Trial reportBritish journal of cancer2025
Primary tumor sidedness and negative hyperselection to modulate anti-EGFR-based maintenance strategies in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: individual patient data pooled analysis of two randomized clinical trials.
Trial report in British journal of cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
Randomized Phase II Study for Evaluation of Efficacy and Safety of Maintenance Treatment With 5-FU/FA Plus Panitumumab vs. 5-FU/FA Alone After Prior Induction Treatment With mFOLFOX6 Plus Panitumumab and Re-induction With mFOLFOX6 Plus Panitumumab in Case of Progression for First-line Treatment of Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer
First-line FOLFOX-4 Plus Panitumumab Followed by 5-FU/LV Plus Panitumumab or Single-agent Panitumumab as Maintenance Therapy in Patients With RAS Wild-type, Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: the VALENTINO Study
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Impact of Baseline ctDNACancers · 2026Article
- Distinct clinical and microbial profiles in left-sided and right-sided colorectal cancer: a comprehensive analysis.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with RAS wild-type (WT), left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), negatively hyperselected for anti-EGFR resistance alterations, benefit most from anti-EGFR-based first-line treatment. The predictive impact of these stratification parameters on maintenance strategy efficacy is unclear.
methodsThis pooled analysis included individual patient data from the PanaMa (NCT01991873) and Valentino (NCT02476045) phase 2 trials. Patients with RAS WT mCRC received FOLFOX plus Panitumumab induction therapy followed by maintenance with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) plus Panitumumab vs. 5-FU/LV monotherapy (PanaMa) or Panitumumab monotherapy (Valentino). Outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Subgroup analyses examined primary tumor sidedness (left vs. right) and hyperselection status (negative vs. altered).
resultsAmong 607 patients receiving induction, sidedness and hyperselection status were available for 589 and 511 patients, respectively. Left-sided and negative hyperselected tumors were observed in 80.2% and 63.9% of patients, respectively. Panitumumab-based maintenance improved PFS in left-sided, negative hyperselected patients compared to 5-FU/LV alone, with no OS differences. PFS and OS were comparable for Panitumumab alone vs. Panitumumab plus 5-FU/LV.
conclusionTumor sidedness and hyperselection status significantly influence maintenance strategy efficacy in mCRC. For left-sided, negative hyperselected patients, Panitumumab monotherapy may optimize efficacy while minimizing toxicity. Further investigation into the relative contribution of individual hyperselection parameters in this setting is warranted.
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.