A multicentre randomised trial comparing weekly paclitaxel + S-1 with weekly paclitaxel + 5-fluorouracil for patients with advanced gastric cancer

S-1 and 5-Fluorouracil-related adverse events in patients with advanced gastric cancer: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess S-1 and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-related adverse events in patients with advanced gastric cancer and provide focused health care approaches to improve patient compliance and quality of survival.

METHODS

The PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, Cochrane Library, EMbase, SinoMed, Wan Fang Data, CNKI, and VIP databases were searched, and relevant literature was screened from the database construction date through March 31, 2023. Review Manager 5.4.1 and Stata 12.0 were used to analyze the data and GRADEpro was used to assess the quality of the literature. Relative risk ratio (RR) and a 95% confidence interval (CI) were employed as markers to compare adverse events due to S-1 vs 5-FU.

RESULTS

Eight randomized controlled trials (RCT) were included, which contained 3,455 patients. The S-1 group had 1,804 patients, and the 5-FU group had 1,651 patients. There were 17 recorded adverse events in total. Stomatitis, hypokalemia, mucosal inflammation, and hypophosphatemia were more common in the 5-FU group than in the S-1 group (P < 0.001). No significant difference was observed between S-1 and 5-FU for other adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Although both S-1 and 5-FU cause a variety of side effects, 5-FU resulted in a higher incidence of stomatitis, hypokalemia, mucosal inflammation, and hypophosphatemia than S-1. Medical professionals should closely monitor the occurrence of adverse drug events and provide timely, rational guidance and nursing care to improve patient compliance and quality of life.

Nab-paclitaxel plus S-1 versus oxaliplatin plus S-1 as first-line treatment in advanced gastric cancer: results of a multicenter, randomized, phase III trial (GAPSO study)

Background:

This study aimed to investigate the superiority of nab-paclitaxel plus S-1 (AS) over oxaliplatin plus S-1 (SOX) in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC).

Methods:

In this multicenter, randomized, phase III superiority trial, eligible patients with unresectable, locally advanced gastric adenocarcinoma were recruited and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive AS (nab-paclitaxel 260 mg/m² on day 1 or 130 mg/m² on days 1 and 8; oral S-1 40–60 mg twice daily for 14 days) or SOX (130 mg/m² oxaliplatin on day 1; oral S-1 40–60 mg twice daily for 14 days) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary endpoints were overall survival, objective response rate, and safety.

Results:

Owing to slow enrolment, an unplanned interim analysis was performed, resulting in the early termination of the study on 31 December 2021 (data cutoff). Between March 2019 and March 2021, 97 patients (AS, n = 48; SOX, n = 49) were treated and evaluated for efficacy and safety of AS and SOX. As of the data cutoff, the median follow-up was 23.13 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 13.39–32.87]. The median PFS was 9.03 months (95% CI, 6.50–11.56) in the AS group and 5.07 months (95% CI, 4.33–5.81) in the SOX group, demonstrating a better PFS tendency following AS treatment than SOX treatment (hazard ratio = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.37–0.94; p = 0.03). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were anemia, neutropenia, and leukopenia in both groups, with a higher incidence of thrombocytopenia in the SOX group.

Conclusion:

Although this study was terminated early, the results demonstrated a better PFS tendency in patients with AGC who were treated with AS than in those treated with SOX, with controllable toxicities.

Trial registration:

Clinical Trials.gov identifiers: NCT03801668. Registered January 11, 2019.

Efficacy and safety of raltitrexed-based transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for intermediate and advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A multicenter real-world study

AIM

This study aimed to evaluate efficacy and safety of raltitrexed-based transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) for intermediate and advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) using real-world evidence.

METHODS

All eligible HCC cases were collected from multiple centers in Chongqing, China, from January 2013 to December 2018 and divided into the raltitrexed group (raltitrexed + lobaplatin + pirarubicin) and control group (lobaplatin + pirarubicin). Propensity score matching (PSM) with a 1:1 ratio was used to eliminate the imbalance of potential confounding factors between groups. The primary end-point was overall survival (OS) and the secondary end-points were progression-free survival (PFS) and disease control rate.

