This page shows what was measured, who it was measured in, and what that does not settle.
What Bevacizumab does in the body
Used with other treatments for several advanced cancers.
Tumours grow their own blood supply by releasing a chemical signal that tells nearby vessels to sprout towards them. Bevacizumab is a sponge for that signal. With less of it circulating, the chaotic new vessels regress and the ones that remain work more like normal vessels, which paradoxically helps chemotherapy reach the tumour. It rarely does much on its own.
What happened in people
In 813 people with untreated advanced bowel cancer, half the group given bevacizumab with chemotherapy lived 20.3 months, versus 15.6 with chemotherapy alone.
✓ Reviewed first-read answer
Where this came from
A person wrote this and a reviewer approved it against this exact record. It carries no effect size.
A reviewer approved this against this record. The reviewed-claim record carrying the exact population and effect size does not exist yet.
No source is stored against this line.
The limit that matters most
Slower tumour growth on a scan does not always mean that people live longer.
Where it acts
Tumour vasculature and the extracellular space around it
Kind of result
The kind of result is not recorded
Supervision
Professional supervision is normally required. A regulator classifies this substance in a way that restricts how it is supplied.
What the registries record it as
The substance registry classes this as protein.
FDA substance registry · 2S9ZZM9Q9V · read 2026-08-29
Where each sentence above came from
No recorded sentence describes the change this makes in a way that stands on its own. The page opens with what it is taken for instead, and the recorded explanation follows below.
Shown as the opening line on this page.
The limit a reviewer approved as the one that matters most here.
The four opening statements run to 95 words.
Words this page uses
Four words worth knowing first
Chosen from what this page shows, with each one explained before the word it depends on.
Biomarker
A biomarker is a number from a test that stands in for something about health.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
A biomarker is like a fuel gauge.
Where that stops being true. A gauge is wired to the tank. Many biomarkers are only loosely tied to health.
What people get wrong. A better number is read as a better life. Several medicines improved a number and helped nobody.
A measurable indicator used as a substitute for a clinical outcome of interest.
Placebo
A placebo is a dummy treatment given so the real one can be compared with it.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
A placebo is like a blank control in an experiment.
Where that stops being true. A blank does nothing. People given a placebo often do get better.
What people get wrong. A placebo effect is read as imaginary. The improvement is measured and real.
An inactive intervention matched in appearance to the test intervention, used to control for non-specific effects.
Comparator
A comparator is whatever the treatment was measured against.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like the other runner in a race.
Where that stops being true. A race has one winner. A study can show both arms improved.
What people get wrong. Results are read without asking what the other group got. Beating nothing is not beating a treatment.
The control condition against which the experimental intervention is assessed.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What happened in people
Each card is one study: the exact question it asked, who was in it, and whether it showed what it set out to show.
Overall survival in previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer
✓ The study showed what it set out to show
Who was studied
AVF2107g (Hurwitz 2004, conducted before ClinicalTrials.gov registration)
How many people
813
Study design
Phase 3
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
Living longer, or avoiding a major event
What was found
p < 0.001; HR for death 0.66
Repeated elsewhere
Replicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. No limitation is recorded for this study.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Intravenous infusion; also compounded for off-label intravitreal injection
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
FDA, Final Decision on Withdrawal of Breast Cancer Indication for AVASTIN Following Public Hearing, Federal Register 27 February 2012 (https://www.federalreg… · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Progression-free survival, paclitaxel with or without bevacizumab in metastatic breast cancer
✓ The study showed what it set out to show
Who was studied
E2100 (Miller 2007)
How many people
722
Study design
Phase 3
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
Living longer, or avoiding a major event
What was found
Progression-free survival significantly improved; overall survival was not
Repeated elsewhere
Partially Replicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. Hypertension, proteinuria, haemorrhage and gastrointestinal perforation contributed to the FDA conclusion that risk outweighed benefit in this indication.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Intravenous infusion; also compounded for off-label intravitreal injection
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
FDA, Final Decision on Withdrawal of Breast Cancer Indication for AVASTIN Following Public Hearing, Federal Register 27 February 2012 (https://www.federalreg… · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Mean change in visual acuity at one year, 5-letter non-inferiority margin, neovascular AMD
✓ The study showed what it set out to show
Who was studied
CATT (NCT00593450)
How many people
1208
Study design
Phase 3 non-inferiority, publicly funded
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
Non-inferiority met on the same dosing schedule
Repeated elsewhere
Replicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. Serious systemic adverse events were more frequent with bevacizumab (24.1% versus 19.0%, RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.01-1.66), across categories not previously identified as concerns.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Intravenous infusion; also compounded for off-label intravitreal injection
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
FDA, Final Decision on Withdrawal of Breast Cancer Indication for AVASTIN Following Public Hearing, Federal Register 27 February 2012 (https://www.federalreg… · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
What we know
RNAWiki holds 3 written-up human studies for this substance, each with the question it asked.
