SynthesisThe oncologist2019
A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Regorafenib and TAS-102 in Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.
Synthesis in The oncologist, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and Safety of Trifluridine/Tipiracil-Containing Combinations in Colorectal Cancer and Other Advanced Solid Tumors: A Systematic Review.The oncologist · 2024Pooled it
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Trifluridine/Tipiracil plus Bevacizumab for the Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Evidence from Real-World Series.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Pooled it
- Comparison of the efficacy and safety of third-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Systematic review and network meta-analyses of third-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2020Pooled it
- Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Multitargeted Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Patients With Intractable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.Technology in cancer research & treatmentPooled it
- Bioequivalence and Pharmacokinetic Evaluation of Two Oral Formulations of Regorafenib: An Open-Label, Randomised, Single-Dose, Two-Period, Two-Way Crossover Clinical Trial in Healthy Chinese Volunteers Under Fasting and Fed Conditions.Drug design, development and therapy · 2021Trial
- Sequential Treatment with Regorafenib and Trifluridine/Tipiracil in Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Management of Elderly Colorectal Cancer Patients: A Comprehensive Review Encompassing Geriatric Assessment.Cancers · 2025Review
- Real-world dosing of regorafenib and outcomes among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a retrospective analysis using US claims data.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Treatment Settings and Outcomes with Regorafenib and Trifluridine/Tipiracil at Third-Line Treatment and beyond in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Real-World Multicenter Retrospective Study.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRegorafenib at different dosing strategies and TAS-102 are treatment options for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness evidence supporting these different strategies. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe searched different databases for randomized controlled trials evaluating TAS-102 or regorafenib in patients with refractory mCRC who failed prior oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and fluoropyrimidine. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The overall effect was pooled using the DerSimonian random effects model. We conducted network meta-analysis based on White's multivariate meta-regression to pool evidence from direct and indirect comparisons.
resultsSix trials at low risk of bias (2,445 patients) were included. Direct comparisons showed that Rego 160 and TAS-102 as monotherapy were superior to best-supportive care (BSC) in terms of PFS (Rego 160: hazard ratio [HR], 0.4; 95% confidence ratio [CI], 0.26-0.63; TAS-102: HR, 0.46 CI, 0.40-0.52) and OS (Rego 160: HR, 0.67; CI, 0.48-0.93; TAS-102: HR, 0.67; CI, 0.57-0.80). Network analysis showed no statistically difference in PFS or OS between Rego 160 and TAS-102. Rego 80+ was superior to BSC in terms of OS (HR, 0.44; CI, 0.23-0.84) and PFS (HR, 0.37; CI, 0.21-0.66). Rego 80+ was associated with statistically nonsignificant improvement in OS and PFS compared with TAS-102 and Rego 160.
conclusionRegorafenib 160 and TAS-102 appear to have similar efficacy. Rego 80+ is shown to be superior to BSC. A trend for improved OS was observed with Rego 80+ versus Rego 160 or TAS 102. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Regorafenib at a dose of 160 mg and TAS-102 appear to have similar efficacy in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. Regorafenib with a dose escalation strategy is superior to best-supportive care. Given its tolerability and the observed trend in survival benefit compared with regorafenib 160, dose escalation strategy of regorafenib (80+) may be the preferred option in this setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.