Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31790382›Full record

SynthesisMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2019

Comparison of Regorafenib, Fruquintinib, and TAS-102 in Previously Treated Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Five Clinical Trials.

Jianxin Chen, Junhui Wang, Hai Lin, Yonghai Peng

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jianxin ChenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Quzhou People's Hospital, Quzhou, Zhejiang, China (mainland).
Junhui WangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Quzhou People's Hospital, Quzhou, Zhejiang, China (mainland).
Hai LinDepartment of Gastroenterology, Quzhou People's Hospital, Quzhou, Zhejiang, China (mainland).
Yonghai PengDepartment of Oncology, Fuzhou General Hospital, Fuzhou, Fujian, China (mainland).
Quzhou City People's Hospital · CNFuzhou General Hospital of Nanjing Military Command · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND This study aimed to conduct a systematic review of the literature to identify key randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), followed by network meta-analysis, to compare the efficacy and safety profiles of regorafenib, fruquintinib, and TAS-102 in previously treated patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma (mCRC). MATERIAL AND METHODS Systematic literature review was performed using the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane library online databases to identify published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and the odds ratios (ORs) for the objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), and fatal adverse events (FAEs) were compared indirectly using network meta-analysis based on a random-effects model. RESULTS Five RCTs that included 2,604 patients fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were analyzed. Indirect comparisons showed that fruquintinib was associated with significant superiority for PFS (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.34-0.95) and DCR (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.08-3.01) when compared with TAS-102 in patients with mCRC. However, there was no significant difference between OS or ORR between regorafenib, fruquintinib, and TAS-102. Fruquintinib was associated with a significantly higher risk of SAEs when compared with TAS-102 or regorafenib. There was no significant difference in the risk of AEs or FAEs following indirect comparison between fruquintinib, regorafenib, and TAS-102. CONCLUSIONS The findings from network meta-analysis showed that fruquintinib was associated with significant superiority for PFS and DCR compared with TAS-102, but fruquintinib was associated with significantly increased risk for SAEs compared with regorafenib and TAS-102.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBenzofuransColonic NeoplasmsColorectal NeoplasmsDisease-Free SurvivalDrug CombinationsHumansPhenylurea CompoundsPyridinesPyrrolidinesQuinazolinesRectal NeoplasmsThymineTrifluridineUracilBenzofuransDrug CombinationsHMPL-013Phenylurea CompoundsPyridinesPyrrolidinesQuinazolinesregorafenibThymineTrifluridinetrifluridine tipiracil drug combinationUracil

Identifiers

PMID31790382
PMCPMC6909918
OpenAlexW2993847643

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.