How we know it
Each card names the study, the number of people and what the study set out to measure.
What this does not prove
These summaries were written by a person and have not been signed off as reviewed claims.
Why it matters
A study that failed is as informative as one that worked, and both are here.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim exists, so no exact population, effect size or interval is published yet.
What it changes in the body◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
The path through the body
From what a person takes to what changes. A solid line is a step measured in people. A dashed line is a step nobody has measured that way.
Start
Bevacizumab
What a person takes: Intravenous infusion; also compounded for off-label intravitreal injection.
The measurement behind this step
First infusion over 90 minutes, subsequent infusions shortened if tolerated, at 5-15 mg/kg every two or three weeks depending on indication. Intravitreal use is a compounded off-label preparation of a fraction of a milligram.
Getting in
Intravenous infusion every two or three weeks
Given as a drip alongside chemotherapy. The first infusion is slow because of reaction risk; later ones can be shortened.
──Measured in people. Written by a person from the study named beside the step. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.
The measurement behind this step
Weight-based dosing of 5, 10 or 15 mg/kg depending on indication, with a terminal half-life around 20 days and predominantly plasma distribution.
Because tumour vessels leak, the antibody escapes into the tissue around the tumour, which is exactly where the growth signal is being released.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
High interstitial fluid pressure and disordered vasculature both impede and enable delivery; bevacizumab acts on the extracellular ligand rather than requiring cell entry, so interstitial exposure is sufficient.
Sequestering VEGF-A before it reaches its receptor
The antibody catches the growth signal in the fluid around the cells. It never touches the tumour cell itself.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Binds all major VEGF-A isoforms at the receptor-binding face, preventing engagement of VEGFR-1 and VEGFR-2 on endothelium. It does not bind VEGF-B, VEGF-C or placental growth factor, which is one route by which tumours escape.
Immature vessels regress and the rest are normalised
The newest, leakiest vessels collapse. The remaining ones tighten up and, for a while, carry blood and chemotherapy more evenly than before.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Withdrawal of VEGF survival signalling causes apoptosis of pericyte-poor immature endothelium. Surviving vessels show restored pericyte coverage and basement membrane, lowering interstitial fluid pressure. This vascular normalisation window is the leading explanation for why the drug helps chemotherapy but does little alone.
Slower tumour growth, with a benefit that depends on setting
In bowel cancer added to chemotherapy, people lived measurably longer. In breast cancer the tumour grew more slowly but people did not live longer, and the approval was taken away.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Growth restraint depends on continuing VEGF dependence. Escape occurs through upregulation of alternative pro-angiogenic ligands including FGF2, placental growth factor and angiopoietin-2, which is why anti-VEGF monotherapy is rarely durable.
No suggested links are held for this record, so nothing is hidden from this path.
What we know
The record describes 5 steps from taking it to an effect in a person.
How we know it
Each step names the study behind it in the technical detail beside it.
What this does not prove
A change inside the body is a reason to look. It is not a result in a person.
Why it matters
A reader can see exactly where the chain stops being measured in people.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim binds any of these steps to a named population.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Were people like you studied?
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it, and where the result stops carrying.
Who was studied
People similar to this profile were included.
