A UK cost-effectiveness analysis of trifluridine/tipiracil for heavily pretreated metastatic gastroesophageal cancers.

Background: The current work was designed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil (T/T) versus best supportive care (BSC) for patients with advanced stage or metastatic gastroesophageal cancer (mGC) from a UK perspective. Materials & methods: A partitioned survival analysis was undertaken using data from the phase III TAGS trial. A jointly fitted lognormal model was selected for overall survival and individual generalized gamma models were chosen for progression-free survival and time-to-treatment-discontinuation. The primary outcome was the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to investigate uncertainty. Results: Compared with BSC, T/T was associated with a cost per QALY gained of £37,907. Conclusion: T/T provides a cost-effective treatment option for mGC in the UK setting.

Trifluridine/Tipiracil in Combination with Bevacizumab in First-Line for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Way Forward. A Point of View Based on Cost-Effectiveness.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this analysis is to assess the pharmacological costs of trifluridine/tipiracil as first-line treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients who were not candidates for combination with cytotoxic chemotherapies. DISCUSSION: TASCO1 Trial was considered (153 patients). Differences in costs between the 2 arms (trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab vs. capecitabine plus bevacizumab) was 9113 € (10 264 USD), with a cost savings of 1982 € (2232 USD) per month of overall survival (OS)-gain. CONCLUSION: Trifluridine/tipiracil could be consider a cost-effective treatment also in first-line for mCRC patients who were not candidates for combination with cytotoxic chemotherapies.

Cost-effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil as a third-line treatment of metastatic gastric cancer, including adenocarcinoma of the gastrohesophageal junction, among patients previously treated in Greece.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) compared with best supportive care (BSC) for the treatment of patients with metastatic gastric cancer(mGC), including gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma(GEJ), who have received at least two prior therapies for metastatic disease and are eligible for third-line treatment, in Greece. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was locally adapted from a public payer perspective over a 10-year time horizon. Clinical, safety and utility data were extracted from literature. Resource consumption data obtained from a panel of local experts using a questionnaire developed for the study was combined with unit costs obtained from official sources. All costs reflect the year 2020 (€). Outcomes of the model were patients' life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), total costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY and LY gained. RESULTS: The total cost per patient was estimated to be €6,965 for FTD/TPI and €1,906 for BSC, while FTD/TPI was associated with 0.180 and 0.107 increments in LYs and QALYs, respectively, compared with BSC, resulting in an ICER of €47,144 per QALY gained and €28,112 per LY gained. CONCLUSION: FTD/TPI was estimated to be a cost-effective treatment option for eligible third line mGC patients, including GEJ in Greece.

Cost-effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil against nivolumab for heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer in Japan.

OBJECTIVE: Nivolumab and trifluridine/tipiracil have significantly improved the overall survival of patients with heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer in different placebo-controlled phase III trials. Accordingly, nivolumab and trifluridine/tipiracil have been approved and recommended for patients with heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer in Japan. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil against nivolumab. METHODS: A partitioned survival model, which consisted of three health states, namely, 'pre-progression,' 'post-progression,' and 'death,' was constructed. Efficacy and safety data were derived from the TAGS and ATTRACTION-2 trials. Costs were estimated based on the standard clinical pathway and national insurance fee schedules. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. The threshold value was set to JPY 7 500 000 (USD 68 182) for each quality-adjusted life-year. RESULTS: The expected median overall survival and progression-free survival were 5.59 and 1.99 months for trifluridine/tipiracil and 5.26 and 1.55 months for nivolumab, respectively. The quality-adjusted life-year and expected costs per patient were 0.4379 and JPY 2 054 625 (USD 18 678) for trifluridine/tipiracil and 0.5295 and JPY 5 018 148 (USD 45 620) for nivolumab, respectively. The expected median progression-free survival and overall survival were equivalent with trifluridine/tipiracil and nivolumab, whereas the expected quality-adjusted life-year with trifluridine/tipiracil was slightly lower than that with nivolumab. However, trifluridine/tipiracil reduced the total treatment cost by JPY 2 963 523 (USD 26 996) compared with that of nivolumab. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of nivolumab versus trifluridine/tipiracil was JPY 32 352 489 (USD 294 113) per quality-adjusted life-year gained. CONCLUSIONS: Trifluridine/tipiracil was more cost-effective than nivolumab for patients with heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer.

