ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Adverse events of capecitabine in gastric cancer patients: a real-world pharmacovigilance study based on the FAERS database.
Article in Frontiers in 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Capecitabine stands as a pivotal chemotherapeutic agent in gastric cancer (GC) management. While its general safety profile has been documented, comparative pharmacovigilance analyses of distinct capecitabine-based treatment regimens among GC patients remain scarce. Methods: This study extracted AE reports from the United States Food and Drug Administration AE Reporting System (FAERS) for the period 2004 Q1-2024 Q4. Following rigorous data cleansing, the adverse event (AE) reports were systematically standardized using the system organ class (SOC) and preferred term (PT) terminology from the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA, version 26.0). Four disproportionality algorithms were employed to detect and analyze AE signals across four cohorts. Cohort 1 was from capecitabine monotherapy. Cohort 2 represented capecitabine in combination with other chemotherapeutic agents. Cohort 3 was for capecitabine in combination with other chemotherapeutic and targeted agents. Cohort 4 was from the capecitabine in combination with other chemotherapeutic agents as well as immunosuppressants. Results: A total of 1,681 AE reports associated with capecitabine were included (632 cases in Cohort 1, 816 cases in Cohort 2, 189 cases in Cohort 3, and 44 cases in Cohort 4). The outcomes of AEs were predominantly other medical events, hospitalization or prolonged hospitalization, and death. Gastrointestinal disorders, general disorders and administration site conditions were the most frequently affected SOCs. The most frequent AEs in Cohort 1 were death (n = 83), diarrhea (n = 75), and nausea (n = 73), whereas the strongest signal was palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (n = 43, ROR = 4.62). In Cohort 2, diarrhoea (n = 160), vomiting (n = 146), and nausea (n = 143) were the most frequently reported AEs, whereas palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome showed the strongest signal (n = 95, ROR = 6.69). In Cohort 3, leukoencephalopathy exhibited the strongest signal (n = 7, ROR = 21.79). In Cohort 4, sleep disorder (n = 5, ROR = 95.98, 95% CI: 33.54-274.69), dry mouth (n = 5, ROR = 35.98, 95% CI: 13.89-93.18), and inappropriate schedule of product administration (n = 5, ROR = 28.78, 95% CI: 11.25-73.59) appeared as novel, robust signals. Conclusion: Capecitabine showed distinct AE profiles in different GC regimens, with both prevalent and rare signals. Tailored safety monitoring is needed based on combination regimens.
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.