ReviewCancer management and research2024
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Regorafenib versus Other Third-Line Treatments for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.
Review in Cancer management and research, 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.
- Economic evaluation of newly approved cetuximab biosimilars for first-line treatment of RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer in China.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Inhibition of colorectal carcinogenesis by sunitinib malate: disruption of the IL-6/STAT3/c-MYC/TWIST/MMP2 autocrine signaling axis.Discover oncology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Regorafenib, a novel multikinase inhibitor, has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration as a standard treatment choice for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Nonetheless, its substantial cost places a significant burden on social health resources and patients. However, the cost-effectiveness (CE) of regorafenib compared to other third-line therapies is still undetermined. Objective: This study aims to assess the CE of regorafenib compared to other third-line therapies for the treatment of mCRC. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search in PubMed, Medline, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, as well as nine other databases to identify relevant studies published up to October 2023, focusing on patients with mCRC and examining the cost-effectiveness of regorafenib. Following the screening and extraction of pertinent data, the study quality was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) checklist. Results: The literature search yielded 751 records, and after applying the inclusion criteria, 13 studies from 7 different countries were included. Of these, 7 studies evaluated the cost-effectiveness of regorafenib compared to trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102), 3 studies compared regorafenib with best supportive care (BSC), and 3 studies compared regorafenib with fruquintinib, serplulimab, and regorafenib dose optimization (ReDo).The quality of the included studies was high with an average QHES scores of 85.62. Regorafenib standard dose proves to be less cost-effective than alternative third-line therapies. Implementing a dose optimization strategy could potentially rectify this disparity and enhance the cost-effectiveness of regorafenib. Conclusion: The use of the standard dose of regorafenib is generally regarded as not cost-effective when compared to other third-line therapies for patients with mCRC. However, implementing a dose-escalation strategy may enhance regorafenib's cost-effectiveness. Consequently, significant price reductions or optimizing the dose of regorafenib are required to achieve cost-effectiveness.
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.