Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31278474›Full record

SynthesisJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2019

A comparison of regorafenib and fruquintinib for metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Zhu Jing, Zhou Rui, Zhang Binglan

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Zhu JingDepartment of Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8828-579X
Zhou RuiDepartment of Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Zhang BinglanDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China. binglanzhang@163.com.
The Affiliated Yongchuan Hospital of Chongqing Medical University · CN

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81803569
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe optimal treatment in the third-line and later-line setting for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has not been established. As reported, regorafenib and fruquintinib have shown to be superior to placebo in mCRC. However, no direct clinical comparison of regorafenib and fruquintinib has been conducted; we performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of regorafenib and fruquintinib.

methodsPubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched and randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect and safety of regorafenib or fruquintinib versus placebo for patients with mCRC were included. Two investigators independently searched articles, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. After that, we performed pairwise direct meta-analyses (regorafenib vs. placebo and fruquintinib vs. placebo) and indirect comparison (regorafenib vs. fruquintinib) using network meta-analyses methods.

resultsThree RCTs involving 1380 patients were included in the meta-analysis. In the direct meta-analysis, regorafenib and fruquintinib both showed survival benefits when compared with placebo. For the indirect comparison, fruquintinib shows no significant difference in OS compared to regorafenib (HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.64-1.46). Regarding PFS, there was a tendency that fruquintinib was superior to regorafenib (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.39-1.08); however, there was no statistic difference. For the safety analysis, in indirect comparison, fruquintinib showed significant difference in all-grade toxicity compared to regorafenib (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.65-0.82), especially in subgroup of proteinuria (OR 0.31; 95% CI 0.11-0.86). For the grade 3-5 toxicity, fruquintinib showed no significant difference when compared with regorafenib (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.64-1.32).

conclusionBased on efficacy and safety, there was a tendency that fruquintinib was superior to regorafenib, as a whole, regorafenib and fruquintinib demonstrated similar clinical benefit for patients with refractory mCRC. It seems that fruquintinib has less toxic in all-grade toxicity when compared with regorafenib.

Indexed as

BenzofuransColorectal NeoplasmsDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm MetastasisPhenylurea CompoundsPyridinesQuinazolinesTreatment OutcomeBenzofuransHMPL-013Phenylurea CompoundsPyridinesQuinazolinesregorafenibComparative effectivenessFruquintinibMetastatic colorectal cancerNetwork meta-analysisRegorafenib

Identifiers

PMID31278474
PMCPMC11810421
OpenAlexW2955718369

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.