ArticleHeliyon2024
First line therapy in stage IV BRAF mutated colorectal cancer.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Targeted therapy in advancedBMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Pooled it
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The molecular profile of colorectal cancer (CRC) plays a crucial role in understanding patient prognosis and treatment response. Within CRC, a distinct subgroup can be identified by the presence of the BRAF V600E mutation. This specific mutation, classified as Class I of BRAF mutations, is known to be associated with a poor prognosis and resistance to standard therapy. To determine the most effective treatment approach for this specific subgroup of CRC, we conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare various pharmacological interventions and evaluate their relative effectiveness in BRAF-mutated CRCs. Materials and methods: On July 31, 2023, we conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase. The inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) reporting of outcomes in patients with BRAF-mutated CRC who underwent first-line chemotherapy; 2) reporting of survival information as hazard ratios (HR); and 3) publication in English. The data were combined using HRs for overall and progression-free survival (OS and PFS) using random-effects models. NMA was performed under the Bayesian framework, utilizing the GeMTC package. The relative rankings of the treatments were determined using SUCRA scores. Results: A total of 16 studies were included. When compared to standard chemotherapy (CT) doublets (such as FOLFOX or FOLFIRI), none of the comparison arms demonstrated a gain in OS. CT doublet + bevacizumab did not show significant superiority over either CT doublet alone or 5FU/capecitabine + bevacizumab. FOLFOXIRI and FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab did not show superiority over any other treatment schedule that was compared. CT doublets + bevacizumab had the highest SUCRA score (0.87), followed by single-agent fluoropyrimidines + bevacizumab (0.61), and FOLFOXIRI (0.56). Regarding PFS, no regimen was found to be superior to the combination of CT doublet plus bevacizumab. However, FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab + atezolizumab showed a tendency towards better results (HR = 0.26, 95 % CI 0.05-1.1). Conclusions: Our review suggests that a CT doublet with bevacizumab is the most favorable option for OS. However, a reasonable alternative could be a triplet CT without bevacizumab.
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.