SynthesisThe Journal of international medical research2020
A meta-analysis comparing regorafenib with TAS-102 for treating refractory metastatic colorectal cancer.
Synthesis in The Journal of international medical research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- TAS-102 Plus Bevacizumab as an Effective and Well Tolerated Regimen in Chemotherapy-Refractory Advanced Colorectal Cancers - A Single Institution Retrospective Analysis.South Asian journal of cancer · 2025Article
- Article
- Association between sidedness and survival among chemotherapy refractory metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with trifluridine/tipiracil or regorafenib.The oncologist · 2024Article
- A real-world study: third-line treatment options for metastatic colorectal cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe performed this meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and toxicity of regorafenib and TAS-102.
methodsElectronic databases were searched to identify studies comparing the efficacy and safety of regorafenib and TAS-102 in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer using pooled analyses.
resultsThree clinical trials were included in this analysis. Regarding the reasons for treatment discontinuation, regorafenib was significantly associated with disease progression (odds ratio [OR] = 0.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.21-0.50) and adverse events (OR = 4.38, 95% CI = 2.69-7.13). However, overall (OR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.81-1.17) and progression-free survival (OR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.86-1.18) did not significantly differ between the groups. The most common treatment-related adverse events in the regorafenib group were neutropenia (OR = 0.06, 95% CI = 0.03-0.11), hand-foot syndrome (OR = 50.34, 95% CI = 10.44-242.84), and liver dysfunction (OR = 34.51, 95% CI = 8.30-143.43). Conversely, the incidence of thrombocytopenia did not differ between the two groups.
conclusionsRegorafenib and TAS-102 have similar efficacy but different adverse event profiles. Differences in the toxicity profiles of the two drugs will help guide treatment selection.
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.