Phase II study of trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) therapy in elderly patients with colorectal cancer (T-CORE1401): geriatric assessment tools and plasma drug concentrations as possible predictive biomarkers.

PURPOSE: The current study aimed to determine the efficacy of trifluridine/tipiracil for elderly patients with advanced colorectal cancer. METHODS: This single-arm, open-label, multicenter, phase II study included elderly patients aged 65 years or more who had fluoropyrimidine-refractory advanced colorectal cancer and received trifluridine/tipiracil (70 mg/m2, days 1-5 and 8-12, every 4 weeks). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), while secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), toxicities, association between efficacy and geriatric assessment scores, and association between toxicity and plasma drug concentrations. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients with a mean age of 73 years were enrolled. Median PFS was 2.3 months (95% confidence interval, 1.9-4.3 months), while median OS was 5.7 months (95% confidence interval, 3.7-8.9 months). Patients had an ORR of 0%, with 57% having stable disease. Grade 4 neutropenia was observed in 13% of the patients. Patients with a higher G8 score (15 or more) showed longer PFS than those with a lower G8 score (median 4.6 vs. 2.0 months; p = 0.047). Moreover, patients with grade 3 or 4 neutropenia showed higher maximum trifluridine concentrations than those with grade 1 or 2 neutropenia (mean 2945 vs. 2107 ng/mL; p = 0.036). DISCUSSION: The current phase II trial demonstrated that trifluridine/tipiracil was an effective and well-tolerated option for elderly patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Moreover, geriatric assessment tools and/or plasma drug concentration monitoring might be helpful in predicting the efficacy and toxicities in elderly patients receiving this drug. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000017589, 15/May/2015 (The University Hospital Medical Information Network).

Cost-effectiveness of TAS-102 plus bevacizumab versus TAS-102 monotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: TAS-102 plus bevacizumab is an anticipated combination regimen for patients who have metastatic colorectal cancer. However, evidence supporting its use for this indication is limited. We compared the cost-effectiveness of TAS-102 plus bevacizumab combination therapy with TAS-102 monotherapy for patients with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer. METHOD: Markov decision modeling using treatment costs, disease-free survival, and overall survival was performed to examine the cost-effectiveness of TAS-102 plus bevacizumab combination therapy and TAS-102 monotherapy. The Japanese health care payer's perspective was adopted. The outcomes were modeled on the basis of published literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between the two treatment regimens was the primary outcome. Sensitivity analysis was performed and the effect of uncertainty on the model parameters were investigated. RESULTS: TAS-102 plus bevacizumab had an ICER of $21,534 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained compared with TAS-102 monotherapy. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that TAS-102 monotherapy was more cost-effective than TAS-102 and bevacizumab combination therapy at a willingness-to-pay of under $50,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: TAS-102 and bevacizumab combination therapy is a cost-effective option for patients who have metastatic colorectal cancer in the Japanese health care system.

Comparison of a thymine challenge test and endogenous uracil-dihydrouracil levels for assessment of fluoropyrimidine toxicity risk.

PURPOSE: Standard dosages of fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy result in severe toxicity in a substantial proportion of patients, however, routine pre-therapeutic toxicity prediction remains uncommon. A thymine (THY) challenge test can discriminate risk of severe gastrointestinal toxicity in patients receiving fluoropyrimidine monotherapy. We aimed to measure endogenous plasma uracil (U) and its ratio to dihydrouracil (DHU), and assess the performance of these parameters compared with the THY challenge test to evaluate risk of severe toxicity. METHODS: Plasma samples, previously collected from 37 patients receiving 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or capecitabine monotherapy for a THY challenge test (ACTRN12615000586516; retrospectively registered), were assessed for endogenous plasma concentrations of U and DHU using a validated LC-MS/MS method. Renal function was estimated from blood creatinine, and patients with ≥ grade 3 toxicity (CTCAE v4.0) were classified as cases. RESULTS: There were no differences in median endogenous U plasma concentrations or U/DHU ratios between severe toxicity cases and non-cases. Significant differences between cases and non-cases were noted when these measures were normalised to the estimated renal function (CrCL), Unorm p = 0.0004; U/DHUnorm p = 0.0083. These two parameters had a sensitivity of 29%, compared with 57% for the THY challenge test in the same patients. Genotyping for clinically relevant DPYD variants was inferior to either of these pyrimidine phenotyping tests (sensitivity of 14%). CONCLUSIONS: The endogenous uracil-based parameters, adjusted to CrCL, were more predictive of increased risk of severe fluoropyrimidine toxicity than DPYD genotyping. However, endogenous U measurement detected fewer cases of severe toxicity than the THY challenge test.

