4.7 Article

Bevacizumab improves survival in metastatic colorectal cancer patients with primary tumor resection: A meta-analysis

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 9, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-56528-2

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Fund of China [81700208, 31971166]
  2. Natural Science Fund of Hubei Province [2016CFB253]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

It is not well determined whether primary tumor resection is associated with better outcomes in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients treated with bevacizumab. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to assess the prognostic role of primary tumor resection in mCRC treated with bevacizumab. Electronic databases including the Cochrane library, Embase, and Pubmed were searched until April 2018. Clinical studies assessing the influence of primary tumor resection on the efficacy of bevacizumab in patients with mCRC were identified. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Seven studies including 2760 mCRC patients were finally included. The results of the meta-analysis were in favor of bevacizumab to patients with resected primary tumor in terms of OS (HR = 0.50, 95%CI: 0.39-0.64; p < 0.01), and PFS (HR = 0.65, 95%CI: 0.51-0.81; p < 0.01). Administration of bevacizumab in mCRC patients with resected primary tumor had a better OS (HR = 0.65, 95%CI: 0.56-0.74; p < 0.01), when compared to chemotherapy(CT). Adding bevacizumab to mCRC patients without resection of primary tumor also had a better OS (HR = 0.78, 95%CI: 0.65-0.94; p < 0.01) and PFS (HR = 0.71, 95%CI: 0.57-0.88; p < 0.01) compared to chemotherapy alone. In conclusion, mCRC patients with resected primary tumor have better survival than those without surgery of primary tumor when treated with bevacizumab. Primary tumor resection status should be taken into consideration when using bevacizumab in mCRC.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available