ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal oncology2024
Efficacy and safety of trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab versus trifluridine/tipiracil monotherapy for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- AGMT mCRC Registry Third-Line and Beyond: a multicentric real-world platform with integrated imaging and biosample database for later-line metastatic colorectal cancer.Future oncology (London, England) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Several studies demonstrated trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) plus bevacizumab (BEV) had better efficacy than the monotherapy of TAS-102 in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, it remains unclear whether Chinese population can benefit from this combination or not. Hence, we conducted this retrospective cohort study to compare the efficacy and safety between TAS-102 plus BEV with TAS-102 monotherapy in refractory mCRC. Methods: This retrospective cohort study enrolled patients (any age) with refractory mCRC from Hunan Cancer Hospital. The main inclusion criteria were histopathologically and/or radiographically confirmed refractory mCRC, World Health Organization (WHO) performance status of 0 to 2, adequate organ function, and initial treatment of TAS-102 with or without BEV between November 2020 and October 2022. Previous therapy with fruquintinib or regorafenib was allowed but not mandatory. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were collected appropriately. Every 2 or 3 treatment cycles, the patients were assessed by computed tomography (CT) scans and clinical assessments until disease progression or loss to follow-up. The National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events 5.0 (NCI-CTCAE 5.0) were presented as n (%). The primary endpoint was investigator-evaluated overall survival (OS). As this is a retrospective cohort study, sample size calculation was not performed. Eligible patients would be enrolled as many as possible. Results: A total of 90 patients were enrolled, including 58 patients who received TAS-102 plus BEV and another 32 patients who received TAS-102 monotherapy. The known baseline characteristics were comparable (P<0.05). With a median follow-up of 4.60 months (range, 0.20-22.80), the median OS (mOS) time in the TAS-102 plus BEV group was longer than that in the TAS-102 monotherapy group (10.83 Conclusions: There was a trend in favor of the combination of BEV plus TAS-102 regarding OS and DCR, without reaching statistical significance, and it means that there was no clear advantage of one over the other in terms of efficacy. Further prospective studies are still necessary to draw a definite conclusion.
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.