Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25268370›Full record

Trial reportBritish journal of cancer2014

Selecting first-line bevacizumab-containing therapy for advanced breast cancer: TURANDOT risk factor analyses.

T Brodowicz, I Lang, Z Kahan, R Greil, S Beslija, S M Stemmer, B Kaufman, L Petruzelka, A Eniu, R Anghel and 9 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in British journal of cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00600340 (A Randomized Phase III 2-arm Trial of Paclitaxel Plus Bevacizumab vs. Capecitabine Plus Bevacizumab for the First-line Treatment of Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2), which is not on this map. Cited by 15 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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.

NCT00600340 phase3completednot on this map

A Randomized Phase III 2-arm Trial of Paclitaxel Plus Bevacizumab vs. Capecitabine Plus Bevacizumab for the First-line Treatment of Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2)-Negative Locally Recurrent or Metastatic Breast Cancer

TypeinterventionalSponsorCentral European Cooperative Oncology GroupRan2008 to 2014Enrolled564ConditionsMetastatic Breast CancerArmsBevacizumab and Paclitaxel, Bevacizumab and Capecitabine
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

19 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

T BrodowiczClinical Division of Oncology and Department of Medicine I, Medical University of Vienna and CECOG, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, A-1090 Vienna, Austria.
I LangRáth György u. 7-9, National Institute of Oncology, H-1122 Budapest, Hungary.
Z KahanDepartment of Oncotherapy, University of Szeged, H-6720 Szeged, Korányi fasor 12, H-6720 Szeged, Hungary.
R GreilIIIrd Medical Department, Paracelsus Medical University Hospital Salzburg and AGMT, Salzburg, Austria.
S BeslijaInstitute of Oncology, Clinical Center, University of Sarajevo, Bolnicka 27, 71000 Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
S M StemmerDavidoff Center, Rabin Medical Center, Kaplan Street, Petah Tiqwa 49100, Israel.
B KaufmanBreast Oncology Institute, Sheba Medical Center, 52621 Tel Hashomer, Ramat-Gan, Israel.
L PetruzelkaDepartment of Oncology, First Faculty of Medicine and General Teaching Hospital, Charles University Prague, U Nemocnice 2, 128 08 Prague 2, Czech Republic.
A EniuDepartment of Breast Tumors, Cancer Institute Ion Chiricuţă, Republicii 34-36, 400015 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
R AnghelUniversity of Medicine and Pharmacy Bucharest, Soseaua Fundeni, Nr 252, Sector 2, Bucharest 022328, Romania.
K KoynovDepartment of Medical Oncology, Hospital Serdika, 6 Damyan Gruev street, 1303 Sofia, Bulgaria.
D VrbanecDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Hospital Zagreb-Rebro, Medical University of Zagreb, Kispaticeva 12, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia.
T PienkowskiOncology Department, European Health Centre Otwock, ul. Borowa 14/18, 04-500 Otwock, Poland.
B MelicharDepartment of Oncology, Palacký University Medical School, I. P. Pavlova 6, 775 20 Olomouc, Czech Republic.
S SpanikSt Elisabeth Cancer Institute, Heydukova 10, 812 50 Bratislava, Slovak Republic.
S AhlersBiometrics, IST GmbH, Soldnerstrasse 1, 68219 Mannheim, Germany.
D MessingerBiometrics, IST GmbH, Soldnerstrasse 1, 68219 Mannheim, Germany.
M J InbarOncology Division, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, 6 Weizman Street, Tel Aviv 64239, Israel.
C ZielinskiClinical Division of Oncology and Department of Medicine I, Medical University of Vienna and CECOG, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, A-1090 Vienna, Austria.
Paracelsus Medical University · ATTel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center · IL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe randomised phase III TURANDOT trial compared first-line bevacizumab-paclitaxel (BEV-PAC) vs bevacizumab-capecitabine (BEV-CAP) in HER2-negative locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer (LR/mBC). The interim analysis revealed no difference in overall survival (OS; primary end point) between treatment arms; however, progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate were significantly superior with BEV-PAC. We sought to identify patient populations that may be most appropriately treated with one or other regimen.

methodsPatients with HER2-negative LR/mBC who had received no prior chemotherapy for advanced disease were randomised to either BEV-PAC (bevacizumab 10 mg kg(-1) days 1 and 15 plus paclitaxel 90 mg m(-2) days 1, 8 and 15 q4w) or BEV-CAP (bevacizumab 15 mg kg(-1) day 1 plus capecitabine 1000 mg m(-2) bid days 1-14 q3w). The study population was categorised into three cohorts: triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), high-risk hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and low-risk HR+. High- and low-risk HR+ were defined, respectively, as having ⩾2 vs ⩽1 of the following four risk factors: disease-free interval ⩽24 months; visceral metastases; prior (neo)adjuvant anthracycline and/or taxane; and metastases in ⩾3 organs.

resultsThe treatment effect on OS differed between cohorts. Non-significant OS trends favoured BEV-PAC in the TNBC cohort and BEV-CAP in the low-risk HR+ cohort. In all three cohorts, there was a non-significant PFS trend favouring BEV-PAC. Grade ⩾3 adverse events were consistently less common with BEV-CAP.

conclusionsA simple risk factor index may help in selecting bevacizumab-containing regimens, balancing outcome, safety profile and patient preference. Final OS results are expected in 2015 (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00600340).

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBevacizumabBreast NeoplasmsDisease-Free SurvivalErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedRisk FactorsAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedBevacizumabERBB2 protein, humanErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine Kinases

Identifiers

PMID25268370
PMCPMC4260030
OpenAlexW1964814702

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

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.