22
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Correction: Does the Chemotherapy Backbone Impact on the Efficacy of Targeted Agents in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Literature

      correction

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          There is an error in reference 22. The correct reference is: Peeters M, Price TJ, Cervantes A, Sobrero AF, Ducreux M, Hotko Y, et al. Randomized phase III study of panitumumab with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan(FOLFIRI) compared with FOLFIRI alone as second-line treatment in patients with metastaticcolorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Nov 1;28(31):4706-13. Fig 5 is incorrect. The authors have provided a corrected version here. 10.1371/journal.pone.0138916.g001 Fig 5 OS outcomes for EGFR-I by chemotherapy backbone—extended RAS analysis.

          Related collections

          Most cited references1

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Does the Chemotherapy Backbone Impact on the Efficacy of Targeted Agents in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Literature

          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.
            Bookmark

            Author and article information

            Journal
            PLoS One
            PLoS ONE
            plos
            plosone
            PLoS ONE
            Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
            1932-6203
            25 September 2015
            2015
            : 10
            : 9
            : e0138916
            Article
            PONE-D-15-39698
            10.1371/journal.pone.0138916
            4583271
            26406241
            e501f2f2-6250-442a-a176-ce3d3aee1277
            Copyright @ 2015

            This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited

            History
            Page count
            Figures: 1, Tables: 0, Pages: 2
            Categories
            Correction

            Uncategorized
            Uncategorized

            Comments

            Comment on this article