Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26215044›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Clinical oncology2015

First-line chemotherapy for mCRC—a review and evidence-based algorithm.

Chiara Cremolini, Marta Schirripa, Carlotta Antoniotti, Roberto Moretto, Lisa Salvatore, Gianluca Masi, Alfredo Falcone, Fotios Loupakis

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Clinical oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 94 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
94citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

94 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 162 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

34 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Chiara CremoliniUnit of Medical Oncology 2, Azienda Ospedaliera-Universitaria Pisana, Via Roma 67, 56126 Pisa, Italy.
Marta SchirripaUnit of Medical Oncology 2, Azienda Ospedaliera-Universitaria Pisana, Via Roma 67, 56126 Pisa, Italy.
Carlotta AntoniottiUnit of Medical Oncology 2, Azienda Ospedaliera-Universitaria Pisana, Via Roma 67, 56126 Pisa, Italy.
Roberto MorettoUnit of Medical Oncology 2, Azienda Ospedaliera-Universitaria Pisana, Via Roma 67, 56126 Pisa, Italy.
Lisa SalvatoreUnit of Medical Oncology 2, Azienda Ospedaliera-Universitaria Pisana, Via Roma 67, 56126 Pisa, Italy.
Gianluca MasiUnit of Medical Oncology 2, Azienda Ospedaliera-Universitaria Pisana, Via Roma 67, 56126 Pisa, Italy.
Alfredo FalconeUnit of Medical Oncology 2, Azienda Ospedaliera-Universitaria Pisana, Via Roma 67, 56126 Pisa, Italy.
Fotios LoupakisUnit of Medical Oncology 2, Azienda Ospedaliera-Universitaria Pisana, Via Roma 67, 56126 Pisa, Italy.
Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Pisana · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The response to first-line therapy is a primary determinant of outcome in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), for three main reasons: effective upfront therapy provides a unique opportunity to cure some patients; can be crucial in delaying disease progression and achieving symptom relief; and can improve patient eligibility for, and the effectiveness of, further treatments. In the past decade, decision-making regarding the choice of first-line therapy for mCRC has been complicated by the availability of many different options without a definitive consensus on a specific standard of care (despite major advances in categorizing predictive molecular disease subtypes). Most of the efforts of the scientific community have been directed at establishing the best biologic agent to be combined with a chemotherapy doublet, although a different branch of research has produced new data that underscore the importance of defining the optimal chemotherapy backbone. Herein, we review the key clinical trials completed in the past 10 years that have investigated and compared the use of chemotherapy doublets, triplets, and monotherapies, with or without molecularly targeted biologic agents, in the first-line treatment of patients with mCRC. Our examination of the literature led us to propose a new patient-oriented algorithm to guide clinicians' decisions on the best choice of upfront therapy for mCRC.

Indexed as

Decision MakingAlgorithmsAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsColorectal NeoplasmsHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurvival Analysis

Identifiers

PMID26215044
OpenAlexW1018331845

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.