ArticleJournal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics2022
Efficacy and safety analysis of bevacizumab combined with capecitabine in the maintenance treatment of RAS-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer.
Article in Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cetuximab plus capecitabine every three weeks as first-line maintenance therapy for RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: a phase Ib dose-escalation study.NPJ precision oncology · 2026Article
- Article
- KRAS Mutations in Solid Tumors: Characteristics, Current Therapeutic Strategy, and Potential Treatment Exploration.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Efficacy and safety analysis of bevacizumab combined with capecitabine in the maintenance treatment of RAS-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer.Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
WHAT IS KNOWN AND
objectivesThe optimal strategy for maintenance therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remains controversial. Considering that, beyond progression, co-therapy with bevacizumab and cytotoxic chemotherapy showed less toxicity and a significant disease control rate. We aimed to investigate the differences in efficacy and safety between bevacizumab combined with capecitabine maintenance therapy and capecitabine monotherapy for RAS-mutant mCRC （as defined by mutations in KRAS and NRAS exons 2-4）controlled by bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI chemotherapy for at least 12 weeks.
methodsWe retrospectively analysed patients with RAS-mutant mCRC admitted to the Department of Oncology, Huizhou Municipal Central Hospital from December, 2015 to December, 2020. All patients were first treated with bevacizumab combined with FOLFIRI for at least 12 weeks of induction therapy. 154 patients whose disease was brought under control then continued maintenance therapy. 78 patients were in the observation group (bevacizumab plus capecitabine) and 76 patients were in the control group (capecitabine alone). The efficacy and adverse effects of maintenance treatment were compared between the two groups. The clinicopathological characteristics such as sex, age, performance status (PS) score, primary tumour site, degree of pathological differentiation, baseline carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level, microsatellite instability (MSI) status, number of metastatic tumour sites and efficacy of induction treatment were compared in terms of prognosis. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The median progression-free survival (mPFS)of patients was 9.0 months (95% CI 8.0-10.0) in the observation group and 7.2 months (95% CI 6.0-8.4) in the control group, with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05). The baseline CEA level was an independent prognostic factor. Both groups tolerated the toxic side effects. WHAT IS NEW AND
conclusionBevacizumab combined with capecitabine was well tolerated and contributed to a longer PFS time than capecitabine alone, and it is worthy of popularization in clinical practice.
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.