Evidence Hub

Efficacy and Safety of Bevacizumab Combined With Fluoropyrimidine Monotherapy for Unfit or Older Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Pinto C, Antonuzzo L, Porcu L, Aprile G, Maiello E, Masi G, Petrelli F, Scartozzi M et al.

Clinical colorectal cancer, 2017

782 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Whether bevacizumab represents a feasible option for the first-line treatment of unfit and elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remains controversial. The present systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety data of bevacizumab combined with first-line fluoropyrimidine monochemotherapy for these complex patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: A systematic search of the published data was conducted through May 31, 2016. The random-effects model was used to combine the effect estimates and the I2 index to quantify the between-study heterogeneity unexplained by sampling error.

RESULTS: We included 3 randomized controlled trials, 4 single-arm phase II trials, and 1 prospective cohort study in the present meta-analysis (n = 782). The monochemotherapy administered was capecitabine in 531 patients (67.9%) and 5-fluorouracil in 251 (32.1%); 500 (63.9%) also received bevacizumab. The median age was 75 years, 441 patients (56.4%) were men, and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status was 0 to 1 in 684 patients (87.7%). The combination with bevacizumab produced advantages in terms of both progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.64; P < .00001; I2 = 0%) and overall survival (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.98; P = .03; I2 = 0%). The pooled effect estimates of the randomized controlled trials have been previously reported. As expected, all-grade hypertension (27% vs. 4.9%), bleeding (24%…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 782 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free