Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2020
Clinical outcomes of capecitabine-based versus S-1-based regimens as first-line chemotherapy in patients with unresectable or metastatic gastric cancer: a propensity score matched single-center comparison.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wang Jin, Li Zhi, Qu Jinglei, Song Na, Chen Ying, Cheng Yu, Zhang Simeng, Qu Xiujuan, Liu Yunpeng
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Fluoropyrimidine-based regimens are the cornerstone of first-line chemotherapy for metastatic gastric cancer (GC). Capecitabine or S-1 might be used as an alternative to infusional 5-fluorouracil, especially in pan-Asian. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of capecitabine-based and S-1-based regimens as first-line chemotherapy in Chinese patients with unresectable or metastatic GC.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study including unresectable or metastatic GC patients treated with the capecitabine-based or S-1-based regimen as first-line chemotherapy at the First Hospital of China Medical University. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to reduce selection bias. Overall survival (OS) outcomes were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. Prognostic significance was determined using multivariate Cox regression analysis. In addition, subgroup analyses were conducted to determine the effectiveness of capecitabine-based and S-1-based regimens in clinically relevant patient subsets.
RESULTS: The clinical data of 469 patients included between October 2005 and September 2018. PSM analysis identified 187 patients receiving capecitabine-based or S-1-based regimen. No significant difference in OS (10.7 vs. 11.1 months, P=0.523) was detected between the two groups after PSM. In the subgroup analysis, the median OS (12.2 vs. 9.3 months, P=0.013) was longer for patients with peritoneum metastasis who received the capecitabine-based regimen compared to those who received the S-1-based regimen.
CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference in clinical outcomes was observed between the capecitabine and S-1-based regimen as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic or unresectable GC patients in China. The capecitabine-based regimen should be considered in the treatment of the GC patients with peritoneum metastasis.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study including unresectable or metastatic GC patients treated with the capecitabine-based or S-1-based regimen as first-line chemotherapy at the First Hospital of China Medical University. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to reduce selection bias. Overall survival (OS) outcomes were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. Prognostic significance was determined using multivariate Cox regression analysis. In addition, subgroup analyses were conducted to determine the effectiveness of capecitabine-based and S-1-based regimens in clinically relevant patient subsets.
RESULTS: The clinical data of 469 patients included between October 2005 and September 2018. PSM analysis identified 187 patients receiving capecitabine-based or S-1-based regimen. No significant difference in OS (10.7 vs. 11.1 months, P=0.523) was detected between the two groups after PSM. In the subgroup analysis, the median OS (12.2 vs. 9.3 months, P=0.013) was longer for patients with peritoneum metastasis who received the capecitabine-based regimen compared to those who received the S-1-based regimen.
CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference in clinical outcomes was observed between the capecitabine and S-1-based regimen as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic or unresectable GC patients in China. The capecitabine-based regimen should be considered in the treatment of the GC patients with peritoneum metastasis.