OBJECTIVES: Chemotherapy is used as an indispensable therapy for advanced gastric cancer. Different chemotherapy regimens have been used for this purpose. Toxicity due to the Chemotherapy drugs is one limiting factor. In this study we aim to compare the efficacy and toxicity of two regimens FOLFOX (leucoverin, 5-fluorouracil and oxaliplatin) and modified DCF (mDCF) (docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil) in patients with advanced gastric adenocarcinoma. METHODS: In this analytical cross-sectional study, 47 patients treated with FOLFOX regimen and 57 patients treated with mDCF regimen were recruited, Patients in both groups were compared for demographic findings, response rate, mortality rate, overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS). RESULTS: In FOLFOX and mDCF group, complete response (CR) occurred in 4.3% and 5.3%, partial response (PR) in 42.6% and 29.8%, stable disease in 34% and 52.6% and disease progression in 19.1% and 12.3%, respectively (p=0.25). Overall response rate was 48.9% and 56.1%, respectively. There was no significant difference between two regimens in OS and PFS (p=0.22). mDCF compared to FOLFOX had significantly higher hematologic, gastrointestinal complications, as well as creatinine rise, stomatitis and hair loss, but peripheral neuropathy was significantly lower. CONCLUSION: The results of current study showed that in patients with advanced gastric adenocarcinoma, FOLFOX regimen compared to mDCF regimen have similar ORR, OS and PFS. Toxicity rate are also lower in FOLFOX group, thus it seems a better regimen for chemotherapy.<br />.
OBJECTIVES: Chemotherapy is used as an indispensable therapy for advanced gastric cancer. Different chemotherapy regimens have been used for this purpose. Toxicity due to the Chemotherapy drugs is one limiting factor. In this study we aim to compare the efficacy and toxicity of two regimens FOLFOX (leucoverin, 5-fluorouracil and oxaliplatin) and modified DCF (mDCF) (docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil) in patients with advanced gastric adenocarcinoma. METHODS: In this analytical cross-sectional study, 47 patients treated with FOLFOX regimen and 57 patients treated with mDCF regimen were recruited, Patients in both groups were compared for demographic findings, response rate, mortality rate, overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS). RESULTS: In FOLFOX and mDCF group, complete response (CR) occurred in 4.3% and 5.3%, partial response (PR) in 42.6% and 29.8%, stable disease in 34% and 52.6% and disease progression in 19.1% and 12.3%, respectively (p=0.25). Overall response rate was 48.9% and 56.1%, respectively. There was no significant difference between two regimens in OS and PFS (p=0.22). mDCF compared to FOLFOX had significantly higher hematologic, gastrointestinal complications, as well as creatinine rise, stomatitis and hair loss, but peripheral neuropathy was significantly lower. CONCLUSION: The results of current study showed that in patients with advanced gastric adenocarcinoma, FOLFOX regimen compared to mDCF regimen have similar ORR, OS and PFS. Toxicity rate are also lower in FOLFOX group, thus it seems a better regimen for chemotherapy.<br />.
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: H Iwase; M Shimada; T Tsuzuki; K Ina; M Sugihara; J Haruta; M Shinoda; T Kumada; H Goto Journal: Oncology Date: 2011-06-10 Impact factor: 2.935
Authors: Jin Young Kim; Young Rok Do; Keon Uk Park; Jong Gwang Kim; Yee Soo Chae; Min Kyoung Kim; Kyung Hee Lee; Hun Mo Ryoo; Sung Hwa Bae; Jin Ho Baek; Hong Suk Song Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2010-05-12 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Selin Aktürk Esen; Yakup Ergun; Cihan Erol; Rukiye Arikan; Muhammed Muhiddin Er; Muhammed Mustafa Atci; Atakan Topçu; Gökhan Uçar; Baran Akagündüz; Musa Bariş Aykan; Miraç Özen; Naziyet Köse Baytemur; Melike Özçelik; Elif Şahin; Denizcan Güven; Serkan Menekşe; Naziye Ak; Fatih Teker; Engin Kut; Teoman Şakalar; Özkan Alan; Turgut Kaçan; Nazim Serdar Turhal; Saadettin Kiliçkap; Sema Türker; Mehmet Ali Nahit Şendur; Osman Köstek; Mustafa Karaağaç; Abdullah Sakin; Haci Mehmet Türk; Dilek Çağlayan; Şener Cihan; Yusuf Açikgöz; Doğan Uncu Journal: Bosn J Basic Med Sci Date: 2022-09-16 Impact factor: 3.759