Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32993393›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2020

Cetuximab versus bevacizumab maintenance following prior 8-cycle modified FOLFOXIRI plus cetuximab in Asian postmenopausal women with treatment-naive KRAS and BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer.

Baomin Chen, Donghua Zheng, Weiguang Yu, Cuiping Huang, Junxing Ye, Guowei Han, Jintao Zhuang

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of international medical research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 47% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Baomin ChenDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Donghua ZhengDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Weiguang YuDepartment of Orthopaedics, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6190-8336
Cuiping HuangDepartment of Orthopaedics, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Junxing YeDepartment of Orthopaedics, The Third People's Hospital of Wuxi, Jiangsu Province; The Affiliated Hospital of Jiangnan University, Wuxi, Jiangsu, China.
Guowei HanDepartment of Orthopaedics, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3442-2415
Jintao ZhuangDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Sun Yat-sen University · CNWuxi Fourth People's Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of cetuximab (CE) versus bevacizumab (BE) maintenance treatment after prior 8-cycle modified 5-fluorouracil, folinate, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI) plus CE induction therapy in treatment-naive KRAS and BRAF wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

methodsFrom 2012 to 2017, prospectively maintained databases were reviewed to assess Asian postmenopausal women with treatment-naive KRAS and BRAF wt mCRC who underwent modified FOLFOXIRI plus CE induction therapy, followed by CE or BE maintenance until disease progression or death. Co-primary clinical endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

resultsA total of 222 women were included (CE n = 110 and BE n = 112). At a median follow-up of 27.0 months (interquartile range, 6.5-38.6 months), median PFS was 21.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 16.4-24.4) and 17.7 months (95% CI 11.3-19.0) for CE and BE groups, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 0.31, 95% CI 0.15-0.46); median OS was 26.0 months (95% CI 23.4-28.7) and 22.7 months (95% CI 21.2-24.3) for CE and BE groups, respectively (HR 0.22, 95% CI 0.11-0.37).

conclusionsCE maintenance treatment is more poorly tolerated but has a slightly more modest survival benefit compared with BE maintenance treatment in mCRC.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsProto-Oncogene Proteins B-rafAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBevacizumabCamptothecinCetuximabDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleFluorouracilHumansLeucovorinOrganoplatinum CompoundsPostmenopauseProto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)Treatment OutcomeBevacizumabBRAF protein, humanCamptothecinCetuximabFluorouracilKRAS protein, humanLeucovorinOrganoplatinum CompoundsProto-Oncogene Proteins B-rafProto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)bevacizumabCetuximabcolorectal canceroverall survivalpostmenopausal womenprogression-free survival

Identifiers

PMID32993393
PMCPMC7545770
OpenAlexW3090612341

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.