Should S-1 be better than capecitabine for patients with advanced gastric cancer in Asia? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Received 17 September 2018
Accepted for publication 1 December 2018
Published 27 December 2018 Volume 2019:12 Pages 269—277
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewers approved by Dr Justinn Cochran
Peer reviewer comments 4
Editor who approved publication: Dr Takuya Aoki
Ziqi Ye,1,* Jie Chen,2,* Yuefeng Rao,1 Wenchao Yang3
1Department of Pharmacy, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China; 2Department of Pharmacy, The Second Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China; 3Department of Pharmacy, Traditional Chinese Medical Hospital of Zhuji, Zhuji, China
*These authors contributed equally to this work
Background: S-1 or capecitabine (Cap) containing treatment is an increasingly used strategy in patients with advanced gastric cancer in Asia. It is unclear whether there is sufficient evidence to support which regimen is better.
Methods: A systematic review of retrospective studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing S-1 with Cap containing treatment in advanced gastric cancer patients was performed. Embase, PubMed, Clinical Trials.gov, Cochrane Library, and reference lists were searched from inception until August 2018 for relevant studies. Outcomes of interest included 1-year overall survival (OS), 1-year progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events. Meta-analyses of the random events were performed. We also performed sensitivity analysis to examine whether the results of the meta-analyses were robust.
Results: A total of 770 subjects from six RCTs and two retrospective studies in Asia were analyzed. Compared with S-1, Cap containing treatment had better ORR (overall risk ratio =0.85, 95% CI: 0.72, 0.99, I2=0%, P=0.043) and higher incidence of all-grade hand-foot syndrome (HFS) (overall risk ratio =0.29, 95% CI: 0.20, 0.40, I2=0%, P<0.001) and neutropenia (overall risk ratio =0.85, 95% CI: 0.73, 0.99, I2=0%, P=0.039). But there was no statistical difference in 1-year PFS, 1-year OS, incidence of other all-grade or grade 3–4 adverse events between S-1 and Cap containing arms (P>0.05). We found no publication bias in this review.
Conclusion: This systematic review showed that for Asian patients, Cap shows superiority in ORR but not 1-year OS or PFS, and it will increase the risk of all-grade HFS and neutropenia. Until now, S-1 containing treatment might be a better choice for advanced gastric cancer patients. But more high-quality RCTs are needed to confirm these results.
Keywords: 1-year OS, 1-year PFS, adverse events, ORR, HFS, neutropenia
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]