↓ Skip to main content

First Biologic Drug in the Treatment of RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Anti-EGFR or Bevacizumab? Results From a Meta-Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
First Biologic Drug in the Treatment of RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Anti-EGFR or Bevacizumab? Results From a Meta-Analysis
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, May 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2018.00441
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alessandro Ottaiano, Alfonso De Stefano, Monica Capozzi, Anna Nappi, Chiara De Divitiis, Carmela Romano, Lucrezia Silvestro, Antonino Cassata, Rossana Casaretti, Salvatore Tafuto, Michele Caraglia, Massimiliano Berretta, Guglielmo Nasti, Antonio Avallone

Abstract

Introduction: We performed a meta-analysis in order to analyze and quantify the effect on survival of starting therapy in RAS wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients with anti-EGFR agents or bevacizumab. Patients and Methods: Randomized, phase II or III, clinical trials reporting overall survival (OS) in RAS wt mCRC patients treated with first-line chemotherapy (CT) associated with bevacizumab or anti-EGFR agents were selected. The primary end-point of this meta-analysis was OS; findings were depicted in classical Forest plots. Results: Seven studies met the criteria for meta-analysis including 3,805 patients. The pooled second-line cross-over rate to bevacizumab was 36.6%, to anti-EGFR 33.2%. Only one study was selected reporting comparison between CT vs. CT plus bevacizumab in RAS wt patients with a HR of 1.13 in favor of CT (CI: 0.89-1.43, p = 0.317). The pooled HRs were 0.89 (95% CI: 0.79-1.00) for CT plus anti-EGFR vs. CT and 0.81 (95% CI: 0.71-0.92) in favor of CT plus anti-EGFR vs. CT plus bevacizumab. Subgroup analysis showed a positive prognostic impact of starting CT plus anti-EGFR in left colon cancer (pooled HR: 0.70; CI: 0.54-0.85) while a positive trend of starting CT plus bevacizumab was observed in right colon cancer (pooled HR: 1.29; CI: 0.81-1.77). Conclusions: This meta-analysis shows that starting therapy in RAS wt mCRC patients with an anti-EGFR agent improves OS when the primary tumor location is in the left colon but a strong limitation of previous studies is the very low rate of biologic drug therapy cross-over.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 5 16%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Professor 2 6%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 8 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 52%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Engineering 2 6%
Mathematics 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 8 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 June 2023.
All research outputs
#3,719,289
of 26,196,613 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#1,754
of 20,164 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,179
of 342,634 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#48
of 402 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,196,613 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,164 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,634 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 402 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.