Dose-escalation strategy in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: A change in terms of cost-effectiveness.

The analysis was conducted to assess the pharmacological costs of regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil in the treatment of refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Pivotal phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil in the treatment of refractory mCRC were considered. We have also considered the ReDOS trial, in order to verify if the dose-escalation strategy (practice changing for regorafenib) could influences the results. Differences in OS (expressed in months) between the different arms were calculated and compared with the pharmacological costs (at the Pharmacy of our Hospital and expressed in euros (€)) needed to get one month of OS. Trifluridine/tipiracil resulted the less expensive, with 1167.50 €per month OS-gained. The ReDOS trial further reduce costs with 510.41 €per month OS-gained in favour of regorafenib with the escalation-dose strategy. Both regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil can be considered economically sustainable treatments for refractory mCRC, apparently with a lower cost of trifluridine/tipiracil. The adoption of a dose-escalation strategy (ReDOS trial) could reverse the situation making regorafenib more cost-effective than trifluridine/tipiracil.

Thorough evaluation of OECD principles in modelling of 1-[(2-hydroxyethoxy)methyl]-6-(phenylthio)thymine derivatives using QSARINS.

The human immunodeficiency virus is a lethal pathology considered as a worldwide problem. The search for new strategies for the treatment of this disease continues to be a great challenge in the scientific community. In this study, a series of 107 derivatives of 1-[(2-hydroxyethoxy)methyl]-6-(phenylthio)thymine, previously evaluated experimentally against HIV-I reverse transcriptase, was used to model antiretroviral activity. A model of linear regression, implemented in the QSARINS software, was developed with a genetic algorithm for variable selection. The fit of its parameters was good and exhaustive validation, according to the OECD regulatory principles, was performed. Also, the applicability domain was established. In addition, its robustness (r 2 = 0.84), stability (Q 2 LOO = 0.81; Q 2 LMO = 0.80) and good predictive power (r 2 EXT = 0.85) is proved. So, it was used to predict the antiretroviral activity of eight compounds obtained by rational drug design. Finally, it can be affirmed that the proposed tools allow the rapid and economic identification of potential antiretroviral drugs.

Comparative Cost-utility Analysis of Regorafenib and Trifluridine/Tipiracil in The Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in Japan.

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the cost utility of regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil (T/T) compared with that of best supportive care (BSC) in the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with, or not considered candidates for, available therapies, including fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapies; anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents; and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor agents, in Japan. METHODS: Efficacy data, utility values, and costs were extracted from published studies. The cost and effectiveness of regorafenib and of T/T were compared with those of BSC and examined between the 2 agents over a 5-year time horizon using a partitioned survival analysis. The health outcomes were life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. The costs were year-2018 revisions to the drug prices and medical fees. The uncertainty and robustness of the model were verified by 1-way sensitivity analysis, probability sensitivity analysis, and scenario analysis compared with different clinical studies. A 2% per-annum discount was applied to expenses and QALYs. The willingness-to-pay threshold used was 5 million Japanese yen (JPY). FINDINGS: Regorafenib and T/T had incremental costs of 11,898,982 JPY (107,781 US dollars [USD]) and 5,000,141 JPY (45,291 USD), incremental effects of 0.249 QALYs (0.280 LYs) and 0.344 QALYs (0.421 LYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of 47,773,791 JPY (432,734 USD) and 14,550,577 JPY (131,799 USD) per QALY, respectively. Results of sensitivity analyses all exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold of 15 million JPY. In the comparison of the 2 agents, T/T was a dominant alternative over regorafenib. IMPLICATIONS: As a third-line or later treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in Japan, T/T is cost-effective compared with BSC, whereas regorafenib is not. It is necessary to adjust the price of regorafenib based on the results of this analysis, with the improvement of clinical parameters such as survival time and adverse events.

