Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28002313›Full record

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.

Long Bai, Feng Wang, Zhe-Zhen Li, Chao Ren, Dong-Sheng Zhang, Qi Zhao, Yun-Xin Lu, De-Shen Wang, Huai-Qiang Ju, Miao-Zhen Qiu and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
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

13 authors at 1 institution in 5 countries.

Long BaiDepartment of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou State Key Laboratory of Biocontrol, School of Life Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Feng Wang
Zhe-Zhen Li
Chao Ren
Dong-Sheng Zhang
Qi Zhao
Yun-Xin Lu
De-Shen Wang
Huai-Qiang Ju
Miao-Zhen Qiu
Zhi-Qiang Wang
Feng-Hua Wang
Rui-Hua Xu
National Natural Science Foundation of China · CN

Funding

Ethanol induced brain injury is decreased by inhibiting TIEG2 mediated cell deathR01AA020103 · NIAAA · UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI MED CTR · PI WANG, JUNMING · 2011 to 2014
$1.4M
NIAAA NIH HHS R01 AA020103
6 · The paper itself

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

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAngiogenesis InhibitorsAntineoplastic AgentsAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBevacizumabCetuximabColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRegistriesTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultAngiogenesis InhibitorsAntineoplastic AgentsBevacizumabCetuximab

Identifiers

PMID28002313
PMCPMC5181797
OpenAlexW2565906986

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.