ArticleEcancermedicalscience2026
Capecitabine-based triplet (TPX) as induction chemotherapy in advanced head and neck cancer: a daycare-based cohort study.
Article in Ecancermedicalscience, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) remains a global health burden. Induction chemotherapy using the regimen docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (TPF) improves outcomes in advanced cases but requires continuous 5-FU infusion, limiting feasibility in daycare settings. Capecitabine, an oral prodrug of 5-FU, offers a convenient alternative. This study evaluates the efficacy and tolerability of a capecitabine-based triplet regimen docetaxel, carboplatin, capecitabine (TPX) as induction chemotherapy in a resource-limited, outpatient setting. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 52 patients with stage IVA-IVB HNSCC treated between August 2023 and March 2025 at a Medical college in West Bengal, India. Patients were intended to receive four cycles of TPX every 21 days. Tumour response was assessed using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours, version 1.1 after induction and following definitive therapy (surgery or chemoradiotherapy (CTRT)). Toxicities were recorded per Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0. Primary outcomes were response rates and toxicity; secondary outcome was feasibility of proceeding to curative treatment. Results: The cohort (median age 46 years; 65.4% male) had 38.5% oral cavity tumours. Following induction chemotherapy, the overall response rate (ORR) was 84.6%, with 100% ORR after definitive treatment. Oral cavity tumours showed 80% partial response (PR) post-induction; ten patients underwent successful surgery, while others received CTRT. In non-oral cavity cancers, 75% had a PR and 12.5% achieved a complete response post-induction. Toxicity was manageable; grade 3/4 neutropenia occurred in 9.6%, high-grade non-hematologic toxicity was also meagre and no treatment-related deaths were reported. Most patients (76.9%) completed all four cycles. Conclusion: The TPX regimen is a well-tolerated and effective alternative to TPF for induction chemotherapy in advanced HNSCC, especially in daycare settings. It enables high response rates and facilitates curative treatment while avoiding the logistical challenges of infusional 5-FU. Further prospective studies are warranted to confirm survival benefits and support broader adoption.
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.