S-1-based chemotherapy versus capecitabine-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced gastric carcinoma: a meta-analysis

PLoS One. 2013 Dec 12;8(12):e82798. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082798. eCollection 2013.

Abstract

Background: Although both oral fluoropyrimidines were reported effective and safe, doubts exist about whether S-1 or capecitabine is more advantageous in advanced gastric carcinoma (AGC). Herein, we performed a meta-analysis to comprehensively compare the efficacy and safety of S-1-based chemotherapy versus capecitabine-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment for AGC.

Methods: PubMed/Medline, EmBase, Cochrane library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched for articles comparing S-1-based chemotherapy to capecitabine-based chemotherapy for AGC. Primary outcomes were overall response rate (ORR), time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS), progression-free probability, and survival probability. Secondary outcomes were toxicities. Fixed-effects model were used and all the results were confirmed by random-effects model.

Results: Five randomized controlled trials and five cohort studies with 821 patients were included. We found equivalent ORR (38.3% vs. 39.1%, odds ratio [OR] 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-1.24, P = 0.59), TTP (harzad ratio [HR] 0.98, 95% CI 0.82-1.16, P = 0.79), OS (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87-1.13, P = 0.91), progression-free probability (3-month OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.62-1.68, P = 0.94; 6-month OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.88-2.04, P = 0.18) and survival probability (0.5-year OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.61-1.31, P =0.57; 1-year OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.70- 1.33, P = 0.84; 2-year OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.61-2.17, P = 0.66). Equivalent grade 3 to 4 hematological and non-hematological toxicities were found except hand-foot syndrome was less prominent in S-1-based chemotherapy (0.3% vs. 5.9%, OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.06-0.56, P = 0.003). There're no significant heterogeneity and publication bias. Cumulative analysis found stable time-dependent trend. Consistent results stratified by study design, age, regimen, cycle, country were observed.

Conclusion: S-1-based chemotherapy was associated with non-inferior antitumor efficacy and better safety profile, compared with capecitabine-based therapy. We recommended S-1 and capecitabine can be used interchangeably for AGC, at least in Asia.

Publication types

  • Meta-Analysis
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic / administration & dosage
  • Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic / therapeutic use*
  • Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols / adverse effects
  • Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols / therapeutic use
  • Capecitabine
  • Deoxycytidine / administration & dosage
  • Deoxycytidine / analogs & derivatives*
  • Deoxycytidine / therapeutic use
  • Disease Progression
  • Drug Combinations
  • Fluorouracil / administration & dosage
  • Fluorouracil / analogs & derivatives*
  • Fluorouracil / therapeutic use
  • Humans
  • Neoplasm Staging
  • Odds Ratio
  • Oxonic Acid / administration & dosage
  • Oxonic Acid / therapeutic use*
  • Publication Bias
  • Stomach Neoplasms / drug therapy*
  • Stomach Neoplasms / mortality
  • Stomach Neoplasms / pathology*
  • Tegafur / administration & dosage
  • Tegafur / therapeutic use*
  • Time Factors
  • Treatment Outcome

Substances

  • Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic
  • Drug Combinations
  • Deoxycytidine
  • S 1 (combination)
  • Tegafur
  • Oxonic Acid
  • Capecitabine
  • Fluorouracil

Grants and funding

This study was supported by National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (863 Program), China (No.2012AA02A506), the Science and Technology Department of Guangdong Province, China (No. 2012B031800088), and Medical Scientific Research Foundation of Guangdong Province, China (No.C2011019). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.