ArticleThe oncologist2026
Third-line treatment decision-making for metastatic colorectal cancer: a cross-sectional survey of US community physicians.
Article in The oncologist, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide, with increasing incidence in the US. Improvements in disease management and the increasing incidence of patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC) at younger ages has resulted in more patients being treated in the third-line setting. Treatment has evolved beyond chemotherapy with the approval of newer agents, but there is no consensus on the optimized choice or sequencing post second-line treatment. Identification of the drivers of treatment decisions may provide evidence to guide decision-making, ensuring that patients receive optimal care. The objective of this study was to evaluate treatment preferences and prescribing patterns for third-line mCRC among community-based physicians.
methodsThis study surveyed community-based physicians in the US who were actively treating patients with mCRC.
resultsOverall survival (OS) and impacts to patient quality of life (QoL) were primary considerations for any third-line treatment for mCRC. Physicians considered OS and progression-free survival (PFS) as extremely important factors when making third-line treatment decisions. Most physicians selected trifluridine-tipiracil (FTD-TPI) combined with bevacizumab as their first treatment choice for third-line mCRC (60%), compared to regorafenib (12%), FTD-TPI monotherapy (8%), capecitabine (8%), and fruquintinib (6%). Physicians identified fatigue, neutropenia, and hand-foot syndrome as the most challenging adverse events (AEs) to manage, while hand-foot syndrome and allergic reactions were AEs that would most likely lead physicians to discontinue treatment.
conclusionThese findings highlight the third-line treatment preferences and prescribing patterns of community-based physicians who are actively treating patients with mCRC.
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.