichenko
Anneke Westermann
Hilke Friccius-Quecke
Florian Lordick
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEAcademic Medical Center · NLCentre Léon Bérard · FRHeidelberg University · DEHumanitas University · ITINCLIVA Health Research Institute · ESInstitut Génétique Nantes Atlantique · FRKharkiv Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education · UAKU Leuven · BELinköping University Hospital · SEMünchen Klinik · DENeovii Biotech (Germany) · DESapienza University of Rome · ITSorbonne Université · FRTU Dresden · DEUniversity Cancer Center Hamburg · DEUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf · DEUniversity of Milano-Bicocca · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This two-arm, randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase IIIb study investigated the safety and efficacy of a 3-h catumaxomab infusion with/without prednisolone premedication to reduce catumaxomab-related adverse events. Patients with malignant ascites due to epithelial cancer received four 3-h intraperitoneal catumaxomab infusions with/without intravenous prednisolone (25 mg) premedication before each infusion. The primary safety endpoint was a composite safety score calculated from the incidence and intensity of the most frequent catumaxomab-related adverse events (pyrexia, nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain). Puncture-free survival (PuFS) was a co-primary endpoint. Time to next puncture (TTPu) and overall survival (OS) were secondary endpoints. Prednisolone premedication did not result in a significant reduction in the main catumaxomab-related adverse events. The mean composite safety score was comparable in both arms (catumaxomab plus prednisolone, 4.1; catumaxomab, 3.8; p = 0.383). Median PuFS (30 vs. 37 days) and TTPu (78 vs. 102 days) were shorter in the catumaxomab plus prednisolone arm than in the catumaxomab arm, but the differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.402 and 0.599, respectively). Median OS was longer in the catumaxomab plus prednisolone arm than in the catumaxomab arm (124 vs. 86 days), but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.186). The superiority of catumaxomab plus prednisolone versus catumaxomab alone could not be proven for the primary endpoint. Prednisolone did not result in a significant reduction in the main catumaxomab-related adverse events. The study confirms the safety and efficacy of catumaxomab administered as four 3-h intraperitoneal infusions for the treatment of malignant ascites.

Indexed as

Abdominal PainAdultAgedAntibodies, BispecificAscitesEpithelial CellsFemaleFeverHumansInfusions, ParenteralMaleMiddle AgedNauseaNeoplasmsPrednisolonePremedicationAntibodies, BispecificcatumaxomabPrednisolone

Identifiers

PMID24965536
OpenAlexW2055494840

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.