Retrospective analysis reveals transition rates among treatment lines in metastatic colorectal cancer, indicating the importance of first-line therapy.
Background: The development of later-line drugs for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has expanded treatment options. However, real-world evidence of treatment sequences and transition rates from early- to later-line treatments are limited. Patients and methods: This was a retrospective study using hospital administrative data from patients in Japan who underwent colorectal cancer surgery or first-line treatment after January 2017. Transition rates were calculated and treatment sequences were summarized using a Sankey diagram. Logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with the transition from second- to third-line treatment. Results: In total, 27,100 patients (median age: 69 years) were included in the study population. Transition rates to subsequent treatment lines from first to fifth ranged from 66.6% to 71.3% (first to second: 69.4%; second to third: 71.3%; third to fourth: 71.1%; fourth to fifth: 66.6%). Among 9061 patients who received second-line treatment, 6456 continued to third-line treatment, and 2605 received the best supportive care. Longer first- (≥180 days; OR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.13–1.37) and second-line (≥120 days; OR: 1.70; 95% CI: 1.55–1.86) treatment durations were significant factors for continuing to third-line treatment. Prior therapy with oxaliplatin and irinotecan plus molecular targeted drugs was also associated with a higher likelihood of proceeding to third-line treatment (OR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.27–1.56). Conclusions: This study describes the current mCRC treatment landscape in Japan. Considering the findings, appropriate early treatments are critical for transition to later-line treatment. Additionally, many later-line options are necessary to provide treatment continuation opportunities for better outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kagawa et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: