ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
A meta-analysis on the effectiveness and safety of FOLFOX plus bevacizumab for colorectal cancer treatment.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Colorectal cancer is a globally prevalent malignancy of the digestive system. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of bevacizumab combined with the FOLFOX regimen for the treatment of colorectal cancer, with the aim of informing clinical management and improving patient outcomes. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CNKI, and WanFang Database were systematically searched from database inception to April 30, 2023. Database-specific search strategies were developed using Boolean operators, controlled vocabulary terms where applicable, and free-text keywords related to colorectal cancer, bevacizumab, and FOLFOX-based chemotherapy. Reference lists of relevant studies were manually screened, and grey literature sources and trial registries were also checked when feasible. No language restrictions were applied during the initial search; studies published in English or Chinese were considered for inclusion. Randomized controlled trials comparing FOLFOX plus bevacizumab with FOLFOX alone in patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer were included. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed independently by two reviewers, and meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4 software. Results: Eleven randomized controlled trials were included. The pooled analysis showed that bevacizumab plus FOLFOX significantly improved ORR and DCR compared with FOLFOX alone. No significant differences were observed in gastrointestinal reactions, leukopenia, liver injury, neurotoxicity, or hypertension in the overall pooled analysis, although substantial heterogeneity was noted for hypertension and was addressed using a random-effects model. Sensitivity analyses suggested that the main efficacy findings were relatively robust. Conclusion: Bevacizumab combined with the FOLFOX regimen may improve short-term efficacy outcomes, particularly ORR and DCR, in patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer. However, the evidence for long-term survival benefit and quality-of-life improvement remains insufficient.
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.