SynthesisJournal of gastrointestinal cancer2026
Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of FOLFOXIRI Plus Cetuximab Versus FOLFOXIRI Plus Bevacizumab in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A GRADE-assessed Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of gastrointestinal 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMetastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. FOLFOXIRI combined with targeted agents has shown promising outcomes in mCRC. This meta-analysis compares efficacy and safety of FOLFOXIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab in patients with mCRC.
methodsA literature search was conducted across PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Scopus, and clinicaltrials.gov until February 2025. Analysis was performed using RStudio v4.5.0. Pooled estimates are reported as hazard ratios, odds ratios, risk ratios, and mean difference with 95% CIs using random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using I² statistics.
resultsFour studies (3 RCTs, 1 observational) comprising 561 patients were included. Overall survival did not differ significantly between FOLFOXIRI-cetuximab and FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab (HR: 1.22; 95% CI: 0.78 - 1.90; p = 0.386). Progression-free survival also did not differ significantly (HR: 1.32; 95% CI: 0.76-2.31; p = 0.324). Objective response rate, complete response, and partial response did not differ significantly [(OR: 1.48; 95% CI: 0.50-4.37; p = 0.4772), (OR: 1.59; 95% CI: 0.66-3.86; p = 0.303), and (OR: 1.60; 95% CI: 0.52-4.93, p = 0.414) respectively]. Depth of response showed no significant difference (MD: 15.29; 95% CI: -1.35-31.94; p = 0.07). Hypomagnesemia and acneiform rash were significantly more frequent with cetuximab (p < 0.01). However, alopecia, anemia, neurotoxicity, and all-grade stomatitis showed no difference between the two arms.
conclusionsFOLFOXIRI-cetuximab did not improve PFS, OS, or response rates in patients with mCRC compared with the bevacizumab combination; however, it was associated with significantly higher rates of hypomagnesemia and acneiform rash.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42814239What 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.