Adults with several advanced solid tumours, almost always combined with chemotherapy rather than alone. Ophthalmologists also use it off-label intravitreally for neovascular age-related macular degeneration at a fraction of the cost of the licensed alternative.
Who is missing from the studies
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
What the label states about particular groups
On pediatric, the label states: “The safety and effectiveness of Jobevne in pediatric patients have not been established.”
US prescribing information · 70ab1de6-fb68-aee4-a6cb-f9a0f146687f · read 2026-08-30
On older people, the label states: “In an exploratory pooled analysis of 1745 patients from five randomized, controlled studies, 35% of patients were ≥ 65 years old.”
US prescribing information · 70ab1de6-fb68-aee4-a6cb-f9a0f146687f · read 2026-08-30
On people who are pregnant, the label states: “Risk Summary Based on findings from animal studies and their mechanism of action [see Clinical Pharmacology (12.1) ], bevacizumab products may cause fetal harm in pregnant women.”
US prescribing information · 70ab1de6-fb68-aee4-a6cb-f9a0f146687f · read 2026-08-30
On people who are breastfeeding, the label states: “Risk Summary No data are available regarding the presence of bevacizumab products in human milk, the effects on the breast fed infant, or the effects on milk production.”
US prescribing information · 70ab1de6-fb68-aee4-a6cb-f9a0f146687f · read 2026-08-30
Where the result stopped carrying
The metastatic breast cancer indication was granted on accelerated approval in 2008 and revoked by the FDA Commissioner on 18 November 2011
NSABP C-08 and AVANT found no durable disease-free survival benefit in resected colon cancer
This is a scope explorer, not a diagnosis engine.
It shows who was studied so you can see whether people similar to you were included.
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Why it might seem to do nothing
A real effect and a noticed effect are different things. These are the recorded reasons the two come apart.
It was studied in different people
The people in the studies were not much like the reader.
On this record: Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
The evidence may simply be wrong
Small early studies often do not hold up.
On this record: RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Other reasons RNAWiki checked and found nothing for (11)
It was studied for a different goal
The studies measured something else entirely. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
A different form was studied
The studied form is not the form on the shelf. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
There was nothing to correct
Where a level is already normal, topping it up may change nothing. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else had to happen too
In the studies it was paired with training, a diet or another treatment. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The change is too small to feel
A real change can still sit below what a person notices. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Day-to-day swing hides it
Sleep, food, stress and time of day move most numbers more than this would. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Not enough time yet
The studies ran longer than the person has waited. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
It was not taken as studied
Missed days change the result, and studies count them. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else changed at the same time
Two changes at once cannot be told apart afterwards. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The product may not be what it says
Contents of a sold product are not always what the label states. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
No recorded reason
RNAWiki has nothing stored that would explain it. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
None of these is a reason to take more. Taking more is not a step this page ever suggests.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What taking it involves
The recorded facts about getting hold of it and using it. Nothing here is a suggestion about what you should do.
How it is supplied
Given by a clinician
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
Read from the recorded approval status.
No source is stored against this line.
Form and route
Intravenous infusion; also compounded for off-label intravitreal injection
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form and route recorded on this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
Who oversees it
Professional supervision is normally required. A regulator classifies this substance in a way that restricts how it is supplied.
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
Suppression classes recorded: S1, S3, S4.
No source is stored against this line.
What is in the pack
First infusion over 90 minutes, subsequent infusions shortened if tolerated, at 5-15 mg/kg every two or three weeks depending on indication. Intravitreal use is a compounded off-label preparation of a fraction of a milligram.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on how this is sold and what that means for what is in the pack.
No source is stored against this line.
Where it is registered
Regulatory records are listed in the technical disclosure at the foot of this page.
# Counted from records
Where this came from
A count of rows RNAWiki holds. It describes our records, not your body.
Register entries are stored per jurisdiction and shown with their dates.
No source is stored against this line.
Why people stop
Not recorded.
∅ Nothing recorded
Where this came from
RNAWiki holds nothing here and says so rather than guessing.
