ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2022
Neoadjuvant apatinib plus tegafur/gimeracil/oteracil potassium (S‑1)/oxaliplatin chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone in patients with locally advanced gastric carcinoma.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The current study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant apatinib plus tegafur/gimeracil/oteracil potassium (S-1) plus oxaliplatin (SOX) chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced gastric carcinoma (LAGC). Therefore, patients with LAGC treated with neoadjuvant apatinib plus SOX chemotherapy (apatinib + SOX group; n=25) or SOX chemotherapy (SOX group; n=35) were enrolled in the present study. Subsequently, the objective response (ORR) and disease control rates (DCR), pathological response, disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS) and adverse events were recorded. The results showed that patients in the apatinib + SOX group exhibited a higher ORR (64.0 vs. 37.1%; P=0.040), but a similar DCR (96.0 vs. 88.6%; P=0.580), compared with those in the SOX group. The pathological response rates in patients with grade 0, 1, 2 and 3 LAGC were 0.0, 20.8, 62.5 and 16.7%, respectively, in the apatinib + SOX group, while in those treated with SOX alone they were 9.1, 39.4, 42.4 and 9.1%, respectively. By contrast, the pathological response was elevated in the apatinib + SOX group compared with the SOX group (P=0.030). During a median follow-up period of 21.0 months (range, 6.4-38.1 months), median DFS and OS were not reached. More specifically, the 1-, 2- and 3-year DFS rates were 91.7, 75.2 and 75.2% in the apatinib + SOX group and 71.8, 59.6 and 44.7% in the SOX group, respectively. In addition, the 1-, 2- and 3-year OS rates were 100.0, 89.6 and 78.4% in the apatinib + SOX group, while those in the SOX group were 90.3, 69.2 and 55.4%, respectively. However, no differences in DFS (P=0.094) or OS (P=0.155) were observed between the two groups. Additionally, the most common adverse events in the SOX group were mild leukopenia (42.9%) and fatigue (34.3%), while those in the apatinib + SOX group were tolerable leukopenia (44.0%) and hypertension (44.0%). In conclusion, the present study suggested that neoadjuvant apatinib plus SOX chemotherapy could be more effective and tolerable compared with SOX chemotherapy alone in patients with LAGC.
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.