Observational studyJournal of oncology practice2014
Oncologists' response to new data regarding the use of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors in colorectal cancer.
Observational study in Journal of oncology practice, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identifying the Initiation of a New Line of Therapy for Metastatic Lung, Breast, and Colorectal Cancer in Real-World Data: A Scoping Review.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAlthough initially approved for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) tumors with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) overexpression, the use of anti-EGFR antibodies is now restricted to wild-type KRAS tumors. Little is known about prescribers' response to new clinical data, practice guidelines, and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) label change with regard to the use of anti-EGFR antibodies in clinical practice.
methodsCommercially insured patients with mCRC who received second-line therapy between 2004 and 2010 were identified by dusing the LifeLink Health Plan Claims Database. We calculated the fraction of patients receiving anti-EGFR antibody in 2-month intervals. χ(2) tests were used to compare treatment rates at four time points: time 1: June 2008, ASCO presentation of clinical data; time 2: February 2009, ASCO guidelines publication; time 3: August 2009, FDA label change; time 4: April 2010 to 8 months after FDA label change.
resultsFive thousand eighty-nine patients received second-line therapy; of these, 2,599 patients received an anti-EGFR antibody. Median age was 60 years (range, 20 to 97), with 57% male sex. The majority of patients (59.4%) received an anti-EGFR antibody at time 1, with significant decrease at each of the subsequent time points (time 2: 46.2% [P = .019]; time 3: 35.2% [P < .001]; Time 4: 16.2% [P < .001]). Multivariable logistic regression did not show any affect of age, sex, comorbidities, or region of the country on this pattern.
conclusionsThe use of anti-EGFR antibodies for mCRC decreased after the presentation of clinical trial data, ASCO guidelines publication, and FDA label change. These data suggest that oncologists respond rapidly to new evidence and professional guidelines, and readily incorporate predictive biomarkers into clinical practice.
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.