No record of why people stopped taking it is stored for this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What can go wrong
Sorted by where each line came from. A regulator's label and a report somebody sent in are not the same kind of fact.
·Worth asking a clinician aboutWritten into the record from the studies named on this page
Gastrointestinal perforation, wound healing complications and severe haemorrhage are the most serious warnings. Hypertension and proteinuria are near-universal class effects requiring routine monitoring. Treatment must be interrupted around elective surgery.
Nobody counted how many people took this and were fine, so this cannot be turned into a rate.
Over a long time. No completed tested study window is recorded, so long-term effects are not established by the registry record.
Groups the studies covered thinly. Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Does the exact form matter?
Evidence belongs to the exact thing that was tested. A different salt, a different mixture or a different preparation is a different question.
The form that was studied
Intravenous infusion; also compounded for off-label intravitreal injection
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form used in the studies cited on this page.
No source is stored against this line.
What is sold
Intravitreal use is a compounded off-label preparation of a fraction of a milligram.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on which forms are sold and how they compare.
No source is stored against this line.
What is recorded as being sold
18 products list this as an active ingredient in the United States drug directory. 18 of them contain it and nothing else.
FDA National Drug Code directory · 58394-095 · read 2026-08-29
They are sold as injection, injection, solution and liquid, taken intravascular, intravenous and intravitreal.
FDA National Drug Code directory · 58394-095 · read 2026-08-29
The regulator's established pharmacologic class for it is vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor [epc], vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors [moa] and vascular endothelial growth factor-directed antibody interactions [moa].
FDA National Drug Code directory · 58394-095 · read 2026-08-29
7 published labels name it as an active ingredient. 7 of them describe this substance alone, which is where its own label text on this page comes from.
US prescribing information · 70ab1de6-fb68-aee4-a6cb-f9a0f146687f · read 2026-08-29
Those labels are classed as human prescription drug.
US prescribing information · 70ab1de6-fb68-aee4-a6cb-f9a0f146687f · read 2026-08-29
JOBEVNE is intravascular at 3 DOSAGE FORMS AND STRENGTHS Injection: 100 mg/4 mL (25 mg/mL) or 400 mg/16 mL (25 mg/mL) clear to slightly opalescent, colorless to pale brown solution in a single-dose vial., recorded as fda label in effect 2026-03-11 in the United States.
US prescribing information · 70ab1de6-fb68-aee4-a6cb-f9a0f146687f · read 2026-08-30
Evidence carries across two names for one substance. It does not carry across a salt, a mirror form or a mixture.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What you could measure
This one is decided with a clinician, so this section holds questions to ask rather than a plan to run.
Self-experiment planning is not offered for a prescription or clinician-supervised medicine. The questions below are for a clinician or pharmacist.
Questions worth asking
Which of the trials of Bevacizumab studied people like me?
What was measured, and for how long?
Was the result a laboratory value or a health outcome?
What would we watch for, and when would we stop?
Tracking can show whether something changed for you. It cannot show what caused it.
RNAWiki records evidence. It does not say whether this substance is right for you.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Claims that go past the evidence
Things said about this substance that sound reasonable, and the exact step that is missing between the evidence and the claim.
✗Goes past the evidence
That a progression-free survival gain implies patients live longer; three breast cancer trials showed it does not follow
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That starving a tumour of blood supply works wherever a tumour has one; the adjuvant colon cancer trials failed
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That equivalence in the eye implies equivalence of systemic safety; CATT found more serious systemic events with bevacizumab
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What nobody knows yet
Open questions, each with why it is open and what would close it.
Missing populations
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing long-term data
No completed tested study window is recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
No reviewed conclusion
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing interaction studies
No interaction was found in the registers checked. Not finding one is not the same as showing there is none.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Formulation uncertainty
Several salts, forms or products of Bevacizumab are recorded. Results from one form may not transfer to another.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Mechanism not reviewed
No reviewed mechanism story exists for this substance.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Check any of this yourself
Every line above traced back to the study it came from. This is the technical layer, and the vocabulary changes here.
Every line above can be traced to the study named beside it. Follow the link and read it.
