Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28128439›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2017

Second-line systemic therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer.

Simone Mocellin, Zora Baretta, Marta Roqué I Figuls, Ivan Solà, Marta Martin-Richard, Sara Hallum, Xavier Bonfill Cosp

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Budget impact analysis of bevacizumab biosimilars for cancer treatment in adult patients in Spain.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Simone MocellinDepartment of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padova, Via Giustiniani 2, Padova, Veneto, Italy, 35128.
Zora BarettaU.O.C. di Oncologia ULSS5 Ovest Vicentino, Ospedale di Montecchio, Montecchio Maggiore, Vicenza, Italy.
Marta Roqué I FigulsIberoamerican Cochrane Centre - Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Sant Antoni Maria Claret 171, Edifici Casa de Convalescència, Barcelona, Catalunya, Spain, 08041.
Ivan SolàIberoamerican Cochrane Centre - Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP) - Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Sant Antoni Maria Claret 167, Pavilion 18, Barcelona, Catalunya, Spain, 08025.
Marta Martin-RichardClinical Oncology, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Sant Antoni Maria Claret 167, Barcelona, Spain, 08025.
Sara HallumCochrane Colorectal Cancer Group, Cochrane, 23 Bispebjerg Bakke, Copenhagen, Denmark, DK 2400 NV.
Xavier Bonfill CospIberoamerican Cochrane Centre - Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Sant Antoni Maria Claret 171, Edifici Casa de Convalescència, Barcelona, Catalunya, Spain, 08041.
Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre · ESCochrane · DKHospital de Sant Pau · ESIstituto Oncologico Veneto · ITUniversitat Autònoma de Barcelona · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe therapeutic management of people with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) who did not respond to first-line treatment represents a formidable challenge.

objectivesTo determine the efficacy and toxicity of second-line systemic therapy in people with metastatic CRC. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 4), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to May 2016), Ovid MEDLINE In-process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (1946 to May 2016) and Ovid Embase (1974 to May 2016). There were no language or date of publication restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy (survival, tumour response) and toxicity (incidence of severe adverse effects (SAEs)) of second-line systemic therapy (single or combined treatment with any anticancer drug, at any dose and number of cycles) in people with metastatic CRC that progressed, recurred or did not respond to first-line systemic therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Authors performed a descriptive analysis of each included RCT in terms of primary (survival) and secondary (tumour response, toxicity) endpoints. In the light of the variety of drug regimens tested in the included trials, we could carry out meta-analysis considering classes of (rather than single) anticancer regimens; to this aim, we applied the random-effects model to pool the data. We used hazard ratios (HRs) and risk ratios (RRs) to describe the strength of the association for survival (overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS)) and dichotomous (overall response rate (ORR) and SAE rate) data, respectively, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN

resultsThirty-four RCTs (enrolling 13,787 participants) fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Available evidence enabled us to address multiple clinical issues regarding the survival effects of second-line systemic therapy of people with metastatic CRC.1. Chemotherapy (irinotecan) was more effective than best supportive care (HR for OS: 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.80; 1 RCT; moderate-quality evidence); 2. modern chemotherapy (FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil plus leucovorin plus oxaliplatin), irinotecan) is more effective than outdated chemotherapy (5-fluorouracil) (HR for PFS: 0.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.73; 2 RCTs; high-quality evidence) (HR for OS: 0.69, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.94; 1 RCT; moderate-quality evidence); 3. irinotecan-based combinations were more effective than irinotecan alone (HR for PFS: 0.68, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.76; 6 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence); 4. targeted agents improved the efficacy of conventional chemotherapy both when considered together (HR for OS: 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.91; 6 RCTs; high-quality evidence) and when bevacizumab was used alone (HR for PFS: 0.67, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.75; 4 RCTs; high-quality evidence).With regard to secondary endpoints, tumour response rates generally paralleled the survival results; moreover, higher anticancer efficacy was generally associated with worse treatment-related toxicity, with the important exception of bevacizumab-containing regimens, where the addition of the targeted agent to chemotherapy did not result in a significant increase in the rate of SAE. Finally, we found that oral (instead of intravenous) fluoropyrimidines significantly reduced the incidence of adverse effects (without compromising efficacy) in people treated with oxaliplatin-based regimens.We could not draw any conclusions on other debated aspects in this field of oncology, such as ranking of treatments (not all possible comparisons have been tested and many comparisons were based on single trials enrolling a small number of participants) and quality of life (virtually no data available). AUTHORS'

conclusionsSystemic therapy offers a survival benefit to people with metastatic CRC who did not respond to first-line treatment, especially when targeted agents are combined with conventional chemotherapeutic drugs. Further research is needed to define the optimal regimen and to identify people who most benefit from each treatment.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBevacizumabCamptothecinColorectal NeoplasmsFluorouracilHumansIrinotecanLeucovorinOrganoplatinum CompoundsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurvival RateAntineoplastic AgentsBevacizumabCamptothecinFluorouracilIrinotecanLeucovorinOrganoplatinum Compounds

Identifiers

PMID28128439
PMCPMC6464923
OpenAlexW2581234086

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.