ArticleTherapeutic advances in medical oncology2025
Comparison of the efficacy of mFOLFOX-6 and mDCF regimens in the treatment of metastatic gastric cancer: a multicenter retrospective study.
Article in Therapeutic advances in medical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chemotherapy as a protective factor against cardiocerebrovascular disease mortality in colorectal cancer patients based on SEER database.Discover oncology · 2026Article
- Tolerance and response of afatinib combined with tegafur in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer after failure of gemcitabine-based systemic therapy.Discover oncology · 2026Article
- Longitudinal trajectories of nutritional markers in patients with de novo Stage IV gastric cancer: a descriptive analysis using one-year survival as a reference.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Clinicopathological features and prognosis of HER2-low gastric cancer: a real-world retrospective cohort study.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Analysis of clinicopathological features, treatment modalities, and survival outcomes in advanced gastric and colorectal signet ring cell carcinoma.Discover 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
32 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Metastatic gastric cancer (GC) and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer are associated with a poor prognosis. Recent advancements in treatment have incorporated trastuzumab, anti-PD-1 agents, and anti-claudin therapies alongside chemotherapy (ChT), significantly improving outcomes. Contemporary studies predominantly employ doublet ChT as the backbone for these regimens, although historically triplet ChT regimens have been favored, particularly in younger patients requiring rapid tumor shrinkage. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of mFOLFOX-6 and mDCF regimens in the treatment of advanced GC and GEJ adenocarcinoma. Design: This was a retrospective multicenter study. Methods: Patient data were obtained from the databases of 25 hospitals across Turkey. Demographic and clinicopathological characteristics were documented. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and group discrepancies were assessed with log-rank test. Results: A total of 493 patients were included in the analysis, with similar baseline characteristics between the two groups. The objective response rate was 36.3% in the mDCF group and 38% in the mFOLFOX-6 group ( Conclusion: Modified FOLFOX-6 demonstrated comparable efficacy to mDCF in the treatment of advanced GC and GEJ adenocarcinoma. Moreover, mFOLFOX-6 was associated with a lower incidence of hematological adverse effects.
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.