Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27154293›Full record

Trial reportJournal of translational medicine2016

GNAS mutations as prognostic biomarker in patients with relapsed peritoneal pseudomyxoma receiving metronomic capecitabine and bevacizumab: a clinical and translational study.

Filippo Pietrantonio, Rosa Berenato, Claudia Maggi, Marta Caporale, Massimo Milione, Federica Perrone, Elena Tamborini, Dario Baratti, Shigeki Kusamura, Luigi Mariani and 10 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of translational medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. GPharmacological reviews · 2021
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

20 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Filippo PietrantonioMedical Oncology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Via Venezian, 1, 20133, Milan, Italy. filippo.pietrantonio@istitutotumori.mi.it.
Rosa BerenatoMedical Oncology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Via Venezian, 1, 20133, Milan, Italy.
Claudia MaggiMedical Oncology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Via Venezian, 1, 20133, Milan, Italy.
Marta CaporaleMedical Oncology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Via Venezian, 1, 20133, Milan, Italy.
Massimo MilionePathology and Molecular Biology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
Federica PerronePathology and Molecular Biology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
Elena TamboriniPathology and Molecular Biology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
Dario BarattiSurgery Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
Shigeki KusamuraSurgery Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
Luigi MarianiUnit of Medical Statistics, Biometry and Bioinformatics, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milan, Italy.
Monica NigerMedical Oncology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Via Venezian, 1, 20133, Milan, Italy.
Alessia MennittoMedical Oncology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Via Venezian, 1, 20133, Milan, Italy.
Annunziata GloghiniPathology and Molecular Biology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
Ilaria BossiMedical Oncology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Via Venezian, 1, 20133, Milan, Italy.
Giulio SettanniPathology and Molecular Biology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
Adele BusicoPathology and Molecular Biology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
Pietro Francesco BagnoliDepartment of Cancer Surgery, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Milan, Rozzano, Italy.
Maria Di BartolomeoMedical Oncology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Via Venezian, 1, 20133, Milan, Italy.
Marcello DeracoSurgery Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
Filippo de BraudMedical Oncology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Via Venezian, 1, 20133, Milan, Italy.
Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori · ITHumanitas University · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is lack of evidence about systemic treatment of pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP) relapsing after cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. There is also lack of biomarkers able to predict outcomes beyond known clinical and pathological prognostic features.

methodsFifteen patients with relapsed PMP and progressive disease within the last 6 months were included and received metronomic capecitabine (625 mg/mq/day b.i.d.) and bevacizumab (7.5 mg/Kg three-weekly) until progressive disease/unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Ion Torrent(®) next generation sequencing technology (Hot-spot Cancer Panel) was used to characterize molecular features.

resultsAt a median follow up of 12 months, median PFS was 8.2 months and 1-year overall survival was 91 %. Partial responses were observed in 20 % of cases, but a significant reduction of tumor markers in up to 79 %. Treatment was very well tolerated without no new safety signals. All tumor samples except one had KRAS mutations. Patients with GNAS mutations had a significantly shorter median PFS as compared to GNAS wild-type ones (5.3 months vs. not reached; p < 0.007). The results were externally validated on our previous series of PMP patients. GNAS mutations were rare in a parallel cohort of 121 advanced colorectal cancers (2.5 %), but were associated with peculiar clinical-pathological features and aggressive course.

conclusionsMetronomic capecitabine and bevacizumab is an active and well tolerated option in patients with relapsed PMP. The negative prognostic effect of GNAS mutations in gastrointestinal cancers warrants further confirmatory studies and may prompt the development of effective targeted strategies.

Indexed as

Administration, MetronomicAgedBevacizumabBiomarkers, TumorCapecitabineChromograninsDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleGenome, HumanGTP-Binding Protein alpha Subunits, GsHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMiddle AgedMutationNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalBevacizumabBiomarkers, TumorCapecitabineChromograninsGNAS protein, humanGTP-Binding Protein alpha Subunits, GsAppendiceal cancerBevacizumabGNASMetronomic capecitabineNext-generation sequencingPeritoneal pseudomyxoma

Identifiers

PMID27154293
PMCPMC4859944
OpenAlexW2346712921

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.