AVF2107g: median overall survival 20.3 versus 15.6 months in metastatic colorectal cancer
In plain words
In 813 people with untreated metastatic bowel cancer, adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy extended median survival by about 4.7 months. This is the result the whole approval rests on.
What was measured
Median overall survival 20.3 versus 15.6 months, HR 0.66
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Randomised trial, 402 to IFL chemotherapy plus bevacizumab 5 mg/kg every two weeks and 411 to IFL plus placebo. Median overall survival 20.3 versus 15.6 months, hazard ratio for death 0.66, p < 0.001. Overall survival was the primary endpoint, which is the strongest form this evidence can take.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The breast cancer indication was granted on progression-free survival and revoked in 2011
In plain words
Accelerated approval in 2008 rested on delaying progression in the E2100 trial. Confirmatory trials showed a smaller delay and no survival benefit, and on 18 November 2011 the FDA Commissioner revoked the indication.
What was measured
Progression-free survival improved; overall survival did not, in E2100 and in both confirmatory trials
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
E2100 randomised paclitaxel with or without bevacizumab and showed a substantial progression-free survival gain without an overall survival gain. AVADO and RIBBON-1 reproduced a smaller progression-free effect and again no survival benefit, against a background of hypertension, proteinuria, haemorrhage and gastrointestinal perforation. The Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee voted 6-0 to withdraw after a two-day hearing in June 2011; the Commissioner concluded the drug had not been shown safe and effective for that use, and the final decision was published in the Federal Register in February 2012.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Progression-free survival was read as a proxy for living longer
In plain words
A tumour that grows more slowly on a scan is not the same as a patient who lives longer. Bevacizumab is the drug that made that distinction concrete for a whole generation of oncologists.
What was measured
That a progression-free survival gain implies an overall survival gain
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
The 2008 accelerated approval in breast cancer was granted on progression-free survival as a surrogate reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. Across E2100, AVADO and RIBBON-1 the surrogate moved and overall survival did not. The pattern recurs in other indications: bevacizumab improves progression-free survival in recurrent glioblastoma without a demonstrated overall survival benefit, and its glioblastoma approval likewise came through the accelerated pathway.
Source
FDA accelerated approval and withdrawal record for the Avastin breast cancer indication
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
caution
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Adjuvant colon cancer: no benefit when the tumour has already been removed
In plain words
Given after curative surgery to prevent recurrence, bevacizumab did not improve disease-free survival. The setting where it works and the setting where it does not are separated by whether visible tumour is present.
What was measured
Not recorded
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
This entry records a failure.
From the source
NSABP C-08 and AVANT both tested bevacizumab added to adjuvant chemotherapy in resected colon cancer and neither showed a durable disease-free survival benefit; AVANT showed a numerically worse overall survival trend. The mechanistic reading is that anti-angiogenic therapy acts on established tumour vasculature and has little to act on against micrometastatic disease. Bevacizumab is not approved in the adjuvant setting.
Source
Absence of an adjuvant colon cancer indication in the AVASTIN US Prescribing Information
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
verified
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
CATT: in the eye, bevacizumab matched a drug costing 20 to 40 times more
In plain words
A publicly funded trial in 1,208 patients found that off-label bevacizumab given into the eye preserved vision as well as the licensed alternative, at a small fraction of the cost.
What was measured
8.0 versus 8.5 letters gained at one year on monthly dosing
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Multicentre single-blind non-inferiority trial with a 5-letter margin. Monthly bevacizumab gained 8.0 letters against 8.5 for monthly ranibizumab; as-needed bevacizumab gained 5.9 against 6.8 for as-needed ranibizumab, both within the non-inferiority margin. Serious systemic adverse events, mostly hospitalisations, were more frequent with bevacizumab (24.1% versus 19.0%, risk ratio 1.29, 95% CI 1.01-1.66), distributed across categories not previously flagged. The manufacturer never sought an ophthalmic indication for bevacizumab.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Class toxicity is mechanistic, not idiosyncratic
In plain words
VEGF also maintains normal blood vessels, kidney filtration barriers and wound healing. Blocking it causes high blood pressure, protein in the urine, bleeding, clots, poor wound healing and, rarely, holes in the bowel.
