ArticleCancer management and research2025
Clinical Practice and Survival Analysis of Third-Line Therapy in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.
Article in Cancer management and research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The effectiveness of third - line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) still needs enhancing. In real-world clinical practice, third-line treatment options are complex and varied. However, real-world data on third-line treatment for mCRC remains limited. Further investigation is needed into treatment patterns, the efficacy of different regimens, and their influencing factors. Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed 229 mCRC patients receiving third-line therapy (2013-2023). Kaplan-Meier method was used to draw the overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) curves. With the chemotherapy group serving as the control group, the efficacy differences between third-line regimens were compared using the Log rank test. Univariate analysis was first conducted to evaluate prognostic factors, the indicators with statistical significance were analyzed by multivariate analysis using the Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Fruquintinib plus immunotherapy achieved a median PFS of 8.8 months (95% CI: 8.6-9.0), which was significantly longer than the 3.6 months (95% CI: 3.1-4.1) in the chemotherapy group (p = 0.034). All 229 patients had proficient mismatch repair(pMMR) tumors or genetic testing suggestive of MSI-L/microsatellite stability(MSS). The third-line median PFS in the setting was 3.8 months, and the median OS was 13.3 months. Univariate analysis identified metastasis local treatment, RAS/BRAF mutation status, metastasis-to-PD2(defined as the second progression following first-line treatment initiation) interval, baseline CEA, and baseline CA199 as significant prognostic factors. Multivariate analysis confirmed metastasis-to-PD2 interval and baseline CA199 as independent prognostic indicators. Conclusion: In the real-world setting, fruquintinib combined with immunotherapy was associated with benefits in third-line treatment of patients with pMMR mCRC. Shorter metastasis-to-PD2 interval and elevated baseline CA19-9 levels at the start of third-line therapy were independent poor prognostic factors.
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.