ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
An Observational Study of Trifluridine/Tipiracil-Containing Regimen Versus Regorafenib-Containing Regimen in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Selective Internal Radiation Therapy Using Y-90 Resin Microspheres for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: An Updated Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Advances in therapy · 2024Pooled it
- Trifluridine/tipiracil and survival in mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2026Article
- Additive Manufacturing of Regorafenib Tablets: Formulation Strategies and Characterization for Colorectal Cancer.Polymers · 2025Article
- Association between sidedness and survival among chemotherapy refractory metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with trifluridine/tipiracil or regorafenib.The oncologist · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There are no randomized control trials comparing the efficacy of trifluridine/tipiracil and regorafenib in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Herein, we conducted an observational study to compare the oncologic outcomes of trifluridine/tipiracil-containing regimen (TAS-102) and regorafenib-containing regimen (REG) in patients with mCRC. Material and method: Patients who were diagnosed to have mCRC in 2015 to 2021 and treated with TAS-102-containing regimen or REG-containing regimen were recruited. Monotherapy or combination therapy were all allowed in this study. Oncologic outcomes were presented with progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR). Results: A total of 125 patients were enrolled into our study, accounting for 50 patients with TAS-102 and 75 patients with REG. Of these patients, 64% were treated with TAS-102 or REG monotherapy, while the remaining were treated with TAS-102 combination or REG combination. In general, the median PFS and OS were 3.7 versus 2.0 months ( Conclusions: Our results suggested that TAS-102 had better oncologic outcomes than REG in patients with mCRC, especially in combination. Further prospective trials are warranted to confirm our results.
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.