Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28790159›Full record

Trial reportGut2018

Functional imaging and circulating biomarkers of response to regorafenib in treatment-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer patients in a prospective phase II study.

Khurum Khan, Mihaela Rata, David Cunningham, Dow-Mu Koh, Nina Tunariu, Jens C Hahne, George Vlachogiannis, Somaieh Hedayat, Silvia Marchetti, Andrea Lampis and 22 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase II
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Gut, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Observational
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. DCE-MRI is more sensitive than IVIM-DWI for assessing anti-angiogenic treatment-induced changes in colorectal liver metastases.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2021
    Article
  20. 3D tumor angiogenesis models: recent advances and challenges.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2021
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

32 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Khurum KhanDepartment of Medicine, The Royal Marsden NHS Trust, London and Sutton, UK.
Mihaela RataDivision of Radiotherapy and Imaging, Cancer Research UK Imaging Centre,The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK.
David Cunningham *Department of Medicine, The Royal Marsden NHS Trust, London and Sutton, UK.
Dow-Mu KohDivision of Radiotherapy and Imaging, Cancer Research UK Imaging Centre,The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK.
Nina TunariuDivision of Radiotherapy and Imaging, Cancer Research UK Imaging Centre,The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK.
Jens C HahneDivision of Molecular Pathology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London and Sutton, UK.
George VlachogiannisDivision of Molecular Pathology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London and Sutton, UK.
Somaieh HedayatDivision of Molecular Pathology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London and Sutton, UK.
Silvia MarchettiDivision of Molecular Pathology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London and Sutton, UK.
Andrea LampisDivision of Molecular Pathology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London and Sutton, UK.
Mahnaz Darvish DamavandiDivision of Molecular Pathology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London and Sutton, UK.
Hazel LoteDepartment of Medicine, The Royal Marsden NHS Trust, London and Sutton, UK.
Isma RanaDepartment of Medicine, The Royal Marsden NHS Trust, London and Sutton, UK.
Anja WilliamsDepartment of Medicine, The Royal Marsden NHS Trust, London and Sutton, UK.
Suzanne A EcclesDivision of Cancer Therapeutics, The Institute of Cancer Research, London and Sutton, UK.
Elisa FontanaDepartment of Medicine, The Royal Marsden NHS Trust, London and Sutton, UK.
David CollinsDivision of Radiotherapy and Imaging, Cancer Research UK Imaging Centre,The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK.
Zakaria EltahirDepartment of Medicine, The Royal Marsden NHS Trust, London and Sutton, UK.
Sheela RaoDepartment of Medicine, The Royal Marsden NHS Trust, London and Sutton, UK.
David WatkinsDepartment of Medicine, The Royal Marsden NHS Trust, London and Sutton, UK.
Naureen StarlingDepartment of Medicine, The Royal Marsden NHS Trust, London and Sutton, UK.
Jan ThomasDepartment of Medicine, The Royal Marsden NHS Trust, London and Sutton, UK.
Eleftheria KalaitzakiDepartment of Medicine, The Royal Marsden NHS Trust, London and Sutton, UK.
Nicos FotiadisDivision of Radiotherapy and Imaging, Cancer Research UK Imaging Centre,The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK.
Ruwaida BegumDepartment of Medicine, The Royal Marsden NHS Trust, London and Sutton, UK.
Maria BaliDivision of Radiotherapy and Imaging, Cancer Research UK Imaging Centre,The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK.
Massimo RuggeDepartment of Medicine (DIMED) and Surgical Pathology, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Eleanor TempleDepartment of Medicine, The Royal Marsden NHS Trust, London and Sutton, UK.
Matteo FassanDepartment of Medicine (DIMED) and Surgical Pathology, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Ian ChauDepartment of Medicine, The Royal Marsden NHS Trust, London and Sutton, UK.
Chiara BraconiDepartment of Medicine, The Royal Marsden NHS Trust, London and Sutton, UK.
Nicola Valeri *Department of Medicine, The Royal Marsden NHS Trust, London and Sutton, UK.
Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust · GBInstitute of Cancer Research · GBCancer Research UK · GBUniversity of Padua · ITRoyal Marsden Hospital · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16464Cancer Research UK 18052
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveRegorafenib demonstrated efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Lack of predictive biomarkers, potential toxicities and cost-effectiveness concerns highlight the unmet need for better patient selection.

designPatients with

resultsTwenty-seven patients with paired DCE-MRI scans were analysed. Median KEF decrease was 58.2%. Of the 23 patients with outcome data, >70% drop in KEF (6/23) was associated with higher disease control rate (p=0.048) measured by RECIST V. 1.1 at 2 months, improved progression-free survival (PFS) (HR 0.16 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.72), p=0.02), 4-month PFS (66.7% vs 23.5%) and overall survival (OS) (HR 0.08 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.63), p=0.02). KEF drop correlated with CD-31 reduction in sequential tissue biopsies (p=0.04).

conclusionsCombining DCE-MRI and ctDNA predicts duration of anti-angiogenic response to regorafenib and may improve patient management with potential health/economic implications.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBiomarkersColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedPhenylurea CompoundsProspective StudiesPyridinesTreatment OutcomeBiomarkersPhenylurea CompoundsPyridinesregorafenibanti-angiogenic treatmentcancer therapeuticscolorectal cancerDCE-MRIliquid biopsyregorafenib

Identifiers

PMID28790159
PMCPMC6204951
OpenAlexW2734371126

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.