ArticleSouth Asian journal of cancer2024
Real-World Evidence for Comparative Outcomes between Innovator and Biosimilar Bevacizumab in Advanced Colorectal Cancers.
Article in South Asian journal of cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Recent clinical advances in nonconjugated antibodies and antibody-drug conjugates for colorectal cancer treatment.Cancer cell international · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Generic versions of bevacizumab are commonly used in India in patients with advanced/metastatic colorectal cancers (mCRCs), but there is limited real-world evidence (RWE) about their efficacy in comparison to the innovator bevacizumab. Methods: Patients diagnosed with mCRC between January 2017 and January 2022 and receiving a combination of chemotherapy and bevacizumab were retrospectively analyzed for demographic variables and survivals. The primary endpoint of the study was the estimation and comparison of median progression-free survival (mPFS) between patients receiving innovator versus generic bevacizumab as first-line therapy (CT1) by the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: A total of 944 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 652 patients (69%) received bevacizumab as CT1, 449 patients (48%) during second-line chemotherapy (CT2), and 74 patients (8%) during third-line therapy (CT3). The innovator was administered to 132 patients (14%), while the remaining 812 patients (86%) received a generic molecule. With a median follow-up of 18 months, there was no difference in mPFS between patients receiving the innovator or biosimilar (10 vs. 9.3 months, Conclusion: The current study offers RWE to suggest similar outcomes with innovator and generic bevacizumab when combined with chemotherapy in mCRCs. This has significant implications in India and other low- and middle-income countries besides providing oncologists with greater confidence to use these molecules in their clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.