SynthesisInternational journal of colorectal disease2023
Different doses of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis and Bayesian analysis.
Synthesis in International journal of colorectal disease, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of the present study was to explore the incremental benefit of bevacizumab (Bev) in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) with different doses.
methodsA literature search of eight electronic databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang databases, Chinese Biomedical Database, VIP medicine information, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE) was conducted from database creation to December 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared Bev at various dosages + chemotherapy (CT) versus placebo (or blank control) + CT were selected. The overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR; complete response [CR] + partial response [PR]), and grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) were integrated first by pooled analysis. The likelihood of ideal dosage of Bev was then ranked using random effects within Bayesian analysis.
resultsTwenty-six RCTs involving 18,261 patients met the inclusion criteria. OS increased significantly after using 5 mg (HR: 0.87, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.00) and 10 mg dosages of Bev (HR: 0.75, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.85) with CT, but statistical significance was not attained for the 7.5 mg dose (HR: 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.08). A significantly increased in PFS with doses of 5 mg (HR: 0.69, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.83), 7.5 mg (HR: 0.81, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.00), and 10 mg (HR: 0.60, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.68). ORR distinctly increased after 5 mg (RR: 1.34, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.55), 7.5 mg (RR: 1.25, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.50), and10 mg (RR: 2.27, 95% CI 1.82 to 2.84) doses were administered. Grade ≥ 3 AEs increased clearly in 5 mg (RR: 1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.20) compared to 7.5 mg (RR: 1.05, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.35) and 10 mg (RR: 1.15, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.36). Bayesian analysis demonstrated that 10 mg Bev obtained the maximum time of OS (HR: 0.75, 95% CrI 0.58 to 0.97; probability rank = 0.05) indirectly compared to 5 mg and 7.5 mg Bev. Compared with 5 mg and 7.5 mg Bev, 10 mg Bev also holds the longest duration for PFS (HR: 0.59, 95% CrI 0.43 to 0.82; probability rank = 0.00). In terms of ORR, 10 mg Bev holds the maximum frequency (RR: 2.02, 95% CrI 1.52 to 2.66; probability rank = 0.98) in comparison to 5 mg and 7.5 mg Bev clearly. For grade ≥ 3 AEs, 10 mg Bev has the maximum incidence (RR: 1.15, 95% CrI 0.95 to 1.40, probability rank = 0.67) in comparison to other doses of Bev.
conclusionThe study suggests that 10 mg dose Bev could be more effective in treating advanced CRC in efficacy, but 5 mg Bev could be more safer in terms of safety.
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.