SynthesisPloS one2014
PCR-based assays versus direct sequencing for evaluating the effect of KRAS status on anti-EGFR treatment response in colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Colorectal Cancer Prognosis is Not Associated with BRAF and KRAS Mutations-A STROBE Compliant Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Article
- Current companion diagnostics in advanced colorectal cancer; getting a bigger and better piece of the pie.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe survival rate of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients carrying wild-type KRAS is significantly increased by combining anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody (mAb) with standard chemotherapy. However, conflicting data exist in both the wild-type KRAS and mutant KRAS groups, which strongly challenge CRC anti-EGFR treatment. Here we conducted a meta-analysis in an effort to provide more reliable information regarding anti-EGFR treatment in CRC patients.
methodsWe searched full reports of randomized clinical trials using Medline, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO). Two investigators independently screened the published literature according to our inclusive and exclusive criteria and the relative data were extracted. We used Review Manager 5.2 software to analyze the data.
resultsThe addition of anti-EGFR mAb to standard chemotherapy significantly improved both progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (mOS) in the wild-type KRAS group; hazard ratios (HRs) for PFS and mOS were 0.70 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.58-0.84] and 0.83 [95% CI, 0.75-0.91], respectively. In sub-analyses of the wild-type KRAS group, when PCR-based assays are employed, PFS and mOS notably increase: the HRs were 0.74 [95% CI, 0.62-0.88] and 0.87 [95% CI, 0.78-0.96], respectively. In sub-analyses of the mutant KRAS group, neither PCR-based assays nor direct sequencing enhance PFS or mOS.
conclusionOur data suggest that PCR-based assays with high sensitivity and specificity allow accurate identification of patients with wild-type KRAS and thus increase PFS and mOS. Furthermore, such assays liberate patients with mutant KRAS from unnecessary drug side effects, and provide them an opportunity to receive appropriate treatment. Thus, establishing a precise standard reference test will substantially optimize CRC-targeted therapies.
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.