Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Ter Veer E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4906062 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Ter Veer Emil E Mohammad Nadia Haj NH Lodder Paul P Ngai Lok Lam LL Samaan Mary M van Oijen Martijn G H MG van Laarhoven Hanneke W M HW

Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association 20160111 3

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting abstracts, E ...[more]

PMID: 26754295

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveZolbetuximab is a "first-in-class" chimeric lgG1 monoclonal antibody targeting Claudin18.2 (CLDN 18.2). In recent years, several important trials have been published showing that zolbetuximab is associated with improved prognosis in patients with advanced gastric or gastro-esophageal junction (G/GEJ) adenocarcinoma. This promises great change to the current treatment landscape. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of zolbetuximab for first-line treatment of advanced CLDN 18. 2-positive G/GEJ adenocarcinoma.MethodsThe following databases were searched for relevant studies: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library (updated 10 June 2023). All randomized trials comparing zolbetuximab plus chemotherapy versus first-line chemotherapy alone for first-line treatment of advanced CLDN 18. 2-positive G/GEJ adenocarcinoma were eligible for inclusion. Data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.4.1 (Cochrane collaboration software). Primary outcomes and measures included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs).ResultsThis systematic review and meta-analysis included three randomized controlled studies involving 1,402 patients (699 receiving zolbetuximab plus chemotherapy and 703 receiving chemotherapy alone). Compared with chemotherapy alone, zolbetuximab plus chemotherapy significantly improved OS (HR = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.68-0.84) and PFS (HR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.50-0.82), but did not result in a higher ORR (RR = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.82-1.03). Further analysis of CLDN 18.2 expression showed a more significant benefit for OS (HR = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.55-0.87; p = 0.002) and PFS (HR = 0.61; 95% CI: 0.44-0.84; p = 0.003) from zolbetuximab in patients with high expression, while there was significant benefit in patients with lower expression. In terms of AEs, zolbetuximab plus chemotherapy was associated with higher risk of grade 3 and higher AEs, but increased risk of nausea and vomiting were more common.ConclusionThis systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that the effect of zolbetuximab plus chemotherapy was superior to that of chemotherapy alone for first-line treatment of advanced CLDN 18.2-positive G/GEJ adenocarcinoma. Thus, zolbetuximab plus chemotherapy represents a new first-line treatment for these patients. Zolbetuximab plus chemotherapy was associated with higher risk of grade 3 and higher AEs, but was generally manageable.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier (CRD42023437126).

Project description:BackgroundSystemic therapy is the standard treatment against advanced gastric cancer. Fluoropyrimidine plus platinum doublet has been recommended as the preferred first-line strategy. However, there is still a lack of a comprehensive and hierarchical evidence that compares all eligible literature simultaneously.MethodsRecord retrieval was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, ASCO, and ESMO meeting library from inception to October 2018. Randomized controlled trials featuring comparisons between different first-line systemic treatments against advanced gastric cancer were eligible. Overall survival was utilized as the primary endpoint. Pairwise and network calculations were based on a random-effects model and the hierarchical ranking was numerically indicated by P-score. All procedures were conducted according to Cochrane Handbook 5.1 and PRISMA for Network Meta-analysis (Registration identifier: CRD42018084951).ResultsA total of 119 studies were eligible for our pooled analysis. Concerning general analysis, 'fluoropyrimidine plus platinum-based triplet' topped the overall survival hierarchy (HR 0.91 [0.83-0.99], P-score = 0.903, p = 0.04) while it ranked in second place for progression-free survival and objective response rate. However, it displayed worse tolerability against 'fluoropyrimidine plus platinum doublet'. More specifically, 'Capecitabine plus cisplatin-based triplet plus targeted medication' topped the ranking among all fluoropyrimidine plus platinum-based regimens in additional analysis. Nevertheless, it did not reach statistical advantage against fluoropyrimidine plus oxaliplatin doublet in terms of survival benefits, while still displaying significantly worse safety profile.ConclusionsTaken together, fluoropyrimidine plus oxaliplatin doublet (especially capecitabine or S-1) should still be considered as the preferred first-line regimen owing to its comparable survival benefits and lower toxicity.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough various third-line treatments of advanced gastric cancer (AGC) significantly improved the overall survival, the optimal regimen has not been determined by now. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of multiple third-line treatments of AGC via integrated analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) to provide valuable evidence for the optimal third-line systemic therapy for AGC.MethodsBy searching the databases of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from Jan 01, 2005 to Dec 31, 2020, we included phase II/III randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of the third-line treatments for AGC to perform NMA. The main outcomes for NMA were median overall survival (mOS), median progression-free survival (mPFS), disease control rate (DCR) and adverse events (AEs). We also included phase IB/II non-RCTs and II/III RCTs of the third-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for integrated analysis for pooled mOS (POS), pooled mPFS (PPFS) and other outcomes.ResultsEight phase II/III RCTs and 2 ICIs-related phase IB/II non-RCTs were included for analysis, involving 9 treatment regimens and 3012 AGC patients. In terms of mOS, apatinib (hazard ratio [HR] 0.61, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.48-0.78) and nivolumab (HR 0.62, 95% CrI 0.51-0.76) were the most effective treatments compared with placebo. Apatinib also significantly improved mPFS versus placebo (HR 0.38, 95% CrI 0.29-0.49). Nivolumab ranked first among all regimens for 1-year OS rate and achieved the best OS in patients with HER-2 positive tumor, patients with gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer and patients without gastrectomy history. TAS-102 (OR 7.46, 95% CrI 4.61-12.51) was the most toxic treatment in terms of AEs of grade 3 and higher (≥3 AEs). Pembrolizumab was more likely to cause immune related adverse event. Finally, the POS, pooled 1-year OS rate, pooled ORR and PPFS of AGC patients treated with third-line ICIs were 5.1 months, 25%, 10% and 1.71 months respectively.ConclusionsApatinib and nivolumab are the most effective treatments for the third-line treatment of AGC in contrast to the third-line chemotherapy. For AGC patients with HER-2 positive tumor, patients with GEJ cancer and patients without gastrectomy history, ICIs could be the optimal third-line treatment choice.

