SynthesisInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2022
The effectiveness and safety of bevacizumab versus cetuximab in the treatment of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Second-line raltitrexed plus irinotecan (SALIRI) with bevacizumab, cetuximab, or alone for metastatic colorectal cancer: a prospective multicenter cohort-based secondary analysis of the SALLY trial.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Article
- Advancing targeted therapy for colorectal cancer: harnessing ligand-directed enzyme prodrug therapy for highly specific interventions.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Colorectal cancer: Recent advances in management and treatment.World journal of clinical oncology · 2024Review
- Safety of first-line systemic therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC cancer · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
- Erratum issued
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite available meta-analyses, comparative efficacy and safety between bevacizumab and cetuximab-containing therapies in treating advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) still need to be elucidated.
aimThis meta-analysis aimed to investigate the efficacy and grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events (TARE3-5) of bevacizumab versus cetuximab in treating advanced CRC.
methodA random sample of 400 patients aged 65 years or older from a clinical trial in four Swedish hospitals was selected. All patients' emergency department visits within 12 months after discharge were assessed with AT-HARM10. The main outcome measures were the percentage of successfully assessed visits for applicability and the interrater reliability (Cohen's kappa).
resultsFive RCTs and four observational cohort studies (2970 patients) were included. The bevacizumab-containing group was associated with a significantly lower ORR (risk ratio RR 0.91, 95% confidence interval CI 0.85-0.97, P = 0.006) than the cetuximab group. Bevacizumab was associated with significant superior DCR (RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.10, P = 0.02) and prolonged OS (hazard ratio HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.74-0.90, P < 0.0001) than cetuximab. No significant differences were observed for PFS (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.92-1.03, P = 0.33) between the groups. Bevacizumab showed a lower rate of skin disorders (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02-0.43, P = 0.002) than cetuximab. There were no significant differences between the groups in the overall rate of TRAE3-5 (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84-1.01, P = 0.08). Subgroup analysis found a lower TARE3-5 rate in the bevacizumab group in RCTs (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83-1.00, P = 0.04).
conclusionBevacizumab could increase DCR, prolong OS, and lower the skin disorder rate to treat patients with advanced CRC.
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.