ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2026
Effectiveness of continuous pharmacist intervention at maintaining dose intensity in postoperative adjuvant S-1 chemotherapy for gastric cancer: a multicentre retrospective study.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMaintaining dose intensity is essential for ensuring the efficacy of adjuvant S-1 chemotherapy in gastric cancer. Although pharmacist interventions can reduce toxicity and improve adherence, multicentre evidence regarding their impact on dose maintenance is limited.
aimThis study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of continuous pharmacist intervention on the eight-cycle treatment completion rate and relative performance (RP) in patients with gastric cancer undergoing outpatient S-1 adjuvant chemotherapy.
methodThis multicentre retrospective study analysed 225 patients across 12 institutions, categorised into the continuous intervention (n = 97) and non-continuous intervention (n = 128) groups. Continuous intervention was defined as systematic monitoring and management for at least 50% of the treatment duration. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for baseline covariates. The primary and secondary endpoints were the eight-cycle completion rate and RP value, respectively.
resultsThe eight-cycle completion rate did not differ significantly between the continuous and non-continuous intervention groups (53.0% vs. 55.2%, p = 0.775), nor did the frequency of treatment modification events, including discontinuation or dose reduction. However, the RP value was significantly higher in the continuous intervention group than in the non-continuous intervention group (73.7% vs. 64.9%, p = 0.038). This finding was robustly supported by sensitivity analysis between these two groups (75.1% vs. 61.1%, p = 0.0008). Overall, the continuous group maintained a high intervention rate (89.1%) throughout the final cycle, providing significantly more supportive care interventions than the non-continuous intervention group (53.2% vs. 4.9%, p < 0.001).
conclusionAlthough continuous pharmacist intervention did not improve the treatment completion rate, it was essential for maintaining RP values above the clinically essential 70% threshold through proactive toxicity management and dynamic dose optimisation. These findings suggest that systematic pharmaceutical care contributes significantly to ensuring the quality and intensity of adjuvant chemotherapy.
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.