ArticleCureus2021
The Comparison of mDCF and mFOLFOX-6 as First-Line Treatment in Metastatic Gastric Cancer.
Article in Cureus, 2021. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- ILUSTRO: Phase II Multicohort Trial of Zolbetuximab in Patients with Advanced or Metastatic Claudin 18.2-Positive Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2023Trial
- Comparison of the efficacy of mFOLFOX-6 and mDCF regimens in the treatment of metastatic gastric cancer: a multicenter retrospective study.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2025Article
- A retrospective study of clinicopathological characteristics and prognostic factors of Krukenberg tumor with gastric origin.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2022Article
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFluoropyrimidine and platinum-based chemotherapy regimens are widely accepted for metastatic gastric cancer (GC). Because of drug toxicity, a combined two-drug cytotoxic drug regimen is recommended for first-line therapy, while three-drug cytotoxic regimens are recommended for patients with medically fit and better performance status. In this study, it was aimed to compare modified FOLFOX-6 (mFOLFOX-6) and modified DCF (mDCF) regimens in terms of survival and side effects in first-line treatment in metastatic GC.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the clinical record of patients with metastatic gastric or gastro-esophageal junction cancer who had received mDCF or mFOLFOX-6 as the first-line treatment, and followed up in our center between February 2013 and December 2020. The data were collected from the patients' registration database of the hospital and oncologic follow-up files of our center. In the mDCF arm, docetaxel 60 mg/m
resultsA total of 70 patients included into the study. Of those, 40 (57%) patients had received mDCF and 30 (43%) had received FOLFOX-6 regimens as first-line treatment. There were no complete responses in both groups. The partial response rate was 28% and 27% for mDCF and mFOLFOX-6, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference regarding treatment response for both groups (p=0.787). The median OS was 13.9 months (95% CI: 7.5-20.4) in the mDCF arm, and 10.4 months (95% CI: 6.4-14.4) in the mFOLFOX-6 arm (p=0.409). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.2 months (95% CI: 3.6-6.9) in the mDCF arm, and 6.4 months (3.2-9.6) in the FOLFOX-6 arm (p=0.126). The ratio of dose reduction, treatment delay, and neutropenic fever were not statistically different between treatment arms.
conclusionThe present study demonstrated that proper patient selection for metastatic GC may give rise to comparable survival rates without increased toxicity. mFOLFOX-6 and mDCF had similar response rates, OS, PFS, and side effect profiles.
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.