Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27737436›Full record

Trial reportJAMA oncology2017

Association of Proton Pump Inhibitors and Capecitabine Efficacy in Advanced Gastroesophageal Cancer: Secondary Analysis of the TRIO-013/LOGiC Randomized Clinical Trial.

Michael P Chu, J Randolph Hecht, Dennis Slamon, Zev A Wainberg, Yung-Jue Bang, Paulo M Hoff, Alberto Sobrero, Shukui Qin, Karen Afenjar, Vincent Houe and 10 more

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT00680901 (A Phase III Study for ErbB2 Positive Advanced or Metastatic Gastric, Esophageal, or Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma Treated With Capecitabine Plus Oxaliplatin With or Without Lapatinib), which is not on this map. Cited by 44 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
9.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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.

NCT00680901 phase3completednot on this map

A Phase III Study for ErbB2 Positive Advanced or Metastatic Gastric, Esophageal, or Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma Treated With Capecitabine Plus Oxaliplatin With or Without Lapatinib

TypeinterventionalSponsorNovartis PharmaceuticalsRan2008 to 2024Enrolled545ConditionsNeoplasms, Gastrointestinal TractArmsLapatinib, Placebo, Capecitabine, Oxaliplatin
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 106 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Efficacy of capecitabine when used concomitantly with proton pump inhibitors in cancer patients: a systematic review.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2020
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Observational
  15. Observational
  16. Hand-foot syndrome in cancer patients on capecitabine: examining prevalence, impacts, and associated risk factors at a cancer centre in Malaysia.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors at 8 institutions in 7 countries.

Michael P ChuCross Cancer Institute, Department of Oncology, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
J Randolph HechtJonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Department of Clinical and Translational Research, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles.
Dennis SlamonJonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Department of Clinical and Translational Research, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles.
Zev A WainbergJonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Department of Clinical and Translational Research, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles.
Yung-Jue BangDepartment of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Paulo M HoffInstituto do Cancer do Estado de Sao Paulo, Universidade de Sao Paolo, Sao Paolo, Brazil.
Alberto SobreroIRCCS Ospedale San Martino IST, Medical Oncology, Largo Benzi 10 Genova, 16132, Italy.
Shukui QinDepartment of Oncology, The 81 Hospital of the Chinese People's Liberation Army, Nanjing, China.
Karen AfenjarProject Management, Translational Research in Oncology (TRIO), Paris, France.
Vincent HoueDepartment of Biostatistics, TRIO, Paris, France.
Karen KingCross Cancer Institute, Department of Oncology, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Sheryl KoskiCross Cancer Institute, Department of Oncology, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Karen MulderCross Cancer Institute, Department of Oncology, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Julie Price HillerCross Cancer Institute, Department of Oncology, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Andrew ScarfeCross Cancer Institute, Department of Oncology, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Jennifer SpratlinCross Cancer Institute, Department of Oncology, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Yingjie J HuangDepartment of Research and Development Projects, Clinical Platforms and Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Middlesex, United Kingdom.
Saba Khan-WastiDepartment of Research and Development Projects, Clinical Platforms and Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Middlesex, United Kingdom.
Neil ChuaCross Cancer Institute, Department of Oncology, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Michael B SawyerCross Cancer Institute, Department of Oncology, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
GlaxoSmithKline (United Kingdom) · GBTranslational Research in Oncology · FRUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USChinese People's Liberation Army · CNInstituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo · BROspedale Policlinico San Martino · ITSeoul National University · KRUCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceCapecitabine is an oral cytotoxic chemotherapeutic commonly used across cancer subtypes. As with other oral medications though, it may suffer from drug interactions that could impair its absorption.

objectiveTo determine if gastric acid suppressants such as proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) may impair capecitabine efficacy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsThis secondary analysis of TRIO-013, a phase III randomized trial, compares capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CapeOx) with or without lapatinib in 545 patients with ERBB2/HER2-positive metastatic gastroesophageal cancer (GEC); patients were randomized 1:1 between CapeOx with or without lapatinib. Proton pump inhibitor use was identified by medication records. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between patients treated with PPIs vs patients who were not. Specific subgroups were accounted for, such as younger age (<60 years), Asian ethnicity, female sex, and disease stage (metastatic/advanced) in multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling. The TRIO-013 trial accrued and randomized patients between June 2008 and January 2012; this analysis took place in January 2014.

interventionsPatients were divided based on PPI exposure. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary study outcome was PFS and OS between patients treated with PPIs vs patients who were not. Secondary outcomes included disease response rates and toxicities.

resultsOf the 545 patients with GEC (median age, 60 years; 406 men [74%]) included in the study, 229 received PPIs (42.0%) and were evenly distributed between arms. In the placebo arm, PPI-treated patients had poorer median PFS, 4.2 vs 5.7 months (hazard ratio [HR], 1.55; 95% CI, 1.29-1.81, P < .001); OS, 9.2 vs 11.3 months (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.06-1.62; P = .04); and disease control rate (83% vs 72%; P = .02) vs patients not treated with PPIs. In multivariate analysis considering age, race, disease stage, and sex, PPI-treated patients had poorer PFS (HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.42-1.94; P < .001) and OS (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.11-1.71; P = .001). In patients treated with CapeOx and lapatinib, PPIs had less effect on PFS (HR, 1.08; P = .54) and OS (HR, 1.26; P = .10); however, multivariate analysis in this group demonstrated a significant difference in OS (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.06-1.66; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Proton pump inhibitors negatively effected capecitabine efficacy by possibly raising gastric pH levels, leading to altered dissolution and absorption. These results are consistent with previous erlotinib and sunitinib studies. Whether PPIs affected lapatinib is unclear given concurrent capecitabine. Given capecitabine's prevalence in treatment breast cancer and colon cancer, further studies are under way.

trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00680901.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCapecitabineDrug InteractionsEsophageal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansLapatinibMaleMiddle AgedOrganoplatinum CompoundsOxaliplatinProton Pump InhibitorsQuinazolinesStomach NeoplasmsTreatment OutcomeCapecitabineLapatinibOrganoplatinum CompoundsOxaliplatinProton Pump InhibitorsQuinazolines

Identifiers

PMID27737436
PMCPMC5824322
OpenAlexW2530532085

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.