↓ Skip to main content

A randomized phase 3 study on the optimization of the combination of bevacizumab with FOLFOX/OXXEL in the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer-OBELICS (Optimization of BEvacizumab…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
129 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
A randomized phase 3 study on the optimization of the combination of bevacizumab with FOLFOX/OXXEL in the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer-OBELICS (Optimization of BEvacizumab scheduLIng within Chemotherapy Scheme)
Published in
BMC Cancer, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12885-016-2102-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Antonio Avallone, Maria Carmela Piccirillo, Luigi Aloj, Guglielmo Nasti, Paolo Delrio, Francesco Izzo, Elena Di Gennaro, Fabiana Tatangelo, Vincenza Granata, Ernesta Cavalcanti, Piera Maiolino, Francesco Bianco, Pasquale Aprea, Mario De Bellis, Biagio Pecori, Gerardo Rosati, Chiara Carlomagno, Alessandro Bertolini, Ciro Gallo, Carmela Romano, Alessandra Leone, Corradina Caracò, Elisabetta de Lutio di Castelguidone, Gennaro Daniele, Orlando Catalano, Gerardo Botti, Antonella Petrillo, Giovanni M. Romano, Vincenzo R. Iaffaioli, Secondo Lastoria, Francesco Perrone, Alfredo Budillon

Abstract

Despite the improvements in diagnosis and treatment, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second cause of cancer deaths in both sexes. Therefore, research in this field remains of great interest. The approval of bevacizumab, a humanized anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) monoclonal antibody, in combination with a fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in the treatment of metastatic CRC has changed the oncology practice in this disease. However, the efficacy of bevacizumab-based treatment, has thus far been rather modest. Efforts are ongoing to understand the better way to combine bevacizumab and chemotherapy, and to identify valid predictive biomarkers of benefit to avoid unnecessary and costly therapy to nonresponder patients. The BRANCH study in high-risk locally advanced rectal cancer patients showed that varying bevacizumab schedule may impact on the feasibility and efficacy of chemo-radiotherapy. OBELICS is a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial comparing in mCRC patients two treatment arms (1:1): standard concomitant administration of bevacizumab with chemotherapy (mFOLFOX/OXXEL regimen) vs experimental sequential bevacizumab given 4 days before chemotherapy, as first or second treatment line. Primary end point is the objective response rate (ORR) measured according to RECIST criteria. A sample size of 230 patients was calculated allowing reliable assessment in all plausible first-second line case-mix conditions, with a 80 % statistical power and 2-sided alpha error of 0.05. Secondary endpoints are progression free-survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), toxicity and quality of life. The evaluation of the potential predictive role of several circulating biomarkers (circulating endothelial cells and progenitors, VEGF and VEGF-R SNPs, cytokines, microRNAs, free circulating DNA) as well as the value of the early [(18)F]-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) response, are the objectives of the traslational project. Overall this study could optimize bevacizumab scheduling in combination with chemotherapy in mCRC patients. Moreover, correlative studies could improve the knowledge of the mechanisms by which bevacizumab enhance chemotherapy effect and could identify early predictors of response. EudraCT Number: 2011-004997-27 TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gove number, NCT01718873.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 129 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 16%
Researcher 17 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 11%
Student > Bachelor 13 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 21 16%
Unknown 35 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 42 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 19 October 2016.
All research outputs
#18,379,687
of 23,613,071 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#5,125
of 8,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#276,409
of 402,024 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#98
of 187 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,613,071 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,487 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 402,024 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 187 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.