Observational studyMedicine2016
Chemotherapy plus bevacizumab versus chemotherapy plus cetuximab as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: Results of a registry-based cohort analysis.
Observational study in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- First-line cetuximab versus bevacizumab for RAS and BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cancer · 2019Pooled it
- Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Monoclonal Antibodies (Bevacizumab, Cetuximab, and Panitumumab) in Combination with Chemotherapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2018Pooled it
- Association between the overexpression of Her3 and clinical pathology and prognosis of colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis.Medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Bevacizumab-Based Therapy Is Associated with Prolonged Progression-Free Survival in Patients with Peritoneal Mucinous Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Peritoneal Metastasis: A Dilemma and Challenge in the Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.Cancers · 2023Review
- Tolerability on Serious Adverse Events of First-Line Bevacizumab and Cetuximab for RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Article
- Is there an efficacy-effectiveness gap between randomized controlled trials and real-world studies in colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Translational cancer research · 2020Article
- Increased Temperature Facilitates Adeno-Associated Virus Vector Transduction of Colorectal Cancer Cell Lines in a Manner Dependent on Heat Shock Protein Signature.BioMed research international · 2020Article
- Peritoneal dissemination of ascending colon cancer demonstrating relapse-free survival for 40 months with panitumumab monotherapy: A case report.International journal of surgery case reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 5 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The present observational cohort study was designed to elucidate the efficacy and safety profile of bevacizumab or cetuximab with chemotherapy as the first-line treatment in Chinese patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Clinical data were collected from a single-center registry study where mCRC patients received first-line fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy combined with either bevacizumab (188 patients with KRAS wild-type or mutated tumors) or cetuximab (101 patients with KRAS wild-type tumors) between January 2009 and December 2013. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis. Cox proportional hazards model was used for estimating the prognostic and predictive values of clinicopathological characteristics. No statistically significant difference was observed between the bevacizumab and cetuximab groups in terms of median progression-free survival (PFS) (10.6 vs 8.7 months, P = 0.317), median overall survival (OS) (27.7 vs 28.3 months, P = 0.525), or overall response rate (43.1% vs 53.5%, P = 0.108). For the subset of patients with peritoneal dissemination, bevacizumab-based triplet appears to be superior to cetuximab-based triplet as measured by PFS (9.6 vs 6.1 months) and OS (26.3 vs 12.7 months), but not for patients without peritoneal dissemination (PFS, 10.6 vs 9.1 months; OS, 27.9 vs 30.7 months) (all unadjusted and adjusted interaction P < 0.05). Our study suggests that bevacizumab- or cetuximab-based regimens have similar effectiveness as first-line treatment of mCRC in Chinese population. Patients with peritoneal dissemination were likely to gain more benefit from bevacizumab than cetuximab treatment. Future prospective studies are required to further confirm these results.
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.