RESULTS

The median follow-up period for patients in the raltitrexed and control groups was 8.7 and 5.9 months, respectively. After PSM, median OS was 10.0 months in the raltitrexed group and 7.0 months in the control group (p = 0.002). The 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year OS rates of the raltitrexed group were significantly higher than those of the control group (78.2% vs. 60.9%, p = 0.010; 43.5% vs. 22.8%, p = 0.030; and 17.4% vs. 2.2% p = 0.001, respectively). Multivariate analysis of these propensity score-matched HCC patients revealed treatment, age, tumor size, lipiodol accumulation, and the number of TACE cycles as independent predictors of OS (all p < 0.05). The disease control rate of the raltitrexed and control groups was 87.4% and 65.8%, respectively (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Raltitrexed-based TACE can prolong the OS of patients with intermediate and advanced HCC in a real-world clinical setting, and is safe and tolerable.

TOXview: a novel graphical presentation of cancer treatment toxicity profiles

Background: Toxicity profiles play a crucial role in the choice between specific palliative chemotherapy regimens. To optimize the quality of life for cancer patients, patients should be adequately informed about potential toxicities before undergoing chemotherapy. Therefore, we constructed TOXviews, a novel graphical presentation and overview of toxicity profiles to improve information provision about adverse events. As an example, we analyzed first-line chemotherapy regimens for advanced esophagogastric cancer (AEGC). Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ASCO and ESMO for prospective phase II or III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on palliative first-line systemic treatment for AEGC until February 2017. We extracted proportions of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 1-2 (mild) and 3-4 (severe) adverse events from each chemotherapy arm and pooled these by using single-arm meta-analysis. Toxicity profiles per chemotherapy regimen were visualized in bidirectional bar charts with pooled proportions plus 95% confidence intervals. For comparative analysis, chemotherapy regimens were grouped in singlets, doublets and triplets. Results: We included 92 RCTs with a total of 16,963 patients. TOXviews for 3 fluoropyrimidine singlets, 5 cisplatin-containing doublets (C-doublets), 10 fluoropyrimidine non-cisplatin containing doublets (F-doublets), 4 anthracycline-containing triplets (A-triplets) and 5 taxane-containing triplets (T-triplets) were constructed. C-doublets, A-triplets and T-triplets all showed an increased incidence of grade 3-4 adverse events and clinically relevant grade 1-2 adverse events compared to F-doublets. Conclusion: TOXview provides a new graphical presentation and overview of chemotherapy toxicities. TOXviews can be used to educate physicians about the incidences of AEs of systemic therapy and improve informed decision-making.

S-1 combined with paclitaxel may benefit advanced gastric cancer: Evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer, as one of the increasingly common malignancies, has experienced high morbidity throughout many countries at present. Currently, chemotherapy regimen with more efficacy and safety for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) is needed. We aimed to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of S-1 combined with paclitaxel (PTX) for AGC by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis of the published studies.

METHOD

All published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of S-1 combined with PTX for AGC were searched. Studies that included patients with locally advanced or metastases' gastric cancers were included. We searched the databases included Cochrane Library of Clinical Comparative Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting abstracts and China National Knowledge Internet (CNKI) from 2000 to 2018. We searched the database up to January 2018. The first endpoint was overall survival (OS). Other endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR). Safety analyses were also performed.

RESULTS

A total of 7 trials (including 1407 patients, 711 patients in intervention group and 696 patients in control group) were included in the present analysis. S-1 combined with PTX significantly improved the OS [HR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.60-0.97, P = 0.000],PFS [HR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.55-0.85, P = 0.000], ORR [RR = 1.30, 95%CI: 1.05-1.60, P = 0.017] and DCR [RR = 1.15, 95%CI: 1.04-1.27, P = 0.008] of patients with AGC. The grade 3 or 4 haematological and non-hematologic toxicities were anemia [RR = 1.71, 95% CI: 1.04-2.79, P = 0.03], neutropenia [RR = 1.65, 95% CI: 1.32-2.06, P < 0.0001] and anorexia [RR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.05-2.64, P = 0.03] respectively.

CONCLUSION

S-1 combined with PTX may be a good choice for patients with AGC. S-1 plus PTX experienced more efficacy and safety when compared with S-1 alone or S-1 plus other drugs.

A retrospective clinical study of comparing paclitaxel plus S-1 versus paclitaxel plus cisplatin as the first-line treatment for patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

In advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), paclitaxel plus cisplatin are considered as active and tolerable. The current clinical study was conducted to retrospectively compare the efficacy and safety of first-line paclitaxel/S-1(PS) and paclitaxel/cisplatin(TP) regimens in advanced ESCC.

