Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25072258›Full record

SynthesisBritish journal of cancer2014

The role of biological therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer after first-line treatment: a meta-analysis of randomised trials.

E Segelov, D Chan, J Shapiro, T J Price, C S Karapetis, N C Tebbutt, N Pavlakis

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in British journal of cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Controversies in the treatment of RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2021
    Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

E SegelovSt Vincent's Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
D ChanRoyal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, Sydney, NSW 2065, Australia.
J ShapiroMonash University and Cabrini Hospital, Melbourne, VIC 3800, Australia.
T J PriceThe Queen Elizabeth Hospital and University of Adelaide, Woodville South, SA 5011, Australia.
C S KarapetisFlinders University and Flinders Medical Centre, Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Bedford Park, SA, 5042, Australia.
N C TebbuttAustin Health, VIC 3084, Australia.
N PavlakisRoyal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, Sydney, NSW 2065, Australia.
Royal North Shore Hospital · AUAustin Health · AUUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeBiologic agents have achieved variable results in relapsed metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Systematic meta-analysis was undertaken to determine the efficacy of biological therapy.

methodsMajor databases were searched for randomised studies of mCRC after first-line treatment comparing (1) standard treatment plus biologic agent with standard treatment or (2) standard treatment with biologic agent with the same treatment with different biologic agent(s). Data were extracted on study design, participants, interventions and outcomes. Study quality was assessed using the MERGE criteria. Comparable data were pooled for meta-analysis.

resultsTwenty eligible studies with 8225 patients were identified. The use of any biologic therapy improved overall survival with hazard ratio (HR) 0.87 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82-0.91, P<0.00001), progression-free survival (PFS) with HR 0.71 (95% CI 0.67-0.74, P<0.0001) and overall response rate (ORR) with odds ratio (OR) 2.38 (95% CI 2.03-2.78, P<0.00001). Grade 3/4 toxicity was increased with OR 2.34. Considering by subgroups, EGFR inhibitors (EGFR-I) in the second-line setting and anti-angiogenic therapies (both in second-line and third-line and beyond settings) all improved overall survival, PFS and ORR. EGFR-I in third-line settings improved PFS and ORR but not OS.

conclusionsThe use of biologic agents in mCRC after first-line treatment is associated with improved outcomes but increased toxicity.

Indexed as

Biological TherapyAngiogenesis InhibitorsAntibodies, MonoclonalColorectal NeoplasmsDisease-Free SurvivalErbB ReceptorsHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReceptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth FactorVascular Endothelial Growth Factor AAngiogenesis InhibitorsAntibodies, MonoclonalErbB ReceptorsReceptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth FactorVascular Endothelial Growth Factor A

Identifiers

PMID25072258
PMCPMC4453848
OpenAlexW2017726508

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.