Does the chemotherapy backbone impact on the efficacy of targeted agents in metastatic colorectal cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature
PLoS ONE, ISSN: 1932-6203, Vol: 10, Issue: 8, Page: e0135599
2015
- 27Citations
- 64Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations27
- Citation Indexes24
- 24
- CrossRef13
- Policy Citations3
- 3
- Captures64
- Readers64
- 64
Review Description
Importance The EGFR inhibitors (EGFR-I) cetuximab and panitumumab and the angiogenesis inhibitors (AIs) bevacizumab and aflibercept have demonstrated varying efficacy in mCRC. Objective To document the overall impact of specific chemotherapy regimens on the efficacy of targeted agents in treating patients with mCRC. Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched to 2014, supplemented by hand-searching ASCO/ ESMO conference abstracts. Study Selection Published RCTs of patients with histologically confirmed mCRC were included if they investigated either 1) chemotherapy with or without a biological agent or 2) different chemotherapy regimens with the same biological agent. EGFR-I trials were restricted to KRAS exon 2 wild-type (WT) populations. Data Extraction and Synthesis Data were independently abstracted by two authors and trial quality assessed according to Cochrane criteria. The primary outcome was overall survival with secondary endpoints progression free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and toxicity. Results EGFR-I added to irinotecan-based chemotherapy modestly improved OS with HR 0.90 (95% CI 0.81-1.00, p = 0.04), but more so PFS with HR 0.77 (95% CI 0.69-0.86, p<0.00001). No benefit was evident for EGFR-I added to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (OS HR 0.97 (95% CI 0.87-1.09) and PFS HR 0.92 (95% CI 0.83-1.02)). Significant oxaliplatin- irinotecan subgroup interactions were present for PFS with I2 = 82%, p = 0.02. Further analyses of oxaliplatin+EGFR-I trials showed greater efficacy with infusional 5FU regimens (PFS HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72-0.94) compared to capecitabine (HR 1.09; 95% CI 0.91-1.30) and bolus 5FU (HR 1.07; 95% CI 0.79-1.45); subgroup interaction was present with I2 = 72%, p = 0.03. The oxaliplatin-irinotecan interaction was not evident for infusional 5FU regimens. For AIs, OS benefit was observed with both oxaliplatin-based (HR 0.83) and irinotecan- based (HR 0.77) regimens without significant subgroup interactions. Oxaliplatin+AI trials showed no subgroup interactions by type of FP, whilst an interaction was present for irinotecan+AI trials although aflibercept was only used with infusional FP (I2 = 89.7%, p = 0.002). Conclusion and Relevance The addition of EGFR-I to irinotecan-based chemotherapy has consistent efficacy, regardless of FP regimen, whereas EGFR-I and oxaliplatin-based regimens were most active with infusional 5FU. No such differential activity was observed with the varying chemotherapy schedules when combined with AIs.
Bibliographic Details
10.1371/journal.pone.0135599; 10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g001; 10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g007; 10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g005; 10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g003; 10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g002; 10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.t001; 10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g006; 10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g004
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84942889837&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135599; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26275292; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g001; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g001; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g007; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g007; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135599; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g005; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g005; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g003; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g003; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g002; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g002; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.t001; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.t001; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g006; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g006; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g004; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g004; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g002; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g002; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g004; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g004; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135599; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135599; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g005; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g005; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g007; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g007; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g006; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g006; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.t001; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.t001; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g001; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g001; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g003; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g003; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135599&type=printable; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135599; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/metrics?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135599; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g004; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.t001; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g006; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g005; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g007; http://www.plosone.org/article/metrics/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0135599; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135599&type=printable; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135599; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0135599; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g003; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g001; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135599.g002
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know