Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26754295›Full record

SynthesisGastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association2016

The efficacy and safety of S-1-based regimens in the first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Emil Ter Veer, Nadia Haj Mohammad, Paul Lodder, Lok Lam Ngai, Mary Samaan, Martijn G H van Oijen, Hanneke W M van Laarhoven

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Emil Ter VeerDepartment of Medical Oncology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, F4-224, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Nadia Haj MohammadDepartment of Medical Oncology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, F4-224, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Paul LodderDepartment of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Lok Lam NgaiDepartment of Medical Oncology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, F4-224, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Mary SamaanDepartment of Medical Oncology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, F4-224, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Martijn G H van OijenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, F4-224, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Hanneke W M van LaarhovenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, F4-224, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. h.vanlaarhoven@amc.uva.nl.
University of Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundS-1 is first-line therapy for advanced gastric cancer in Asia and is used with increased frequency in Western counties. We conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and toxicity of S-1-based therapy compared with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/capecitabine-based therapy and S-1-based combination therapy compared with S-1 monotherapy.

methodsMEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting abstracts, European Society for Medical Oncology meeting abstracts and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for randomized clinical trials until May 2015. Data were extracted for overall survival (OS), progression-free-survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and grade 1-2 and grade 3-4 adverse events. Stratified OS data for subgroups were extracted.

resultsS-1 was not different from 5-FU (eight studies, n = 2788) in terms of OS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.93, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.85-1.01] and PFS (HR 0.87, 95 % CI 0.73-1.04), whereas ORR was higher (risk ratio 1.43, 95 % CI 1.05-1.96). There was no subgroup difference in efficacy among Asian and Western patients, but in Western patients S-1 was associated with a lower rate of febrile neutropenia, toxicity-related deaths and grade 3-4 stomatitis and mucositis compared with 5-FU. S-1 showed no difference in efficacy compared with capecitabine (three studies, n = 329), but was associated with a lower rate of grade 3-4 neutropenia and grade 1-2 hand-foot syndrome. S-1-combination therapy was superior to S-1 monotherapy (eight studies, n = 1808) in terms of OS (HR 0.76, 95 % CI 0.65-0.90), PFS (HR 0.68, 95 % CI 0.56-0.82) and ORR (risk ratio 1.20, 95 % CI 1.04-1.38) but was more toxic. Survival benefit of S-1 combination therapy over S-1 monotherapy was most pronounced in patients with non-measurable disease, diffuse-type histological features and peritoneal metastasis.

conclusionsS-1 is effective and tolerable as first-line therapy for advanced gastric cancer in both Asian and Western countries.

Indexed as

Drug CombinationsHumansOxonic AcidSafetyStomach NeoplasmsTegafurTreatment OutcomeDrug CombinationsOxonic AcidS 1 (combination)TegafurAdvanced gastric cancerChemotherapyMeta-analysisS-1

Identifiers

PMID26754295
PMCPMC4906062
OpenAlexW2238191161

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.