RESULTS

The overall response rate of PS was slightly, but not significantly, higher (25 patients, 46%) than that of TP (23 patients, 39%, P = 0.432). Median overall survival (OS) was similar for PS and TP (11.5 months vs. 10.4 months, p = 0.37). However PS had longer median progression-free survival than TP (PFS: 5.5 months vs5.0months, p = 0.04). When compared with PS, more grade 3 or 4 adverse events were recorded for TP, including leukopenia, neutropenia, anemia, anorexia and vomiting (P < 0.05). No treatment-related deaths were recorded in either group.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 2008 and 2014, all patients diagnosed with advanced ESCC and treated with paclitaxel/S-1 or paclitaxel/cisplatin at Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Zhengzhou University were analyzed retrospectively. One hundred and thirteen patients were included in this study. Disease control rates and progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were recorded. Survival analysis was calculated by using Kaplan-Meier method.

CONCLUSIONS

The PS option improves PFS and its OS is similar to TP. Moreover, the PS regimen is an effective and safe first-line treatment for ESCC with less hematological and non-hematological toxicity.

Oral fluoropyrimidine versus intravenous 5-fluorouracil for the treatment of advanced gastric and colorectal cancer: Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

5-Fluorouracil (5-Fu) is one of the most commonly prescribed antineoplastic agents against gastric and colorectal cancers. Continuous infusion would be the optimal way of its administration, however, may usually cause thrombosis, infection, and prolonged hospital stay. Oral fluoropyrimidines would be an attractive alternative, but their efficiency and toxicities for the treatment of gastric and colorectal cancer are still obscure as compared with infusion 5-Fu.

METHODS

Literature retrieval, trials selection and assessment, data collection, and statistic analysis were performed according to the Cochrane Handbook. The outcome measures were tumor response rate, progression-free survival, overall survival, and adverse effects.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine randomized controlled trials, comprising totally 15 154 patients, were included. Meta-analysis showed similar overall outcome in terms of response rate (1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-1.12), progression-free survival (hazard ratio 1.00; 95%CI, 0.94-1.06), and overall survival (hazard ratio 0.96; 95%CI, 0.92-1.01) between oral fluoropyrimidine-based and intravenous 5-Fu-based regimens in gastric and colorectal cancer patients. The risk of grade 3/4 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and stomatitis was more prominent in intravenous 5-Fu-based regimens; while more frequent grade 3/4 hand-foot syndrome, diarrhea, and anorexia were detected in oral fluoropyrimidine-based regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral-fluoropyrimidines showed equivalent response and similar survival outcomes, but different toxicity profiles, as compared with intravenous 5-Fu. Thus, it would be a more convenient and adjustable alternative in treatment of advanced gastric and colorectal cancer.

Chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer is the fifth most common cancer worldwide. In "Western" countries, most people are either diagnosed at an advanced stage, or develop a relapse after surgery with curative intent. In people with advanced disease, significant benefits from targeted therapies are currently limited to HER-2 positive disease treated with trastuzumab, in combination with chemotherapy, in first-line. In second-line, ramucirumab, alone or in combination with paclitaxel, demonstrated significant survival benefits. Thus, systemic chemotherapy remains the mainstay of treatment for advanced gastric cancer. Uncertainty remains regarding the choice of the regimen.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of chemotherapy versus best supportive care (BSC), combination versus single-agent chemotherapy and different chemotherapy combinations in advanced gastric cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and Embase up to June 2016, reference lists of studies, and contacted pharmaceutical companies and experts to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered only RCTs on systemic, intravenous or oral chemotherapy versus BSC, combination versus single-agent chemotherapy and different chemotherapy regimens in advanced gastric cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified studies and extracted data. A third investigator was consulted in case of disagreements. We contacted study authors to obtain missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 64 RCTs, of which 60 RCTs (11,698 participants) provided data for the meta-analysis of overall survival. We found chemotherapy extends overall survival (OS) by approximately 6.7 months more than BSC (hazard ratio (HR) 0.3, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.24 to 0.55, 184 participants, three studies, moderate-quality evidence). Combination chemotherapy extends OS slightly (by an additional month) versus single-agent chemotherapy (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.89, 4447 participants, 23 studies, moderate-quality evidence), which is partly counterbalanced by increased toxicity. The benefit of epirubicin in three-drug combinations, in which cisplatin is replaced by oxaliplatin and 5-FU is replaced by capecitabine is unknown.Irinotecan extends OS slightly (by an additional 1.6 months) versus non-irinotecan-containing regimens (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.95, 2135 participants, 10 studies, high-quality evidence).Docetaxel extends OS slightly (just over one month) compared to non-docetaxel-containing regimens (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.95, 2001 participants, eight studies, high-quality evidence). However, due to subgroup analyses, we are uncertain whether docetaxel-containing combinations (docetaxel added to a single-agent or two-drug combination) extends OS due to moderate-quality evidence (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.91, 1466 participants, four studies, moderate-quality evidence). When another chemotherapy was replaced by docetaxel, there is probably little or no difference in OS (HR 1.05; 0.87 to 1.27, 479 participants, three studies, moderate-quality evidence). We found there is probably little or no difference in OS when comparing capecitabine versus 5-FU-containing regimens (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.11, 732 participants, five studies, moderate-quality evidence) .Oxaliplatin may extend (by less than one month) OS versus cisplatin-containing regimens (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.98, 1105 participants, five studies, low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether taxane-platinum combinations with (versus without) fluoropyrimidines extend OS due to very low-quality evidence (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.06, 482 participants, three studies, very low-quality evidence). S-1 regimens improve OS slightly (by less than an additional month) versus 5-FU-containing regimens (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.00, 1793 participants, four studies, high-quality evidence), however since S-1 is used in different doses and schedules between Asian and non-Asian population, the applicability of this finding to individual populations is uncertain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Chemotherapy improves survival (by an additional 6.7 months) in comparison to BSC, and combination chemotherapy improves survival (by an additional month) compared to single-agent 5-FU. Testing all patients for HER-2 status may help to identify patients with HER-2-positive tumours, for whom, in the absence of contraindications, trastuzumab in combination with capecitabine or 5-FU in combination with cisplatin has been shown to be beneficial. For HER-2 negative people, all different two-and three-drug combinations including irinotecan, docetaxel, oxaliplatin or oral 5-FU prodrugs are valid treatment options for advanced gastric cancer, and consideration of the side effects of each regimen is essential in the treatment decision. Irinotecan-containing combinations and docetaxel-containing combinations (in which docetaxel was added to a single-agent or two-drug (platinum/5-FUcombination) show significant survival benefits in the comparisons studied above. Furthermore, docetaxel-containing three-drug regimens have increased response rates, but the advantages of the docetaxel-containing three-drug combinations (DCF, FLO-T) are counterbalanced by increased toxicity. Additionally, oxaliplatin-containing regimens demonstrated a benefit in OS as compared to the same regimen containing cisplatin, and there is a modest survival improvement of S-1 compared to 5-FU-containing regimens.Whether the survival benefit for three-drug combinations including cisplatin, 5-FU, and epirubicin as compared to the same regimen without epirubicin is still valid when second-line therapy is routinely administered and when cisplatin is replaced by oxaliplatin and 5-FU by capecitabine is questionable. Furthermore, the magnitude of the observed survival benefits for the three-drug regimens is not large enough to be clinically meaningful as defined recently by the American Society for Clinical Oncology (Ellis 2014). In contrast to the comparisons in which a survival benefit was observed by adding a third drug to a two-drug regimen at the cost of increased toxicity, the comparison of regimens in which another chemotherapy was replaced by irinotecan was associated with a survival benefit (of borderline statistical significance), but without increased toxicity. For this reason irinotecan/5-FU-containing combinations are an attractive option for first-line treatment. Although they need to be interpreted with caution, subgroup analyses of one study suggest that elderly people have a greater benefit form oxaliplatin, as compared to cisplatin-based regimens, and that people with locally advanced disease or younger than 65 years might benefit more from a three-drug regimen including 5-FU, docetaxel, and oxaliplatin as compared to a two-drug combination of 5-FU and oxaliplatin, a hypothesis that needs further confirmation. For people with good performance status, the benefit of second-line chemotherapy has been established in several RCTs.

Capecitabine, 5-fluorouracil and S-1 based regimens for previously untreated advanced oesophagogastric cancer: A network meta-analysis

