SynthesisMedicine2019
Comparison of efficacy and safety of S-1 and capecitabine in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma: A systematic 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. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Oral Tegafur-Uracil Combination plus Leucovorin versus Other Fluoropyrimidine Agents in Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.South Asian journal of cancer · 2022Review
- Selection of Oral Therapeutics in China for the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer.Current treatment options in oncology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of S-1 and capecitabine in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma (mCRC).
methodsEligible prospective clinical trials were searched and available data were extracted. Odds ratio and hazard ratio of available outcomes including objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs) were pooled for analysis.
resultsA total of 6 studies including 828 patients were included. The results of pooled analysis showed no statistical difference in short-term efficacy including ORR (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68-1.19; P = .48) or DCR (95% CI: 0.65-1.29; P = .61), or long-term efficacy including PFS (95% CI: 0.75-1.08; P = .26) or OS (95% CI: 0.78-1.13; P = .50). Symptoms of diarrhea at any grade were more prevalent (95% CI: 1.21-2.29; P = .002) in patients treated with S-1, while hand-foot syndrome (HFS) at any grade (95% CI: 0.24-0.48; P < .0001) or high grade (95% CI: 0.09-0.48; P < .0001) was more frequent in capecitabine group. AEs including leucopenia, neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, vomiting, oral mucositis, stomatitis, elevated alanine transaminase, or peripheral neuropathy showed no statistical difference between S-1 and capecitabine group (all P > .05).
conclusionsThis meta-analysis reveals that S-1 has comparable efficacy, lower risk of HFS and higher incidence of diarrhea compared to capecitabine for treatment in 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.