Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35522557›Full record

SynthesisThe oncologist2022

Efficacy and Safety of Cetuximab Dosing (biweekly vs weekly) in Patients with KRAS Wild-type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-analysis.

Aparna R Parikh, Elena Gonzalez-Gugel, Natalia Smolyakova, Min-Hua Jen, Nikki Toms, Yong Lin, Jong Seok Kim, Scott Kopetz

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The oncologist, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Aparna R ParikhDepartment of Medicine, Division of Hematology & Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center & Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Elena Gonzalez-GugelEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Natalia SmolyakovaEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Min-Hua JenEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Nikki TomsEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Yong LinEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Jong Seok KimEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Scott KopetzDepartment of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Eli Lilly (United States) · USMassachusetts General Hospital · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCetuximab 500 mg/m2 biweekly (Q2W) plus chemotherapy is commonly used and recommended by NCCN guidelines. This meta-analysis compares efficacy and safety between Q2W versus weekly (Q1W) cetuximab dosing.

methodsA systematic literature review was performed on Pubmed and RightFind (2007-2017) for patients with KRAS wild-type mCRC who received Q2W or Q1W cetuximab and other treatments. Observational studies and case reports were excluded. Randomized trials comparing Q2W and Q1W dosing, and single-arm trials with only Q2W schedule were included. CRYSTAL, a phase 3 randomized study with Q1W cetuximab dosing was paired with each single-arm study with a Q2W schedule and reweighted to achieve similar demographic/baseline characteristics. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) with hazard ratios (HR), overall response rate (ORR) with odds ratios, and risk difference of adverse events of special interest (AESI) between Q2W versus Q1W cetuximab were analyzed.

resultsFive phase 2 studies with cetuximab Q2W/Q1W dosing schedules were identified: CECOG (phase 2; Q2W, n = 77; Q1W, n = 75), NORDIC 7.5 (phase 2; Q2W, n = 152) and NORDIC 7 (arm C of phase 3; Q1W, n = 109), CELINE (n = 60), OPTIMIX (n = 99), and APEC (n = 289) all phase 2, Q2W, single-arm studies paired with CRYSTAL Q1W dosing (n = 303). Efficacy was similar between Q2W versus Q1W administration; OS HR = 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.89, 1.04]; PFS HR = 0.96, 95% CI [0.87, 1.05]; ORR odds ratio 1.16, 95% CI [0.96, 1.41]. Mean differences (Q2W-Q1W) across AESI rates were not clinically meaningful with no obvious directionality.

conclusionThis meta-analysis demonstrated no significant differences in efficacy and safety between Q2W versus Q1W cetuximab administration in mCRC patients.

Indexed as

Colonic NeoplasmsColorectal NeoplasmsRectal NeoplasmsAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCetuximabDisease-Free SurvivalHumansProto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)CetuximabKRAS protein, humanProto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)biweeklycetuximabcolorectal cancerKRAS wild-typemeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID35522557
PMCPMC9074967
OpenAlexW4206425176

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.