As evidence is inconsistent and based on either isolated Asian or Western studies, we conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to examine efficacy and safety of 5-FU (5-fluorouracil), capecitabine and S-1-based first-line treatment of advanced esophagogastric cancer in Asian and Western patients. Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL and conferences ASCO and ESMO were searched up to January 2016 for randomized-controlled-trials comparing 5-FU, capecitabine or S-1-based regimens with equal chemotherapy backbones. Direct and indirect data for overall survival (OS) and progression-free-survival (PFS) were combined on the Hazard Ratio (HR)-scale using random-effects NMA and calculated as combined HRs and 95%credible intervals (95%CrI). Grade 1-2 and grade 3-4 adverse events were compared with pair-wise meta-analysis. Fifteen studies were identified including capecitabine (n = 945), 5-FU (n = 2,132) or S-1 (n = 1,636). No differences were found in respectively OS and PFS for capecitabine-based versus 5-FU-based regimens (HR = 0.89, 95%CrI = 0.76-1.04 and HR = 0.98, 95%CrI = 0.75-1.32), S-1-based versus 5-FU-based regimens (HR = 0.92, 95%CrI = 0.82-1.04 and HR = 0.88, 95%CrI = 0.70-1.11) and S-1-based versus capecitabine-based regimens (HR = 1.03, 95%CrI = 0.87-1.22 and HR = 0.89, 95%CrI = 0.65-1.20). Effects were similar in Asian and Western subgroups. Toxicity profiles were different but a lower frequency of relevant adverse events was observed with S-1 In conclusion, as efficacy was similar, choosing fluoropyrimidines should be based on their individual toxicity profiles.

Efficacy and safety comparison of chemotherapies for advanced gastric cancer: A network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Chemotherapy is one of the commonly used therapies for advanced gastric cancer. In this study, we performed a network meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of common treatments to give evidences of their relative benefits.

RESULTS

32 trials with 8550 patients and 20 regimens were included in this study. According to the results of primary outcomes, 5-FU plus OXA, 5-FU plus DOC, CAP plus CIS, CAP plus OXA, S-1 plus OXA and S-1 plus PAC performed well in improving OS and ORR. As for the adverse events, S-1 had a safer effect than other treatments, conversely, 5-FU plus CIS ranked the last. However, there was no regimen with outstanding performances in both efficacy and safety.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Studies were searched from database and screened with criteria. The Bayesian framework based network meta-analysis was performed with software R and STATA. Overall survival (OS) and overall response rate (ORR) were considered as primary outcomes while adverse events as secondary outcomes. The outcomes were represented by hazard ratios or odd ratios with 95% corresponding credible intervals, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The network meta-analysis suggested that 5-FU plus OXA and 5-FU plus DOC were recommended when efficacy was stressed. S-1 was safest but poorly effective. A regimen, as an excellent combination of efficacy and safety, is still waiting to be discovered.

The Efficacy and Safety of First-line Chemotherapy in Advanced Esophagogastric Cancer: A Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A globally accepted standard first-line chemotherapy regimen in advanced esophagogastric cancer (AEGC) is not clearly established. We conducted a systematic review to investigate the efficacy and safety of first-line chemotherapy using Network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS

Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and conferences were searched until June 2015 for randomized controlled trials that compared regimens containing: fluoropyrimidine (F), platinum (cisplatin [C] and oxaliplatin [Ox]), taxane (T), anthracycline (A), irinotecan (I), or methotrexate (M). Direct and indirect evidence for overall survival (OS) and progression-free-survival (PFS) were combined using random-effects NMA on the hazard ratio (HR) scale and calculated as combined hazard ratios and 95% credible intervals (CrIs).

RESULTS

The NMA incorporated 17 chemotherapy regimens with 37 direct comparisons between regimens for OS (50 studies, n = 10 249) and 29 direct comparisons for PFS (34 studies, n = 7795). Combining direct and indirect effects showed increased efficacy for fluoropyrimidine noncisplatin doublets (F-doublets) over cisplatin doublets (C-doublets): FI vs CF (combined HR = 0.85, 95% CrI = 0.71 to 0.99), FOx vs CF (combined HR = 0.83, 95% CrI = 0.71 to 0.98) in OS and FOx vs CF (combined HR = 0.82, 95% CrI = 0.66 to 0.99) in PFS. Anthracycline-containing triplets (A-triplets: ACF, AFOx, AFM) and TCF triplet showed no benefit over F-doublets in OS and PFS. The triplet FOxT showed increased PFS vs F-doublets FT (combined HR = 0.61, 95% CrI = 0.38 to 0.99), FI (combined HR = 0.62, 95% CrI = 0.38 to 0.99), and FOx (combined HR = 0.67, 95% CrI = 0.44 to 0.99). Increased grade 3 to 4 toxicity was found for CF vs F-doublets, for ACF vs FI for TCF vs CF, and for FOxT vs FOx.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on efficacy and toxicity, F-doublets FOx, FI, and FT are preferred as first-line treatment for AEGC compared with C-doublets, A-triplets, and TCF. FOxT is the most promising triplet.

