SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Old tale new admirers, cetuximab maintenance in metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) represents a major global burden and the decision on whether to pursue maintenance with cetuximab (CET) remains controversial. Therefore, this meta-analysis was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of CET maintenance therapy. Methods: After literature search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Scopus from inception to March 2026, two investigators selected eligible studies and extracted relevant data. The key outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). A random-effects model was used for pooling. The relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) of all-grade and high-grade (≥3) adverse effects (AEs) were used to study its safety. Heterogeneity was also investigated through subgroup and sensitivity analysis. Results: A total of 6 studies with 727 patients were included. CET maintenance therapy prolonged the PFS (HR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.57, P < 0.01) and OS (HR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.74, P < 0.01) of mCRC patients. Subgroup analysis showed that Asian patients (HR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.60, P = 0.010) received more survival benefit from CET maintenance therapy than non-CET therapy or observation. Although diarrhea and rash were more common, the RR of all-grade AEs revealed no statistical significance. Conclusion: CET maintenance therapy may be associated with improved outcomes compared with observation, especially in Asian patients. But it may slightly increase treatment-related toxicities. Therefore, subsequent large sample, multi-center randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to further verify our conclusions. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024513879, identifier CRD42024513879.
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.