ArticleThoracic cancer2021
Efficacy of S-1 after pemetrexed in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: A retrospective multi-institutional analysis.
Article in Thoracic cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-World Efficacy and Safety of S-1 Monotherapy in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Management: Insights From a Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.Clinical Medicine Insights. Oncology · 2025Article
- Efficacy of S-1 after pemetrexed in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: A retrospective multi-institutional analysis.Thoracic cancer · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundS-1 and pemetrexed (PEM) are key treatments for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the mechanism of anticancer activity of S-1 and PEM is similar. Cross-resistance between S-1 and PEM is of concern. This exploratory study was designed to evaluate the treatment effect of S-1 following PEM-containing treatment.
methodsThis retrospective study included patients with advanced (c-stage III or IV, UICC seventh edition) or recurrent NSCLC who received S-1 monotherapy following the failure of previous PEM-containing chemotherapy at six hospitals in Japan. The primary endpoint of the study was the overall response rate (ORR). The secondary endpoint was the disease control rate (DCR), time to treatment failure (TTF), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS).
resultsA total of 53 NSCLC patients met the criteria for inclusion in the study. Forty-six patients had adenocarcinoma (88.7%) and no patients had squamous cell carcinoma. Thirty-one patients (58.5%) received the standard S-1 regimen and 18 patients (34.0%) received the modified S-1 regimen. ORR was 1.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.00%-10.1%). Median TTF, PFS, and OS were 65, 84, and 385 days, respectively.
conclusionsAlthough there were several limitations in this study, the ORR of S-1 after PEM in patients with nonsquamous (non-SQ) NSCLC was low compared to the historical control. One of the options in the future might be to avoid S-1 treatment in PEM-treated patients who need tumor shrinkage.
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.