Cost-effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS102) for heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS102), a novel oral cytotoxic chemotherapy, significantly improved overall survival compared with placebo in heavily pretreated advanced gastric cancer. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TAS102 in the third-line or later treatment for this population from the US payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to simulate advanced gastric cancer, including three health states: progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD) and death. Model inputs were derived from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial (TAGS trial, NCT02500043). Utilities were extracted from public resources. Costs were calculated from an American payer perspective. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of uncertainty. RESULTS: From the US payer perspective, treatment with TAS102 for patients with heavily pretreated advanced gastric cancer was estimated to increase costs by $59,180 compared with the placebo, with a gain of 0.06 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $986,333 per QALY. The costs for progression-free survival of TAS102 group had the greatest impact on the ICERs, as well as the cost of TAS102. CONCLUSION: Trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS102) is not a cost-effective choice for patients with heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer from an American payer perspective.

Economic evaluation of trifluridine and tipiracil hydrochloride in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in Greece.

AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of trifluridine and tipiracil hydrochloride (FTD/TPI) compared with best supportive care (BSC) or regorafenib for the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who have been previously treated with or are not considered candidates for available therapies including fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin- and irinotecan-based chemotherapies, anti-VEGF agents and anti-EGFR agents in Greece. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was locally adapted from a third-party payer perspective over a 10 year time horizon. Efficacy data and utility values were extracted from published studies. Resource consumption data were obtained from local experts using a questionnaire developed for the purpose of the study and was combined with unit costs obtained from official sources. All costs reflect the year 2017 in euros. Primary outcomes were patients' life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), total costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per QALY and LYs gained. RESULTS: Total life time cost per patient for FTD/TPI, BSC and regorafenib was estimated to be €10,087, €1,879 and €10,850, respectively. In terms of health outcomes, FTD/TPI was associated with 0.25 and 0.11 increment in LYs compared with BSC and regorafenib, respectively. Furthermore, FTD/TPI was associated with 0.17, and 0.07 increment in QALYs compared with BSC and regorafenib, resulting in ICERs of €32,759 per LY gained and €49,326 per QALY gained versus BSC. Moreover, FTD/TPI was a dominant alternative over regorafenib. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that FTD/TPI may represent a cost-effective treatment option compared with other alternative therapies as a third-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in Greece.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Regorafenib and TAS-102 in Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Regorafenib and TAS-102 are standard treatment options in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer based on improvement in overall survival by 6 and 8 weeks, respectively, when compared with best supportive care alone (BSC). Given the small incremental clinical benefit, we evaluated their cost-effectiveness from a United States payer's perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to compare costs and effectiveness of regorafenib, TAS-102, and BSC. Model inputs for clinical efficacy and adverse events were from the CORRECT trial (Regorafenib monotherapy for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer: an international, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial) for regorafenib and the RECOURSE trial (Randomized, Double Blind, Phase 3 Study of TAS-102 plus Best Supportive Care [BSC] versus Placebo plus BSC in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Refractory to Standard Chemotherapies) for TAS-102. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were reported to compare treatments. Model robustness was checked with univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses as well as a scenario analysis using the CONCUR trial data for regorafenib. RESULTS: In our base case, regorafenib and TAS-102 had the ICERs of $395,223 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and $399,740 per QALY versus BSC, respectively. Compared with regorafenib, TAS-102 provided an additional 0.041 QALY at the cost of $16,608 or $406,104 per QALY, but the differences were not robust in sensitivity analyses. The most influential parameters on the ICERs were efficacy and health state utility parameters as well as the cost of treating neutropenia. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, BSC was more cost-effective than both regorafenib and TAS-102 in 50% of repetitions at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $330,000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: Neither TAS-102 nor regorafenib are cost-effective at standard willingness-to-pay thresholds (ie, $150,000 per QALY) relative to BSC. There is no clear evidence that either treatment has better relative value.

