Cargando…

Effectiveness and safety profile of S-1-based chemotherapy compared with capecitabine-based chemotherapy for advanced gastric and colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis

The aim of the present analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety profile of S-1-based chemotherapy (SBCT) versus capecitabine-based chemotherapy (CBCT) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) and advanced colorectal cancer (ACRC). A meta-analysis was performed, which included eligible randomized con...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: YE, JIA-XIANG, LIU, AI-QUN, GE, LIAN-YING, ZHOU, SHAO-ZHANG, LIANG, ZHONG-GUO
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: D.A. Spandidos 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3991506/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24940424
http://dx.doi.org/10.3892/etm.2014.1576
Descripción
Sumario:The aim of the present analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety profile of S-1-based chemotherapy (SBCT) versus capecitabine-based chemotherapy (CBCT) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) and advanced colorectal cancer (ACRC). A meta-analysis was performed, which included eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that were identified using RevMan 5.1.0 software. A total of 1,064 patients from 11 RCTs, comprising of 527 patients in the SBCT group and 537 patients in the CBCT group, were included in the analysis. For AGC, the meta-analysis of overall survival (OS) [hazard ratio (HR), 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.85–1.12], time to progression (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.80–1.12) and overall response rate (ORR) [odds ratio (OR), 1.06; 95% CI, 0.72–1.55] of patients in the SBCT group indicated no statistical significance when compared with those in the CBCT group. Furthermore, for ACRC, a pooled analysis demonstrated no significant difference between the SBCT and CBCT groups (OS: HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.61–1.10; progression-free survival: HR, 0.79; 95% CI=0.60–1.04; ORR: OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.91–1.78). The statistically significant differences identified in the overall meta-analysis indicated a low incidence of grade 3–4 hand-foot-syndrome (OR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.06–0.36) in the SBCT group; however no statistically significant difference was observed in the incidence of grade 3–4 anemia, thrombocytopenia, leucopenia, neutropenia, diarrhea, stomatitis or nausea/vomiting. The SBCT treatment exhibited similar efficacy and an approximately equivalent safety profile compared with the CBCT treatment and was an alternative to CBCT for patients with AGC or ACRC; however, further investigation is required to provide confirmation.