A retrospective study compares outcomes of two dosing schedules in metastatic colorectal cancer, suggesting insights for future treatments.
Background Trifluridine/Tipiracil (TAS-102) is an effective agent for the late-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Combining TAS-102 with bevacizumab improves outcomes but may increase adverse events. We conducted a real-world, retrospective, exploratory comparison of two dosing schedules (bi-weekly vs. four-weekly) to describe efficacy, safety, and potential molecular and clinical correlates. Methods We analyzed patients with mCRC who were treated with TAS-102 in combination with bevacizumab as late-line therapy from January 2020 to February 2023. Regimen assignment followed physician-patient shared decision-making based on clinical factors and local practice changes after emerging evidence, not randomization. Endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), adverse events (AEs). Analyses were exploratory and hypothesis-generating, with multivariable Cox models for selected covariates. Results A total of 92 patients were enrolled in this study. Median PFS was 3.2 months (bi-weekly) vs. 3.7 months (four-weekly), and median OS was 10.0 vs. 9.3 months, with no statistically significant differences. KRAS mutation was associated with inferior OS (7.7 vs. 11.8 months; P = 0.018), whereas TP53 was not. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS) = 2 independently predicted shorter PFS and OS; prior bevacizumab exposure correlated with shorter PFS but not OS. Common adverse events in patients were neutropenia (63.0%), leukopenia (67.0%), anemia (44.6%), malaise (55.4%), nausea (45.7%), anorexia (31.5%), and diarrhea (23.9%). Conclusion In this retrospective, real-world study, the two regimens demonstrated comparable disease control, and the bi-weekly regimen appeared to be better tolerated, representing a reasonable potential alternative. Nevertheless, these findings should be interpreted as exploratory, and future prospective studies are warranted.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zeng et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: