PMC:6909918 / 5248-6196 JSONTXT

{"project":"2_test","denotations":[{"id":"31790382-29174481-69134695","span":{"begin":138,"end":139},"obj":"29174481"},{"id":"31790382-31278474-69134696","span":{"begin":176,"end":177},"obj":"31278474"},{"id":"31790382-31278474-69134697","span":{"begin":592,"end":593},"obj":"31278474"},{"id":"31790382-31278474-69134698","span":{"begin":753,"end":754},"obj":"31278474"}],"text":"However, two network meta-analysis studies have been recently published that compared the efficacy and safety of regorafenib and TAS-102 [8], and regorafenib and fruquintinib [9] in pretreated patients with refractory mCRC. The lack of comparison data between the three drugs remains a challenge for clinicians who are responsible for treating patients with mCRC. Also, because current RCTs have shown differences in response to treatment in different racial groups, these differences may be a potential source of study bias. For example, the recently published meta-analysis by Jing et al. [9] that compared regorafenib and fruquintinib included three RCTs, including FRESCO (for fruquintinib), CONCUR (for regorafenib), and CORRECT (for regorafenib) [9]. However, only the trial CORRECT was designed as an international RCT that included Caucasian, black, and Asian patients, and the FRESCO and CONCUR RCTs were undertaken only in Asian patients."}