Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29249005›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2018

Metronomic capecitabine as second-line treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma after sorafenib discontinuation.

Franco Trevisani, Giovanni Brandi, Francesca Garuti, Maria Aurelia Barbera, Raffaella Tortora, Andrea Casadei Gardini, Alessandro Granito, Francesco Tovoli, Stefania De Lorenzo, Andrea Lorenzo Inghilesi and 5 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

57 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. World journal of oncology · 2024
    Article
  20. Article
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

15 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Franco TrevisaniDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Medical Semeiotics, University of Bologna, via Albertoni 15, 40138, Bologna, Italy. franco.trevisani@unibo.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6393-6995
Giovanni BrandiDepartment of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Francesca GarutiDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Medical Semeiotics, University of Bologna, via Albertoni 15, 40138, Bologna, Italy.
Maria Aurelia BarberaDepartment of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Raffaella TortoraDepartment of Transplantation, Liver Unit, Cardarelli Hospital, Naples, Italy.
Andrea Casadei GardiniDepartment of Medical Oncology, Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e Cura dei Tumori (IRST) IRCCS, Meldola, Italy.
Alessandro GranitoDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Internal Medicine, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Francesco TovoliDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Internal Medicine, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Stefania De LorenzoDepartment of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Andrea Lorenzo InghilesiDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Internal Medicine and Hepatology, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Francesco Giuseppe FoschiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Ospedale per gli Infermi, Faenza, Italy.
Mauro BernardiDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Medical Semeiotics, University of Bologna, via Albertoni 15, 40138, Bologna, Italy.
Fabio MarraDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Internal Medicine and Hepatology, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Rodolfo SaccoGastroenterology and Metabolic Diseases, University Hospital of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Giovan Giuseppe Di CostanzoDepartment of Transplantation, Liver Unit, Cardarelli Hospital, Naples, Italy.
University of Bologna · ITFatebenefratelli Hospital · ITUniversity of Florence · ITAzienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Pisana · ITIstituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori · ITOspedale per gli Infermi · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMetronomic capecitabine (MC) is a well-tolerated systemic treatment showing promising results in one retrospective study, as second-line therapy after sorafenib failure, in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

methods117 patients undergoing MC were compared to 112 patients, eligible for this treatment, but undergoing best supportive care (BSC) after sorafenib discontinuation for toxicity or HCC progression. The two groups were compared for demographic and clinical features. A multivariate regression analysis was conducted to detect independent prognostic factors. To balance confounding factors between the two groups, a propensity score model based on independent prognosticators (performance status, neoplastic thrombosis, causes of sorafenib discontinuation and pre-sorafenib treatment) was performed.

resultsPatients undergoing MC showed better performance status, lower tumor burden, lower prevalence of portal vein thrombosis, and better cancer stage. Median (95% CI) post-sorafenib survival (PSS) was longer in MC than in BSC patients [9.5 (7.5-11.6) vs 5.0 (4.2-5.7) months (p < 0.001)]. Neoplastic thrombosis, cause of sorafenib discontinuation, pre-sorafenib treatment and MC were independent prognosticators. The benefit of capecitabine was confirmed in patients after matching with propensity score [PSS: 9.9 (6.8-12.9) vs. 5.8 (4.8-6.8) months, (p = 0.001)]. MC lowered the mortality risk by about 40%. MC achieved better results in patients who stopped sorafenib for adverse events than in those who progressed during it [PSS: 17.3 (10.5-24.1) vs. 7.8 (5.2-10.1) months, (p = 0.035)]. Treatment toxicity was low and easily manageable with dose modulation.

conclusionsMC may be an efficient and safe second-line systemic therapy for HCC patients who discontinued sorafenib for toxicity or tumor progression.

Indexed as

Administration, MetronomicAgedAntimetabolites, AntineoplasticCapecitabineCarcinoma, HepatocellularFemaleHumansLiver NeoplasmsMaleNiacinamidePhenylurea CompoundsProtein Kinase InhibitorsRetrospective StudiesSorafenibSurvival RateAntimetabolites, AntineoplasticCapecitabineNiacinamidePhenylurea CompoundsProtein Kinase InhibitorsSorafenibHepatocellular carcinomaMetronomic capecitabineSecond-line chemotherapySurvivalToxicity

Identifiers

PMID29249005
PMCPMC11813436
OpenAlexW2771874080

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.