ArticleTherapeutic advances in medical oncology2026
Clinical outcomes of treatments for patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis.
Article in Therapeutic advances in medical oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Survival benefit of oral systemic monotherapy in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis.The oncologist · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: For metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients whose disease is refractory to standard therapies, treatment with regorafenib, fruquintinib, or trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI; also known as TAS-102) with or without bevacizumab is recommended. Recent clinical trial evidence indicates that FTD/TPI + bevacizumab has superior efficacy to FTD/TPI for these patients, although its relative efficacy compared with other treatment regimens requires further evidence. Objectives: A systematic literature review (SLR) and network meta-analysis (NMA) were performed to evaluate the relative efficacy of treatments for patients with refractory mCRC. Design: SLR and NMA. Data sources and methods: Databases were searched for clinical trials evaluating treatments for refractory mCRC patients. NMA using random- and fixed-effects models was performed to estimate the relative treatment effects of FTD/TPI + bevacizumab compared with other treatment regimens on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Twenty-eight randomized controlled trials evaluating treatment regimens in patients with refractory mCRC were identified. Of these, 16 trials connected in a network with FTD/TPI + bevacizumab. NMA including these trials using random-effects models showed that the efficacy of FTD/TPI + bevacizumab was statistically favorable relative to that of other treatment regimens including placebo/best supportive care (hazard ratio (95% credible interval); OS: 0.41 (0.28, 0.58), PFS: 0.21 (0.14, 0.31)), FTD/TPI monotherapy (OS: 0.59 (0.43, 0.79), PFS: 0.46 (0.34, 0.64)), cetuximab (OS: 0.47 (0.29, 0.73), PFS: 0.32 (0.20, 0.53)), cetuximab + irinotecan (PFS: 0.43 (0.19, 0.98), panitumumab (OS: 0.46 (0.28, 0.72), PFS: 0.35 (0.22, 0.59)), regorafenib (OS: 0.60 (0.38, 0.95), PFS: 0.49 (0.31, 0.84)), and fruquintinib (OS: 0.62 (0.39, 0.94)). Conclusion: NMA results suggest that FTD/TPI + bevacizumab confers clinically relevant improvements in OS and PFS compared with other treatment regimens for refractory mCRC patients, supporting the use of this combination therapy in the third-line treatment setting.
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.