SynthesisMedicine2019
Efficacy and safety assessment of S-1-based regimens comparing to intravenous fluorouracil-based ones in Asian patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma: A system review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe performed the present systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety for S-1-based regimens comparing to intravenous fluorouracil-based ones in Asian patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma (mCRC).
methodsEligible prospective and controlled randomized clinical trials (RCT) were included, of which data were extracted by inclusion criteria and exclusion ones. Odds ratio (OR) and Hazard ratio (HR) of outcomes including objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progressive-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs) were explored for the final analysis between the 2 groups.
resultsA total of 23 eligible prospective, controlled RCTs including 2269 patients were enrolled for the pooled analysis. With the meta-analysis of available data, the results of the present research showed that there was no statistical difference on short-term efficacy including ORR (HR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.71-1.01; P = .07) or DCR (HR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.69-1.11; P = .27), as well as long-term efficacy including PFS (HR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.90-1.11; P = .98) or OS (HR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.82-1.10; P = .50). In addition, the incidences of AEs including leucopenia, neutropenia, and vomiting were statistically lower in S-1-based regimens comparing to intravenous fluorouracil-based ones, regardless of all grade or high grade (all P <.05). However, there were no significant differences detected among other AEs including anemia, thrombocytopenia, increased alanine aminotransferase concentration, stomatitis, anorexia, diarrhea, hand-foot syndrome (HFS), or sensory neuropathy among the 2 groups (all P >.05).
conclusionsThe present meta-analysis revealed that S-1-based regimens might be associated with comparable efficacy, as well as lower risk of leucopenia, neutropenia, and vomiting at all/high grade comparing to intravenous fluorouracil-based ones in Asian patients with mCRC.
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.