e15021 Background: The monoclonal antibody against vascular endothelial growth factor BEVA has recently demonstrated to improve survival for MRC patients (pts). Nevertheless, the magnitude of the provided benefit in the daily practice is still controversial. In order to quantify the benefit of adding BEVA to CT for MCRC, a literature-based meta-analysis was conducted. Methods: Survival Hazard Ratios (HR) were extracted from prospective, randomized clinical trials (RCTs, either phase II/III) reports. HR and event-based relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were derived through a random-effect model. Differences in primary (progression-free- and overall-survival, PFS/OS) and secondary outcomes (overall, partial and complete response rates, ORR/PR/CR) were explored. Absolute differences (AD) and the number of patients needed to treat (NNT) were calculated. Heterogeneity test and a meta-regression analysis with clinical predictors for outcomes were conducted as well. A sensitivity analysis according to the trial phase-design was accomplished. Results: Five trials (2,728 pts), 2 phase II (313 pts) and 3 phase III (2,415 pts), were gathered. No significant interaction was found in the sensitivity analysis between phase II and III, although a trend showed a better PFS results for BEVA in phase II trials (p=0.057). At the meta-regression analysis female gender and rectal primary site were significant predictors for PFS (p=0.003, p=0.005). Toxicity analysis is ongoing. Conclusions: Although concerns regarding costs and toxicities still exist, BEVA significantly improves the outcome of untreated MCRC pts. The absolute benefit provided into an unselected population for molecular features should be considered of paramount importance for advanced disease. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.
Baseline severity and the prediction of placebo response in clinical trials for alcohol dependence: A meta‐regression analysis to develop an enrichment strategy
