Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28695301›Full record

SynthesisCancer metastasis reviews2017

Optimal use of anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies for patients with advanced colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis.

E J van Helden, C W Menke-van der Houven van Oordt, M W Heymans, J C F Ket, R van den Oord, H M W Verheul

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cancer metastasis reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Effect ofOncology letters · 2020
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Past, Present, and Future of Anticancer Nanomedicine.International journal of nanomedicine · 2020
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Receptor Tyrosine Kinase-Targeted Cancer Therapy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2018
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Clinical Safety of Combined Targeted andMedicines (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018
    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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

E J van HeldenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
C W Menke-van der Houven van OordtDepartment of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
M W HeymansDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J C F KetVU University, Medical Library, De Boelelaan 1117 (ZH3A-46), Postbus 7057, Amsterdam, 1081 HV, The Netherlands.
R van den OordDepartment of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
H M W VerheulDepartment of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. h.verheul@vumc.nl.
Amsterdam UMC Location VUmc · NL

Funding

KWF Kankerbestrijding 2012-5565
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This meta-analysis was performed to determine the optimal use of anti-EGFR mAb in the treatment of metastasized colorectal cancer (mCRC). Seventeen randomized clinical trials were included, all evaluating the added value of anti-EGFR mAb to standard treatment line in patients with KRAS wild-type mCRC. Hazard and odds ratios were pooled using a random effect model, weighted according to cohort size. Pooled data of six first- and two second-line studies demonstrated a significantly improved ORR (OR 1.62, CI 1.27-2.04; OR 4.78, CI 3.39-6.75, respectively) and PFS (HR 0.79, CI 0.67-0.94; HR 0.80, CI 0.71-0.91, respectively) with the addition of anti-EGFR mAb to chemotherapy, while OS remained similar. Two third-line anti-EGFR mAb monotherapy studies revealed an improved PFS and OS (HR 0.44, CI 0.35-0.52; HR 0.55, CI 0.41-0.74). Addition of anti-EGFR versus anti-VEGF mAb to first-line chemotherapy was evaluated in three studies; ORR and PFS were comparable, while OS was improved (HR 0.8, CI 0.65-0.97). The influence of the chemotherapy backbone on anti-EGFR mAb efficacy, evaluated with meta-regression, indicated a higher ORR with irinotecan-based versus oxaliplatin-based regimens, but comparable PFS and OS. Reported toxicity (≥3 grade) increased ~20% in all treatment lines with the addition of anti-EGFR mAb. Anti-EGFR treatment significantly improves response and survival outcome of patients with (K)RAS wild-type mCRC, regardless of treatment line or chemotherapeutic backbone. Saving anti-EGFR mAb as third-line monotherapy is a valid and effective option to prevent high treatment burden caused by combination therapy. Combination treatment with anti-EGFR mAb to achieve radical resection of metastases needs further investigation.

Indexed as

Antibodies, MonoclonalAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCetuximabColorectal NeoplasmsErbB ReceptorsHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAntibodies, MonoclonalCetuximabEGFR protein, humanErbB ReceptorsAnti-EGFR monoclonal antibodiesColorectal cancerMeta-analysisOverall survivalProgression-free survivalTreatment response

Identifiers

PMID28695301
PMCPMC5557867
OpenAlexW2735584398

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.