Trifluridine-Tipiracil for Previously Treated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Servier, the company manufacturing trifluridine and tipiracil (T/T; trade name: Lonsurf®), to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of T/T compared with best supportive care (BSC) for metastatic colorectal cancer (third-line or later). Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd (KSR), in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Center, was commissioned as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper presents a summary of the company's submission (CS), the ERG report and the development of the NICE guidance for the use of this drug in England and Wales by the appraisal committee (AC). The ERG produced a critical review of the clinical and cost effectiveness of T/T based upon the CS. In the CS, pooled evidence of two trials (a phase II trial and RECOURSE) showed that T/T resulted in a significant increase in overall survival [OS; hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% CI 0.58-0.78] and progression-free survival (PFS; HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.40-0.53). The AC considered the survival benefit of T/T clinically meaningful although relatively small. The ERG highlighted that none of the participants in the phase II trial and approximately half of the RECOURSE participants (394 of 800) were from Europe, which might limit the applicability of the study findings to the NHS. Moreover, the ERG's critical assessment of the company's economic evaluation highlighted a number of concerns that resulted in 11 adjustments to the company's base-case analysis. The ERG adjustments that had the largest impact were using the RECOURSE trial data only (instead of the pooled evidence), fixing errors and violations and using the utilities from the CORRECT trial (identified in the literature review) only. The ERG preferred to use the RECOURSE trial data only given the suboptimal methodology used by the company to pool the evidence. However, since there were no fundamental arguments to prevent the two trials from being pooled, the ERG also presented its base-case analysis based on the pooled effectiveness estimates. The company base-case resulted in an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £44,032 per QALY gained while the ERG base-case resulted in ICERs of £52,695 and £49,392 per QALY gained based on the RECOURSE trial only and pooled evidence, respectively. Since the AC concluded that the most plausible ICER was £49,392 per QALY gained, and that T/T meets end-of-life criteria, T/T was recommended as a cost effective use of NHS resources.

Dynamics of the excised base release in thymine DNA glycosylase during DNA repair process.

Thymine DNA glycosylase (TDG) initiates base excision repair by cleaving the N-glycosidic bond between the sugar and target base. After catalysis, the release of excised base is a requisite step to terminate the catalytic cycle and liberate the TDG for the following enzymatic reactions. However, an atomistic-level understanding of the dynamics of the product release process in TDG remains unknown. Here, by employing molecular dynamics simulations combined with the Markov State Model, we reveal the dynamics of the thymine release after the excision at microseconds timescale and all-atom resolution. We identify several key metastable states of the thymine and its dominant releasing pathway. Notably, after replacing the TDG residue Gly142 with tyrosine, the thymine release is delayed compared to the wild-type (wt) TDG, as supported by our potential of mean force (PMF) calculations. These findings warrant further experimental tests to potentially trap the excised base in the active site of TDG after the catalysis, which had been unsuccessful by previous attempts. Finally, we extended our studies to other TDG products, including the uracil, 5hmU, 5fC and 5caC bases in order to compare the product release for different targeting bases in the TDG-DNA complex.

Cost-effectiveness of Trifluridine/tipiracil for Previously Treated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in England and Wales.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options at third-line and beyond for patients with late-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are limited, and outcomes are poor with best supportive care (BSC). This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil and regorafenib relative to BSC alone in patients with mCRC who have been previously treated with, or are not considered candidates for, standard chemotherapies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A partitioned survival model was constructed to assess the lifetime costs and benefits accrued by patients. Clinical data were derived from the pivotal phase III (Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase 3 Study of TAS-102 plus Best Supportive Care [BSC] versus Placebo plus BSC in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Refractory to Standard Chemotherapies [RECOURSE]) and supporting phase II (J003-10040030) randomized controlled trial of trifluridine/tipiracil + BSC versus placebo + BSC, as well as the phase III Colorectal Cancer Treated With Regorafenib or Placebo After Failure of Standard Therapy (CORRECT) randomized controlled trial of regorafenib, and were extrapolated to estimate lifetime outcomes. Costs were taken from published sources, and health effects sourced from previous mCRC studies. RESULTS: Trifluridine/tipiracil was associated with a 0.27 incremental life year versus BSC alone, which corresponds to a 0.17 quality-adjusted life year gain. The incremental cost of treatment with trifluridine/tipiracil was £8,479, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £51,194 per quality-adjusted life year gained. Trifluridine/tipiracil was shown to dominate regorafenib (improve outcomes with reduced costs). Sensitivity analyses showed principal areas of uncertainty were survival estimates and patient utility. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that trifluridine/tipiracil is more clinically and cost-effective than regorafenib, with clinical outcomes greatly exceeding those for patients treated with BSC alone. Based on the results of the analysis, trifluridine/tipiracil offers an important new treatment option for patients with mCRC maintaining good performance status at the end of life.