ReviewCancers2026
Comparing the Effectiveness and Safety of Different Third-Line Management Options for Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Reconstructed Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cancers, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMetastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) that progresses after standard first- and second-line therapies carries a poor prognosis, and multiple third-line treatment options are available without a clearly established optimal strategy. This study aimed to comprehensively compare the efficacy and safety of currently approved third-line treatments using reconstructed individual patient data (reconstructed IPD).
methodsA systematic review and reconstructed IPD meta-analysis of phase III randomized controlled trials was conducted in accordance with PRISMA-IPD guidelines. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were digitized and reconstructed using validated methodologies. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), while secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and the incidence of grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (AEs).
resultsA total of 3338 patients were included across five treatment groups: regorafenib (
conclusionTAS-102 plus bevacizumab was associated with the greatest survival benefit in this indirect comparison and appears to be the most effective option for eligible patients. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously given the absence of direct head-to-head trials. Among tyrosine kinase inhibitors, fruquintinib demonstrated superior PFS compared with regorafenib, while OS was comparable.
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.