Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31147489›Full record

Observational studyThe oncologist2019

Prognostic Nomogram and Patterns of Use of FOLFIRI-Aflibercept in Advanced Colorectal Cancer: A Real-World Data Analysis.

Ana Fernández Montes, Carlos López López, Guillem Argilés Martínez, David Páez López, Ana María López Muñoz, Beatriz García Paredes, David Gutiérrez Abad, Carmen Castañón López, Paula Jiménez Fonseca, Javier Gallego Plazas and 8 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in The oncologist, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Update on the management of elderly patients with colorectal cancer.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2024
    Article
  3. Trends of incidence and prognosis of upper tract urothelial carcinoma.Bosnian journal of basic medical sciences · 2021
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

18 authors.

Ana Fernández MontesMedical Oncology Department, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Ourense, Ourense, Spain afm1003@hotmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-4630-5830
Carlos López LópezMedical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, Santander, Spain.
Guillem Argilés MartínezMedical Oncology Department, Hospital Vall d'Hebrón, Barcelona, Spain.
David Páez LópezMedical Oncology Department, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain.
Ana María López MuñozMedical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario de Burgos, Burgos, Spain.
Beatriz García ParedesMedical Oncology Department, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain.
David Gutiérrez AbadMedical Oncology Department, Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain.
Carmen Castañón LópezMedical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario de León, León, Spain.
Paula Jiménez FonsecaMedical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain.
Javier Gallego PlazasMedical Oncology Department, Hospital General Universitario de Elche, Elche, Spain.
María Carmen López DoldánMedical Oncology Department, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Ourense, Ourense, Spain.
Eva Martínez de CastroMedical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, Santander, Spain.
Manuel Sánchez CánovasHematology and Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario Morales Meseguer, Universidad de Murcia (UMU), Instituto Murciano de Investigación Biosanitaria (IMIB), Murcia, Spain.
María Tobeña PuyalMedical Oncology Department, Hospital Vall d'Hebrón, Barcelona, Spain.
Beatriz Llorente AyalaMedical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario de Burgos, Burgos, Spain.
Ignacio Juez MartelMedical Oncology Department, Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain.
Mariana López FloresMedical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario de León, León, Spain.
Alberto Carmona-BayonasHematology and Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario Morales Meseguer, Universidad de Murcia (UMU), Instituto Murciano de Investigación Biosanitaria (IMIB), Murcia, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe VELOUR study evaluated the efficacy and safety of adding aflibercept to FOLFIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan) in second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, a nomogram that can stratify patients according to prognosis is unavailable, and the frequency and effect of the pragmatic use of modified schedules in actual practice remains unknown.

methodThe sample consists of 250 patients with mCRC treated with aflibercept and irinotecan-based chemotherapy at nine Spanish academic centers between January 2013 and September 2015. The result of a Cox proportional hazards model regression for overall survival (OS), adjusted for covariates available in daily practice, was represented as a nomogram and web-based calculator. Harrell's c-index was used to assess discrimination.

resultsThe prognostic nomogram for OS includes six variables: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, tumor location, number of metastatic sites, mutational status, better response to previous treatment(s), and carcinoembryonic antigen. The model is well calibrated and has acceptable discriminatory capacity (optimism-corrected c-index, 0.723; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.666-0.778). Median OS was 6.1 months (95% CI, 5.1-8.8), 12.4 months (95% CI, 9.36-14.8), and 22.9 months (95% CI, 16.6-not reached) for high-, intermediate-, and low-risk groups, respectively. Age, comorbidity, or use of modified FOLFIRI regimens did not affect prognosis in this series. Grade 3-4 adverse events were less common following modified schedules. The admission rate because of toxicity was higher in ≥65 years (9.7% vs. 19.6%; odds ratio, 2.26;

conclusionWe have developed and internally validated a prognostic model for use in individuals with colorectal cancer initiating therapy with FOLFIRI-aflibercept to predict both OS and the effect of pragmatic modifications of the classic regime on efficacy and safety. This can aid in decision making and in designing future trials. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: In this study, the authors developed and conducted the internal validation of a prognostic nomogram that makes it possible to stratify patients who are eligible for second-line FOLFIRI-aflibercept based on their probability of survival. This model was developed in a multicenter sample from nine Spanish hospitals. Furthermore, to increase the study's validity, the practical use of aflibercept in this setting was investigated, including doses or pragmatic modifications. The results suggest that the modified schedules often used in this daily clinical practice-based patient population are associated with less severe toxicity without apparent detriment to survival endpoints. It is believed that these data complement the information provided by the VELOUR trial and are relevant for the oncologist in treating colon cancer in the second-line setting.

Indexed as

NomogramsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCamptothecinColorectal NeoplasmsData AnalysisFemaleFluorouracilHumansIrinotecanLeucovorinMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisafliberceptCamptothecinFluorouracilIrinotecanLeucovorinReceptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth FactorRecombinant Fusion ProteinsAfliberceptAntiangiogenicColorectal cancerNomogramPrognosisReal‐world dataSurvival

Identifiers

PMID31147489
PMCPMC6693717

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.