The efficacy and safety of S-1-based regimens in the first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

S-1 is first-line therapy for advanced gastric cancer in Asia and is used with increased frequency in Western counties. We conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and toxicity of S-1-based therapy compared with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/capecitabine-based therapy and S-1-based combination therapy compared with S-1 monotherapy.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting abstracts, European Society for Medical Oncology meeting abstracts and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for randomized clinical trials until May 2015. Data were extracted for overall survival (OS), progression-free-survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and grade 1-2 and grade 3-4 adverse events. Stratified OS data for subgroups were extracted.

RESULTS

S-1 was not different from 5-FU (eight studies, n = 2788) in terms of OS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.93, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.85-1.01] and PFS (HR 0.87, 95 % CI 0.73-1.04), whereas ORR was higher (risk ratio 1.43, 95 % CI 1.05-1.96). There was no subgroup difference in efficacy among Asian and Western patients, but in Western patients S-1 was associated with a lower rate of febrile neutropenia, toxicity-related deaths and grade 3-4 stomatitis and mucositis compared with 5-FU. S-1 showed no difference in efficacy compared with capecitabine (three studies, n = 329), but was associated with a lower rate of grade 3-4 neutropenia and grade 1-2 hand-foot syndrome. S-1-combination therapy was superior to S-1 monotherapy (eight studies, n = 1808) in terms of OS (HR 0.76, 95 % CI 0.65-0.90), PFS (HR 0.68, 95 % CI 0.56-0.82) and ORR (risk ratio 1.20, 95 % CI 1.04-1.38) but was more toxic. Survival benefit of S-1 combination therapy over S-1 monotherapy was most pronounced in patients with non-measurable disease, diffuse-type histological features and peritoneal metastasis.

CONCLUSIONS

S-1 is effective and tolerable as first-line therapy for advanced gastric cancer in both Asian and Western countries.

Can S-1 replace fluorouracil for advanced gastric cancer? A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis

It remains to be seen whether S-1 can be a replacement for infusional fluorouracil (5-FU) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of S-1 with 5-FU in AGC.PubMed and Cochrane Library were searched. Randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses comparing S-1 with 5-FU for AGC were eligible. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2.Seven trials involving 2443 patients were included. Compared with 5-FU, S-1 showed no significant prolongation of overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.83-1.01], P = 0.07) and progression-free survival (HR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.70-1.13], P = 0.35), but longer time to treatment failure (HR = 0.74, 95% CI [0.56-0.97], P = 0.03). The objective response rates were comparable (risk ratio [RR] = 1.36, 95% CI [0.95, 1.96], P = 0.10). Regarding treatment-related deaths and hematological toxicities, there was significant heterogeneity between Asian and non-Asian trials, and subgroup analysis was applied. In Asian patients, there was a significant increase in hematological toxicities such as leukopenia (grade 1-4: RR = 1.22, 95% CI [1.08, 1.37], P = 0.001; grade 3-4: RR = 2.21, 95% CI [1.52, 3.21], P < 0.0001), neutropenia (grade 1-4: RR = 1.29, 95% CI [1.11, 1.48], P = 0.0005; grade 3-4: RR = 1.87, 95% CI [1.11, 3.17], P = 0.02), and thrombocytopenia (grade 1-4: RR = 1.71, 95% CI [1.22, 2.41], P = 0.002) in S-1-containing regimens compared with 5-FU-containing regimens, but without significant difference in treatment-related mortality rate (risk difference [RD] = 0.00, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.01], P = 0.68). In non-Asian patients, S-1-containing regimens were, however, associated with significantly fewer treatment-related deaths (RD = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.05, -0.00], P = 0.04), as well as less all grade 1-4 and grade 3-4 hematological toxicities except anemia. There was no significant heterogeneity in nonhematologic toxicities between Asian and non-Asian trials. Lower incidence of grade 1-4 nausea, diarrhea, mucositis, grade 3-4 mucositis, increased creatinine, and decreased calculated creatinine clearance was observed in S-1-containing regimens.S-1 could not improve OS, but increase some hematological toxicities in Asian patients. Therefore, special attention on hematological toxicities should be paid to Asian patients because S-1 is administered on an outpatient basis.

