Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29452346›Full record

SynthesisAnnals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology2018

Beyond second-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review.

D Arnold, G W Prager, A Quintela, A Stein, S Moreno Vera, N Mounedji, J Taieb

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Delphi consensus for the third-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

D ArnoldInstituto CUF de Oncologia, Lisbon, Portugal; Asklepios Tumorzentrum Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany. Electronic address: dirk.arnold@jmellosaude.pt.
G W PragerMedical University Vienna, Department of Medicine I and Comprehensive Cancer Centre Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
A QuintelaInstituto CUF de Oncologia, Lisbon, Portugal.
A SteinUniversity Hamburg, Hubertus Wald Tumor Center and Department for Hematology and Oncology, Hamburg, Germany.
S Moreno VeraServier Global Medical Affairs, Oncology, Suresnes, France.
N MounedjiServier Global Medical Affairs, Oncology, Suresnes, France.
J TaiebGeorges Pompidou European Hospita, Paris Descartes University, Gastroenterology and Digestive Oncology, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The optimal chemotherapeutic regimen for use beyond the second line for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remains unclear. Materials and methods: We systematically searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE and Medline for records published between January 2002 and May 2017, and cancer congress databases for records published between January 2014 and June 2017. Eligible studies evaluated the efficacy, safety and patient-reported outcomes of monotherapies or combination therapies at any dose and number of treatment cycles for use beyond the second line in patients with mCRC. Studies were assessed for design and quality, and a qualitative data synthesis was conducted to understand the impact of treatment on overall survival and other relevant cancer-related outcomes. Results: The search yielded 938 references of which 68 were included for qualitative synthesis. There was limited evidence to support rechallenge with chemotherapy, targeted therapy or both. Compared with placebo, an overall survival benefit for trifluridine/tipiracil (also known as TAS-102) or regorafenib has been shown for patients previously treated with conventional chemotherapy and targeted therapy. There was no evidence to suggest a difference in efficacy between these treatments. Patient choice and quality of life at this stage of treatment should also be considered when choosing an appropriate therapy. Conclusions: These findings support the introduction of an approved agent such as trifluridine/tipiracil or regorafenib beyond the second line before any rechallenge in patients with mCRC who have failed second-line treatment.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsDisease ProgressionDrug CombinationsDrugs, InvestigationalHumansNeoplasm MetastasisNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPhenylurea CompoundsPyridinesPyrrolidinesThymineTrifluridineUracilDrug CombinationsDrugs, InvestigationalPhenylurea CompoundsPyridinesPyrrolidinesregorafenibThymineTrifluridinetrifluridine tipiracil drug combinationUracil

Identifiers

PMID29452346
PMCPMC5913602

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.