Trifluridine 1% eye drops preservative free

Colorectal cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. The first and second lines of treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) include chemotherapy based on 5-fluorouracil. However, treatment following progression on the first and second line is still unclear. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases for studies investigating the use of trifluridine-tipiracil with bevacizumab versus trifluridine-tipiracil alone for mCRC. We used RStudio version 4.2.3; and we considered p < 0.05 significant. Seven studies and 1,182 patients were included − 602 (51%) received trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab. Compared with control, the progression-free survival (PFS) (HR 0.52; 95% CI 0.42–0.63; p < 0.001) and overall survival (OS) (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.52–0.70; p < 0.001) were significantly higher with bevacizumab. The objective response rate (ORR) (RR 3.14; 95% CI 1.51–6.51; p = 0.002) and disease control rate (DCR) (RR 1.66; 95% CI 1.28–2.16; p = 0.0001) favored the intervention. Regarding adverse events, the intervention had a higher rate of neutropenia (RR 1.38; 95% CI 1.19–1.59; p = 0.00001), whereas the monotherapy group had a higher risk of anemia (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.44–0.82; p = 0.001). Our results support that the addition of bevacizumab is associated with a significant benefit in PFS, OS, ORR and DCR.

Abstract licence: CC BY 4.0

ObjectivesTo conduct pooled estimates and comparative evaluations of safety and efficacy, alongside cost-effectiveness and value-based pricing analyses, for systemic treatments recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network in refractory colorectal cancer.MethodsA comprehensive search for related randomized controlled trials was conducted on PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Safety was evaluated by aggregating treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) and performing Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) for indirect comparisons. Pooled survival estimates of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were conducted to assess treatment efficacy. For NMA of OS and PFS, time-variant fractional polynomial models were employed as the primary analysis, with Cox proportional hazards models used for result validation. Economic evaluations were performed using partitioned survival models from the US public sector perspective. Clinical parameters were sourced from meta-analyses; cost parameters included drug treatment, follow-up and administration, end-of-life care, and adverse event management expenses, which were obtained from the Federal Supply Schedule, public databases or published literature. Utility values were sourced from the CORRECT trial. Price simulations were also conducted. Robustness of results was confirmed by sensitivity and scenario analyses RESULTS: We included nine studies comprising 3,978 patients and incorporating six treatments recommended by NCCN, including best supportive care (BSC), regorafenib, regorafenib dose optimization (REDo), trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102), TAS-102 with bevacizumab (TAS-BEV), and fruquintinib. Targeted treatments increased serious TRAEs and grade 3 + TRAEs compared to BSC. However, no significant safety differences were found among the targeted therapies. Regarding efficacy, REDo led in median OS, while fruquintinib led in median PFS. NMA indicated that TAS-BEV had the greatest PFS and OS survival benefit, followed by fruquintinib and REDo. Cost-effectiveness analysis favored BSC as the least expensive and the most cost-effective profile. TAS-BEV had the greatest effectiveness, with TAS-102 being the most cost-effective among targeted therapies. For cost-effectiveness against BSC, the price reductions of TAS-102, fruquintinib, REDoS, regorafenib, and TAS-BEV were 39%, 24%, 14%, 8%, and 7%, respectively.ConclusionsTargeted therapies have comparable safety; TAS-BEV is highly effective, TAS-102 is the top cost-effective targeted therapy. Treatment choice should balance individual patient needs with safety, efficacy, and cost.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC-ND

IntroductionThis study aims to conduct a systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies evaluating later-line treatments for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer.MethodsThis study conducted a literature search using PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases. Search terms included keywords related to colorectal cancer, regorafenib, trifluridine-tipiracil, fruquintinib, and cost-effectiveness analysis. Extracted data encompassed cost-effectiveness outcomes, methodological characteristics, and the seven parameters exerting the greatest influence on incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) results.ResultsAmong 183 studies screened, a total of 11 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies concluded that later-line treatments for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer were not cost-effective compared to best supportive care (BSC). However, trifluridine-tipiracil was found to be cost-effective compared to BSC in some studies, and several studies reported it as a dominant option over regorafenib. Nonetheless, the cost-effectiveness outcomes between trifluridine-tipiracil and regorafenib were inconsistent across studies. Overall, drug costs and health utility values in the progressed disease state were identified as having the greatest impact on ICER outcomes.ConclusionLater-line treatments were generally not found to be cost-effective compared to BSC, mainly due to high drug costs. No treatment showed consistently favorable results across studies, with outcomes varying by comparator, country, and model settings.Protocol registrationPROSPERO (CRD420251243616).

Abstract licence: CC BY

Objectives: To evaluate and indirectly compare overall survival (OS) and safety of regorafenib, fruquintinib, and trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) monotherapy in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) beyond the third line. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of phase II/III randomized controlled trials was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from inception. Eligible studies included patients with mCRC previously treated with standard chemotherapy and biologic agents, receiving regorafenib, fruquintinib, or TAS-102 as monotherapy in the fourth line or later. OS data were reconstructed from published Kaplan-Meier curves. Pooled median and mean OS were estimated using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. Safety outcomes were descriptively summarized. Results: Four RCTs were included. The pooled median OS was 7.83 months (95% CI: 6.98-8.80), and the pooled mean OS was 8.90 months (95% CI: 8.00-9.81), with no heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). Survival gains versus placebo ranged from 1.4 to 2.6 months. Survival curves largely overlapped, with differences below one month. Safety was consistent with known profiles. Conclusions: These agents provide comparable efficacy with modest survival benefit in late-line mCRC, highlighting the need for improved strategies and better treatment sequencing.

Abstract licence: CC BY

BackgroundGuideline-recommended nontargeted systemic therapies for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) include regorafenib, trifluridine/tipiracil, and fruquintinib, but no consensus exists on the definition of clinically meaningful improvements for later-line mCRC treatments.Materials and methodsTrials were identified from systematic searches in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Meta-analyses were performed to characterize overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) improvements with systemic therapy vs placebo in previously treated mCRC. Meta-analyses were conducted using fixed-effect and random-effects (RE) frequentist models of difference in medians, hazard ratios (HRs), and 12-month restricted mean survival time (RMST).ResultsSix randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III trials of 3277 patients comparing oral systemic monotherapies with placebo were analyzed. Using the RE model, the meta-analyzed OS estimate for oral systemic monotherapy vs placebo was 1.86 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30-2.42) for the difference in medians, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.64-0.76) for HRs, and 1.25 months (95% CI, 0.69-1.82) for the difference in 12-month RMST. For PFS, meta-analyzed median improvement was 0.97 months (95% CI, 0.28-1.66), HR was 0.38 (95% CI, 0.30-0.47), and 12-month RMST difference was 1.90 months (95% CI, 1.41-2.39). Sensitivity analyses, excluding the FRESCO-2 trial due to prior treatment differences, confirmed the primary meta-analysis results.ConclusionWhen assessing the clinical benefit of later-line mCRC treatments, the broad clinical picture, including individualized treatment goals, should be evaluated. Considering multiple survival measures in the later-line mCRC context, an incremental survival improvement with oral systemic monotherapy vs no active therapy is clinically meaningful.

Abstract licence: CC BY