Fluoropyrimidine-Based Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Advanced Gastric Cancer: a Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

Fluoropyrimidine-based regimens are the most common treatments in advanced gastric cancer. We used a Bayesian network meta-analysis to identify the optimal fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy by comparing their relative efficacy and safety. We systematically searched databases and extracted data from randomized controlled trials, which compared fluoropyrimidine-based regimens as first-line treatment in AGC. The main outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), and grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs). A total of 12 RCTs of 4026 patients were included in our network meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed S-1 and capecitabine had a significant OS benefit over 5-Fu, with hazard ratios of 0.90 (95%CI = 0.81-0.99) and 0.88 (95%CI = 0.80-0.96), respectively. The result also exhibited a trend that S-1 and capecitabine prolonged PFS in contrast to 5-Fu, with hazard ratios of 0.84 (95%CI = 0.66-1.02) and 0.84 (95%CI = 0.65-1.03), respectively. Additionally, all the three fluoropyrimidine-based regimens were similar in terms of ORR and grade 3 or 4 AEs. Compared with regimens based on 5-Fu, regimens based on S-1 or capecitabine demonstrated a significant OS improvement without compromise of AEs as first-line treatment in AGC in Asian population. S-1 and capecitabine can be interchangeable according their different emphasis on AEs.

S-1-based regimens and the risk of oral and gastrointestinal mucosal injury: a meta-analysis with comparison to other fluoropyrimidines

BACKGROUND

We performed a meta-analysis of the risk of oral and gastrointestinal (GI) mucosal injury associated with S-1-based regimens.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Randomized phase II and III trials of patients with solid tumors on S-1; describing events of all-grade and high-grade stomatitis and diarrhea constituted the eligible studies.

RESULTS

After exclusion of ineligible studies, a total of 26 clinical trials were considered eligible for the meta-analysis. The odds ratio (OR) of all-grade and high-grade stomatitis for S-1 vs. non-fluoropyrimidine controls was 4.39 [95% CI: 1.05, 18.37; p = 0.04] and 5.64 [95% CI: 1.46, 21.77; p = 0.01], respectively; while the OR of all-grade and high-grade stomatitis for S-1 vs. infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) control was -1.01 [95% CI: 0.22, 4.63; p = 0.99] and 0.32 [95% CI: 0.20, 0.49; p < 0.00001], respectively. The OR of all-grade and high-grade diarrhea for S-1 vs. non-fluoropyrimidine controls was 2.48 [95% CI: 2.12, 2.90; p < 0.00001] and 1.95 [95% CI: 1.29, 2.96; p = 0.002], respectively; while the OR of all-grade and high-grade diarrhea for S-1 vs. infusional 5-FU control was -1.03 [95% CI: 0.87, 1.22; p = 0.76] and 2.52 [95% CI: 1.80, 3.52; p < 0.00001], respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to non-fluoropyrimidine control, patients treated with S-1-based regimens have an increased risk of all-grade and high-grade stomatitis and diarrhea; while on the other hand, patients treated with infusional 5-FU have a greater risk of high-grade stomatitis and diarrhea compared to patients treated with S-1-based regimens.

A Meta-analysis Reveals S-1-based Chemotherapy Improves the Survival of Patients With Advanced Gastric Cancer

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of S-1-based therapy versus non-S-1-based therapy in advanced gastric cancer (AGC) patients.Eligible studies stratifying objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs) in AGC patients were identified from Embase, Pubmed, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases. The STATA package (version 11.0) was used to pool the data from the eligible studies.Fifteen studies with 2973 AGC cases, of which 1497 (50.4%) received S-1-based therapy and 1476 (49.6%) received non-S-1-based therapy, were identified in the meta-analysis. AGC patients who had received S-1-based therapy had a higher median OS, median PFS, and ORR than those who had received 5-fluorouracil (FU)-based therapy (OS: hazard ratio [HR] 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80-0.98, P = 0.015; PFS: HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80-0.98, P = 0.016; ORR: OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08-1.45, P = 0.003, respectively). S-1-based therapy had similar efficacy to capecitabine-based therapy in terms of median OS (HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91-1.41, P = 0.253), median PFS (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.82-1.25, P = 0.927), and ORR (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.63-1.12, P = 0.226). Subgroup analysis for grade 3 to 4 toxicity showed higher incidence of neutropenia (relative risk [RR] = 0.827, P = 0.006), nausea (RR = 0.808, P = 0.040), and lower diarrhea (RR = 1.716, P = 0.012) in 5-FU-based arm, and higher diarrhea (RR = 0.386, P = 0.007) in capecitabine-based arm.S-1-based chemotherapy is favorable to AGC patients with better clinical benefit than 5-FU-based chemotherapy and with equivalent antitumor compare with capecitabine-based therapy.

