ArticleESMO open2021
Trifluridine/tipiracil versus placebo for third or later lines of treatment in metastatic gastric cancer: an exploratory subgroup analysis from the TAGS study.
Article in ESMO open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of prior therapies on outcomes with trifluridine/tipiracil in patients with metastatic gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer in a randomized phase III trial (TAGS).Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Trial
- Apatinib Plus PD-1 Blockade versus Chemotherapy After Prior Immunotherapy in Advanced Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Biologics : targets & therapy · 2026Article
- German, Austrian, and Swiss guidelines for systemic treatment of gastric cancer.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2024Article
- A phase 1b study of the allosteric extracellular FGFR2 inhibitor alofanib in patients with pretreated advanced gastric cancer.Investigational new drugs · 2023Article
- HTA and Gastric Cancer: Evaluating Alternatives in Third- and Fourth-Line Patients.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Comparing treatment and outcomes in advanced esophageal, gastroesophageal junction, and gastric adenocarcinomas: a population-based study.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2023Article
- Optimizing the Continuum of Care in Gastric Cancer.OncoTargets and therapy · 2023Review
- Review
- The evolving strategies for the management of patients with metastatic gastric cancer: A narrative review and expert opinion.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Review
- European-Australasian consensus on the management of advanced gastric and gastro-oesophageal junction cancer: current practice and new directions.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 11 institutions in 8 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMetastatic gastric cancer and cancer of the esophagogastric junction (GC/EGJ) is an aggressive disease with poor prognosis. In the TAGS study, trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) improved overall survival (OS) compared with placebo in heavily pre-treated patients. This unplanned, exploratory subgroup analysis of the TAGS study aimed to clarify outcomes when FTD/TPI was used as third-line (3L) treatment and fourth- or later-line (4L+) treatment. PATIENTS AND
methodsPatients were divided into a 3L group (126 and 64 in FTD/TPI and placebo arms, respectively) and 4L+ group (211 and 106 in FTD/TPI and placebo arms, respectively). Endpoints included OS, progression-free survival (PFS), time to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) deterioration to ≥2, and safety.
resultsBaseline characteristics were generally well balanced between FTD/TPI and placebo for 3L and 4L+ treatment. Median OS (mOS) for FTD/TPI versus placebo was: 6.8 versus 3.2 months {hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 0.68 (0.47-0.97), P = 0.0318} in the 3L group; and 5.2 versus 3.7 months [0.73 (0.55-0.95), P = 0.0192] in the 4L+ group. Median PFS for FTD/TPI versus placebo was 3.1 versus 1.9 months [0.54 (0.38-0.77), P = 0.0004] in the 3L group; and 1.9 versus 1.8 months [0.57 (0.44-0.74), P < 0.0001] in the 4L+ group. Time to deterioration of ECOG PS to ≥2 for FTD/TPI versus placebo was 4.8 versus 2.0 months [HR (95% CI) = 0.60 (0.42-0.86), P = 0.0049] in the 3L group; and 4.0 versus 2.5 months [0.75 (0.57-0.98), P = 0.0329] in the 4L+ group. The safety of FTD/TPI was consistent in all subgroups.
conclusionsThis analysis confirms the efficacy and safety of FTD/TPI in patients with GC/EGJ in third and later lines with a survival benefit that seems slightly superior in 3L treatment. When FTD/TPI is taken in 3L as recommended in the international guidelines, physicians can expect to provide patients with an mOS of 6.8 months.
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.