SynthesisMedicine2020
Meta-analysis on the risk of fatal adverse events by bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab in 31 randomized trials including 25,000 patients with colorectal carcinoma.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2020. 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.
- 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
- Refractory hypokalemia caused by cetuximab with advanced colorectal cancer patients: the case series and literature review.Anti-cancer drugs · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTargeted drugs including bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab have been widely used during the management of patients diagnosed with colorectal carcinoma, especially as palliative treatment. The present meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the fatal adverse events (FAEs) of targeted drugs including bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab in patients with colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND
methodsStudies of prospective, randomized, and controlled feature from EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane Library, which reported FAEs potentially associated with bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab were adopted. Clinical characteristics and FAEs were collected from the enrolled literatures, with the quality of which been evaluated. Pooled analysis of FAEs, caused by each agent as first line, second/further line, and adjuvant treatment were performed with relative risks (RRs) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in software RevMan 5.3.
resultsThirty-one studies including 25,939 patients were brought into the final analysis. The RR and its 95% CI of the FAEs among all the agents including bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab was 1.07 (95% CI, 0.89-1.29; P = .50). The RRs and their 95% CIs of the FAEs as first line, second or further line, and adjuvant treatment related to bevacizumab were 0.91 (95% CI, 0.62-1.32; P = .61), 1.14 (95% CI, 0.57-2.28; P = .71), and 1.10 (95% CI, 0.67-1.79; P = .72). The RRs and their 95% CIs of the FAEs as first line, second or further line, and adjuvant treatment related to cetuximab were 1.02 (95% CI, 0.60-1.76; P = .93), 2.51 (95% CI, 0.49-12.88; P = .27), and 2.40 (95% CI, 1.00-5.77; P = .05). The RRs and their 95% CIs of the FAEs as first line, second or further line treatment related to panitumumab were 1.40 (95% CI, 0.89-2.18; P = .14) and 0.68 (95% CI, 0.43-1.09; P = .11), respectively.
conclusionsThe present meta-analysis did not show any significantly increased RR of FAEs belonging to bevacizumab, cetuximab, or panitumumab, whether as first line, second/further line, or adjuvant treatment among patients with colorectal carcinoma comparing to placebo or blank treatment.
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.