SynthesisInternational journal of colorectal disease2020
Regorafenib, TAS-102, or fruquintinib for metastatic colorectal cancer: any difference in randomized trials?
Synthesis in International journal of colorectal disease, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of fruquintinib's efficacy and safety in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of phase II and III randomized controlled trials.Clinical journal of gastroenterology · 2025Pooled it
- A Comparison of Bevacizumab Plus TAS-102 and TAS-102 Monotherapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Pooled it
- Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Multitargeted Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Patients With Intractable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.Technology in cancer research & treatmentPooled it
- A Real-World Pharmacovigilance Study of Fruquintinib Based on the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) Database.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- What Is Next for Refractory Colorectal Cancer CRC? Looking Beyond SUNLIGHT, FRESCO2, RECURSE and CORRECT.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Beyond efficacy parity: a novel cost-equilibrium framework for value assessment of competing third-line therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Efficacy comparison of fruquintinib, regorafenib monotherapy or plus programmed death-1 inhibitors for microsatellite stable metastatic colorectal cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2024Article
- Profile of Fruquintinib in the Management of Advanced Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Design, Development and Potential Place in Therapy.Drug design, development and therapy · 2024Review
- Using a combination of fruquintinib, raltitrexed, and S-1 as a third-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer with co-existence of Hodgkin lymphoma: a case report.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2023Article
- A multi-center effectiveness comparison study of fruquintinib with constructed external control cohort of other targeted kinase inhibitors using real-world data in third-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Selection of Oral Therapeutics in China for the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer.Current treatment options in oncology · 2021Review
- Efficacy and Safety of Fruquintinib Plus PD-1 Inhibitors Versus Regorafenib Plus PD-1 Inhibitors in Refractory Microsatellite Stable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Influence of KDR Genetic Variation on the Efficacy and Safety of Patients with Chemotherapy Refractory Metastatic CRC Who Received Apatinib Treatment.International journal of general medicine · 2021Article
- TAS-102 Monotherapy and Combination Therapy with Bevacizumab for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2021Review
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib for metastatic colorectal cancer third-line treatment in China.BMC cancer · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDirect randomized comparisons of regorafenib, TAS-102, and fruquintinib for treating metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are lacking. Here, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of three agents by a systematic review and a network meta-analysis.
methodsWe included phase III randomized controlled trials in the PubMed, Embase, and Scopus Cochrane databases and ClinicalTrials.gov registry from initiation until January 2019. Data from randomized controlled trials including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs) were extracted. Direct meta-analysis and indirect meta-analysis using network meta-analysis were assessed.
resultsFive trials comprising a total of 2586 patients were included. For efficacy analysis of OS, no statistically significant differences were observed between regorafenib and TAS-102 (HR 0.945, 95% CI [0.677, 1.320], P = 0.753), regorafenib and fruquintinib (HR 1.056, 95% CI [0.690, 1.621], P = 0.814), or TAS-102 and fruquintinib (HR 1.117, 95% CI [0.740, 1.685], P = 0.610). However, fruquintinib was superior in PFS compared with TAS-102 (HR 1.756, 95% CI [1.079, 2.857], P = 0.023). Regorafenib and TAS-102 appeared to have a similar effect on PFS (HR 0.907, 95% CI [0.611, 1.346], P = 0.641), as did regorafenib and fruquintinib (HR 1.592, 95% CI [0.968, 2.618], P = 0.067). None of the three agents were better in terms of all grade AEs or any grade of 3-5 AEs. However, subgroup analysis of AEs exhibited different toxicity profiles between the three drugs.
conclusionsIndirect comparison suggested that the three agents had similar OS but that fruquintinib was superior in terms of PFS compared with that of TAS-102. These three agents had different toxicity profiles.
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.