MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765919915 · doi:10.21873/anticanres.12039

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Retrospective Series of Regorafenib for Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

2017· review· en· W2765919915 on OpenAlexaff
Joey Mercier, Ioannis A. Voutsadakis

Bibliographic record

VenueAnticancer Research · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsEssar Steel Algoma (Canada)Sault Area HospitalUniversity of SudburyNOSM University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegorafenibMedicineIrinotecanColorectal cancerOxaliplatinInternal medicineOncologyBevacizumabAfliberceptPhases of clinical researchCancerClinical trialSurgeryChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Metastatic colorectal cancer is a common disease encountered in oncology practice and treatment options beyond fluoropyrimidines, irinotecan, oxaliplatin and monoclonal antibodies against epidermal growth factor receptor and vascular endothelium growth factor (VEGF) are limited. Regorafenib, a new drug that targets tyrosine kinases such as VEGF receptor as well as others, has been added recently to the armamentarium for metastatic colorectal cancer. This report analyzes the published experience with this drug in clinical practice outside of clinical trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search of major databases was performed for the identification of studies of regorafenib in metastatic colorectal cancer. Studies retained for further analysis were in English or French, describing 20 or more patients treated with regorafenib monotherapy and not part of a phase I, II or III trial. Results of the pooled analysis of retrospective studies were compared with results of the published phase III trials and a phase IIIb prospective study. RESULTS: Twelve publications including a total of 702 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Summary response rate was 2% [95% confidence interval (CI) =0.8-3.2%] and the disease control rate 38.14% (95% CI=32.35-43.93%). Summary survival rates were 3.34 months (95% CI=2.71-3.97 months) for progression-free and 7.27 months (95% CI=6.23-8.3 months) for overall survival. These were similar to the phase III and IIIb studies. Most common adverse effects were also consistent with those of the published phase III experience. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis confirmed a moderate efficacy of regorafenib in later-stage metastatic colorectal cancer in the everyday clinical practice setting outside of clinical trials. Future identification of biomarkers may aid in further tailoring of this treatment in order to obtain maximum clinical benefit.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.031
Bibliometrics0.0100.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.461
GPT teacher head0.564
Teacher spread0.104 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnticancer ResearchSame topicColorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesFrench-language works237,207