Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38825703›Full record

SynthesisBMC cancer2024

Trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab versus trifluridine-tipiracil monotherapy for chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Francisco Cezar Aquino de Moraes, Felipe Dircêu Dantas Leite Pessôa, Caio Henrique Duarte de Castro Ribeiro, Marianne Rodrigues Fernandes, Rommel Mario Rodríguez Burbano, Ney Pereira Carneiro Dos Santos

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Francisco Cezar Aquino de MoraesOncology Research Center, Federal University of Pará, University Hospital João de Barros de Barreto. Rua dos Mundurucus, nº4487, Belem, 66073-005, PA, Brazil. Francisco.cezar2205@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0623-8135
Felipe Dircêu Dantas Leite PessôaSchool of Medicine, University of São Paulo - USP, São Paulo, 01246-903, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3825-5212
Caio Henrique Duarte de Castro RibeiroSchool of Medicine, Federal University of Pará, Belem, 66075-110, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-0069-5648
Marianne Rodrigues FernandesOncology Research Center, Federal University of Pará, University Hospital João de Barros de Barreto. Rua dos Mundurucus, nº4487, Belem, 66073-005, PA, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1396-3442
Rommel Mario Rodríguez BurbanoOphir Loyola Hospital, Belém, 66063-240, PA, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4872-234X
Ney Pereira Carneiro Dos SantosOncology Research Center, Federal University of Pará, University Hospital João de Barros de Barreto. Rua dos Mundurucus, nº4487, Belem, 66073-005, PA, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8087-7037

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Colorectal cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. The first and second lines of treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) include chemotherapy based on 5-fluorouracil. However, treatment following progression on the first and second line is still unclear. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases for studies investigating the use of trifluridine-tipiracil with bevacizumab versus trifluridine-tipiracil alone for mCRC. We used RStudio version 4.2.3; and we considered p < 0.05 significant. Seven studies and 1,182 patients were included - 602 (51%) received trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab. Compared with control, the progression-free survival (PFS) (HR 0.52; 95% CI 0.42-0.63; p < 0.001) and overall survival (OS) (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.52-0.70; p < 0.001) were significantly higher with bevacizumab. The objective response rate (ORR) (RR 3.14; 95% CI 1.51-6.51; p = 0.002) and disease control rate (DCR) (RR 1.66; 95% CI 1.28-2.16; p = 0.0001) favored the intervention. Regarding adverse events, the intervention had a higher rate of neutropenia (RR 1.38; 95% CI 1.19-1.59; p = 0.00001), whereas the monotherapy group had a higher risk of anemia (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.44-0.82; p = 0.001). Our results support that the addition of bevacizumab is associated with a significant benefit in PFS, OS, ORR and DCR.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBevacizumabColorectal NeoplasmsDrug CombinationsPyrrolidinesThymineTrifluridineDrug Resistance, NeoplasmHumansNeoplasm MetastasisProgression-Free SurvivalUracilBevacizumabDrug CombinationsPyrrolidinesThymineTrifluridinetrifluridine tipiracil drug combinationUracilanti-VEGF antibodyBevacizumabColorectal cancerTrifluridine-tipiracil

Identifiers

PMID38825703
PMCPMC11145814

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.