Trial reportThe oncologist2022
Cetuximab and Irinotecan With or Without Bevacizumab in Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: BOND-3, an ACCRU Network Randomized Clinical Trial.
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.
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.
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
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
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of bevacizumab in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Pooled it
- Combining antivascular endothelial growth factor and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibodies: randomized phase II study of irinotecan and cetuximab with/without ramucirumab in second-line colorectal cancer (ECOG-ACRIN E7208).Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2024Trial
- Clinical outcomes of treatments for patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2026Article
- Targeting DNA repair mechanisms in cancer therapy: the role of small molecule DNA repair inhibitors.NAR cancer · 2025Review
- Focus on PD-1/PD-L1-Targeting Antibodies in Colorectal Cancer: Are There Options Beyond Dostarlimab, Nivolumab, and Pembrolizumab? A Comprehensive Review.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Five years of safety profile of bevacizumab: an analysis of real-world pharmacovigilance and randomized clinical trials.Journal of pharmaceutical health care and sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 11 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.