SynthesisScientific reports2018
Chemotherapy plus Panitumumab Versus Chemotherapy plus Bevacizumab in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2018. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Is metastasectomy a worthy option?-the role of surgery in metastatic colon cancer to liver and lungs.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Panitumumab and bevacizumab have been widely used in combination with chemotherapy for patients with wild type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Whether panitumumab or bevacizumab was the optimal option remained controversial. Thus, we conducted a meta-anaylsis to evaluate chemotherapy plus panitumumab (C + P) versus chemotherapy plus bevacizumab (C + B) in wild type RAS mCRC. Electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, were searched. This meta-analysis estimated the progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR) and adverse events (AEs). Three randomized controlled trials with a total number of 577 patients were included. In wild type RAS population, PFS [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.76 to 1.15] and OS (HR = 0.90; 95% CI, 0.54 to 1.27) and ORR [relative ratio (RR) = 2.06; 95% CI, 0.86 to 4.90] appeared similar between the two treatments, the incidence of AEs slightly increased (RR = 1.16; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.26). In conclusion, there was insufficient evidence to precisely conclude that combination treatment of C + P had an improved efficacy compared with C + B. Further large-scale and better-designed clinical trials are still needed to evaluate the combination treatment of C + P in patients with wild type RAS mCRC.
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.