ArticleAmerican journal of cancer research2017
Erlotinib in combination with bevacizumab and FOLFOX4 as second-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.
Article in American journal of cancer research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Second-line systemic treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis based on RCT.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Clinical outcomes of chemotherapy-based therapies for previously treated advanced colorectal cancer: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2023Pooled it
- Bevacizumab and erlotinib versus bevacizumab for colorectal cancer treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2019Pooled it
- Advancements in Targeted Therapies for Colorectal Cancer: Overcoming Challenges and Exploring Future Directions.Cancers · 2025Review
- Multifaceted role of erlotinib in various cancer: nanotechnology intervention, patent landscape, and advancements in clinical trials.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2024Review
- The potential of monoclonal antibodies for colorectal cancer therapy.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2023Review
- Systems-level biomarkers identification and drug repositioning in colorectal cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2021Review
- An EGFR signature predicts cell line and patient sensitivity to multiple tyrosine kinase inhibitors.International journal of cancer · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe conducted a phase II study by combining FOLFOX4 plus bevacizumab (BV) with erlotinib (ER) as second-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).
methodsPatients were divided into two groups in randomized double-blind manner. One group was given FOLFOX4 plus 5 mg/kg BV on day 1 of 2-week cycle. The other group was given 2-week-cycle of BV + FOLFOX4, and 100 mg ER every day. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), clinical response rates and adverse events (AEs).
results66 patients received 2nd-line treatment of ER + BV+ FOLFOX4, and 65 received BV + FOLFOX4. Median PFS was 9.6 months of ER + BV + FOLFOX4 group, significantly better than 6.9 months of BV + FOLFOX4 group (
conclusionIn second-line chemotherapy for patients with mCRC, combining erlotinib with FOLFOX4 plus bevacizumab may improve PFS, clinical response rates, but not OS. AEs, though with high incidence rates, were generally tolerable among patients receiving multiple reagents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28979818PMC5622230What 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.