Observational studyThe oncologist2026
Real-world outcomes of encorafenib, cetuximab ± binimetinib for BRAF‑mutated metastatic colorectal cancer: the BEETS (JACCRO CC‑18) study.
Observational study 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
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTriplet therapy (encorafenib, cetuximab, and binimetinib) is recommended in Japan for BRAF V600E mutated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients with poor prognostic factors (PFs) based on subgroup analyses of the BEACON CRC trial. We, therefore, conducted a nationwide prospective observational study to evaluate the real-world effectiveness of triplet versus doublet therapy (encorafenib plus cetuximab). PATIENTS AND
methodsThe BEETS trial (UMIN000045530) enrolled BRAF-mutated mCRC patients who received triplet or doublet as second- or third-line treatment. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Exploratory analyses using inverse probability weighting (IPW) based on propensity scores were performed to adjust for poor PFs (ECOG performance status ≥1, ≥3 metastatic sites, elevated C-reactive protein, or unresected primary tumor).
resultsIn 203 enrolled patients, 195 patients were evaluable. Median age was 67 years; 52% were male. Dose intensity for encorafenib and cetuximab was comparable between the triplet and doublet cohorts. In the overall cohort, median OS and progression-free survival (PFS) were 12.9 and 4.9 months, respectively. After IPW adjustment, median OS was 14.0 months in the triplet cohort and 12.9 months in the doublet cohort (HR 0.87, 95%CI 0.57-1.33). Median PFS was 5.3 versus 4.2 months (HR 0.75, 95%CI 0.48-1.19). Among patients with at least one poor PF, both OS and PFS numerically favored the triplet regimen.
conclusionsIn real-world clinical practice, triplet and doublet therapies showed comparable survival outcomes, consistent with the BEACON trial. Triplet therapy may provide potential clinical benefit in patients with poor PFs.
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.