ArticleTargeted oncology2023
Real-World Treatment Sequencing in Vulnerable Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.
Article in Targeted oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical characteristics of gastrointestinal stromal tumors with hypoglycemia.Oncology letters · 2024Article
- Trifluridine/Tipiracil Plus Bevacizumab for Vulnerable Patients With Pretreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Retrospective Study (WJOG14520G).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
16 authors at 14 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundData regarding treatment sequence for vulnerable patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in a real-world setting are lacking.
objectiveWe aimed to assess treatment outcomes in second-line or later chemotherapy for vulnerable patients with mCRC in a real-world setting. PATIENTS AND
methodsVulnerable patients with mCRC who received less intensive treatment ('vulnerable') regimens, i.e. fluoropyrimidines with or without biologics (FP), reduced-dose doublet regimens with or without biologics (Doublet), and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monotherapy (Anti-EGFR), as first-line therapy between June 2015 and December 2018 were retrospectively reviewed.
resultsA total of 210 patients from 15 hospitals were analyzed. The median age was 78 years (range 28-90), and 44 patients (21%) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) score of 2. In the entire population, the median time to treatment failure (TTF) and overall survival (OS) were 7.6 and 21.4 months, respectively. Following the failure of first-line therapy in 195 patients, 74 (38%), 24 (12%), and 13 (7%) patients received vulnerable regimens, full-dose doublet regimens with or without biologics, and other regimens, respectively, whereas 84 (43%) received best supportive care (BSC). In patients receiving vulnerable regimens as second-line therapy, the median TTF and OS were 4.4 and 13.7 months, respectively, while response rate and disease control rate were 18% and 62%, respectively. In 84 patients who received BSC, the median OS was 3.5 months.
conclusionsSecond-line chemotherapy for vulnerable patients with mCRC showed clinically meaningful outcomes; however, few patients received second-line therapy, and survival among patients who received BSC was dismal.
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.