A Comparison of Regorafenib and TAS-102 for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

Abstract Background Regorafenib and TAS-102 have shown to be superior to placebo in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. However, no studies have directly compared both drugs. Giving the lack of standard options in this scenario, a systematic review to compare the efficacy and safety of regorafenib and TAS-102 was performed. Materials and Methods A systematic review using the PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane databases to identify published and unpublished studies up to November 2015 for randomized controlled trials for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, involving regorafenib or TAS-102, was performed. Data including overall survival, progression-free survival, and toxicity were extracted. Pairwise direct meta-analyses (regorafenib vs. placebo and TAS-102 vs. placebo) and indirect comparison (regorafenib vs. TAS-102) using network meta-analyses methods to preserve randomization were performed using random effects. Results Three randomized controlled trials fulfilled eligibility criteria (regorafenib monotherapy for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer [CORRECT]: an international, multicentre, randomised, pacebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, regorafenib plus best supportive care versus placebo plus best supportive care in Asian patients with previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer [CONCUR]: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, and randomized trial of TAS-102 for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer [RECOURSE] trials) involving 1764 patients (regorafenib, 641; TAS-102, 534; placebo, 589). Subgroups of patients (1659) who had not received prior regorafenib or TAS-102 were used to perform meta-analyses for efficacy. In the indirect comparison, no statistically significant differences were observed between regorafenib and TAS-102 in overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-1.66; P  = .91) or progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.40-1.81; P  = .67). However, regorafenib has statistically more all grade any toxicity (risk difference, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.25-0.38; P  = .001) compared with TAS-102. Subgroup analysis of adverse events showed a different toxicity profile between both drugs. Conclusion In this indirect comparison, regorafenib and TAS-102 appeared to have similar efficacy. However, regorafenib was associated with more toxicity compared with TAS-102.