Cited by 638Lung Cancer Treatments and MutationsLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentLung Cancer Research Studies

Overall survival with cisplatin–gemcitabine and bevacizumab or placebo as first-line therapy for nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer: results from a randomised phase III trial (AVAiL)

Open access
Reck, M., von Pawel, J., Zatloukal, P., Ramlau, R., Gorbounova, V., Hirsh, V., Leighl, N., Mezger, J. +3 more·2010·Annals of Oncology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab, the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agent, provides clinical benefit when combined with platinum-based chemotherapy in first-line advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. We report the final overall survival (OS) analysis from the phase III AVAiL trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (n = 1043) received cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) and gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2) for up to six cycles plus bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg (n = 345), bevacizumab 15 mg/kg (n = 351) or placebo (n = 347) every 3 weeks until progression. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS); OS was a secondary end point. RESULTS: Significant PFS prolongation with bevacizumab compared with placebo was maintained with longer follow-up {hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] 0.75 (0.64-0.87), P = 0.0003 and 0.85 (0.73-1.00), P = 0.0456} for the 7.5 and 15 mg/kg groups, respectively. Median OS was >13 months in all treatment groups; nevertheless, OS was not significantly increased with bevacizumab [HR (95% CI) 0.93 (0.78-1.11), P = 0.420 and 1.03 (0.86-1.23), P = 0.761] for the 7.5 and 15 mg/kg groups, respectively, versus placebo. Most patients ( approximately 62%) received multiple lines of poststudy treatment. Updated safety results are consistent with those previously reported. CONCLUSIONS: Final analysis of AVAiL confirms the efficacy of bevacizumab when combined with cisplatin-gemcitabine. The PFS benefit did not translate into a significant OS benefit, possibly due to high use of efficacious second-line therapies.

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 · 10.1093/annonc/mdq020

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • One trial of two different doses of bevacizumab in combination with cisplatin plus gemcitabine versus placebo provided updated OS results that were not statistically significantly different.

    “One trial of two different doses of bevacizumab in combination with cisplatin plus gemcitabine versus a placebo provided updated OS results (earlier results were reviewed in 2009 guideline). The results were not statistically significantly different and therefore do not provide support for changing the current recommendation.76”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Reck, M., von Pawel, J., Zatloukal, P., Ramlau, R., Gorbounova, V., Hirsh, V., Leighl, N., Mezger, J., Archer, V., Moore, N., & Manegold, C.
Affiliations
  • LungenClinic Grosshansdorf (DE)
  • Charles University (CZ)
  • Russian Cancer Research Center NN Blokhin (RU)
  • McGill University Health Centre (CA)
  • Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (CA)
  • St. Vincentius-Kliniken (DE)
  • Roche (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG (CH)
  • Heidelberg University (DE)
Corresponding author
Reck, M.
Venue
Annals of Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-09
Volume
21
Issue
9
Pages
1804-1809
ISSN
0923-7534 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2115330744
Cited by
638
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 45 · 2015: 45 · 2014: 60 · 2013: 79 · 2012: 72
FWCI
66.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annals of Oncology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Lung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Lung Cancer Research Studies
Keywords
bevacizumab, cisplatin, gemcitabine, non-small cell lung cancer, first-line therapy, anti-VEGF therapy, overall survival, progression-free survival, second-line therapy
MeSH terms
Bevacizumab, Gemcitabine, Antibodies, Monoclonal, Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols, Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung, Deoxycytidine, Humans, Lung Neoplasms, Neoplasm Recurrence, Local, Neoplasm Staging, Placebos, Prognosis, Survival Rate, Carcinoma, Adenosquamous, Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized

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