Background: NCCN guidelines state “regorafenib (Stivarga) [REG], and Trifluridine+Tipiracil (Lonsurf) [LON] are treatment options for patients who have progressed through all available regimens”. Available clinical trial data has not established whether recycling of prior regimens (oxaliplatin/irinotecan/5FU) with exchange of biologics (bevacizumab, ziv-aflibercept, cetuximab, panitumumab) is superior to changing class of therapy with oral well tolerated agents such as REG and LON. Methods: Data from a pre-authorization platform used by multiple commercial insurance companies in the US (Eviti) was analyzed. 6325 treatment plans of advanced CRC patients were evaluated. Analysis for request for use of REG and LON was limited to third-line and later of therapy in patients with a diagnosis of advanced CRC patients. Results: Of 394 treatment plans beyond second-line of therapy, REG was preferred over LON (239 v 155). Excluding growth factors, anti-emetics, and leucovorin, REG and LON were the 9th and 13th most frequently requested drugs in this clinical setting. Irinotecan was the most commonly requested drug in this setting at >10x the frequency of REG. Ramucirumab was requested more often than REG, and Pembrolizumab, Nivolumab, and Ziv-aflibercept were more requested than LON. HEOR models that included expected supportive care drugs and medication complication management fees estimated the cost of REG at $62,515 per patient versus LON at $26,596 with similar duration of therapy. Conclusions: Therapeutic preferences exist in third-line and later treatment of advanced CRC patients which cannot be fully explained by clinical trial outcome differences, HEOR cost differences, or NCCN guideline preferences. Recycling of chemotherapy and biologics in the late line setting is common and occurs more frequently than switching to a drug regimen with an alternative mechanism of action.