MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404759855 · doi:10.6004/jnccn.2024.7053

Comparative Safety and Effectiveness of Bevacizumab Biosimilars to Originator for the Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

2024· article· en· W4404759855 on OpenAlexaffabout
Caroline Muñoz, Jaclyn Beca, Erind Dvorani, Rebecca E. Mercer, Jessica Arias, Andrea Adamic, Scott Gavura, Kelvin Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer ControlSunnybrook Health Science CentreInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesCancer Care Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBevacizumabMedicineBiosimilarInternal medicineHazard ratioPropensity score matchingOncologyProportional hazards modelColorectal cancerIrinotecanRetrospective cohort studyCancerChemotherapyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Ontario has publicly funded biosimilar bevacizumab for first-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) since 2019. Clinical trials demonstrate comparable efficacy and safety of bevacizumab biosimilars to originator bevacizumab. The objective of this study was to assess real-world safety and effectiveness of the implementation of bevacizumab biosimilars compared with originator bevacizumab in patients with mCRC. METHODS: This was a population-based, retrospective study comparing Ontario patients starting treatment with bevacizumab biosimilars between August 12, 2019, and March 31, 2021, and starting treatment with originator bevacizumab between July 2, 2008, and August 11, 2019. Safety outcomes included death within 30 days of the last dose received, any hospitalization, direct hospitalization, and hospitalization resulting from bevacizumab-related toxicity, chemotherapy-related toxicity, and febrile neutropenia. Event rates were assessed using negative binomial and logistic regression. The effectiveness outcome was overall survival, calculated using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression. A subgroup analysis compared safety and effectiveness outcomes between patients on bevacizumab biosimilar products and matched comparators. RESULTS: We identified 8,996 patients who initiated first-line treatment of bevacizumab for mCRC. Accounting for duration of follow-up, no significant differences were observed in the rate of hospitalization between treatment groups. No differences in overall survival (log-rank P>.05) or hazard ratios (propensity score-matched hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.92-1.16) were observed in the crude and propensity score-matched cohorts. Subgroup analysis demonstrated similar safety and effectiveness patterns. CONCLUSIONS: The demonstrated similarity in safety and effectiveness between bevacizumab biosimilars and originator bevacizumab provides further support for the use of and confidence in biosimilar products.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.634
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.335 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the National Comprehensive Cancer NetworkSame topicColorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesFrench-language works237,207