ArticleEcancermedicalscience2026
Haematological, renal and hepatic toxicity profiles of infusional 5-fluorouracil versus capecitabine in African gastrointestinal cancer patients: a retrospective 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or capecitabine are commonly used in the management of gastrointestinal tract. So far very few studies have evaluated non dermatological, neurological and intestinal treatment related toxicities between these two fluoropyrimidine in African patients - evaluating the healthcare burden related to hospitalisations, blood transfusions and use of granulocyte colon-stimulating factor (G-CSF) - all of which are costly and scarce in Africa. Methods: We conducted a 10-year retrospective cohort study of black African patients with gastrointestinal cancer who received either 5-FU or capecitabine-based chemotherapy - extracted and analysed data on treatment related adverse events (TRAEs) incidence, severity and management. Results: A total of 179 participants were analysed: 100 received 5-FU and 79 received capecitabine. The incidence of any TRAE was 75/100 (75%) in the 5-FU group and 51/79 (65%) in the capecitabine group relative risk (RR 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.7-1.05; p = 0.15). Severe TRAEs occurred at similar rates: 33% for both groups (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.7-1.52; p = 0.95). Haematological TRAEs were comparable except for neutropenia, which was less common with capecitabine (33% versus 52%, RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43-0.91; p = 0.01). Severe anaemia occurred more frequently in the capecitabine group compared to the 5-FU group, with a RR of 2.6 (95% CI 1.02-6.55). Hypokalemia was also lower with capecitabine (6% versus 17%, RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.14-0.97; p = 0.04). Hospitalisation, G-CSF use and red blood cell transfusions were similar between groups, but treatment interruptions were less frequent with capecitabine (16% versus 50%, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.19-0.56; p < 0.0001). Treatment completion rates were 60% for 5-FU and 54% for capecitabine (p = 0.10). Conclusion: Both infusional 5-FU and capecitabine are generally well tolerated among African patients with gastrointestinal cancer. However, capecitabine is associated with a significantly lower risk of neutropenia and hypokalemia but a higher RR of severe anaemia with overall fewer incidents of treatment interruption.
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.