The efficacy and toxicity of paclitaxel plus S-1 compared with paclitaxel plus 5-FU for advanced gastric cancer: a PRISMA systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The standard treatment for patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) is still a matter of debate. The chemotherapy regimen of paclitaxel (PTX) combined with S-1 has been used to treat AGC or metastatic gastric cancer.We conducted a meta-analysis to compare oral S-1 and infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) to determine which agent was more efficacious and less toxic in combination with PTX. A systematic review with a meta-analysis was performed. PubMed, EmBase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched to select randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PTX plus S-1 and PTX plus 5-FU in patients with AGC.Three RCTs were eligible and 352 patients were analyzed. PTX plus S-1 increased the disease control rate (risk ratio [RR] = 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.00-1.30, P = 0.04) and reduced the progressive disease rate (RR = 0.62, 95% CI] = 0.39-0.98, P = 0.04) compared with PTX plus 5-FU. There was a significant decrease in nausea (RR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.43-0.82, P = 0.001) and vomiting (RR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.33-0.91, P = 0.02) in patients treated with PTX plus S-1.PTX plus S-1 was associated with almost equivalent safety and a lower progressive disease rate compared with PTX plus 5-FU. PTX plus S-1 is a good alternative strategy for patients who cannot tolerate a continuous intravenous infusion.

S-1-based vs non-S-1-based chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer: A meta-analysis

AIM: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of S-1-based vs non-S-1-based chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer (AGC).

METHODS: We extracted reported endpoints, including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), time-to-treatment failure (TTF), objective response rate (ORR) and adverse effects, from randomized controlled trials identified in PubMed, the Cochrane library, Science Direct, EMBASE and American Society of Clinical Oncology meetings. Stata software was used to calculate the pooled values.

RESULTS: Seven randomized controlled trials involving 2176 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to non-S-1-based regimens, the use of S-1-based regimens were associated with an increase in ORR (RR = 1.300; 95%CI: 1.028-1.645); OS (HR = 0.89; 95%CI: 0.81-0.99; P = 0.025), TTF (HR = 0.83; 95%CI: 0.75-0.92; P = 0.000), and a lower risk of febrile neutropenia (RR = 0.225; P = 0.000) and stomatitis (RR = 0.230; P = 0.032). OS, PFS and TTF were prolonged, especially in the Asian population. In subgroup analysis, statistically significant increases in ORR (RR = 1.454; P = 0.029), OS (HR = 0.895; P = 0.041) and TTF (HR = 0.832; P = 0.000) were found when S-1-based chemotherapy was compared to 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-based chemotherapy. The incidence of leukopenia (RR = 0.584; P = 0.002) and stomatitis (RR = 0.230; P = 0.032) was higher in the 5-FU-based arm. S-1-based regimens had no advantage in ORR, OS, PFS, TTF and grade 3 or 4 adverse events over capecitabine-based regimens.

CONCLUSION: S-1-based chemotherapy may be a good choice for AGC because of longer survival times, better tolerance and more convenient use.

Survival benefit from S-1 as compared to Fluorouracil in Asian patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancer: a meta-analysis

Whether S-1 could replace 5-Fluorouracil (5-Fu) or not in the treatment of advanced gastrointestinal (GI) cancer (including advanced gastric cancer [AGS] and metastatic colorectal cancer [mCRC]) in Asian patients has been controversial. This meta-analysis was performed to compare the activity, efficacy and toxicity of S-1-based versus 5-Fu-based chemotherapy in those Asian patients. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified by electronic search of Pubmed. Relevant abstracts were manually searched to identify relevant trials. A total of 2182 patients from eight RCTs were included, and our results demonstrated that S-1-based chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77-1.00) and overall response rate (ORR) (odds ratio [OR], 1.72; 95% CI, 1.09-2.70), but no significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit was found between arms (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.72-1.06). Subgroup analyses revealed that S-1-based chemotherapy significantly improved OS and ORR in subgroups of patients with non-platinum containing regimens (P = 0.041; P = 0.034) and patients with no prior chemotherapy history (P = 0.025; P = 0.016). Statistically significant improvements of PFS and ORR in the S-1-based chemotherapy were observed in the subgroup of patients with AGC (P < 0.001; P = 0.005). S-1-based chemotherapy was characterized by significantly higher incidences of diarrhea, fatigue and thrombocytopenia, and a lower incidence of nausea. This analysis provided strong evidence for survival benefits of S-1, and S-1-based chemotherapy could be considered to replace 5-Fu-based therapy for the treatment of advanced GI cancer in Asian patients.