ArticleClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2026
Definition of lines of treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer: a Delphi consensus.
Article in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2026. 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.
- Identifying the Initiation of a New Line of Therapy for Metastatic Lung, Breast, and Colorectal Cancer in Real-World Data: A Scoping Review.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMetastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) presents significant therapeutic challenges, with variability in the definition and classification of lines of treatment (LoTs). This study aimed to achieve consensus among Spanish oncology experts on the classification of LoTs through the application of the Delphi methodology.
methodsA nationwide Delphi study was conducted in three phases. Twelve experts designed a two-round online survey that consisted of 41 statements across 11 sections. Statements were evaluated with a five-point Likert scale, with ≥ 70% agreement or disagreement as the criterion of consensus.
resultsA total of 110 and 92 oncologists participated in the first and second rounds, respectively, with consensus achieved on 32 of 41 statements. Key agreements included definition of treatment lines before systemic therapy (98.18%), classification of relapses after six months of adjuvant therapy as first line (92.73%), and the inclusion of maintenance therapy as part of first-line treatment (98.18%). Variability arose on the use of biologics in perioperative settings (67.39% disagreement) and progression criteria, and 75% of experts agreed that a switch in biologics constitutes a new line. Thus, it is needed to standardize definitions in clinical practice.
conclusionsThis study highlights significant variability in the definition of LoTs for mCRC, which reflects the evolution of therapeutic landscape. The divergence between clinical trial criteria and real-world practices underscores the need for standardized definitions to enhance consistency in clinical decision-making. Refinement of guidelines on biologic agents, rechallenge strategies, and therapy classification is critical to advance mCRC management and improve patient outcomes. This consensus serves as a foundation for future research and guideline development.
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.