IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0082798.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

S-1-Based Chemotherapy versus Capecitabine-Based Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Advanced Gastric Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Ming-ming He
  • Wen-jing Wu
  • Feng Wang
  • Zhi-qiang Wang
  • Dong-sheng Zhang
  • Hui-yan Luo
  • Miao-zhen Qiu
  • Feng-hua Wang
  • Chao Ren
  • Zhao-lei Zeng
  • Rui-hua Xu

Abstract

Background: Although both oral fluoropyrimidines were reported effective and safe, doubts exist about whether S-1 or capecitabine is more advantageous in advanced gastric carcinoma (AGC). Herein, we performed a meta-analysis to comprehensively compare the efficacy and safety of S-1-based chemotherapy versus capecitabine-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment for AGC. Methods: PubMed/Medline, EmBase, Cochrane library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched for articles comparing S-1-based chemotherapy to capecitabine-based chemotherapy for AGC. Primary outcomes were overall response rate (ORR), time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS), progression-free probability, and survival probability. Secondary outcomes were toxicities. Fixed-effects model were used and all the results were confirmed by random-effects model. Results: Five randomized controlled trials and five cohort studies with 821 patients were included. We found equivalent ORR (38.3% vs. 39.1%, odds ratio [OR] 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-1.24, P = 0.59), TTP (harzad ratio [HR] 0.98, 95% CI 0.82-1.16, P = 0.79), OS (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87-1.13, P = 0.91), progression-free probability (3-month OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.62-1.68, P = 0.94; 6-month OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.88-2.04, P = 0.18) and survival probability (0.5-year OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.61-1.31, P =0.57; 1-year OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.70- 1.33, P = 0.84; 2-year OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.61-2.17, P = 0.66). Equivalent grade 3 to 4 hematological and non-hematological toxicities were found except hand-foot syndrome was less prominent in S-1-based chemotherapy (0.3% vs. 5.9%, OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.06-0.56, P = 0.003). There’re no significant heterogeneity and publication bias. Cumulative analysis found stable time-dependent trend. Consistent results stratified by study design, age, regimen, cycle, country were observed. Conclusion: S-1-based chemotherapy was associated with non-inferior antitumor efficacy and better safety profile, compared with capecitabine-based therapy. We recommended S-1 and capecitabine can be used interchangeably for AGC, at least in Asia.

Suggested Citation

  • Ming-ming He & Wen-jing Wu & Feng Wang & Zhi-qiang Wang & Dong-sheng Zhang & Hui-yan Luo & Miao-zhen Qiu & Feng-hua Wang & Chao Ren & Zhao-lei Zeng & Rui-hua Xu, 2013. "S-1-Based Chemotherapy versus Capecitabine-Based Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Advanced Gastric Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-1, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0082798
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082798
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0082798
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0082798&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0082798?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mingheng Liao & Jiwei Huang & Tao Zhang & Hong Wu, 2013. "Transarterial Chemoembolization in Combination with Local Therapies for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-1, July.
    2. Xiao-Long Chen & Xin-Zu Chen & Chen Yang & Yan-Biao Liao & He Li & Li Wang & Kun Yang & Ka Li & Jian-Kun Hu & Bo Zhang & Zhi-Xin Chen & Jia-Ping Chen & Zong-Guang Zhou, 2013. "Docetaxel, Cisplatin and Fluorouracil (DCF) Regimen Compared with Non-Taxane-Containing Palliative Chemotherapy for Gastric Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(4), pages 1-10, April.
    3. Kui Son Choi & Jae Kwan Jun & Eun-Cheol Park & Sohee Park & Kyu Won Jung & Mi Ah Han & Il Ju Choi & Hoo-Yeon Lee, 2012. "Performance of Different Gastric Cancer Screening Methods in Korea: A Population-Based Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-8, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Konstantinos Katsanos & Panagiotis Kitrou & Stavros Spiliopoulos & Ioannis Maroulis & Theodore Petsas & Dimitris Karnabatidis, 2017. "Comparative effectiveness of different transarterial embolization therapies alone or in combination with local ablative or adjuvant systemic treatments for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A net," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-31, September.
    2. Clara Benedetta Conti & Stefano Agnesi & Miki Scaravaglio & Pietro Masseria & Marco Emilio Dinelli & Massimo Oldani & Fabio Uggeri, 2023. "Early Gastric Cancer: Update on Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-21, January.
    3. Chisato Hamashima & Michiko Shabana & Mikizo Okamoto & Yoneatsu Osaki & Takuji Kishimoto, 2015. "Survival Analysis of Patients with Interval Cancer Undergoing Gastric Cancer Screening by Endoscopy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-15, May.
    4. Jung, Minsoo, 2015. "National Cancer Screening Programs and Evidence-Based Healthcare Policy in South Korea," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(1), pages 26-32.
    5. Rachel Farber & Nehmat Houssami & Isabelle Barnes & Kevin McGeechan & Alexandra Barratt & Katy J. L. Bell, 2022. "Considerations for Evaluating the Introduction of New Cancer Screening Technology: Use of Interval Cancers to Assess Potential Benefits and Harms," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-17, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0082798. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.