ArticleDiscover oncology2026
Real-world outcomes of trifluridine/tipiracil with or without bevacizumab in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a multicenter cohort study from Turkey.
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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTrifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI; TAS-102) is an established later-line treatment option for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), and randomized evidence supports the addition of bevacizumab. However, real-world data from Turkey are limited.
methodsWe conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study of adults with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who received FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab (combination) or FTD/TPI monotherapy in routine clinical practice between June 2021 and May 2025, with follow-up updated until September 25, 2025. Overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint, and progression-free survival (PFS), response outcomes in radiologically evaluable patients, and safety were secondary endpoints. Survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimates and log-rank tests, with hazard ratios estimated using Cox regression. A prespecified multivariable Cox model for OS was adjusted for ECOG performance status, number of metastatic sites, liver metastasis, age group, and treatment group.
resultsSeventy-eight patients were included (combination therapy, n = 57; monotherapy, n = 21). Median OS was 8 months (95% CI, 6.17-9.83) in the combination group and 6 months (95% CI, 5.03-6.97) in the monotherapy group (log-rank p = 0.437). Median PFS was 4 months (95% CI, 2.83-5.16) versus 3 months (95% CI, 1.92-4.07) (log-rank p = 0.409). Best radiologic response was evaluable in 65 patients. In univariable Cox regression, treatment group was not significantly associated with OS or PFS. In the multivariable Cox model for OS, treatment group remained not significantly associated with OS (adjusted HR 1.251, 95% CI 0.644-2.427; p = 0.509), whereas ECOG 1 (vs. 0) and liver metastasis (yes vs. no) were associated with worse OS. Hematologic toxicity was the dominant safety signal in both groups, and no unexpected safety signals were observed.
conclusionsIn this multicenter Turkish real-world cohort, FTD/TPI-based therapy was feasible with manageable toxicity in heavily pretreated refractory mCRC. Comparative survival estimates between combination therapy and monotherapy were not statistically significant in unadjusted or adjusted analyses and should be interpreted as exploratory in light of baseline imbalances, subgroup-size asymmetry, and residual confounding. These findings complement, rather than challenge, the comparative efficacy estimates established in randomized trials such as SUNLIGHT.
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.