ArticleCancer diagnosis & prognosis
Safety of Adjuvant Oral Uracil-Tegafur Therapy in Older Patients With Resected Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.
Article in Cancer diagnosis & prognosis. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/Aim: Oral uracil-tegafur (UFT) therapy as adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) has demonstrated efficacy and is widely used for patients with completely resected early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, most previous clinical trials have enrolled patients aged ≤75 years, and evidence regarding the safety of UFT in older patients remains limited. This study aimed to evaluate the safety of adjuvant UFT therapy in older patients. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 101 patients who underwent curative lung resection and were pathologically diagnosed with stage IA3 or IB NSCLC (TNM 8th edition) at our department between January 2017 and January 2023. Patients were stratified into older (aged ≥75 years) and younger (aged <75 years) groups, and the administration rate of UFT therapy was compared. Among patients who received UFT, dose, treatment duration, completion rate of 24 months, and incidence of adverse events were further evaluated. Results: The older group included 42 patients (42%). The UFT administration rate was 63% in the younger group and 62% in the older group, with no statistically significant difference. UFT dose, completion rate of 24 months, and incidence of adverse events in older patients appeared not to be inferior to those in younger patients. However, in the standard-dose group (400 mg daily), the older group tended to have a lower completion rate and a higher incidence of adverse events. Conclusion: Adjuvant UFT therapy was generally safe in patients aged ≥75 years. Nevertheless, dose adjustments may be necessary in older patients. In a super-aging society, these findings underscore the importance of considering not only chronological age but also each patient's overall condition when making decisions regarding adjuvant UFT therapy.
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.