Observational studyMedicine2019
The efficacy and feasibility of adopting intravenous chemotherapy and oral S-1 as a sequential therapy for postoperative gastric cancer patients.
Observational study 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, 0 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Some postoperative gastric cancer patients have to terminate systemic intravenous chemotherapy early due to adverse drug reactions. We performed a retrospective study to explore the efficacy and feasibility of sequential therapy.We retrospectively analyzed 55 postoperative gastric cancer patients (Group A) who received sequential therapy (intravenous chemotherapy and S-1) and 53 patients (Group B) who received intravenous chemotherapy from January 2012 to December 2013 in our hospital. The therapeutic effect (including 1-year, 5-year tumor recurrence and survival rate) and the incidence of adverse reactions were analyzed.When death and survival for more than 5 years was regarded as the end point of follow-up, the mean follow-up period was 40.6 months (34.7-46.4) in Group A and 39.2 months (33.0-45.3) in Group B. The 1-year tumor recurrence after the operation was 23.6% (13/55, Group A) and 28.3% (15/53, Group B). The 5-year tumor recurrence was 45.5% (25/55, Group A) and 49.1% (26/53, Group B). There was no significant difference in the 1- and 5-year tumor recurrence rates between these two groups (P > .05). The 1-year survival rates of Group A and Group B were 81.8% (45/55) and 79.2% (42/53), respectively, and the 5-year survival rates of Group A and Group B were 47.3% (26/55) and 45.3% (24/53), respectively. No significant difference was observed between these two treatments at either the 1- or 5-year survival benefit (P > .05). However, the patients in Group A had a lower incidence of gastrointestinal reactions (such as nausea and vomiting), leukopenia and liver function damage (P < .05). We also found that patients who underwent sequential therapy might show lower levels of adverse reactions.Our retrospective study provided some evidence to suggest that sequential treatment is effective and safe for postoperative gastric cancer patients who are intolerant to intravenous chemotherapy.
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.