S-1-based chemotherapy versus capecitabine-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced gastric carcinoma: a meta-analysis.

<h4>Background</h4>Although both oral fluoropyrimidines were reported effective and safe, doubts exist about whether S-1 or capecitabine is more advantageous in advanced gastric carcinoma (AGC). Herein, we performed a meta-analysis to comprehensively compare the efficacy and safety of S-...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Ming-ming He, Wen-jing Wu, Feng Wang, Zhi-qiang Wang, Dong-sheng Zhang, Hui-yan Luo, Miao-zhen Qiu, Feng-Hua Wang, Chao Ren, Zhao-Lei Zeng, Rui-hua Xu
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2013
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/e4a9caaabaf54f44a3da5b9a0be41b7d
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:e4a9caaabaf54f44a3da5b9a0be41b7d
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:e4a9caaabaf54f44a3da5b9a0be41b7d2021-11-18T08:42:12ZS-1-based chemotherapy versus capecitabine-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced gastric carcinoma: a meta-analysis.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0082798https://doaj.org/article/e4a9caaabaf54f44a3da5b9a0be41b7d2013-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/24349363/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203<h4>Background</h4>Although both oral fluoropyrimidines were reported effective and safe, doubts exist about whether S-1 or capecitabine is more advantageous in advanced gastric carcinoma (AGC). Herein, we performed a meta-analysis to comprehensively compare the efficacy and safety of S-1-based chemotherapy versus capecitabine-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment for AGC.<h4>Methods</h4>PubMed/Medline, EmBase, Cochrane library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched for articles comparing S-1-based chemotherapy to capecitabine-based chemotherapy for AGC. Primary outcomes were overall response rate (ORR), time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS), progression-free probability, and survival probability. Secondary outcomes were toxicities. Fixed-effects model were used and all the results were confirmed by random-effects model.<h4>Results</h4>Five randomized controlled trials and five cohort studies with 821 patients were included. We found equivalent ORR (38.3% vs. 39.1%, odds ratio [OR] 0.92, 95% conﬁdence interval [CI] 0.69-1.24, P = 0.59), TTP (harzad ratio [HR] 0.98, 95% CI 0.82-1.16, P = 0.79), OS (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87-1.13, P = 0.91), progression-free probability (3-month OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.62-1.68, P = 0.94; 6-month OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.88-2.04, P = 0.18) and survival probability (0.5-year OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.61-1.31, P =0.57; 1-year OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.70- 1.33, P = 0.84; 2-year OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.61-2.17, P = 0.66). Equivalent grade 3 to 4 hematological and non-hematological toxicities were found except hand-foot syndrome was less prominent in S-1-based chemotherapy (0.3% vs. 5.9%, OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.06-0.56, P = 0.003). There're no significant heterogeneity and publication bias. Cumulative analysis found stable time-dependent trend. Consistent results stratified by study design, age, regimen, cycle, country were observed.<h4>Conclusion</h4>S-1-based chemotherapy was associated with non-inferior antitumor efficacy and better safety profile, compared with capecitabine-based therapy. We recommended S-1 and capecitabine can be used interchangeably for AGC, at least in Asia.Ming-ming HeWen-jing WuFeng WangZhi-qiang WangDong-sheng ZhangHui-yan LuoMiao-zhen QiuFeng-Hua WangChao RenZhao-Lei ZengRui-hua XuPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 8, Iss 12, p e82798 (2013)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Ming-ming He Wen-jing Wu Feng Wang Zhi-qiang Wang Dong-sheng Zhang Hui-yan Luo Miao-zhen Qiu Feng-Hua Wang Chao Ren Zhao-Lei Zeng Rui-hua Xu S-1-based chemotherapy versus capecitabine-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced gastric carcinoma: a meta-analysis.
