ArticleClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2024
Delphi consensus for the third-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.
Article in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2024. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Third-line treatment decision-making for metastatic colorectal cancer: a cross-sectional survey of US community physicians.The oncologist · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe optimal drug regimen and sequence are still unknown for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who are candidates for third-line (3L) or subsequent treatment. The aim of this study is to know the opinion of experts on the most appropriate treatment options for mCRC in 3L and to clarify certain clinical decisions in Spain.
methodsUsing a modified Delphi method, a group of experts discussed the treatment in 3L of patients with mCRC and developed a questionnaire with 21 items divided into 5 sections.
resultsAfter 2 rounds, the 67 panelists consulted agreed on 17 items (81%). They considered that the main objective of 3L is to equally increase survival and improve patients' quality of life (QoL), but preferably the QoL. It was agreed that patients with mCRC in 3L prefer to receive active versus symptomatic treatment. Panelists considered trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) to be the best oral treatment available to them in 3L. In patients with MSI-H or dMMR and BRAF V600E, the panelists mostly prefer targeted treatments. Panelists agreed the use of a therapeutic sequence that not only increases outcomes but also allows patients to be treated later. Finally, it was agreed that FTD/TPI has a mechanism of action that allows it to be used in patients refractory to previous treatment with 5-fluorouracil.
conclusionThe experts agreed with most of the proposed items on 3L treatment of mCRC, prioritizing therapeutic options that increase survival and preserve QoL, while facilitating the possibility that patients can continue to be treated later.
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.