ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal oncology2024
Regorafenib monotherapy as the later-line treatment for elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a multicenter real-world 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Colorectal cancer is one of the tumors with the highest morbidity and mortality rates in China and the world. Regorafenib is a targeted drug for standard third-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Regorafenib monotherapy has shown certain efficacy in the elderly population, but more robust evidence is needed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the dosing characteristics, prognosis, and safety of regorafenib monotherapy in elderly Chinese patients with mCRC. Methods: This retrospective study comprised elderly patients (aged ≥60 years) with mCRC who received regorafenib monotherapy as a third-line or above treatment in 10 hospitals from August 2017 to June 2020. We analyzed the association between different dosing regimens and prognosis. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and other endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events (AEs). Results: In total, 203 patients were included in the analysis. The median PFS was 3.88 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 3.48-5.65], and the median OS was 10.1 months (95% CI: 8.94-12.1). There was no significant difference in the survival curves between the different dosage groups. The multivariate Cox analysis showed a significant benefit in OS in the high final daily dose group (120-160 mg/day) [hazard ratio (HR): 0.45, 95% CI: 0.25-0.84, P=0.01], which was further confirmed by the propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis. No significant association was found between the initial daily dose and prognosis. Nor was any significant association found between PFS and drug dosage. Subsequently, an age subgroup analysis was conducted using 70 years as the cut-off value. In those aged <70 years, the application of higher final doses (120-160 mg/day) was significantly associated with the prolongation of OS compared to a final dose of 80 mg/day [HR (95% CI): 0.38 (0.16-0.91), P=0.03], and the prolongation of OS was predominantly observed in the 120 mg/day dose group [HR (95% CI): 0.24 (0.09-0.67), P=0.006]. Besides, we observed a statistically insignificant increase in the incidence of AEs in the higher dose group compared to the lower dose group. Conclusions: Regorafenib monotherapy was shown to be efficacious in the elderly population, but further evidence is needed for guidance. Based on our multicenter real-world investigation, the final daily dose was significantly associated with OS. For those aged <70 years, maintaining the final dose at 120 mg/day may have prognostic advantages. The suggested medication protocol requires validation through comprehensive clinical trials.
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.