Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29123255›Full record

Trial reportBritish journal of cancer2017

Clinicopathological factors influencing outcome in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with fluoropyrimidine and bevacizumab maintenance treatment vs observation: an individual patient data meta-analysis of two phase 3 trials.

Kaitlyn K H Goey, Sjoerd G Elias, Axel Hinke, Martijn G H van Oijen, Cornelis J A Punt, Susanna Hegewisch-Becker, Dirk Arnold, Miriam Koopman

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

Trial report in British journal of cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Kaitlyn K H GoeyDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, 3508 GA Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, The Netherlands.
Sjoerd G EliasDepartment of Epidemiology, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, 3508 GA Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, The Netherlands.
Axel HinkeCancer Clinical Research Consulting (CCRC), Düsseldorf D-40595, Germany.
Martijn G H van OijenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, 1100 DD Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22600, The Netherlands.
Cornelis J A PuntDepartment of Medical Oncology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, 1100 DD Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22600, The Netherlands.
Susanna Hegewisch-BeckerHämatologisch-Onkologische Praxis Eppendorf - Practice for Oncology, Hamburg D-20249, Germany.
Dirk ArnoldInstituto CUF de Oncologia, Lisbon 1998-018, Portugal.
Miriam KoopmanDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, 3508 GA Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, The Netherlands.
University Medical Center Utrecht · NLAcademic Medical Center · NLCUF Porto Hospital · PTEppendorf (Germany) · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe CAIRO3 and AIO 0207 trials demonstrated the efficacy of fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab (FP+Bev) maintenance treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. In this individual patient data meta-analysis with updated follow-up, we aim to provide more precise estimates of treatment effects and to identify subgroups that benefit most from maintenance treatment or observation.

methodsIn 871 patients, randomised to FP+Bev maintenance treatment or observation, we investigated whether treatment effect was modified by sex, age, performance status, response to induction treatment, primary tumour location, number of metastatic sites, disease stage and primary tumour resection, serum LDH, platelet count, CEA, and RAS/BRAF mutation status. Primary end point was time to second progression after reintroduction of the induction regimen (PFS2). Secondary end points were first progression-free survival (PFS1) and overall survival (OS).

resultsAt a median follow-up of 68.5 months (IQR 54.6-87.0 months), maintenance treatment was more effective compared with observation in PFS1 (HR 0.40(95% CI 0.34-0.47)) and PFS2 (HR 0.70(0.60-0.81)). No subgroups were identified that did not benefit from maintenance treatment in PFS1 and PFS2; no clinically relevant subgroup effects were observed. Regarding OS, pooled results were not significant (HR 0.91(0.78-1.05)), and the trials showed marked heterogeneity in overall treatment effect and subgroup effects.

conclusionsFP+Bev maintenance treatment is effective in all patients, regardless of the investigated subgroups.

Indexed as

Watchful WaitingAdenocarcinomaAgedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBevacizumabCapecitabineColorectal NeoplasmsDisease-Free SurvivalDisease ProgressionFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaintenance ChemotherapyMaleMeta-Analysis as TopicResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid TumorsBevacizumabCapecitabine

Identifiers

PMID29123255
PMCPMC5729483
OpenAlexW2767506160

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.