What was measured
Not recorded
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
The label carries warnings for gastrointestinal perforation and fistula, surgery and wound healing complications, haemorrhage, arterial and venous thromboembolism, hypertension, posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome, renal injury and proteinuria, and ovarian failure. VEGF is required for glomerular endothelial fenestration and for endothelial nitric oxide synthase activity, which explains proteinuria and hypertension directly.
Source
AVASTIN US Prescribing Information, Warnings and Precautions
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
verified
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Where else this substance is registered
FDA substance identifier (UNII)
2S9ZZM9Q9V
RxNorm concept
1657066
Checks this page had to pass
✓ Passed
Identity resolved
no open identity hold
✓ Passed
No unresolved merge across substance families
no quarantine open
✓ Passed
Every public sentence names a source
The opening statement carries the origin: Reviewed first-read answer.
✗ Not passed
Trial roles classified for highlighted evidence
No registered study is classified as testing this substance.
✓ Passed
No internal keys in reader text
enforced by the copy-contract test over the rendered page
✓ Passed
Safety mode resolved
Suppression classes recorded: S1, S3, S4.
✓ Passed
Canonical metadata present
slug and display name present
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
How this medicine reached us
Kept near the foot of the page. A historical event moves up only when it changes something about this substance today.
What the approval register records
1 approved application covers products containing this substance. The earliest was BLA125085, approved 20040226 to GENENTECH.
This order is fixed in code and does not count clicks or time on the page.
What is not here
7 questions this page could not answer
These sections were prepared and left out because there was nothing to put in them. They are listed rather than hidden, so the gaps in this record are visible.
What was measured, goal by goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
How close this is to real life — found nothing in the sources checked.
Felt, measured, or meaningful — found nothing in the sources checked.
How long anything takes — found nothing in the sources checked.
What it may clash with — found nothing in the sources checked.
Other ways to the same goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
What changed on this page — found nothing in the sources checked.
The record as stored
The full record, for auditing
Everything above is built from what is below. This layer keeps the technical vocabulary, record identifiers and every stored row, so a reader who wants to check the page can.
The older medicine-wide conclusion held in this record
Written for a clinical reader, and about the medicine as a whole rather than about one indication, population and set of trials. RNAWiki does not treat it as a programme conclusion and no reviewer has signed it off in that form. It is here word for word because it is what the record holds.
An antibody that sequesters VEGF-A and lengthened median overall survival in metastatic colorectal cancer from 15.6 to 20.3 months, but had its breast cancer indication revoked by the FDA in 2011 when the survival benefit never materialised.
Recorded evidence blocks (10)
Q2
On the Bevacizumab label: indicated for what?
"ZIRABEV is a vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor indicated for the treatment of: • Metastatic colorectal cancer, in combination with intravenous fluorouracil-based chemotherapy for first- or second-line treatment. ( 1.1 ) • Metastatic colorectal cancer, in combination with fluoropyrimidine-irinotecan- or…": indications and usage on Bevacizumab's label. DailyMed label · aa27acbd-d117-4350-aeee-17bc2e2c0ca4 · 2026-07-21
Q3
2121 registered trials of Bevacizumab — at which phases?
Registered studies posting no result
1405 of 2121
2121 registered studies of Bevacizumab: 1300 phase2, 482 phase1, 337 phase3, 78 na, 77 na or unstated, 59 phase4, 23 early phase1. CLINICALTRIALS_SNAPSHOT · 2026-09-01
20 days; The estimated half-life is 20 days (11 to 50 days).
recorded 2026-07-21 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q7
Which running trial of Bevacizumab could settle lifespan?
NCT05468242 measures Progression free survival, reading out 2024-12-30.
