SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2025
Efficacy and safety of first-line targeted and immunotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: a network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in immunology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Role of Monoclonal Antibody Targeted Therapy (Panitumumab) in the Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer-A Narrative Review of Current Evidence and Emerging Therapeutic Strategies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Comprehensive Review of Immunotherapy in Colorectal Cancer: From Mechanisms to Nursing Interventions.ImmunoTargets and therapy · 2026Review
- Nutritional intervention alleviates T cell exhaustion and empowers anti-tumor immunity.Frontiers in immunology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: As targeted therapies and immunotherapy become increasingly prevalent in treating metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), comparative analyses are essential to determine the most effective and safe treatment combinations. This study aims to compare and rank the efficacy and safety profiles of first-line systemic treatments for mCRC. Methods: This network meta-analysis was conducted in compliance with PRISMA guidelines, reviewing randomized controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov through March 2024. A network meta-analysis is conducted using a Bayesian random effects mode. After the data was extracted, data analysis was conducted in gemtc R. The primary outcomes measured were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and the incidence of adverse events (AEs) graded ≥3.The Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool was used to evaluate the quality of each study. Results: A total of 61 RCTs involving 20,579 patients were included. The results showed that FOLFOXIRI combined with bevacizumab and atezolizumab significantly improved PFS and OS, with HRs for PFS and OS of (HR:0.19, 95% CI: 0.11-0.33), (HR:0.48, 95% CI: 0.30-0.78), respectively. The incidence of ≥ Grade 3 AEs was high, but no new fatal treatment-related AEs were observed, and the safety of this regimen was manageable. FOLFOXIRI in combination with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody regimens showed significant PFS and OS improvements in the RAS/BRAF wild-type subgroup. For the subgroup of patients aged ≥ 70 years, thetrifluorouridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab regimen also had some advantage in PFS and OS. Although the incidence of Grade ≥ 3 AEs was higher, the incidence of AEs was similar across age groups and well tolerated in this regimen, and it was more suitable for elderly cancer patients. Discussion: These findings underscore the importance of integrating targeted drugs and immunotherapy in first-line mCRC treatments, highlighting significant differences in efficacy and safety profiles that can guide therapeutic decisions. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024604107, identifier CRD42024604107.
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.