Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26334891›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2015

Gemcitabine Compared With Gemcitabine and S-1 Combination Therapy in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Doudou Li, Changhao Chen, Yu Zhou, Rufu Chen, Xinxiang Fan, Zhuofei Bi, Zhihua Li, Yimin Liu

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 34% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. The efficacy and safety of gemcitabine-based combination therapyJournal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Analysis on survival and prognostic factors in patients with resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma.Journal of Huazhong University of Science and Technology. Medical sciences = Hua zhong ke ji da xue xue bao. Yi xue Ying De wen ban = Huazhong keji daxue xuebao. Yixue Yingdewen ban · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Doudou LiFrom the Department of Oncology (DL, ZB, ZL, YL); Department of Urology (CC, XF); Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery (RC), Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital; and Department of General Surgery (YZ), Guangdong General Hospital, Guangzhou, China.
Changhao Chen
Yu Zhou
Rufu Chen
Xinxiang Fan
Zhuofei Bi
Zhihua Li
Yimin Liu
Sun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several reports suggest that gemcitabine (GEM) plus S-1 combination (GS) is associated to prolong the survival in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer (PC). We conducted a systemic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the safety and efficacy of GS versus GEM.Summary data from randomized trials and retrospective studies were searched in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Statistical analyses were conducted to calculate the hazard ratios (HRs) and relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random-effects models. Subgroup analyses based on the chemotherapy cycles were performed to explore the efficacy and toxicity for therapy. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by removing specific studies to assess the effects of study quality.Between January 2004 and August 2012, 4 RCTs and 2 retrospective studies including a total of 1025 cases were identified. The overall survival (OS) (HR: 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.96; P = 0.01) and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR: 0.65; 95% CI, 0.55-0.77; P < 0.001) for the GS arm were significantly longer than the GEM arm. The differences in objective response rate (ORR) (RR: 1.24; 95% CI, 1.17-1.33; P < 0.001) and disease control rate (DCR) were also better in the GS arm (RR: 1.37; 95% CI, 1.19-1.59; P < 0.001). Grades 3 to 4 toxicities in both the groups were similar except neutropenia and diarrhea, which were more frequent in the GS arm (P < 0.001). In the subgroup analysis, the cycle for chemotherapy every 4 weeks has equivalent efficacy and less toxicity than regimens every 3 weeks in the GS arm.The current meta-analysis suggested that GEM significantly prolonged OS and PFS when added to S-1 combination in patients with unresectable PC. GS therapy also offers better ORR and DCR than GEM monotherapy and no unexpected toxicity was evident.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntimetabolites, AntineoplasticDeoxycytidineDrug CombinationsDrug Therapy, CombinationFemaleGemcitabineHumansMaleMiddle AgedOxonic AcidPancreatic NeoplasmsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRetrospective StudiesAntimetabolites, AntineoplasticDeoxycytidineDrug CombinationsGemcitabineOxonic AcidS 1 (combination)Tegafur

Identifiers

PMID26334891
PMCPMC4616522
OpenAlexW1769177847

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.