» Articles » PMID: 32953151

Clinical Outcomes of Capecitabine-based Versus S-1-based Regimens As First-line Chemotherapy in Patients with Unresectable or Metastatic Gastric Cancer: a Propensity Score Matched Single-center Comparison

Overview
Date 2020 Sep 21
PMID 32953151
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Fluoropyrimidine-based regimens are the cornerstone of first-line chemotherapy for metastatic gastric cancer (GC). Capecitabine or S-1 might be used as an alternative to infusional 5-fluorouracil, especially in pan-Asian. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of capecitabine-based and S-1-based regimens as first-line chemotherapy in Chinese patients with unresectable or metastatic GC.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective study including unresectable or metastatic GC patients treated with the capecitabine-based or S-1-based regimen as first-line chemotherapy at the First Hospital of China Medical University. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to reduce selection bias. Overall survival (OS) outcomes were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. Prognostic significance was determined using multivariate Cox regression analysis. In addition, subgroup analyses were conducted to determine the effectiveness of capecitabine-based and S-1-based regimens in clinically relevant patient subsets.

Results: The clinical data of 469 patients included between October 2005 and September 2018. PSM analysis identified 187 patients receiving capecitabine-based or S-1-based regimen. No significant difference in OS (10.7 11.1 months, P=0.523) was detected between the two groups after PSM. In the subgroup analysis, the median OS (12.2 9.3 months, P=0.013) was longer for patients with peritoneum metastasis who received the capecitabine-based regimen compared to those who received the S-1-based regimen.

Conclusions: No significant difference in clinical outcomes was observed between the capecitabine and S-1-based regimen as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic or unresectable GC patients in China. The capecitabine-based regimen should be considered in the treatment of the GC patients with peritoneum metastasis.

Citing Articles

The impact of combination chemotherapy administration on prognostic outcomes in stage II and III gastric cancer: a comprehensive analysis utilizing propensity score matching.

Li Y, Zhao H Am J Transl Res. 2025; 17(1):377-395.

PMID: 39959247 PMC: 11826167. DOI: 10.62347/WVYP2688.


Histology Classification Highlights Differences in Efficacy of S-1 versus Capecitabine, in Combination with Cisplatin, for HER2-Negative Unresectable Advanced or Recurrent Gastric Cancer with Measurable Disease.

Kawakami H, Nishikawa K, Shimokawa T, Fujitani K, Tamura S, Endo S Cancers (Basel). 2022; 14(22).

PMID: 36428770 PMC: 9688851. DOI: 10.3390/cancers14225673.

References
1.
Bang Y, Van Cutsem E, Feyereislova A, Chung H, Shen L, Sawaki A . Trastuzumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for treatment of HER2-positive advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (ToGA): a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010; 376(9742):687-97. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61121-X. View

2.
Cho H, Ryu M, Kim K, Ryoo B, Park S, Kim B . Phase I/II study of a combination of capecitabine, cisplatin, and intraperitoneal docetaxel (XP ID) in advanced gastric cancer patients with peritoneal metastasis. Gastric Cancer. 2017; 20(6):970-977. DOI: 10.1007/s10120-017-0710-0. View

3.
Hwang E, Wang X . Value of Propensity Score Matching to Study Surgical Outcomes. Ann Surg. 2017; 265(3):457-458. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002125. View

4.
He M, Wu W, Wang F, Wang Z, Zhang D, Luo H . S-1-based chemotherapy versus capecitabine-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced gastric carcinoma: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2013; 8(12):e82798. PMC: 3861463. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082798. View

5.
DAgostino Jr R . Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med. 1998; 17(19):2265-81. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19981015)17:19<2265::aid-sim918>3.0.co;2-b. View