ArticleDiscover oncology2026
A real-world study of Trifluridine/Tipiracil (TAS-102) combined with bevacizumab as the late-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.
Article in Discover oncology, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTrifluridine/Tipiracil (TAS-102) is an effective agent for the late-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Combining TAS-102 with bevacizumab improves outcomes but may increase adverse events. We conducted a real-world, retrospective, exploratory comparison of two dosing schedules (bi-weekly vs. four-weekly) to describe efficacy, safety, and potential molecular and clinical correlates.
methodsWe analyzed patients with mCRC who were treated with TAS-102 in combination with bevacizumab as late-line therapy from January 2020 to February 2023. Regimen assignment followed physician-patient shared decision-making based on clinical factors and local practice changes after emerging evidence, not randomization. Endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), adverse events (AEs). Analyses were exploratory and hypothesis-generating, with multivariable Cox models for selected covariates.
resultsA total of 92 patients were enrolled in this study. Median PFS was 3.2 months (bi-weekly) vs. 3.7 months (four-weekly), and median OS was 10.0 vs. 9.3 months, with no statistically significant differences. KRAS mutation was associated with inferior OS (7.7 vs. 11.8 months; P = 0.018), whereas TP53 was not. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS) = 2 independently predicted shorter PFS and OS; prior bevacizumab exposure correlated with shorter PFS but not OS. Common adverse events in patients were neutropenia (63.0%), leukopenia (67.0%), anemia (44.6%), malaise (55.4%), nausea (45.7%), anorexia (31.5%), and diarrhea (23.9%).
conclusionIn this retrospective, real-world study, the two regimens demonstrated comparable disease control, and the bi-weekly regimen appeared to be better tolerated, representing a reasonable potential alternative. Nevertheless, these findings should be interpreted as exploratory, and future prospective studies are warranted.
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.