ArticleTherapeutic advances in chronic disease2023
Third-line treatment patterns and clinical outcomes for metastatic colorectal cancer: a retrospective real-world study.
Article in Therapeutic advances in chronic disease, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Randomized Phase II ARC-9 Study of Etrumadenant-Based Therapy versus Regorafenib in Patients with Previously Treated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2026Trial
- Real-World Study of anti-PD-1 Combined with Regorafenib and Raltitrexed as Third-Line Therapy in Colorectal Cancer.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2026Article
- Pharmacophore-based identification and in Silico characterization of microbial metabolites as potential modulators of Wnt signaling pathway in colorectal cancer therapy.Molecular diversity · 2025Article
- Computed tomography guided high dose rate brachytherapy for induced oligoprogression of colorectal cancer liver metastases.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There are multiple recommendations on the third-line therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC); however, no consensus has been reached. Objectives: This study aimed to explore the patient demographics and the real-world third-line treatment landscape of mCRC. Design: A retrospective real-world cohort study. Methods: Electronic medical records of mCRC patients from Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital between 2013 and 2020 were collected. Upon descriptive, comparative, and survival analyses, a retrospective study was conducted to describe demographics and clinical outcomes of mCRC patients receiving third-line treatment. Results: Among 218 mCRC patients receiving third-line therapy, 65.5% received chemotherapy combined with or without targeted drugs, followed by anti-angiogenic monotherapy (18.4%), anti-epidermal growth factor receptor drugs (6.9%) and immunotherapy (6.4%). The overall response rate and disease control rate reached 10.2% and 59.2%, respectively; and median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were 4.0 m and 10.7 m, respectively. After Cox multivariate analysis, we found that therapeutic regime was an independent prognostic factor. Compared to patients receiving anti-angiogenic monotherapy, those receiving chemotherapy combined with or without targeted drugs exhibited better prognosis. For patients whose PFS were longer in the front-line treatment, the PFS of third-line therapy was also relatively longer ( Conclusion: Chemotherapy combined with or without targeted therapy remained dominated third-line choice and showed favorable efficacy compared with anti-angiogenic monotherapy. With the application of more types and quantities of effective drugs, patients would achieve better survival.
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.