Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38989408›Full record

ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal oncology2024

Efficacy and safety of regorafenib in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study.

Hao Yan, Jindong Liu, Yifan Zhang, Shuo Chen, Jing Xu, Dandan Gao, Haipeng Li, Xinyue Fang, Yu Wang, Huaqing Wang and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Hao Yan *Department of Oncology, Tianjin Union Medical Center, Tianjin, China.
Jindong Liu *Department of Oncology, Tianjin Union Medical Center, Tianjin, China.
Yifan ZhangDepartment of Oncology, Tianjin Union Medical Center, Tianjin, China.
Shuo ChenDepartment of Proctology, Tianjin Union Medical Center, Tianjin, China.
Jing XuDepartment of Surgery, Tianjin Union Medical Center, Tianjin, China.
Dandan GaoSchool of Integrative Medicine, Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tianjin, China.
Haipeng LiSchool of Integrative Medicine, Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tianjin, China.
Xinyue FangNanKai University School of Medicine, Tianjin, China.
Yu WangSchool of Integrative Medicine, Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tianjin, China.
Huaqing WangDepartment of Oncology, Tianjin Union Medical Center, Tianjin, China.
Hui WangDepartment of Oncology, Tianjin Union Medical Center, Tianjin, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The majority of studies of regorafenib now were small-sample and single-arm, which potentially limits the strength of evidence. We conduct the study to identify the efficacy and safety of regorafenib for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in real-world applications. Methods: mCRC patients who underwent regorafenib second line or post-second line treatment with at least one assessable lesion were analyzed. Patients received different doses of regorafenib and different combination regimens. The patients were followed up with laboratory tests and imaging examinations every 3 months to evaluate the efficacy and adverse events (AEs). The primary endpoint of this study was median overall survival (mOS), and the secondary endpoints were median progression-free survival (mPFS), the objective response rate (ORR), the disease control rate (DCR), and AEs. Results: A total of 77 patients (45 males and 32 females, aged 58.80±11.65 years) were enrolled in the study. Most primary tumors were located in the rectum (59.74%), and the vast majority of tumors (89.62%) had an adenocarcinoma histological type. The 77 patients had an mOS of 17.8 months, a progression-free survival (PFS) of 4.63 months, an ORR of 6.76%, and a DCR of 55.41%. Patients underwent regorafenib third-line therapy had significantly higher overall survival (OS) than those underwent regorafenib post- third-line treatment (P=0.03). The neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) was an independent factor affecting the OS of the mCRC patients [hazard ratio (HR) =1.12, P=0.03]. In both univariate and multivariate analyses, discontinued use of regorafenib after progression reduced patients' PFS (HR =3.07, P<0.001; HR =2.78, P=0.007). In terms of the tolerated dose, patients receiving 120 mg regorafenib had the longest OS numbers, but there was no statistical difference. We analyzed the effect of the baseline NLR on the OS of patients receiving regorafenib combined with immunotherapy, and found that the NLR ratio cut-off value was 4.4, and patients with a NLR ratio ≤4.4 benefited significantly in terms of OS (P=0.03). The AEs included 21 (27.27%) cases of hand and foot skin reaction, 15 (19.48%) cases of fatigue, 9 (11.69%) cases of pain, 9 (11.69%) cases of nausea, 9 (11.69%) cases of fever, 9 (11.69%) cases of cough, and so on. Conclusions: Regorafenib is relatively effective and safe as a third-line and posterior treatment of mCRC. Patients underwent regorafenib third-line therapy had longer OS than those underwent regorafenib post- third-line treatment. Moreover, PFS benefits can still be obtained by continuing regorafenib treatment after progression. Grade 1-2 AEs were common, but these were usually tolerated by most patients.

Indexed as

efficacymetastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)Regorafenibretrospective studysafety

Identifiers

PMID38989408
PMCPMC11231874

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.