SynthesisThe oncologist2026
Triplet chemotherapy combined with anti Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor treatment in RAS wild-type colorectal cancer: a network metanalysis.
Synthesis in The oncologist, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal first-line treatment for Rat Sarcorma Virus (RAS) wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer remains undetermined. Several studies have compared the efficacy of different first-line regimens, including doublet- or triplet-chemotherapy (CT) alone or in combination with targeted therapies (anti-EGFR/anti-VEGF), without conclusive results.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of phase II/III randomized clinical trials (RCT) comparing triplet-CT+anti-EGFRs with alternative first-line regimens in RAS wild-type patients. Pairwise- and network-meta-analyses were performed to assess overall response rate (ORR). Furthermore, we evaluated PFS and OS with pairwise-metanalyses.
resultsA total of 1283 patients across seven RCT were included. Four treatment arms were analyzed: Arm A (triplet-CT+anti-EGFR), Arm B (doublet-CT+anti-EGFR), Arm C (triplet al.ne), and Arm D (triplet+anti-VEGF). Arms A, B, and D demonstrated higher ORR compared to Arm C, while no significant differences were found among Arms A, B, and D (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.73-1.49; P = .804, for Arm B in comparison to Arm A; OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.52-1.25; P = .328, for Arm D in comparison to Arm A). Pairwise-meta-analysis revealed significantly lower ORR for Arm C compared to Arm A (OR 4.23, 95% CI 2.06-8.68, P = .002). P-scores ranked Arm B highest for effectiveness (0.808), followed by Arm A (0.746), then Arm D (0.444) and lastly Arm C (0.002). The pooled Hazard ratios (HRs) for OS demonstrated a superiority for arm A (0.82, 95% CI 0.70-0.97, P = .022).
conclusionsTriplet-CT+anti-EGFR demonstrated no clear ORR advantage over other targeted regimens but was superior to triplet-CT alone. Preliminary data indicate a potential OS benefit. Due to increased toxicity, routine use of triplet-CT+anti-EGFR should be carefully evaluated.
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.