Dataset Information

Adjuvant tegafur-uracil (UFT) or S-1 monotherapy for advanced gastric cancer: a single center experience.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Adjuvant tegafur-gimeracil-oteracil (S-1) is commonly used for gastric cancer in Asia, and tegafur-uracil (UFT) is another oral fluoropyrimidine when S-1 is unavailable. The real-world data of adjuvant UFT has less been investigated.

Methods

Patients with pathological stage II-IIIB (except T1) gastric cancer receiving adjuvant UFT or S-1 monotherapy after D2 gastrectomy were included. Usage of UFT or S-1 was based on reimbursement policy of the Taiwanese healthcare system. The characteristics, chemotherapy completion rates, and 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS), were compared between these two groups.

Results

From 2005 to 2016, 86 eligible patients were included. Most tumor characteristics were similar between the UFT group (n = 37; age 59.1 ± 13.9 years) and S-1 group (n = 49; age 56.3 ± 10.7 years), except there were significantly more Borrmann type III/IV (86.5% versus 67.3%; p = 0.047) and T4 (56.8% versus 10.2%; p < 0.001) lesions in the UFT group than in the S-1 group. The chemotherapy complete rates were similar in the two groups. The 5-year RFS was 56.1% in the UFT group and 59.6% in the S-1 group (p = 0.71), and the 5-year OS was 78.3% in the UFT group and 73.1% in the S-1 group (p = 0.48). The hazard ratio of adjuvant chemotherapy (S-1 versus UFT) on RFS was 1.25 (95% confidence interval = 0.53-2.94) when Borrmann type and T and N stages were adjusted.

Conclusions

This small cohort study showed adjuvant UFT, and S-1 monotherapy had a comparable long-term outcome for pathological stage II-IIIB gastric cancer following D2 gastrectomy.

SUBMITTER: Yen HH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8053033 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEarly-stage colorectal cancer had excellent outcomes after curative resection, typically. However, a perplexing survival paradox between stage II and stage III was noted. This paradox could be influenced by the administration of routine postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy and the presence of high-risk factors in stage II CRC. The objective of the study was to investigate the influence of high-risk factors on patients with stage II CRC and assess the efficacy of oral tegafur/uracil (UFT) plus leucovorin as adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II CRC patients.MethodsA retrospective study was conducted using propensity score matching at a single medical institution. A total of 1544 patients with stage II colorectal cancer who underwent radical surgery between January 2004 and January 2009 were included. The intervention used was tegafur/uracil plus leucovorin as adjuvant chemotherapy. The main outcome measures were disease-free survival and overall survival.ResultsAfter propensity score matching, 261 patients were included in three groups: no-treatment, half-year treatment, and one-year treatment. The clinical characteristics of each group tended to be more consistent. The Cox proportional hazard models showed that tegafur/uracil treatment or not was a significant independent factor for oncological outcome. Kaplan-Meier analysis also showed significantly better disease-free survival and overall survival. Further investigation revealed that tegafur/uracil duration was an independent factor for oncological outcome. While the survival curve did not reach statistical significance, the one-year UFT treatment group demonstrated the best treatment trend.ConclusionsThis study suggests that tegafur/uracil plus leucovorin is a feasible adjuvant chemotherapy regimen for patients with stage II colorectal cancer after curative surgical treatment. Prolonged tegafur/uracil plus leucovorin treatment for 12 months showed a trend towards better outcomes in patients with stage II colorectal cancer.

Project description:BackgroundThe effectiveness of second-line palliative chemotherapy in patients with recurrent/metastatic osteosarcoma is not well defined. Several small studies (6-19 patients) have reported on ifosfamide as second-line treatment. In this study we report our single-center experience with second-line ifosfamide monotherapy in patients treated for recurrent/metastatic osteosarcoma.MethodsA chart review was conducted of all patients with osteosarcoma treated with ifosfamide from 1978 until 2017. Until 1997 a 5 g/m2 regimen was used, and from 1997 onwards a 9 g/m2 regimen was used. Overall survival (OS) from start of ifosfamide was the primary endpoint. Progression-free survival (PFS) from start of treatment was also studied. To assess difference in survival between groups the log rank test was applied. To investigate the effect of ifosfamide dose and World Health Organization performance status (PS) a Cox proportional hazard regression model was estimated.ResultsSixty-two patients were selected with recurrent/metastatic osteosarcoma treated with second-line ifosfamide monotherapy (dose of 5 g/m2 , n = 26; 9 g/m2 , n = 36). OS was significantly better in univariate analysis for 9 g/m2 compared with 5 g/m2 (10.9 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 9.3-12.6] vs. 6.7 months [95% CI, 5.9-7.6], respectively) and for PS (median OS PS 0, 13.0 months [95% CI, 2.3-23.8]; PS 1, 8.2 months [95% CI, 5.4-11.1]; PS ≥2, 6.2 months [95% CI, 2.2-10.3]; and unknown PS, 5.4 months [95% CI, 2.2-8.5]). In multivariate analysis only PS showed a significant difference. No difference in PFS was found between 5 and 9 g/m2 ifosfamide treatment or PS.ConclusionThis study suggests that ifosfamide is an effective second-line treatment for patients with recurrent/metastatic osteosarcoma.Implications for practiceIfosfamide monotherapy is commonly used as second-line treatment in osteosarcoma, although large series to support this are lacking. This retrospective study reports overall and progression-free survival for regimens with 5 g/m2 and with 9 g/m2 . This study was unable to show a significant difference in survival between 5 and 9 g/m2 but showed an important impact of World Health Organization performance status on overall survival. This study sets a standard and reference for comparison with the multiple phase II studies under development.