Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34868908›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2021

A Comparison of Bevacizumab Plus TAS-102 and TAS-102 Monotherapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Xiaochen Chen, Huafeng Qiu, Yunwang Chen, Mingxing Wang, Pengfei Zhu, Shuangyue Pan, Yaya Deng, Liu Yang, Zheling Chen

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

Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Xiaochen ChenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, People's Hospital of Hangzhou Medical College, Hangzhou, China.
Huafeng QiuThe Second Clinic Medical College of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China.
Yunwang ChenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, People's Hospital of Hangzhou Medical College, Hangzhou, China.
Mingxing WangDepartment of Medical Oncology, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, People's Hospital of Hangzhou Medical College, Hangzhou, China.
Pengfei ZhuDepartment of Medical Oncology, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, People's Hospital of Hangzhou Medical College, Hangzhou, China.
Shuangyue PanDepartment of Medical Oncology, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, People's Hospital of Hangzhou Medical College, Hangzhou, China.
Yaya DengDepartment of Medical Oncology, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, People's Hospital of Hangzhou Medical College, Hangzhou, China.
Liu YangDepartment of Medical Oncology, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, People's Hospital of Hangzhou Medical College, Hangzhou, China.
Zheling ChenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, People's Hospital of Hangzhou Medical College, Hangzhou, China.
Hangzhou Medical College · CNZhejiang Provincial People's Hospital · CNBengbu Medical College · CNQingdao University · CNZhejiang Chinese Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundsAs a new oral chemotherapy drug, TAS-102 is currently recommended as the third-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Recently, studies have reported the efficacy of TAS-102 combined with bevacizumab in colon cancer patients after standard treatment fails. Here, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of TAS-102 combined with bevacizumab versus TAS-102 as a single agent by a systematic review and a meta-analysis.

methodsPubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane libraries were searched. Studies involving bevacizumab combined with TAS-102 in mCRC were included. Study characteristics (author, year of publication, country et al.), efficacy (disease control rate(DCR), progression-free survival(PFS), overall survival(OS)) and adverse effects were extract from studies. Forest plots were created based on Cox model analysis.

resultsAfter screening 550 studies, a total of 3 studies were included, which compared the safety and effectiveness of TAS-102 with or without bevacizumab. Analysis based on Cox regression showed that the combined treatment group had advantages in 6-month (OR= 2.93, 95% CI: 1.72 to 5.00, P<0.0001), 12-month(OR= 2.18, 95% CI: 1.24 to 3.81, P=0.006), and 18-month (OR=3.08, 95% CI: 1.34 to 7.12, P=0.008) OS. The combined treatment group demonstrated superiority in 6-month PFS rates (OR= 2.50, 95% CI: 1.18 to 5.31, P=0.02). The incidence of thrombocytopenia in the dual-drug treatment group was higher (OR= 1.96, 95% CI: 1.14 to 3.36 P=0.01). The proportion of serious adverse events were similar in tow groups (OR= 1.01, 95% CI: 0.76 to 1.34 P=0.93).

conclusionBevacizumab combined with TAS-102 could improve the prognosis of patients with mCRC who have failed standard treatment. In terms of side effects, the addition of bevacizumab did not increase serious adverse reactions, but the occurrence of thrombocytopenia was worth noting.

Indexed as

bevacizumabcolorectal cancermeta-analysis 3survivalTAS-102

Identifiers

PMID34868908
PMCPMC8637322
OpenAlexW3217002942

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.