Trial reportBMC cancer2026
Efficacy and safety of cetuximab-irinotecan rechallenge versus regorafenib in ras wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: a single-center exploratory randomized trial.
Trial report in BMC cancer, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAnti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibodies are widely used in the treatment of RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) across various lines of therapy, including after disease progression. However, evidence from randomized controlled trials regarding the efficacy of cetuximab rechallenge in patients who initially responded to prior cetuximab but subsequently progressed after a cetuximab-free interval remains limited.
methodsThis single-center, prospective, exploratory randomized trial (ChiCTR1900026961) evaluated cetuximab plus irinotecan rechallenge versus regorafenib in patients with RAS wild-type, microsatellite-stable mCRC who had previously responded to then progressed off cetuximab. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint, with overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety as secondary endpoints. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed to identify potential prognostic factors, and an exploratory nomogram was developed for hypothesis generation.
resultsAmong 68 randomized patients, cetuximab plus irinotecan rechallenge was associated with longer median PFS and OS than regorafenib. The DCR and ORR were numerically higher in the rechallenge group. Median PFS was 5.5 months versus 2.6 months, and median OS was 18.8 months versus 10.4 months. Adverse events in the cetuximab group were predominantly grade 1-2 and manageable with supportive care. Univariate and multivariate analyses identified age, ECOG status, and cetuximab-free interval as potential prognostic factors. An exploratory nomogram was constructed based on these factors.
conclusionsThese findings suggest that cetuximab plus irinotecan rechallenge may be associated with clinical benefit and acceptable toxicity in selected patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC. The exploratory nomogram requires further validation. These results support further investigation of rechallenge strategies and biomarker-guided approaches in advanced CRC.
trial registrationThis study was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry on October 27, 2019 (registration number: ChiCTR1900026961).
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.