Observational studyClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2019
Trifluridine/Tipiracil (TAS-102) for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer in clinical practice: a feasible alternative for patients with good performance status.
Observational study in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prognostic factors in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with Trifluridine/Tipiracil.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Article
- Tas-102 for Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.Cancers · 2023Article
- Early Clinical Experience with Trifluridine/Tipiracil for Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The ROS Study.Cancers · 2021Article
- TAS-102 Monotherapy and Combination Therapy with Bevacizumab for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOur aim was to assess efficacy and safety and prognostic factors associated with TAS-102 in clinical practice.
methodRetrospective, multicenter, and observational study including patients with advanced refractory colorectal cancer who started TAS-102 between March 2016 and August 2018. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival, toxicity and analyze prognostic factors present at the beginning of TAS-102.
result84 patients were evaluable. The median OS was 8.30 (95% CI 6.23-9.87) months and PFS was 2.62 (95% CI 2.36-3.05) months. In multivariate analysis, ECOG 0 and reduced dose combined with more cycles were associated with better prognosis. Patients with an ECOG > 0 had worse prognosis (HR 3.34, 95% CI 1.09-10.27, p = 0.035). 95.2% experienced some type of adverse effect and 45.2% had grade ≥ 3 toxicities.
conclusionResults suggest reconsidering TAS-102 in patients with ECOG > 0, something that should be investigated in prospective randomized clinical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31209792What 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.