ArticleCancer management and research2024
Efficacy and Safety of Maintenance Therapy Using Cetuximab in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Retrospective Study.
Article in Cancer management and research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Cetuximab (CET) combined with chemotherapy significantly improved the survival in RAS and RAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients, while clinical evidence was lacking on the use of maintenance therapy (MT). The study aimed to explore the role of maintenance therapy following Cetuximab + chemotherapy and the optimal Cetuximab-based maintenance therapy regimen. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed data on the efficacy and safety of CET-based MT in patients with mCRC who achieved disease control after induction therapy. Results: Eighty-one patients with mCRC who achieved disease control after CET + chemotherapy induction were enrolled. Overall median progression-free survival (PFS) was 10.5 (95% CI = 8.8-12.2) months and median maintenance/observation PFS (mnPFS) was 6.0 (95% CI = 5.0-7.0) months. Among these 81 patients, 61 patients were prescribed MT (CET alone for 21 patients and CET + chemotherapy for 40 patients). Median PFS and mnPFS in the MT group were significantly longer than those for the non-MT group. Different MT regimens did not affect PFS and mnPFS significantly. Univariate and multivariate analysis demonstrated MT, complete response/partial response during induction therapy, and absence of peritoneal metastasis to be positively associated with longer PFS and mnPFS. Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were tolerable during MT, and AE-related deaths were not observed. Conclusion: MT with CET or CET + chemotherapy was an appropriate option following initial induction chemotherapy for patients with RAS and RAF wild-type mCRC. This strategy endowed survival benefits and a tolerable safety profile.
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.