Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 428

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Treatment-Related Mortality With Bevacizumab in Cancer Patients: A Meta-analysis

Ranpura, Vishal, Hapani, Sanjaykumar, Wu, Shenhong·2011·JAMA

Abstract

Context: Fatal adverse events (FAEs) have been reported in cancer patients treated with the widely used angiogenesis inhibitor bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy. Currently, the role of bevacizumab in treatment-related mortality is not clear. Objective: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the overall risk of FAEs associated with bevacizumab. Data Sources: PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases as well as abstracts presented at American Society of Clinical Oncology conferences from January 1966 to October 2010 were searched to identify relevant studies. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Eligible studies included prospective RCTs in which bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy or biological therapy was compared with chemotherapy or biological therapy alone. Summary incidence rates, relative risks (RRs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed- or random-effects models. Data Synthesis: A total of 10 217 patients with a variety of advanced solid tumors from 16 RCTs were included in the analysis. The overall incidence of FAEs with bevacizumab was 2.9% (95% CI, 2.0%-4.2%). Compared with chemotherapy alone, the addition of bevacizumab was associated with an increased risk of FAEs, with an RR of 1.33 (95% CI, 1.02-1.73; P = .04; incidence, 2.9% vs 2.2%). This association varied significantly with chemotherapeutic agents ( P = .006) but not with tumor types ( P = .06) or bevacizumab doses ( P = .32). Bevacizumab was associated with an increased risk of FAEs in patients receiving taxanes or platinum agents (RR, 3.49; 95% CI, 1.82-6.66; incidence, 3.3% vs 1.0%) but was not associated with increased risk of FAEs when used in conjunction with other agents (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.37-1.85; incidence, 1.6% vs 1.6%). The most common causes of FAEs were hemorrhage (23.5%), neutropenia (12.2%), and gastrointestinal tract perforation (7.1%). Conclusion: In a meta-analysis of RCTs, bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy or biological therapy, compared with chemotherapy alone, was associated with increased treatment-related mortality.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2011.51

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 34 references

Cited by

See all 428

Metadata

Authors
Ranpura, V., Hapani, S., & Wu, S.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2011-02-02
Volume
305
Issue
5
Pages
487
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2060447671
Cited by
428
References
34
FWCI
25.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Treatment-Related Mortality With Bevacizumab in Cancer Patients: A Meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.2011.51
The paper
Ranpura, V., Hapani, S., & Wu, S. (2011). Treatment-Related Mortality With Bevacizumab in Cancer Patients: A Meta-analysis. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2011.51

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.