Capecitabine, 5-fluorouracil and S-1 based regimens for previously untreated advanced oesophagogastric cancer: A network meta-analysis

Veer, Emil ter; Ngai, Lok Lam; Valkenhoef, Gert van; Mohammad, Nadia Haj; Anderegg, Maarten; Oijen, Martijn G.H. van; Laarhoven, Hanneke W. M. van

doi:10.1038/s41598-017-07750-3

Cited by 22 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…12 Both capecitabine and S-1, which are oral fluoropyrimidines, have been proposed as substitutes for continuous infusion of 5-FU because they are more convenient and have lower risks. 13,14 The Japanese ACTS-GC trial showed that adjuvant S-1 monotherapy could improve relapse-free survival (RFS) and OS rates. 12 As it is hard to complete a 1-year course of adjuvant S-1 monotherapy, it is difficult to achieve satisfactory clinical expectations; therefore, it is essential to investigate the efficacy of S-1 combined with oxaliplatin as adjuvant treatment for GC.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

<p>Prognosis of Adjuvant SOX vs XELOX Chemotherapy for Gastric Cancer After D2 Gastrectomy in Chinese Patients</p>

Yu¹,

Wang²,

Cheng³

et al. 2020

CMAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: To compare the prognosis of adjuvant SOX (S-1 and oxaliplatin) vs XELOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin) chemotherapy in Chinese patients with gastric cancer (GC) after D2 gastrectomy. Methods: This was a real-world study of patients with GC (stages II-III) who underwent D2 gastrectomy and received adjuvant SOX or XELOX between 01/2010 and 06/2017 in Zhongshan Hospital affiliated to Fudan University. The patients were matched by propensity score matching. The primary and secondary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS), respectively. Adverse events (AEs) were compared. Results: A total of 552 patients were included. The median follow-up time was 24.9 months. There were no differences in DFS (median, 44.4 vs 41.2 months; HR=1.17, 95% CI: 0.92-1.48) and OS (median, 61.5 vs 65.3 months; HR=1.01, 95% CI: 0.73-1.39) between the XELOX and SOX groups. Both DFS and OS had no significant differences between SOX and XELOX for all subgroups based on sex (P=0.949, P=0.990), age (P=0.303, P=0.392), Lauren type (P=0.362, P=0.573), type of gastrectomy (P=0.607 P=0.989), and pathological TNM stage (P=0.899, P=0.888). A total of 86 patients in the SOX subgroup (34.2%) experienced AEs, similar to the rate found in the XELOX subgroup (104 patients or 41.4%; P=0.098). Discussion: The results suggested that adjuvant SOX chemotherapy has similar survival benefits compared to XELOX chemotherapy in Chinese patients with pathological stage II or III GC after D2 gastrectomy.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

<p>Prognosis of Adjuvant SOX vs XELOX Chemotherapy for Gastric Cancer After D2 Gastrectomy in Chinese Patients</p>

Yu¹,

Wang²,

Cheng³

et al. 2020

CMAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several studies have attempted to construct a graphical presentation format (e.g., bar charts and stream plots) to aid information provision regarding toxicity profiles [5]. However, the currently available graphical methods to present toxicities are hard to interpret by physicians because of the lack of relevant data, such as number of participants, trials and confidence intervals in these presentations [6]. Furthermore, most illustrations of toxicity that are available represent the adverse events of a single study.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

TOXview: a novel graphical presentation of cancer treatment toxicity profiles

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Toxicity profiles play a crucial role in the choice between specific palliative chemotherapy regimens. To optimize the quality of life for cancer patients, patients should be adequately informed about potential toxicities before undergoing chemotherapy. Therefore, we constructed TOXviews, a novel graphical presentation and overview of toxicity profiles to improve information provision about adverse events. As an example, we analyzed first-line chemotherapy regimens for advanced esophagogastric cancer (AEGC). Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ASCO and ESMO for prospective phase II or III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on palliative first-line systemic treatment for AEGC until February 2017. We extracted proportions of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 1-2 (mild) and 3-4 (severe) adverse events from each chemotherapy arm and pooled these by using single-arm meta-analysis. Toxicity profiles per chemotherapy regimen were visualized in bidirectional bar charts with pooled proportions plus 95% confidence intervals. For comparative analysis, chemotherapy regimens were grouped in singlets, doublets and triplets. Results: We included 92 RCTs with a total of 16,963 patients. TOXviews for 3 fluoropyrimidine singlets, 5 cisplatin-containing doublets (C-doublets), 10 fluoropyrimidine non-cisplatin containing doublets (Fdoublets), 4 anthracycline-containing triplets (A-triplets) and 5 taxane-containing triplets (T-triplets) were constructed. C-doublets, A-triplets and T-triplets all showed an increased incidence of grade 3-4 adverse events and clinically relevant grade 1-2 adverse events compared to F-doublets. Conclusion: TOXview provides a new graphical presentation and overview of chemotherapy toxicities. TOXviews can be used to educate physicians about the incidences of AEs of systemic therapy and improve informed decision-making.

