SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2026
Comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacokinetically guided and body surface area-based 5-fluorouracil dosing in colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBody surface area (BSA)-based 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) dosing remains the standard in colorectal cancer despite substantial interpatient pharmacokinetic variability, which may lead to underexposure, treatment failure, or severe toxicity. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated whether pharmacokinetically guided 5-FU dosing improves efficacy and safety compared with conventional BSA-based dosing.
methodsPubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched from inception to the final search date. The search identified 1,802 records: PubMed/MEDLINE, 47; Embase, 118; and Scopus, 1,637 records. Comparative randomized and non-randomized studies evaluating pharmacokinetically guided, area under the curve-guided, or therapeutic drug monitoring-based 5-FU dosing versus BSA-based dosing in colorectal cancer were included. Random-effects models were employed. The risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 and ROBINS-I, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE.
resultsFive studies comprising 809 unique patients were included. Across the primary severe-toxicity analysis, the pooled denominator was 1,338 reported observations, including 625 in the PK-guided 5-FU dosing arm and 713 in the BSA-based 5-FU dosing arm, because one study reported severe toxicity by treatment cycle rather than by patient. PK-guided dosing was associated with lower severe or grade ≥ 3 toxicity (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.33-0.76; P = 0.001; I²=79%). PK-guided dosing was also associated with a higher objective response rate (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.24-1.80; P < 0.0001) and disease control rate (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.07-1.30; P = 0.001). Severe diarrhea was reduced (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.18-0.62; P = 0.0006), whereas mucositis, neutropenia/leukopenia, and hand-foot syndrome were not significantly different between dosing strategies.
conclusionPK-guided 5-FU dosing was associated with lower severe toxicity and diarrhea and higher objective response and disease-control rates than conventional BSA-based dosing. However, the evidence was derived from a small and clinically heterogeneous group of studies, and progression-free or overall-survival benefits could not be established. The findings apply predominantly to metastatic colorectal cancer treated with infusional 5-FU within FOLFOX- or FOLFIRI-based regimens. CLINICAL
trial registrationNot applicable. This study was a systematic review and metaanalysis, and not a clinical trial.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42687040What 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.