SynthesisBMC cancer2019
First-line cetuximab versus bevacizumab for RAS and BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effectiveness and safety of bevacizumab versus cetuximab in the treatment of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2022Pooled it
- Switching from FOLFIRI plus cetuximab to FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab based on early tumor shrinkage in RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: A phase II trial (HYBRID).Cancer medicine · 2024Trial
- Quantitative dot blot method for measuring EGFR protein levels in patients with colorectal cancer.Biochemistry and biophysics reports · 2026Article
- Multiparatopic antibodies overcome tyrosine kinase inhibitor resistance by inducing lysosomal degradation of EGFR mutants.Oncogene · 2026Article
- TNF-α x FcαRI bi-specific antibody potentiates neutrophil-mediated anti-tumor effects.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- From bench to bedside: Advancements in patient-derived xenografts for predicting therapy outcomes in colorectal cancer.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Article
- Impact on survival benefits of asymptomatic primary tumor resection after bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI as first-line therapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with synchronous unresectable metastasis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2024Article
- Colorectal Cancer: Genetic Underpinning and Molecular Therapeutics for Precision Medicine.Genes · 2024Review
- The potential of monoclonal antibodies for colorectal cancer therapy.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2023Review
- Cetuximab as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): a model-based economic evaluation in Indonesia setting.BMC cancer · 2023Article
- Systemic treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer.World journal of gastroenterology · 2023Review
- Real-World Utilization, Barriers, and Factors Associated With the Targeted Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients in China: A Multi-Center, Hospital-Based Survey Study.International journal of public health · 2023Article
- Tolerability on Serious Adverse Events of First-Line Bevacizumab and Cetuximab for RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Prognostic Factors of Survival with Aflibercept and FOLFIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan) as Second-line Therapy for Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.Journal of Cancer · 2021Article
- Continuing CetuximabJournal of Cancer · 2021Article
- Current Targeted Therapies for the Fight against Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Cost-effectiveness of FOLFOX6+Bevacizumab Versus FOLFOX6+Cetuximab in Stage IV Colorectal Cancer Patients in Shiraz, Iran.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA first-line biologic treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is still controversial. We, therefore, performed a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of first-line cetuximab versus bevacizumab for RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC.
methodsIn March 2018, an electronic search of the following biomedical databases was performed: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and Web of Knowledge. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective or observational cohort studies (OCSs) were included. Subgroup analyses of all RCTs were performed in all outcomes. All statistical analyses were performed using RevMan software 5.3.
resultsTwo RCTs and three OCSs, involving a total 2576 patients, were included. The meta-analysis reported that cetuximab was associated with a longer overall survival (OS) [HR 0.89, 95% CI (0.81-0.98); p = 0.02], a higher ORR [RR 1.11, 95% CI (1.03-1.19); p = 0.006], higher complete response [RR 3.21, 95% CI (1.27-8.12); p = 0.01] and a greater median depth of response than bevacizumab. However, no significant difference was observed between cetuximab and bevacizumab groups for PFS, DCR, partial response, progressive disease, curative intent metastasectomy, EORR and incidence of grade 3 or higher adverse events. In the subgroup meta-analyses of the RCTs, inconsistent results compared to the main analysis, however, were found, in the ORR, DCR and curative intent metastasectomy.
conclusionsThe current evidence indicates that compared to bevacizumab treatment, cetuximab provides a clinically relevant effect in first-line treatment against mCRC, at the cost of having lower stable disease.
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.