ArticleOncotarget2016
Comparison of efficacy in adjuvant chemotherapy regimens in patients with radically resected gastric cancer : a propensity-matched analysis.
Article in Oncotarget, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe conducted the retrospective study to compare the efficacy of monotherapies versus two-drug regimens as postoperative chemotherapy for patients with radically resected gastric cancer.
resultsAt a median follow-up of 5.3 years, no significant difference in terms of OS was observed between two groups, neither before nor after matching. After matching, median DFS was statistically significant between group A and B (median, 67.5 vs 101.0 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.95; P=0.027), which meant doublets prolonged DFS. In subgroup analysis, the patients of stage III receiving doublet achieved better OS than those receiving monotherapy. People who received doublet and were less than 65 years old, or male patients, or in T4 stage, or in N2 stage, or receiving subtotal gastrectomy had better DFS than those with monotherapy.
methodsA data set including 501 patients (monotherapy, n=107; doublet, n=394) was matched between the two groups (n=107 patients per group) using the propensity-matched study. The primary and secondary endpoint was overall survival(OS) and disease-free survival(DFS), respectively. Survival data was compared using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportion hazards models for univariate and multivariate analyses.
conclusionsThe dual regimens seemed not to add overall survival benefits to patients receiving curative gastrectomy, compared with single-agent fluoropyrimidine as postoperative chemotherapy. However, dual regimens showed better disease-free survival.
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.