ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Comparative study of triple intravenous chemotherapy versus dual chemotherapy combined with hepatic arterial infusion in patients with liver metastases from colorectal cancer.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to compare the therapeutic efficacy and safety of FOLFOXIRI triplet chemotherapy with FOLFIRI combined with hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) in patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases. Methods: This was a single-center retrospective cohort study conducted at the Department of Medical Oncology, The Affiliated Hospital of Yichun University. A total of 132 patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases treated between January 2019 and December 2023 were included. Patients were divided into the FOLFOXIRI group (n = 67) and the FOLFIRI plus HAIC group (n = 65). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), conversion-to-resection outcomes, and adverse events. Survival outcomes were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: The FOLFIRI plus HAIC group showed a higher ORR than the FOLFOXIRI group [37/65 (56.9%) vs. 30/67 (44.8%), p = 0.163] and a higher DCR [58/65 (89.2%) vs. 46/67 (68.7%), p = 0.004]. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated significantly longer PFS in the FOLFIRI plus HAIC group than in the FOLFOXIRI group (10.3 vs. 8.2 months; log-rank p = 0.038). In the unadjusted Cox model, FOLFIRI plus HAIC was associated with improved PFS (HR = 0.62, 95% CI, 0.43-0.89; p = 0.009). Median OS was numerically longer in the FOLFIRI plus HAIC group than in the FOLFOXIRI group (19.5 vs. 17.9 months), but the difference was not statistically significant (log-rank p = 0.150; Cox HR = 0.93, 95% CI, 0.61-1.42; p = 0.739). The R0 resection rate was higher in the FOLFIRI plus HAIC group [14/65 (21.5%) vs. 6/67 (9.0%); p = 0.044]. Grade 3/4 adverse events were comparable between groups [20/65 (30.8%) vs. 26/67 (38.8%); p = 0.333], while grade 3/4 neutropenia showed a borderline lower incidence in the FOLFIRI plus HAIC group [12/65 (18.5%) vs. 19/67 (28.4%); p = 0.051]. HAIC-related complications were infrequent and manageable. Conclusions: FOLFIRI plus HAIC was associated with improved disease control, prolonged PFS, and a higher R0 resection rate compared with FOLFOXIRI. The regimen showed a manageable safety profile, with infrequent HAIC-related complications. Given the retrospective and non-randomized design, these findings should be interpreted cautiously and validated in prospective randomized studies.
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.