show abstract

“…In 2011, a third fluoropyrimidine option, Teysuno ® , was approved for use in Europe in combination with cisplatin for patients with advanced esophagogastric adenocarcinoma [ 7 ]. Teysuno ® , also known worldwide under the International Nonproprietary Name S-1, is a combination of three drugs, tegafur (a 5-FU prodrug), gimeracil (a dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase inhibitor), and oteracil (an orotate phosphoribosyl transferase inhibitor) in a formulation designed to provide effective plasma concentrations of 5-FU while reducing the well-known toxicities of 5-FU and capecitabine [e.g., hematological effects, gastrointestinal toxicity, and hand-foot syndrome (HFS)] [ 8 , 9 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a network analysis of clinical trials of 5-FU, capecitabine, and S-1 in previously untreated esophagogastric adenocarcinoma, patients receiving S-1 had similar overall survival and progression-free survival compared to those receiving intravenous (IV) 5-FU or oral capecitabine [ 9 ]. Moreover, S-1 treatment was associated with lower rates of some important adverse events including fewer catheter-related complications, grade 3–4 mucositis, stomatitis, febrile neutropenia, dehydration, and toxicity-related deaths than 5-FU, and fewer cases of grade 3–4 neutropenia and grade 1–2 HFS compared with capecitabine [ 9 ]. Similarly, in a recent phase III study that compared the incidence of HFS in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with oral capecitabine vs. S-1, efficacy was similar but rates of HFS were significantly lower for patients who received S-1 compared with capecitabine (45% vs. 73%; p = 0.0005) [ 12 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

S-1 in Patients with Advanced Esophagogastric Adenocarcinoma: Results from the Safety Compliance Observatory on Oral fluoroPyrimidines (SCOOP) Study

Venerito

2019

Drugs R D

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives S-1-based regimens have been shown to be as effective as other fluoropyrimidine-based regimens with a better safety profile in patients with advanced esophagogastric adenocarcinoma. However, real-world data on S-1 in European patients with advanced esophagogastric adenocarcinoma are lacking. The Safety Compliance Observatory on Oral fluoroPyrimidines (SCOOP) study evaluated safety and relative dose intensities for patients treated with S-1-based regimens for advanced esophagogastric adenocarcinoma as part of daily practice. Methods Overall, data for 125 patients with advanced esophagogastric adenocarcinoma were collected at 21 centers in five countries in Europe. Demographics, treatment, and adverse-event data were recorded over a planned treatment of six cycles. Results Most patients (87%) received combination treatment of S-1 plus a platinum compound. Adverse events related to S-1 treatment were mostly grade 1 or 2 while reported grade 3–4 serious adverse events related to S-1 occurred in 12 patients and were most often grade 3 neutropenia ( n = 4, 3.2%) or diarrhea ( n = 5, 4%). The most common adverse events of any grade that were attributable to S-1 treatment included neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and fatigue. No patients experienced mucositis, dehydration, or febrile neutropenia, whereas 2% (3/125) of patients experienced hand-foot syndrome. Conclusion The overall relative dose intensity was 70%. In a real-world setting, patients with advanced esophagogastric adenocarcinoma tolerated S-1 treatment well with high compliance rates. The SCOOP study provides valuable information on S-1 relative dose intensity that can be used for treatment decision making.

show abstract

Capecitabine, 5-fluorouracil and S-1 based regimens for previously untreated advanced oesophagogastric cancer: A network meta-analysis

Cited by 22 publications

References 33 publications

<p>Prognosis of Adjuvant SOX vs XELOX Chemotherapy for Gastric Cancer After D2 Gastrectomy in Chinese Patients</p>

<p>Prognosis of Adjuvant SOX vs XELOX Chemotherapy for Gastric Cancer After D2 Gastrectomy in Chinese Patients</p>

TOXview: a novel graphical presentation of cancer treatment toxicity profiles

S-1 in Patients with Advanced Esophagogastric Adenocarcinoma: Results from the Safety Compliance Observatory on Oral fluoroPyrimidines (SCOOP) Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About