ArticleTranslational cancer research2020
The efficacy and adverse reactions of DCF and FOLFOXs regimens for patients with advanced gastric cancer in China: a meta-analysis.
Article in Translational cancer research, 2020. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGastric cancer is a malignant tumor originating from the gastric mucosal epithelium, ranking fourth in the incidence of male malignant tumors and third in mortality rate. The aim of this study is to investigate the efficacy and adverse reactions of DCF and FOLFOXs regimens in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer.
methodsRelevant prospective clinical controlled studies were retrieved from WanFang Data, CBM, CNKI, PubMed, The Cochrane Library and Embase databases and meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software.
resultsThe effective rates of DCF group and FOLFOXs group were basically the same (RR 1.06, 95% CI: 0.92-1.23, P=0.41). The incidence of nausea and vomiting (RR 1.36, 95% CI: 1.15-1.60), anemia (RR 2.04, 95% CI: 1.55-2.68), thrombocytopenia (RR 1.52, 95% CI: 1.15-2.01) and leukopenia (RR 1.70, 95% CI: 1.44-2.01) with FOLFOXs regimen were significantly lower than DCF regimen, while the incidence of sensory neurotoxicity was significantly higher than DCF regimen (RR 0.53, 95% CI: 0.38-0.74). There were no significant differences in efficacy, ORR and DCR between different doses in the FOLFOXs group (P=0.233).
conclusionsThe efficacy of FOLFOXs regimen was comparable to that of DCF regimen in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer, but the incidence of adverse reactions was significantly lower, and there were no significant differences between different therapeutic doses.
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.