ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Comparison of systemic treatments for previously treated patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. 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.
- Combination of Irreversible Electroporation andCancers · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There is limited evidence of comparative results among different treatments for patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) who have failed at least one line of previous systemic therapy. We aimed to compare the efficacy of systemic treatments among these patients through this investigation. Methods: We collected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported in English up until July 2023, from databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and prominent conference databases, for this Bayesian network meta-analysis. Phase II or III trials that evaluated at least two therapeutic regimens were included. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS), secondary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS). Hazards ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used as effect size. Subgroup analysis was performed based on metastatic sites. The current systematic review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023420498). Results: 30 RCTs were included, with a total of 13,511 patients. Compared to chemotherapy, multi-targeted therapy (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.37-0.87) and targeted therapy plus chemotherapy (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67-0.91) show significant advantages. Targeted therapy (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.54-1.57) and local treatment plus chemotherapy (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.85-1.23) had comparable performance. For patients with liver metastases, TAS-102 plus bevacizumab, aflibercept plus fluorouracil-based combination chemotherapy (CTFU), and bevacizumab plus capecitabine-based combination chemotherapy (CTCA) showed the best outcomes in terms of OS. Bevacizumab plus intensified CTFU, bevacizumab plus CTCA, and HAI followed by single-agent chemotherapy (SingleCT) performed the best regarding PFS. For patients with liver-limited metastases, aflibercept plus CTFU is the optimal choice in OS. For PFS, the best options were HAI followed by SingleCT, aflibercept plus CTFU, and panitumumab plus CTFU. For patients with multiple-site metastases, the best treatments were TAS-102 plus bevacizumab, bevacizumab plus CTCA, bevacizumab plus CTFU, and aflibercept plus CTFU. Conclusion: Multi-targeted therapy and targeted therapy plus chemotherapy are the best treatment mechanisms. TAS-102 plus bevacizumab is superior in OS, the combination of anti-VEGF drugs like bevacizumab and aflibercept with standard chemotherapy is the preferred option for CRLM patients.
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.