Is There an Optimal Choice in Refractory Colorectal Cancer? A Network Meta-Analysis

In the absence of head-to-head comparison studies, the present network meta-analysis evaluated and compared the efficacy of 4 therapeutic alternatives for refractory colorectal cancer.

The search focused on results from phase III randomized controlled trials. Separate (subgroup) network meta-analyses were conducted to obtain drug comparisons stratified by various patient characteristics. The principal outcome of interest was overall survival (OS).

No difference in OS was found between regorafenib and TAS-102. For a rectal primary location, TAS-102 conferred benefit versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.671), but regorafenib did not (HR, 0.950). For patients aged > 65 years, TAS-102 showed benefit versus placebo (HR, 0.579) but regorafenib did not (HR, 0.816). For patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) of 0 in the indirect comparison, regorafenib showed benefit versus placebo (HR, 0.687), as did TAS-102 (HR, 0.756) but with a lower advantage. For patients with RAS wild type not previously treated with anti-EGFR antibodies, panitumumab was the optimal choice for OS.

No differences in OS were found between regorafenib and TAS-102. Possible greater efficacy was found for TAS-102 compared with regorafenib for patients with a rectal primary location, ECOG PS > 0, and age > 65 years. In contrast, regorafenib showed possible greater effectiveness for patients with ECOG PS 0 and age < 65 years. In the RAS WT population, the anti-EGFR drug showed superiority with respect to TAS-102 and regorafenib. These results should be viewed as only exploratory, and further prospective studies are warranted to validate these data.