AIM: To rationally evaluate the effect of S-1 vs capecitabine for the treatment of gastric cancer. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Google Scholar, and China Journal Full Text Database were accessed to collect clinical randomized controlled trials regarding the effect of S-1 vs capecitabine for the treatment of gastric cancer patients. Statistical analysis was performed by meta-analysis. Four randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Compared with capecitabine regimens, the 1-year survival rate in gastric cancer patients was 0.80 (95%CI: 0.52-1.21, P = 0.29). The overall response rate of S-1 vs capecitabine was 0.94 (95%CI: 0.59-1.51, P = 0.93). Compared with capecitabine regimens, the most frequent hematologic toxicities were neutropenia (OR = 0.99, 95%CI: 0.65-1.49, P = 0.94) and thrombocytopenia (OR = 0.72, 95%CI: 0.31-1.67, P = 0.44). The most frequent non-hematologic toxicities included nausea (OR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.56-1.28, P = 0.43) and hand-foot syndrome (OR = 0.16, 95%CI: 0.10-0.27, P < 0.00001). CONCLUSION: The existing studies suggest that S-1 is not more effective than capecitabine in the treatment of gastric cancer patients, but does exhibit less toxicity with regard to hand-foot syndrome.
AIM: To rationally evaluate the effect of S-1 vs capecitabine for the treatment of gastric cancer. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Google Scholar, and China Journal Full Text Database were accessed to collect clinical randomized controlled trials regarding the effect of S-1 vs capecitabine for the treatment of gastric cancerpatients. Statistical analysis was performed by meta-analysis. Four randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Compared with capecitabine regimens, the 1-year survival rate in gastric cancerpatients was 0.80 (95%CI: 0.52-1.21, P = 0.29). The overall response rate of S-1 vs capecitabine was 0.94 (95%CI: 0.59-1.51, P = 0.93). Compared with capecitabine regimens, the most frequent hematologic toxicities were neutropenia (OR = 0.99, 95%CI: 0.65-1.49, P = 0.94) and thrombocytopenia (OR = 0.72, 95%CI: 0.31-1.67, P = 0.44). The most frequent non-hematologic toxicities included nausea (OR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.56-1.28, P = 0.43) and hand-foot syndrome (OR = 0.16, 95%CI: 0.10-0.27, P < 0.00001). CONCLUSION: The existing studies suggest that S-1 is not more effective than capecitabine in the treatment of gastric cancerpatients, but does exhibit less toxicity with regard to hand-foot syndrome.
Authors: E Van Cutsem; C Twelves; J Cassidy; D Allman; E Bajetta; M Boyer; R Bugat; M Findlay; S Frings; M Jahn; J McKendrick; B Osterwalder; G Perez-Manga; R Rosso; P Rougier; W H Schmiegel; J F Seitz; P Thompson; J M Vieitez; C Weitzel; P Harper Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-11-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Anna D Wagner; Wilfried Grothe; Johannes Haerting; Gerhard Kleber; Axel Grothey; Wolfgang E Fleig Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-06-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Eric Van Cutsem; Vladimir M Moiseyenko; Sergei Tjulandin; Alejandro Majlis; Manuel Constenla; Corrado Boni; Adriano Rodrigues; Miguel Fodor; Yee Chao; Edouard Voznyi; Marie-Laure Risse; Jaffer A Ajani Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-11-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Leonard B Saltz; Stephen Clarke; Eduardo Díaz-Rubio; Werner Scheithauer; Arie Figer; Ralph Wong; Sheryl Koski; Mikhail Lichinitser; Tsai-Shen Yang; Fernando Rivera; Felix Couture; Florin Sirzén; Jim Cassidy Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-04-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David Cunningham; Naureen Starling; Sheela Rao; Timothy Iveson; Marianne Nicolson; Fareeda Coxon; Gary Middleton; Francis Daniel; Jacqueline Oates; Andrew Richard Norman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-01-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Emil Ter Veer; Nadia Haj Mohammad; Paul Lodder; Lok Lam Ngai; Mary Samaan; Martijn G H van Oijen; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven Journal: Gastric Cancer Date: 2016-01-11 Impact factor: 7.370