ArticleImmuno-oncology technology2026
Refractory microsatellite-stable metastatic colorectal cancer: a comparison between botensilimab + balstilimab and current standard of care.
Article in Immuno-oncology technology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03860272 (A Phase 1 Study of AGEN1181, an Fc-Engineered Anti-CTLA-4 Monoclonal Antibody as Monotherapy and in Combination With AGEN2034), which is not on this 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.
A Phase 1 Study of AGEN1181, an Fc-Engineered Anti-CTLA-4 Monoclonal Antibody as Monotherapy and in Combination With AGEN2034 (Balstilimab), an Anti-PD-1 Monoclonal Antibody, in Subjects With Advanced Cancer
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The combination of botensilimab + balstilimab demonstrated promising clinical activity in heavily pre-treated patients with microsatellite-stable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in a recently published phase I study (NCT03860272). Patients and methods: Our objective was to derive overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and safety data from the trials of reference of the current standard of care for refractory mCRC and from the above-mentioned study, and to compare them. After a systematic search of PubMed, we selected four studies (SUNLIGHT, FRESCO-2, RECOURSE, CORRECT). Individual patient OS and PFS data were extracted from Kaplan-Meier curves and more frequent toxic effect rates were collected. Results: Immunotherapy showed higher efficacy in terms of median OS both compared with trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab [hazard ratio (HR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44-0.89] and to later lines of treatment: fruquintinib, regorafenib, and trifluridine-tipiracil alone. These results were confirmed by median PFS comparison of all the therapies except for the trifluridine-tipiracil + bevacizumab combination (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35-0.61 in favor of trifluridine-tipiracil + bevacizumab). As for treatment-related adverse events the most frequent with immunotherapy were fatigue and diarrhea. The other regimens were associated with hematologic toxic effects, nausea, hypertension, and dermatological toxicity. Conclusion: These findings suggest that the immunotherapy combination appears to be a potential option for patients with refractory mCRC while being associated with a completely different toxicity profile. However, confirmation of its efficacy awaits the results of randomized studies. Better comprehension of disease characteristics related to treatment response, such as metastatic sites and molecular biology, is warranted for patient selection.
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.