Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26474517›Full record

Trial reportThe Lancet. Oncology2015

Cediranib combined with carboplatin and paclitaxel in patients with metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer (CIRCCa): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial.

R Paul Symonds, Charlie Gourley, Susan Davidson, Karen Carty, Elaine McCartney, Debbie Rai, Susana Banerjee, David Jackson, Rosemary Lord, Mary McCormack and 8 more

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Lancet. Oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Advances in cervical cancer: current insights and future directions.Cancer communications (London, England) · 2025
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

R Paul SymondsDepartment of Cancer Studies, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK. Electronic address: rps8@le.ac.uk.
Charlie GourleyUniversity of Edinburgh Cancer Research UK Centre, MRC IGMM, Edinburgh, UK.
Susan DavidsonThe Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Karen CartyCancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Cancer Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Elaine McCartneyCancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Cancer Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Debbie RaiCancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Cancer Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Susana BanerjeeGynaecology Unit, Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
David JacksonInstitute of Oncology, Leeds Cancer Centre, St James's University Hospital, Leeds UK.
Rosemary LordClatterbridge Centre for Oncology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Mary McCormackOncology Department, University College Hospital, London, UK.
Emma HudsonVelindre Hospital, Cardiff, UK.
Nicholas ReedBeatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Gartnavel General Hospital, Glasgow, UK.
Maxine FlubacherOncology Department, Poole Hospital, Dorset, UK.
Petra JankowskaMusgrove Park Hospital, Taunton and Somerset NHS Foundation Trust, Taunton, UK.
Melanie PowellSt Bartholomew's Hospital, London, UK.
Caroline DiveCancer Research UK Manchester Institute, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Catharine M L WestInstitute of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
James PaulCancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Cancer Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 19278Chief Scientist Office SCD/11
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients treated with standard chemotherapy for metastatic or relapsed cervical cancer respond poorly to conventional chemotherapy (response achieved in 20-30% of patients) with an overall survival of less than 1 year. High tumour angiogenesis and high concentrations of intratumoural VEGF are adverse prognostic features. Cediranib is a potent tyrosine kinase inhibitor of VEGFR1, 2, and 3. In this trial, we aimed to assess the effect of the addition of cediranib to carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy in patients with metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer.

methodsIn this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial, which was done in 17 UK cancer treatment centres, patients aged 18 years or older initially diagnosed with metastatic carcinoma or who subsequently developed metastatic disease or local pelvic recurrence after radical treatment that was not amenable to exenterative surgery were recruited. Eligible patients received carboplatin AUC of 5 plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) by infusion every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles and were randomised centrally (1:1) through a minimisation approach to receive cediranib 20 mg or placebo orally once daily until disease progression. The stratification factors were disease site, disease-free survival after primary therapy or primary stage IVb disease, number of lines of previous treatment, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and investigational site. All patients, investigators, and trial personnel were masked to study drug allocation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Efficacy analysis was by intention to treat, and the safety analysis included all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with the ISCRTN registry, number ISRCTN23516549, and has been completed.

findingsBetween Aug 19, 2010, and July 27, 2012, 69 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to cediranib (n=34) or placebo (n=35). After a median follow-up of 24·2 months (IQR 21·9-29·5), progression-free survival was longer in the cediranib group (median 8·1 months [80% CI 7·4-8·8]) than in the placebo group (6·7 months [6·2-7·2]), with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·58 (80% CI 0·40-0·85; one-sided p=0·032). Grade 3 or worse adverse events that occurred in the concurrent chemotherapy and trial drug period in more than 10% of patients were diarrhoea (five [16%] of 32 patients in the cediranib group vs one [3%] of 35 patients in the placebo group), fatigue (four [13%] vs two [6%]), leucopenia (five [16%] vs three [9%]), neutropenia (10 [31%] vs four [11%]), and febrile neutropenia (five [16%] vs none). The incidence of grade 2-3 hypertension was higher in the cediranib group than in the control group (11 [34%] vs four [11%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 18 patients in the placebo group and 19 patients in the cediranib group.

interpretationCediranib has significant efficacy when added to carboplatin and paclitaxel in the treatment of metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer. This finding was accompanied by an increase in toxic effects (mainly diarrhoea, hypertension, and febrile neutropenia).

fundingCancer Research UK and AstraZeneca.

Indexed as

AdultAntineoplastic AgentsAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCarboplatinDisease-Free SurvivalDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansIndolesMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPaclitaxelQuinazolinesUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAntineoplastic AgentsCarboplatincediranibIndolesPaclitaxelQuinazolines

Identifiers

PMID26474517
PMCPMC4705431

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.