ReviewDrugs2015
Maintenance therapy for colorectal cancer: which regimen and which patients?
Review in Drugs, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reprogramming the gastrointestinal microenvironment with intelligent biomaterials and digital medicine: a perspective on precision intervention for digestive diseases.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Targeting digestive system cancers with isoliquiritigenin: a comprehensive review of antitumor mechanisms.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
- Isoliquiritigenin Inhibits the Growth of Colorectal Cancer Cells through the ESR2/PI3K/AKT Signalling Pathway.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Retrospective analysis of colorectal cancer patients with metachronous initially unresectable liver metastases (and no other) achieving no evidence of disease after first-line comprehensive therapy: a multicenter real-world study.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The introduction of therapeutic agents such as irinotecan, oxaliplatin, and more recently biologic agents such as vascular endothelial growth factor and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors has significantly improved survival of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. These novel agents have also contributed to added toxicities. Therefore, several studies have evaluated the role of maintenance therapy with less intensive regimens in patients who experienced stable disease or treatment response following induction therapy as a strategy to reduce toxicity and improve quality of life. The success of such strategies, however, requires assurance that their survival would not be compromised. We therefore reviewed studies that have explored the various strategies of treatment de-escalation with an emphasis on survival and toxicity outcomes. Recent studies evaluated the role of maintenance therapy with chemotherapy only, chemotherapy plus bevcizumab, bevacizumab only, and EGFR inhibitors. Current evidence suggests that maintenance strategies offer significant benefit to patients by providing continuous clinical benefit while minimizing the risks associated with continuous therapy. Strategies to improve selection of patients for maintenance therapy versus identifying subgroups of patients that will benefit from a chemotherapy-free interval need to continue to be studied. Finally, as our understanding of the molecular and genetic drivers of colorectal cancer continues to expand, refining these strategies to include more target-specific agents should become more routine.
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.