Trial reportThe oncologist2026
A phase II study to evaluate the efficacy of commercially available molecularly matched targeted therapies in the second-line setting.
Trial report 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
backgroundInitial studies have shown improved outcomes in patients receiving cancer therapies matched to their molecular alterations. To improve the chances of finding a therapeutic match for patients, this study evaluated the preliminary antitumor activity of 3 commercially available multitargeted agents in the United States, regorafenib, afatinib, and cabozantinib.
methodsIn this phase II trial, patients who did not benefit from first-line treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), upper aerodigestive tract cancers, non-colon gastrointestinal cancers, and urothelial carcinoma underwent next-generation sequencing to identify actionable genomic alterations. Eligible patients, based on identified mutations deemed treatable by regorafenib, cabozantinib, or afatinib, were enrolled to receive matched targeted therapies. Outcomes were monitored via Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria, with dose modifications per National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, v4.03 guidelines for adverse events (AEs).
resultsOne hundred patients with metastatic cancers were enrolled across tumor types. Median treatment durations were 12 weeks (regorafenib), 10.7 weeks (afatinib), and 24.1 weeks (cabozantinib). The overall objective response rate was 7.0%, with 1 complete response and 8 partial responses. The clinical benefit rate, including responses and stable disease >6 months, was 16.0%. Median progression-free survival ranged from 1.9 months for urothelial carcinoma to 3.2 months for NSCLC. Toxicities were common for all medications; for regorafenib, 90.7% of patients had AEs (50% Grade 3/4); for afatinib, 86% of patients had AEs (54% Grade 3/4); for cabozantinib, 100% of patients had AEs (36% Grade 3/4). The most common AEs were diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, decreased appetite, and stomatitis.
conclusionsRegorafenib, afatinib, and cabozantinib had modest effects when used as molecularly matched targeted therapies in patients with NSCLC, upper aerodigestive tract cancers, non-colon gastrointestinal cancers, and urothelial carcinoma in the second-line setting. Future research could examine more precise matching of therapies to genomic alterations and evaluate combination therapies.
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.