Cited by 413Colorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesColorectal Cancer Surgical TreatmentsIntraperitoneal and Appendiceal Malignancies

Capecitabine, Bevacizumab, and Mitomycin in First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Results of the Australasian Gastrointestinal Trials Group Randomized Phase III MAX Study

Open access
Tebbutt, Niall C., Wilson, Kate, Gebski, Val J., Cummins, Michelle M., Zannino, Diana, van Hazel, Guy A., Robinson, Bridget, Broad, Adam +10 more·2010·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: To determine whether adding bevacizumab, with or without mitomycin, to capecitabine monotherapy improves progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in an open-label, three-arm randomized trial. Patients and Methods: Overall, 471 patients in Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom with previously untreated, unresectable mCRC were randomly assigned to the following: capecitabine; capecitabine plus bevacizumab (CB); or capecitabine, bevacizumab, and mitomycin (CBM). We compared CB with capecitabine and CBM with capecitabine for progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), toxicity, response rate (RR), and quality of life (QOL). Results: Median PFS was 5.7 months for capecitabine, 8.5 months for CB, and 8.4 months for CBM (capecitabine v CB: hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.79; P < .001; C v CBM: HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.75; P < .001). After a median follow-up of 31 months, median OS was 18.9 months for capecitabine and was 16.4 months for CBM; these data were not significantly different. Toxicity rates were acceptable, and all treatment regimens well tolerated. Bevacizumab toxicities were similar to those in previous studies. Measures of overall QOL were similar in all groups. Conclusion: Adding bevacizumab to capecitabine, with or without mitomycin, significantly improves PFS without major additional toxicity or impairment of QOL.

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 · 10.1200/jco.2009.27.7723

Cites

20 of 20 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?

  • Addition of bevacizumab to standard first-line chemotherapy regimens significantly improved progression-free survival.

    “In contrast, the addition of bevacizumab to standard first‐line chemotherapy regimens significantly improved progression‐free survival.”

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
Tebbutt, N. C., Wilson, K., Gebski, V. J., Cummins, M. M., Zannino, D., van Hazel, G. A., Robinson, B., Broad, A., Ganju, V., Ackland, S. P., Forgeson, G., Cunningham, D., Saunders, M. P., Stockler, M. R., Chua, Y., Zalcberg, J. R., Simes, R. J., & Price, T. J.
Affiliations
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • From Austin Health; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre; Frankston Hospital, Melbourne; National Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney; Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth; Geelong Hospital, Geelong; Canberra Hospital, Canberra; Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Adelaide; Calvary Mater Newcastle Hospital, Newcastle, Australia; Royal Marsden Hospital, London; Christie Hospital, Manchester, United Kingdom; Christchurch Hospital, Christchurch; and Palmerston North...
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2010-07-01
Volume
28
Issue
19
Pages
3191-3198
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2122152991
Cited by
413
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 45 · 2015: 39 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 47 · 2012: 28
FWCI
16.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
  • NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0507-10154)
  • Cancer Australia
  • Cancer Institute NSW
  • National Health and Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Intraperitoneal and Appendiceal Malignancies
Keywords
metastatic colorectal cancer, capecitabine, bevacizumab, mitomycin C, first-line chemotherapy, progression-free survival, overall survival, quality of life, treatment toxicity, anti-VEGF therapy
MeSH terms
Bevacizumab, Capecitabine, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Antibodies, Monoclonal, Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols, Deoxycytidine, Diarrhea, Female, Fluorouracil, Humans, Hypotension, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Metastasis, Quality of Life, Thrombocytopenia, Colorectal Neoplasms, Mitomycin, Treatment Outcome, Australasia, Kaplan-Meier Estimate, 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