SynthesisThe oncologist2026
Survival benefit of oral systemic monotherapy in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGuideline-recommended nontargeted systemic therapies for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) include regorafenib, trifluridine/tipiracil, and fruquintinib, but no consensus exists on the definition of clinically meaningful improvements for later-line mCRC treatments. MATERIALS AND
methodsTrials were identified from systematic searches in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Meta-analyses were performed to characterize overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) improvements with systemic therapy vs placebo in previously treated mCRC. Meta-analyses were conducted using fixed-effect and random-effects (RE) frequentist models of difference in medians, hazard ratios (HRs), and 12-month restricted mean survival time (RMST).
resultsSix randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III trials of 3277 patients comparing oral systemic monotherapies with placebo were analyzed. Using the RE model, the meta-analyzed OS estimate for oral systemic monotherapy vs placebo was 1.86 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30-2.42) for the difference in medians, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.64-0.76) for HRs, and 1.25 months (95% CI, 0.69-1.82) for the difference in 12-month RMST. For PFS, meta-analyzed median improvement was 0.97 months (95% CI, 0.28-1.66), HR was 0.38 (95% CI, 0.30-0.47), and 12-month RMST difference was 1.90 months (95% CI, 1.41-2.39). Sensitivity analyses, excluding the FRESCO-2 trial due to prior treatment differences, confirmed the primary meta-analysis results.
conclusionWhen assessing the clinical benefit of later-line mCRC treatments, the broad clinical picture, including individualized treatment goals, should be evaluated. Considering multiple survival measures in the later-line mCRC context, an incremental survival improvement with oral systemic monotherapy vs no active therapy is clinically meaningful.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.