ArticleTranslational lung cancer research2015
A meta-analysis of safety and efficacy on first-line S-1 therapy in cancer patients.
Article in Translational lung cancer research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ocular complication induced by anticancer drug S-1: association with drug concentrations in tears.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Determination of 5-fluorouracil and tegafur in tear fluid of patients treated with oral fluoropyrimidine anticancer agent, S-1.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe incidence of grade 3/4 adverse effects due to S-1 therapy and the efficacy of S-1-based therapy vs. S-1 monotherapy have not been well described. We conducted an updated meta-analysis to evaluate this problem.
methodsWe searched the electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane database to investigate the effects of phase 2 and 3 prospective clinical trials on first-line S-1 therapy in cancer patients. Data from included studies were pooled using Stata version 12.0.
resultsTwenty eight studies were included. First-line S-1 monotherapy showed low incidence of grade 3/4 adverse effects. And the highest rate grade 3/4 hematological event was neutropenia [7%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 5-8%]; the highest rate grade 3/4 non-hematological event was anorexia (7%, 95% CI: 6-9%). Longer overall survival (OS) time and progression-free survival (PFS) time was exhibited in S-1-based therapy, compared with S-1 monotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) 0.836, 95% CI: 0.761-0.911, P=0.000, and HR 0.650, 95% CI: 0.540-0.759, P=0.000, respectively]. However, the incidence of grade 3/4 adverse effects was also higher in S-1-based therapy than S-1 monotherapy in cancer patients, with relative risk (RR) of neutropenia and anorexia were respectively 4.62 (95% CI: 2.92-7.30) and 1.46 (95% CI: 0.84-2.55).
conclusionsS-1 monotherapy was demonstrated with low incidence of high grade adverse effects, therefore it is well tolerated for majority cancer patients; S-1-based therapy significantly improved OS and PFS compared with S-1 monotherapy, with an increased risk of high grade adverse effects.
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.