SynthesisWorld journal of gastroenterology2015
Efficacy of S-1 vs capecitabine for the treatment of gastric cancer: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in World journal of gastroenterology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of S-1-based vs. capecitabine-based adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2021Pooled it
- The efficacy and safety of S-1-based regimens in the first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2016Pooled it
- Multicenter phase II study of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin in older patients with advanced gastric cancer: the Tokyo Cooperative Oncology Group (TCOG) GI-1601 study.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2023Trial
- Induction Camrelizumab and Modified TPF (Nab-Paclitaxel, Cisplatin, and S-1) in Locoregionally Advanced Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma.Cancer science · 2025Article
- Metronomic S-1 Adjuvant Chemotherapy Improves Survival in Patients with Locoregionally Advanced Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma.Cancer research and treatment · 2024Article
- Article
- Analysis of drug-induced hand-foot syndrome using a spontaneous reporting system database.Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2022Article
- Article
- S-1 for treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review of the literature.Contemporary oncology (Poznan, Poland) · 2017Review
- Combinational Treatment of Curcumin and Quercetin against Gastric Cancer MGC-803 Cells in Vitro.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo rationally evaluate the effect of S-1 vs capecitabine for the treatment of gastric cancer.
methodsMEDLINE, 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.
resultsCompared 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).
conclusionThe 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.
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.