Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40686717›Full record

ArticleTurkish journal of medical sciences2025

Comparative efficacy of adjuvant FOLFOX vs. FLOT following neoadjuvant FLOT in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer.

Furkan Ceylan, Didem Şener Dede, Safa Can Efil, Ateş Kutay Tenekeci, Eren Göktuğ Ceylan, Serhat Sekmek, Mehmet Çakmak, Burak Bilgin, Şebnem Yücel, Hayriye Tatli Doğan and 4 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Furkan CeylanDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Health Sciences, Ankara Bilkent City Hospital, Ankara, Turkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1944-0861
Didem Şener DedeDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Health Sciences, Ankara Bilkent City Hospital, Ankara, Turkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9756-5942
Safa Can EfilDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Health Sciences, Ankara Bilkent City Hospital, Ankara, Turkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9586-2858
Ateş Kutay TenekeciFaculty of Medicine, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-6224-945X
Eren Göktuğ CeylanDivision of Pulmonology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Health Sciences, Ankara Bilkent City Hospital, Ankara, Turkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-1244-4530
Serhat SekmekDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Health Sciences, Ankara Bilkent City Hospital, Ankara, Turkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4650-248X
Mehmet ÇakmakDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Health Sciences, Ankara Bilkent City Hospital, Ankara, Turkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5362-6109
Burak BilginDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Health Sciences, Ankara Bilkent City Hospital, Ankara, Turkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1717-8246
Şebnem YücelDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Health Sciences, Ankara Bilkent City Hospital, Ankara, Turkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6235-7927
Hayriye Tatli DoğanDepartment of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Health Sciences, Ankara Bilkent City Hospital, Ankara, Turkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4318-2775
Mehmet Ali Nahit ŞendurDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Health Sciences, Ankara Bilkent City Hospital, Ankara, Turkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7021-6139
Muhammed Bülent AkinciDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Health Sciences, Ankara Bilkent City Hospital, Ankara, Turkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7575-9925
Doğan UncuDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Health Sciences, Ankara Bilkent City Hospital, Ankara, Turkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0929-3271
Bülent YalçinDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Health Sciences, Ankara Bilkent City Hospital, Ankara, Turkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4431-8948

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background/aim: Perioperative FLOT is considered the gold standard treatment for locally advanced gastric cancer. However, in the adjuvant setting, chemotherapy intolerance has brought de-escalation strategies to the forefront as an important area of research. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of adjuvant FLOT and FOLFOX regimens in enhancing survival outcomes in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer who underwent surgical resection following neoadjuvant FLOT treatment. Materials and methods: Patients with locally advanced gastric cancer (cT2-4, N0-3) who received four cycles of neoadjuvant FLOT and subsequently underwent surgery at Ankara Bilkent City Hospital between January 2018 and September 2024 were retrospectively evaluated. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) outcomes were compared to patients receiving adjuvant FOLFOX or FLOT. Clinical variables such as disease stage and response to neoadjuvant therapy were also analyzed to determine their impact on DFS and OS. Results: The analysis included 171 patients, with a median age of 59 years and a median follow-up duration of 16.1 months. At 16 months, the DFS and OS rates were 66% and 82%, respectively. Of the 171 patients, 105 received adjuvant FLOT, 37 received FOLFOX, and 29 received no adjuvant therapy. Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences in DFS (HR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.30-1.33, p = 0.229) or OS (HR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.24-2.37, p = 0.635) between the FLOT and FOLFOX groups. However, the advanced disease stage and lack of pathological response to neoadjuvant FLOT were associated with decreased DFS and OS, highlighting these factors as potential prognostic indicators. Conclusion: Among patients undergoing surgery after neoadjuvant FLOT, adjuvant FOLFOX showed comparable efficacy to FLOT, suggesting its potential as an alternative option, particularly for patients with deteriorated ECOG PS or those who developed chemotherapy intolerance postoperatively. These findings inform treatment strategies and optimize adjuvant therapy selection based on individual patient profiles.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsNeoadjuvant TherapyStomach NeoplasmsAdultAgedChemotherapy, AdjuvantFemaleFluorouracilHumansLeucovorinMaleMiddle AgedOrganoplatinum CompoundsOxaliplatinRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeFluorouracilLeucovorinOrganoplatinum CompoundsOxaliplatinFLOTFOLFOXGastric cancerresponsesurvival

Identifiers

PMID40686717
PMCPMC12270292

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.