143 open trials; n 116; "Study of Tislelizumab for Locally Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Plus Tislelizumab ± Bevacizumab and Definitive Concurrent Chemoradiation Therapy"
Show the evidence
Trial
NCT05468242
"Study of Tislelizumab for Locally Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Plus Tislelizumab ± Bevacizumab and Definitive Concurrent Chemoradiation Therapy"; n 116; "Progression free survival"; 2024-12-30
NCT05118776
"Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of ASC40 Tablets in Combination With Bevacizumab in Subjects With rGBM"; n 136; "Progression-free survival"; 2025-06
NCT03635021
"Study to Evaluate the Efficacy of FOLFOX + Panitumumab Followed by FOLFIRI + Bevacizumab (Sequence 1) Versus FOLFOX + Bevacizumab Followed by FOLFIRI + Panitumumab (Sequence 2) in Untreated Patients With Wild-type RAS Metastatic, Primary Left-sided, Unresectable Colorectal Cancer"; n 419; "Progression-free survival rate at 35 months"; 2025-06-28
NCT03452579
"Nivolumab Plus Standard Dose Bevacizumab Versus Nivolumab Plus Low Dose Bevacizumab in GBM"; n 90; "Overall Survival at 12 Months (OS-12)"; 2025-06-30
NCT06827353
"Niraparib Versus Bevacizumab as Maintenance Therapy in Patients With de Novo Ovarian Cancer Without Homologous Recombination Deficiency"; n 300; "Progression-free survival of patients with high-grade stage III and IV epithelial ovarian carcinoma who received chemotherapy between those who received maintenance treatment with bevacizumab and those who received niraparib."; 2025-09-30
NCT02299999
"SAFIR02_Breast - Efficacy of Genome Analysis as a Therapeutic Decision Tool for Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer"; n 1460; "Progression-free survival in the targeted drug arm compared to standard maintenance therapy arm"; 2025-12
14 further recorded trials
NCT05192798
"Albumin-Bound Paclitaxel Combined With Antiangiogenic Agents in First-line Treatment of Relapsed or Metastatic TNBC"; n 128; "Progression-free Survival (PFS)"; 2025-12-01
NCT04982237
"A Study of AK104 Plus Platinum-containing Chemotherapy±Bevacizumab as First-line Treatment for Persistent, Recurrent, or Metastatic Cervical Cancer"; n 445; "progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR) per RECIST v1.1"; 2025-12-30
NCT06323382
"Locoregional Therapy Combined With Bevacizumab and PD1/L1 Inhibitor in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma"; n 240; "Progression-Free-Survival (PFS)"; 2025-12-30
NCT06282445
"Efficacy and Safety of Chemotherapy With XELOX (Oxaliplatin + Capecitabine) and Bevacizumab in Combination With Adebrelimab in First-line Treatment of Microsatellite Stable (MSS) Initially Unresectable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer"; n 36; "Progression-free survival"; 2026-03-31
NCT06311851
"Transarterial Chemoembolization (TACE) Plus Bevacizumab for Liver Metastases"; n 40; "Overall Survival Rate"; 2026-04-30
NCT05781308
"Combination of Paclitaxel-bevacizumab ± Atezolizumab in Patients With Advanced NSCLC Progressing After Immunotherapy & Chemotherapy"; n 156; "Progression Free Survival at 6 months determined by independent reviewer"; 2026-06
NCT04094688
"Vitamin D3 With Chemotherapy and Bevacizumab in Treating Patients With Advanced or Metastatic Colorectal Cancer"; n 455; "Progression-free Survival (PFS)"; 2026-07-01
NCT06040099
"A US Study to Evaluate Transarterial Radioembolization (TARE) in Combination With Durvalumab and Bevacizumab Therapy in People With Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma Amenable to TARE"; n 58; "Progression Free Survival (PFS)"; 2026-07-01
NCT01167712
"Paclitaxel and Carboplatin With or Without Bevacizumab in Treating Patients With Stage II, Stage III, or Stage IV Ovarian Epithelial Cancer, Primary Peritoneal Cancer, or Fallopian Tube Cancer"; n 692; "Progression-Free Survival"; 2026-07-02
NCT03778957
"A Global Study to Evaluate Transarterial Chemoembolization (TACE) in Combination With Durvalumab and Bevacizumab Therapy in Patients With Locoregional Hepatocellular Carcinoma"; n 724; "Progression Free Survival (PFS) for Arm B vs Arm C"; 2026-08-31
NCT04563338
"An Exploratory Study of Atezolizumab and Bevacizumab in Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Liver Metastases (INTEGRATE)"; n 36; "Progression-free survival"; 2026-08-31
NCT05904886
"A Study Evaluating Atezolizumab and Bevacizumab, With or Without Tiragolumab, in Participants With Untreated Locally Advanced or Metastatic Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) (IMbrave152)"; n 687; "Investigator-assessed Progression-free Survival (PFS) According to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1)"; 2026-09-01
NCT06192680
"Liposomal Irinotecan and Capecitabine Plus Bevacizumab as Second-line Therapy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer"; n 63; "Progression free Survival"; 2026-09-30
NCT06558227
"Study of ZG005 Combined With Bevacizumab Versus Sintilimab Combined With Bevacizumab in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma"; n 90; "progression free survival，PFS"; 2026-10
Q8
Which 459 trials of Bevacizumab posted no result?