Project description:BackgroundMany options for third-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer (GC) or gastroesophageal junction carcinoma (GEJC) have been developed. Therapies including immunotherapy (nivolumab), chemotherapy (irinotecan, FTD/TPI), targeted therapy (apatinib), and antibody drug conjugates (ADC) have shown to increase the survival rates in patients, but few studies have compared the relative efficacy of these treatments. Here, we compared the efficacies of these regimens using network meta-analysis (NMA) to provide guides in selecting the best regimen and formulating a precise individualized treatment plan.MethodsThe published RCTs of phase II/III in PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase were searched. The median overall survival (mOS) was the primary outcome of NMA, and the other outcomes were median progression-free survival (mPFS), disease control rate (DCR) (proportion of patients with confirmed CR, PR, or stable disease (SD)) and incidence of grade 3 or above adverse events (≥3AEs).ResultsFive phase II/III RCTs involving 1674 patients and 7 treatment regimens were analyzed. It showed that Trastuzumab Deruxtecan (DS-8201) prolonged the OS of patients significantly comparing with chemotherapy (HR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.39-0.89) for the overall population. DS-8201 (HR: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.17-0.42) and chemotherapy (HR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.47-0.7) improved the PFS significantly over nivolumab. Apatinib (RR: 3.04; 95% CI: 1.65-5.95) and DS-8201 (RR: 2.67; 95% CI: 1.51-4.83) were more effective than nivolumab in improving DCR. DS-8201 achieved greater OS benefits compared to chemotherapy (HR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.39-0.88) for patients who were HER2-positive. We ranked the Bayesian surface under the cumulative ranking curve according to OS benefit, and showed that ADC ranked first for the general patient population and for patients with a HER2-positive diagnosis, intestinal histopathology, previous gastrectomy history, gastric origination cancer, ages over 65 and ECOG PS=0/1, followed by nivolumab and apatinib. For patients with GEJC, nivolumab ranked first.ConclusionsNivolumab, apatinib, chemotherapy, and ADC all improved the OS of GC/GEJC patients significantly. ADC may be the best option for the overall population of GC, as well as for patients with HER2-overexpression, intestinal histopathology, previous gastrectomy history, gastric origination cancer, ages over 65 and ECOG PS=0/1, followed by nivolumab and apatinib. Nivolumab may be the first treatment option for GEJC patients.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD42022364714.

Project description:BackgroundOvarian cancer (OC) is the 5th leading cause of cancer-related deaths around the world, and several chemotherapy regimens have been applied in the treatment of OC. We aim to compare toxicities of different chemotherapy regimens in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) using network meta-analysis.MethodsLiterature research in Cochrane Library, PubMed, and EMBASE was performed up to November 2015. Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of different chemotherapy regimens were included. Network meta-analysis combined direct and indirect evidence to assess pooled odds ratios (ORs) and draw the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curves.ResultsThirteen eligible RCTs were included in this network meta-analysis, including 8 chemotherapy regimens (paclitaxel + carboplatin [PC], pegylated liposomal doxorubicin [PLD] + carboplatin, carboplatin, gemcitabine + carboplatin, paclitaxel, PC + epirubicin, PC + topotecan, docetaxel + carboplatin). Gemcitabine + carboplatin regimen exerted higher incidence of anemia when compared with carboplatin and paclitaxel regimens. The incidence of febrile neutropenia of gemcitabine + carboplatin regimen was higher than that of PC, PLD + carboplatin, carboplatin, and PC + topotecan regimens. Topotecan PC + epirubicin regimen had a higher toxicity, comparing with PC, PLD + carboplatin, and PC + topotecan regimens. As for thrombocytopenia, gemcitabine + carboplatin chemotherapy regimen produced an obviously higher toxicity than PC and carboplatin. As for nausea, PLD + carboplatin chemotherapy regimen had a significantly higher toxicity than that of carboplatin chemotherapy regimen. Moreover, when compared with PC and carboplatin chemotherapy regimens, the toxicity of PC + epirubicin was greatly higher to patients with AOC.ConclusionThe nonhematologic toxicity of PLD + carboplatin regimen was higher than other regimens, which was clinically significant for the treatment of AOC.

Dataset Information

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

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets