Efficacy and safety of regorafenib compared to TAS-102 for metastatic colorectal cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
735 Background: Recent studies have shown regorafenib and TAS-102 (TAS) to be superior to placebo (P) in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, no studies have directly compared both drugs. Giving the lack of therapeutic options for these patients,, a systematic review to compare the efficacy and safety of regorafenib compared with TAS was performed, using indirect comparison methods. Methods: A systematic review using PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane database to identify published and unpublished studies up to November 2015 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, involving regorafenib or TAS was performed. Data including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicity were extracted. Pairwise direct meta-analyses (regorafenib versus placebo and TAS versus placebo) and indirect comparison (regorafenib versus TAS) using network meta-analyses methods (R package “netmeta”) to preserve randomization were performed using random effects. Results: 914 citations were initially identified among which 3 RCTs fulfilled eligibility criteria (CORRECT, CONCUR and RECOURSE trials) involving 1.764 patients (regorafenib: 641, TAS: 534, Placebo: 589). Subgroups of patients (1.659) who had not received prior regorafenib or TAS-102 were used to performed meta-analyses for efficacy. In indirect comparison, there were no statically differences observed between regorafenib and TAS-102 in overall survival (HR 0.96 95% CI 0.56-1.55 p = 0.082) and progression-free survival (HR HR 0.85 95% CI 0.40-1.80 p = 0.0182). In addition, there were no differences in objective response rate and disease control between both drugs. However, regorafenib has statistically more all grade toxicity (risk difference (RD) 0.31 CI 0.25-0.38 p = 0.001) and toxicity grade 3-5 (RD 0.22 CI 0.13-0.31 p < 0.001) compared to TAS. Conclusions: In this indirect comparison, regorafenib and TAS appeared to have similar efficacy. However, regorafenib has more toxicity compared to TAS. Post-approval real world data focusing on the comparative toxicity of regorafenib and TAS is warranted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.047 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".