Posted no result
459 of 459 completed trials
Registrations
NCT00002994, NCT00109239, NCT00109070, NCT00109226, NCT00109057 and NCT00015951, and 453 more
Completion dates
oldest 2002-04; newest 2024-08-01
Show the evidence
Trial
NCT00002994
2002-04
NCT00109239
2002-09
NCT00109070
2003-04
NCT00109226
2003-09
NCT00109057
2004-02
NCT00015951
2004-03
14 further recorded trials
NCT00096967
2004-07
NCT00069446
2004-10
NCT00019539
2004-11
NCT00022048
2004-11
NCT00399750
2005-06
NCT00081614
2005-07
NCT00052390
2005-10
NCT00416637
2006-03
NCT00022607
2006-05
NCT00097019
2006-05
NCT00043823
2006-05-15
NCT00047710
2006-07
NCT00006786
2006-09
NCT00165568
2006-10
Q9
At the median, Bevacizumab's trials enrolled 57 people — anything larger?
Median enrolment
57
Largest enrolment
369600
Registered trials counted
2100
Q10
What do 20592 spontaneous reports say about Bevacizumab — and not say?
These are reports people sent to a regulator. They do not show the medicine caused the reaction. Nobody counted how many people took the medicine and reported nothing. The same event can be reported more than once, and many reports are incomplete. News coverage, lawsuits and new warnings change how often people report. A count is not a rate and not a risk.
Bevacizumab appears in spontaneous reports to regulators. Across the 10 most-reported reaction terms, 20592 reaction mentions were counted: diarrhoea 3647; hypertension 3475; disease progression 2511; anaemia 2208. FAERS via Open Targets · CHEMBL1201583 · 2026-06-24
Show the evidence
diarrhoea
3647
hypertension
3475
disease progression
2511
anaemia
2208
neutropenia
1974
proteinuria
1635
4 more recorded rows
thrombocytopenia
1584
neuropathy peripheral
1346
epistaxis
1106
febrile neutropenia
1106
recorded 2026-06-24 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q11
Which 10 reactions does Bevacizumab's label not list?
ChEMBL 37 — CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported · ChEMBL ATC CC BY-SA · ClinicalTrials.gov — US Government work · Open Targets 26.06 — CC0 · mixed register set; per-register licences in docs/specs/corpus-20k-sources.md · openFDA / DailyMed — US Government work
✗ required summary fields resolved: 4 required field(s) not terminal: Why people use it, Best-supported result, Biggest unanswered question, Human evidence
✓ public claims reviewed: 0 reviewed claim(s); drafts are never rendered
✓ source coverage passed: 6 source rows
✓ no critical contamination: no quarantine open
✓ canonical metadata passed: slug and display name present
✓ no raw internal fields: enforced by the copy-contract test over the rendered page
This is a record of evidence. It is not medical advice, and it does not say this substance suits you. Nothing here says any substance on RNAWiki is appropriate for a child.