ReviewMedical oncology (Northwood, London, England)2012
5-Fluorouracil or capecitabine in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: a pooled-analysis of randomized trials.
Review in Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Oral versus intravenous fluoropyrimidines for colorectal cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Irinotecan chemotherapy combined with fluoropyrimidines versus irinotecan alone for overall survival and progression-free survival in patients with advanced and/or metastatic colorectal cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Prebiotic fibre mixtures counteract the manifestation of gut microbial dysbiosis induced by the chemotherapeutic 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) in a validated in vitro model of the colon.BMC microbiology · 2024Article
- Article
- Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer at Tygerberg Hospital: a retrospective study.The Pan African medical journal · 2022Observational
- An Oral Fluorouracil Prodrug, Capecitabine, Mitigates a Gram-Positive Systemic Infection in Mice.Microbiology spectrum · 2021Article
- A Novel Nomenclature for Repeat Motifs in the Thymidylate Synthase Enhancer Region and Its Relevance for Pharmacogenetic Studies.Journal of personalized medicine · 2020Article
- Circ_0007031 Serves as a Sponge of miR-760 to Regulate the Growth and Chemoradiotherapy Resistance of Colorectal Cancer via Regulating DCP1A.Cancer management and research · 2020Article
- A case report of a severe fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity due to an uncommon DPYD variant.Medicine · 2019Article
- Antitumor pharmacotherapy of colorectal cancer in kidney transplant recipients.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2019Review
- Lingual hyperpigmentation after 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy.BMJ case reports · 2017Article
- Toll-like receptor-5 agonist Entolimod broadens the therapeutic window of 5-fluorouracil by reducing its toxicity to normal tissues in mice.Oncotarget · 2014Article
- Metronomic capecitabine in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendrocrine tumors: a suitable regimen and review of the literature.OncoTargets and therapy · 2014Article
- Adverse event profiles of 5-fluorouracil and capecitabine: data mining of the public version of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System, AERS, and reproducibility of clinical observations.International journal of medical sciences · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this pooled-analysis is to evaluate the benefit of capecitabine (C) versus standard intravenous 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) as monochemotherapy or combination therapy in advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) in terms of safety and efficacy. Eligible patients have been randomized to receive either C-based or 5-FU-based chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced CRC. Relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of selected side effects (diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, stomatitis, hand and foot syndrome, neutropoenia, febrile neutropoenia, and cardio toxicity) and overall response rate (ORR) were calculated and hazard ratios (HRs) of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were obtained, respectively, from published data. The RRs of stomatitis and neutropoenia are 0.39 and 0.40, respectively with C (P < 0.00001). In particular high-grade mucositis and neutropoenia, they are reduced by 69 and 74%, respectively (RR: 0.31 and 0.26). Diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, febrile neutropoenia, and cardio toxicity with C are not worse than with 5-FU. The RR of hand and foot syndrome with C compared to 5-FU is 3.45, (P < 0.00001). Response rate, PFS, and OS are equivalent in both C- and 5-FU-based regimens. The use of C instead of 5-FU in advanced colorectal cancer regimens results in significantly less toxicity in terms of stomatitis and neutroponenia. Only hand and foot syndrome is worse with C than with 5-FU. Activity and efficacy are similar. Capecitabine could be therefore considered standard of care in advanced CRC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.