Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30510363›Full record

ArticleChinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu2018

Oxaliplatin plus S-1 or capecitabine as neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced gastric cancer with D2 lymphadenectomy: 5-year follow-up results of a phase II

Kan Xue, Xiangji Ying, Zhaode Bu, Aiwen Wu, Zhongwu Li, Lei Tang, Lianhai Zhang, Yan Zhang, Ziyu Li, Jiafu Ji

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Clinical-radiomic prognostic model integrating staging before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in gastric cancer: a multicenter retrospective study.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

10 authors.

Kan XueKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), 1Gastrointestinal Cancer Center.
Xiangji YingKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), 1Gastrointestinal Cancer Center.
Zhaode BuKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), 1Gastrointestinal Cancer Center.
Aiwen WuKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), 1Gastrointestinal Cancer Center.
Zhongwu LiKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), 1Gastrointestinal Cancer Center.
Lei TangKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), 1Gastrointestinal Cancer Center.
Lianhai ZhangKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), 1Gastrointestinal Cancer Center.
Yan ZhangKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), 1Gastrointestinal Cancer Center.
Ziyu LiKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), 1Gastrointestinal Cancer Center.
Jiafu JiKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), 1Gastrointestinal Cancer Center.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) with adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) using oxaliplatin plus S-1 (SOX) or capecitabine (CapeOX) on gastric cancer patients with D2 lymphadenectomy.

methodsThis was a two-by-two factorial randomized phase II-III trial, and registered on ISRCTN registry (No. ISRCTN12206108). Locally advanced gastric cancer patients were randomized to neoadjuvant SOX, neoadjuvant CapeOX, adjuvant SOX, or adjuvant CapeOX arms. Primary analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis using overall survival (OS) as primary endpoint.

resultsThis trial started in September 2011 and closed in December 2012 with 100 patients enrolled. Treatment completion rate was 56%, 52%, 38% and 30% in the four arms, respectively. NACT group had fewer dropouts due to unacceptable toxicity (P=0.042). Surgical complication rate did not differ by the four groups (P=0.986). No survival significant difference was found comparing NACT with ACT (P=0.664; 5-year-OS: 70%

conclusionsNo significant survival difference was found between NACT and ACT. SOX and CapeOX had good safety and efficacy as neoadjuvant regimens. Diffuse type patients may survive longer due to SOX.

Indexed as

adjuvant chemotherapyCapeOXgastric cancerneoadjuvant chemotherapySOX

Identifiers

PMID30510363
PMCPMC6232367

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.