Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25785004›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2015

The efficacy and safety of adding bevacizumab to cetuximab- or panitumumab-based therapy in the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): a meta-analysis from randomized control trials.

Yingqian Lv, Zixin Yang, Li Zhao, Shan Zhao, Jinzhu Han, Likang Zheng

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Clinical Perspectives on Targeting Therapies for Personalized Medicine.Advances in protein chemistry and structural biology · 2016
    Review
  5. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yingqian LvDepartment of Oncology, The Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University Shijiazhuang 050000, Hebei, China.
Zixin YangDepartment of Oncology, The Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University Shijiazhuang 050000, Hebei, China.
Li ZhaoDepartment of Oncology, The Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University Shijiazhuang 050000, Hebei, China.
Shan ZhaoDepartment of Oncology, The Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University Shijiazhuang 050000, Hebei, China.
Jinzhu HanDepartment of Oncology, The Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University Shijiazhuang 050000, Hebei, China.
Likang ZhengDepartment of Oncology, The Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University Shijiazhuang 050000, Hebei, China.
Hebei Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo estimate the efficacy and safety of adding bevacizumab to cetuximab- or panitumumab-based therapy in the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), using a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

methodsA literature search for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) was performed through Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science (up to May 22, 2014). The outcome measures were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events. Two investigators identified eligible studies and extracted data independently. The quality of the included studies was assessed by the Jadad score. Hazard ratios (HR), risk ratio (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (Cls) were calculated and pooled.

resultsA total of 4 RCTs with 2069 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The addition of bevacizumab to cetuximab- or panitumumab-based therapy did not significantly prolonged PFS, when compared with antibody alone. The subgroup analysis of adding bevacizumab to cetuximab-based therapy also suggested no significant benefit in PFS or in OS. Patients who received the combined therapy did not have a higher ORR (RR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.89-1.07; P = 0.608). The incidence of grade 3/4 adverse events was not significantly higher in the bevacizumab and cetuximab/panitumumab group.

conclusionThe addition of bevacizumab to cetuximab- or panitumumab-based therapy did not improve PFS and OS resulting in better ORR. Thus, the combined therapy of bevacizumab with cetuximab or panitumumab is not recommended for the treatment of mCRC. However, larger scale RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.

Indexed as

bevacizumabcetuximabEGFRmeta-analysisOlorectal cancerpanitumumabVEGF

Identifiers

PMID25785004
PMCPMC4358459
OpenAlexW165947553

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.