ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2015
Gemcitabine plus S-1 versus cetuximab as a third-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: an observational trial.
Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- S-1 plus Raltitrexed for Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Phase II Trial.The oncologist · 2019Trial
- Article
- Efficacy and safety of third-line or later-line targeted treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Efficacy and safety of raltitrexed plus S-1Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2022Article
- PRSS contributes to cetuximab resistance in colorectal cancer.Science advances · 2020Article
- Treatment effects of oxaliplatin combined with gemcitabine on colorectal cancer and its influence on HMGB1 expression.Oncology letters · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimAfter failure of oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), there is no effective and low-cost therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine plus S-1 (GS) versus cetuximab as a third-line chemotherapy for mCRC patients.
methodsPatients with previous failure of oxaliplatin, 5-FU, and irinotecan chemotherapy were included. The patients received GS or cetuximab until disease progression or intolerable toxicity occurred. The regimen that was selected by the patient depended on their economic ability.
resultsIn all, 38 patients were enrolled between October 2009 and October 2012, and the patients were divided into 2 groups of 19 patients each. The median overall survival (OS) was 10 months for the GS group and 6.9 months for the cetuximab group (P = 0.047). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 79 days and 78 days (P = 0.344), respectively. The disease control rate (DCR) was 42.11% and 47.37%, respectively (P = 0.985). The overall response rate was 0% and 10.52%, respectively (P = 0.169). Adverse events related to chemotherapy were mild to moderate. Only grade 3-4 neutropenia was found in the GS group at a rate of 21.1%. In the cetuximab group, the rash incidence rate was 89.6%, with 1 patient reaching grade 3.
conclusionsGS has benefits in OS compared with cetuximab, and is a promising and safe regimen as a third-line chemotherapy for oxaliplatin- and irinotecan-refractory mCRC with good performance status for mCRC patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26885049PMC4723894W2287672071What 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.