ArticleJournal of Cancer2026
Bevacizumab or Aflibercept in Combination with Second-Line FOLFIRI after Progression on FOLFOX Plus Bevacizumab in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Comparative Study.
Article in Journal of Cancer, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The optimal anti-angiogenic strategy in the second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) after progression on first-line FOLFOX plus bevacizumab remains unclear. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of FOLFIRI combined with bevacizumab or aflibercept in this well-defined clinical setting. Methods: In this retrospective single-center study, 152 patients with mCRC who progressed after at least four cycles of first-line FOLFOX plus bevacizumab were included. Of these, 92 patients received FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab and 60 received FOLFIRI plus aflibercept as second-line therapy. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was applied to account for baseline differences between treatment groups. PFS and OS were evaluated using IPTW-weighted Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses. Results: No statistically significant difference was observed between the bevacizumab and aflibercept groups for PFS (HR: 1.302, 95% CI: 0.929-1.825, p=0.125) or OS (HR: 1.212, 95% CI: 0.846-1.736, p=0.295) in the IPTW-weighted analyses. Treatment type was not independently associated with PFS or OS in multivariate analyses. Grade 3-4 toxicities were observed in both groups, with neutropenia being the most common; thrombocytopenia and neutropenia were numerically more frequent in the aflibercept group. Conclusion: No statistically significant differences in efficacy were observed between FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab and FOLFIRI plus aflibercept in patients with mCRC progressing after first-line FOLFOX plus bevacizumab. Both strategies represent reasonable second-line options in this setting, highlighting the need for prospective studies to define the optimal sequencing of anti-angiogenic therapies.
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.