Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35380713›Full record

Trial reportThe oncologist2022

Cetuximab and Irinotecan With or Without Bevacizumab in Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: BOND-3, an ACCRU Network Randomized Clinical Trial.

Marla Lipsyc-Sharf, Fang-Shu Ou, Matthew B Yurgelun, Douglas A Rubinson, Deborah Schrag, Shaker R Dakhil, Philip J Stella, Douglas J Weckstein, Donald B Wender, Meredith Faggen and 8 more

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The oncologist, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this 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
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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.

NCT02292758 phase2completednot on this map

BOND-3: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase II Trial of Irinotecan, Cetuximab, and Bevacizumab Compared With Irinotecan, Cetuximab, and Placebo in RAS-Wildtype, Irinotecan-Refractory, Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

TypeinterventionalSponsorAcademic and Community Cancer Research UnitedRan2014 to 2019Enrolled36ConditionsColorectal Adenocarcinoma, RAS Wild Type, Stage IV Colorectal Cancer AJCC v7, Stage IVA Colorectal Cancer AJCC v7ArmsBevacizumab, Cetuximab, Irinotecan, Laboratory Biomarker Analysis, Placebo
NCT07722754 phase2not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

A Randomized, Multi-center, Open-label Phase II Trial of Irinotecan and Cetuximab With or Without the Combination of Bevacizumab and Sintilimab in RAS Wild-type, Irinotecan-refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

TypeinterventionalSponsorGuangdong Provincial People's HospitalRan2026 to 2029Enrolled160ConditionsColorectal Neoplasms Malignant, Neoplasm, MetastaticArmsCetuximab, Irinotecan, Bevacizumab, Sintilimab
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  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

18 authors at 11 institutions in 1 country.

Marla Lipsyc-SharfDepartment of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4071-6383
Fang-Shu OuDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1267-8735
Matthew B YurgelunDepartment of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Douglas A RubinsonDepartment of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Deborah SchragDepartment of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4334-5717
Shaker R DakhilCancer Center of Kansas, Wichita, KS, USA.
Philip J StellaSt. Joseph Mercy Hospital, Ypsilanti, MI, USA.
Douglas J WecksteinNew Hampshire Oncology Hematology, Hooksett, NH, USA.
Donald B WenderJune E. Nylen Cancer Center, Sioux City, IA, USA.
Meredith FaggenDana-Farber at South Shore Hospital, South Weymouth, MA, USA.
Tyler J ZemlaDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Erica N HeyingDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Samantha R SchuetzUniversity of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington, VT, USA.
Stephanie NobleACCRU, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Jeffrey A MeyerhardtDepartment of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1120-0898
Tanios Bekaii-SaabMayo Clinic Cancer Center, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Charles S FuchsYale Cancer Center, New Haven, CT, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1582-9842
Kimmie NgDepartment of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0631-1494
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute · USMayo Clinic in Florida · USCancer Center of Kansas · USJune E. Nylen Cancer Center · USMayo Clinic in Arizona · USMercy Medical Center · USNew Hampshire Hospital · USSouth Shore Hospital · USUniversity of Vermont · USWinnMed · USYale Cancer Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCombination irinotecan and cetuximab is approved for irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). It is unknown if adding bevacizumab improves outcomes. PATIENTS AND

methodsIn this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial, patients with irinotecan-refractory RAS-wildtype mCRC and no prior anti-EGFR therapy were randomized to cetuximab 500 mg/m2, bevacizumab 5 mg/kg, and irinotecan 180 mg/m2 (or previously tolerated dose) (CBI) versus cetuximab, irinotecan, and placebo (CI) every 2 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs).

resultsThe study closed early after the accrual of 36 out of a planned 120 patients due to changes in funding. Nineteen patients were randomized to CBI and 17 to CI. Baseline characteristics were similar between arms. Median PFS was 9.7 versus 5.5 months for CBI and CI, respectively (1-sided log-rank P = .38; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-1.66). Median OS was 19.7 versus 10.2 months for CBI and CI (1-sided log-rank P = .02; adjusted HR = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.15-1.09). ORR was 36.8% for CBI versus 11.8% for CI (P = .13). Grade 3 or higher AEs occurred in 47% of patients receiving CBI versus 35% for CI (P = .46).

conclusionIn this prematurely discontinued trial, there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of PFS between CBI and CI. There was a statistically significant improvement in OS in favor of CBI compared with CI. Further investigation of CBI for the treatment of irinotecan-refractory mCRC is warranted.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02292758.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsColorectal NeoplasmsBevacizumabCamptothecinCetuximabFluorouracilHumansIrinotecanBevacizumabCamptothecinCetuximabFluorouracilIrinotecanbevacizumabcetuximabcolorectal neoplasmirinotecan

Identifiers

PMID35380713
PMCPMC8982431
OpenAlexW4206310290

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.