Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32789773›Full record

GuidelineClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2021

Controversies in the treatment of RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer.

R Vera, M Salgado, M J Safont, J Gallego, E González, E Élez, E Aranda

Abstract readPractice GuidelineReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Guideline in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

R VeraMedical Oncology Department, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
M SalgadoMedical Oncology Department, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Ourense, Ourense, Spain.
M J SafontMedical Oncology Department, Hospital General Universitario de Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
J GallegoMedical Oncology Department, Hospital General Universitario de Elche, Alicante, Spain.
E GonzálezMedical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, Spain.
E ÉlezVall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, Spain.
E ArandaMedical Oncology Department, Maimonides Institute of Biomedical Research (IMIBIC), Hospital Reina Sofía, University of Córdoba, Av. Menendez Pidal, s/n, 14004, Córdoba, Spain. earandaa@seom.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5471-2842

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo provide guidance for the management of RAS wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in daily practice.

methodsNominal group and Delphi techniques were used. A steering committee of seven experts analyzed the current management of RAS wt mCRC, through which they identified controversies, critically analyzed the available evidence, and formulated several guiding statements for clinicians. Subsequently, a group of 30 experts (the expert panel) was selected to test agreement with the statements, through two Delphi rounds. The following response categories were established in both rounds: 1 = totally agree, 2 = basically agree, 3 = basically disagree, 4 = totally disagree. Agreement was defined if ≥ 75% of answers were in categories 1 and 2 (consensus with the agreement) or 3 and 4 (consensus with the disagreement).

resultsOverall, 71 statements were proposed, which incorporated the following areas: (1) overarching principles; (2) tumor location; (3) triplets; (4) maintenance; (5) second-line and beyond treatments; (6) Rechallenge and liquid biopsy. After the two Delphi rounds, only six statements maintained a lack of clear consensus.

conclusionsThis document aims to describe the expert's attitude when dealing with several common clinical questions regarding patients with RAS wt mCRC.

Indexed as

Advisory CommitteesConsensusDelphi TechniqueAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBevacizumabCamptothecinColon, AscendingColonic NeoplasmsColon, TransverseColorectal NeoplasmsErbB ReceptorsFluorouracilGenes, rasGenotypeHumansLeucovorinBevacizumabCamptothecinErbB ReceptorsFluorouracilLeucovorinOrganoplatinum CompoundsProto-Oncogene Proteins B-rafDelphiLiquid biopsyMaintenanceMetastatic colorectal cancerPrimary tumor sidednessRAS wild-typeRechallengeTreatment patterns

Identifiers

PMID32789773
PMCPMC7979622

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.