IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0084230.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of S-1-Based and Capecitabine-Based Regimens in Gastrointestinal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Xunlei Zhang
  • Chunxiang Cao
  • Qi Zhang
  • Yi Chen
  • Dongying Gu
  • Yunzhu Shen
  • Yongling Gong
  • Jinfei Chen
  • Cuiju Tang

Abstract

Purpose: Oral fluoropyrimidine (S-1, capecitabine) has been considered as an important part of various regimens. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of S-1-based therapy versus capecitabine -based therapy in gastrointestinal cancers. Methods: Eligible studies were identified from Pubmed, EMBASE. Additionally, abstracts presented at American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) conferences held between 2000 and 2013 were searched to identify relevant clinical trials. The outcome included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) and advent events. Results: A total of 6 studies (4 RCTs and 2 retrospective analysis studies) containing 790 participants were included in this meta-analysis, including 401 patients in the S-1-based group and 389 patients in the capecitabine-based group. Results of our meta-analysis indicated that S-1-based and capecitabine-based regimens showed very similar efficacy in terms of PFS (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.78–1.09, P = 0.360), OS (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.84–1.21, P = 0.949), ORR (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.87–1.25, P = 0.683) and DCR (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94–1.10, P = 0.639). There was also no significant difference in toxicity between regimens other than mild more hand–foot syndrome in capecitabine-based regimens. Conclusion: Both the S-1-based and capecitabine-based regimens are equally active and well tolerated, and have the potential of backbone chemotherapy regimen in further studies of gastrointestinal cancers.

Suggested Citation

  • Xunlei Zhang & Chunxiang Cao & Qi Zhang & Yi Chen & Dongying Gu & Yunzhu Shen & Yongling Gong & Jinfei Chen & Cuiju Tang, 2014. "Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of S-1-Based and Capecitabine-Based Regimens in Gastrointestinal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0084230
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084230
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0084230
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0084230&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0084230?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
    ---><---

    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:pone00:0084230. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.