description	<h4>Background</h4>Although both oral fluoropyrimidines were reported effective and safe, doubts exist about whether S-1 or capecitabine is more advantageous in advanced gastric carcinoma (AGC). Herein, we performed a meta-analysis to comprehensively compare the efficacy and safety of S-1-based chemotherapy versus capecitabine-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment for AGC.<h4>Methods</h4>PubMed/Medline, EmBase, Cochrane library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched for articles comparing S-1-based chemotherapy to capecitabine-based chemotherapy for AGC. Primary outcomes were overall response rate (ORR), time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS), progression-free probability, and survival probability. Secondary outcomes were toxicities. Fixed-effects model were used and all the results were confirmed by random-effects model.<h4>Results</h4>Five randomized controlled trials and five cohort studies with 821 patients were included. We found equivalent ORR (38.3% vs. 39.1%, odds ratio [OR] 0.92, 95% conﬁdence interval [CI] 0.69-1.24, P = 0.59), TTP (harzad ratio [HR] 0.98, 95% CI 0.82-1.16, P = 0.79), OS (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87-1.13, P = 0.91), progression-free probability (3-month OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.62-1.68, P = 0.94; 6-month OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.88-2.04, P = 0.18) and survival probability (0.5-year OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.61-1.31, P =0.57; 1-year OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.70- 1.33, P = 0.84; 2-year OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.61-2.17, P = 0.66). Equivalent grade 3 to 4 hematological and non-hematological toxicities were found except hand-foot syndrome was less prominent in S-1-based chemotherapy (0.3% vs. 5.9%, OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.06-0.56, P = 0.003). There're no significant heterogeneity and publication bias. Cumulative analysis found stable time-dependent trend. Consistent results stratified by study design, age, regimen, cycle, country were observed.<h4>Conclusion</h4>S-1-based chemotherapy was associated with non-inferior antitumor efficacy and better safety profile, compared with capecitabine-based therapy. We recommended S-1 and capecitabine can be used interchangeably for AGC, at least in Asia.
format	article
author	Ming-ming He Wen-jing Wu Feng Wang Zhi-qiang Wang Dong-sheng Zhang Hui-yan Luo Miao-zhen Qiu Feng-Hua Wang Chao Ren Zhao-Lei Zeng Rui-hua Xu
author_facet	Ming-ming He Wen-jing Wu Feng Wang Zhi-qiang Wang Dong-sheng Zhang Hui-yan Luo Miao-zhen Qiu Feng-Hua Wang Chao Ren Zhao-Lei Zeng Rui-hua Xu
author_sort	Ming-ming He
title	S-1-based chemotherapy versus capecitabine-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced gastric carcinoma: a meta-analysis.
title_short	S-1-based chemotherapy versus capecitabine-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced gastric carcinoma: a meta-analysis.
title_full	S-1-based chemotherapy versus capecitabine-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced gastric carcinoma: a meta-analysis.
title_fullStr	S-1-based chemotherapy versus capecitabine-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced gastric carcinoma: a meta-analysis.
title_full_unstemmed	S-1-based chemotherapy versus capecitabine-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced gastric carcinoma: a meta-analysis.
title_sort	s-1-based chemotherapy versus capecitabine-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced gastric carcinoma: a meta-analysis.
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2013
url	https://doaj.org/article/e4a9caaabaf54f44a3da5b9a0be41b7d
work_keys_str_mv	AT mingminghe s1basedchemotherapyversuscapecitabinebasedchemotherapyasfirstlinetreatmentforadvancedgastriccarcinomaametaanalysis AT wenjingwu s1basedchemotherapyversuscapecitabinebasedchemotherapyasfirstlinetreatmentforadvancedgastriccarcinomaametaanalysis AT fengwang s1basedchemotherapyversuscapecitabinebasedchemotherapyasfirstlinetreatmentforadvancedgastriccarcinomaametaanalysis AT zhiqiangwang s1basedchemotherapyversuscapecitabinebasedchemotherapyasfirstlinetreatmentforadvancedgastriccarcinomaametaanalysis AT dongshengzhang s1basedchemotherapyversuscapecitabinebasedchemotherapyasfirstlinetreatmentforadvancedgastriccarcinomaametaanalysis AT huiyanluo s1basedchemotherapyversuscapecitabinebasedchemotherapyasfirstlinetreatmentforadvancedgastriccarcinomaametaanalysis AT miaozhenqiu s1basedchemotherapyversuscapecitabinebasedchemotherapyasfirstlinetreatmentforadvancedgastriccarcinomaametaanalysis AT fenghuawang s1basedchemotherapyversuscapecitabinebasedchemotherapyasfirstlinetreatmentforadvancedgastriccarcinomaametaanalysis AT chaoren s1basedchemotherapyversuscapecitabinebasedchemotherapyasfirstlinetreatmentforadvancedgastriccarcinomaametaanalysis AT zhaoleizeng s1basedchemotherapyversuscapecitabinebasedchemotherapyasfirstlinetreatmentforadvancedgastriccarcinomaametaanalysis AT ruihuaxu s1basedchemotherapyversuscapecitabinebasedchemotherapyasfirstlinetreatmentforadvancedgastriccarcinomaametaanalysis
_version_	1718421476025040896

S-1-based chemotherapy versus capecitabine-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced gastric carcinoma: a meta-analysis.

Ejemplares similares