SynthesisMedicine2017
Efficacy and safety of FOLFIRI and biotherapy versus FOLFIRI alone for metastatic colorectal cancer patients: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Chemosensitivity of various peritoneal cancer cell lines to HIPEC and PIPAC: comparison of an experimental duplex drug to standard drug regimens in vitro.Investigational new drugs · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses have demonstrated the useless of FOLFIRI alone for previously treated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The role of FOLFIRI regimen combined with biological therapy is unknown. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combining biological therapy with chemotherapy in previously treated patients with mCRC.
methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched. Eligible studies were RCTs that evaluated the efficacy and safety of the FOLFIRI regimen with or without biological therapy for previously treated patients with mCRC. The hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval was estimated. The Chi-squared and I-squared tests were used to assess the statistical heterogeneity.
resultsThe literature search identified 7 RCTs that met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis, and 3680 patients with mCRC were included. The meta-analysis showed that combined therapy was associated with a significant improved progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.72-0.85, P < .001), overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.77-0.92, P < .001), and overall response rate (ORR) (RR = 1.70, 95% CI = 1.25-2.31, P = .001). Sensitivity analysis suggested that combined therapy versus FOLFIRI alone might increase the risk of Grade 3/4 AEs.
conclusionThe addition of biological therapy to the FOLFIRI regimen improved the PFS, OS, and ORR compared with FOLFIRI alone for previously treated patients with mCRC. Long-term survival outcomes are warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.