Clinical observation of Capecitabine versus S-1 as maintenance therapy for advanced gastric cancer after the first-line inductive chemotherapy
10.3969/j.issn.1000-8179.2016.20.746
- VernacularTitle:卡培他滨和替吉奥作为晚期胃癌一线诱导化疗后维持治疗的临床观察
- Author:
Shubin WANG
;
Xuan WU
;
Xiaoqiu CHEN
;
An PENG
;
Donglan SHEN
;
Gangling TONG
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
gastric cancer;
Capecitabine;
S-1;
maintenance chemotherapy;
therapeutic efficacy;
adverse effects
- From:
Chinese Journal of Clinical Oncology
2016;43(20):913-917
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To evaluate the efficacy and adverse reaction caused by Capecitabine compared with S-1 as maintenance treat-ments for patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) after first-line induction chemotherapy. Methods:A total of 130 AGC patients who did not suffer disease progression after first-line chemotherapies, including XELOX (four to six cycles), SOX (four to six cycles), and mFOLFOX6 regimen (six to eight cycles), were randomized into three groups. The Capecitabine group (Cap) received maintenance che-motherapy with Capecitabine (1 000 mg/m2 twice daily for 14 days, 21 days/cycle), while the S-1 group (S1) received S-1 (40, 50, or 60 mg according to the body surface area and orally administered twice a day for 14 days, 21 days/cycle). The control group was consid-ered as the observation group. Patients with maintenance treatments received drugs until disease progression or observation of intol-erant toxicity. Results:A total of 44, 33, and 53 patients received XELOX, SOX, and mFOLFOX6 regimens, respectively. The overall DCR was 63.1%. Among the 82 patients, 35, 28, and 19 belonged to the Cap, S1, and observation groups, respectively. The comparison be-tween the efficacy of treatments in the Cap and S1 groups did not show statistically significant differences (P=0.678). The median time of progression was 8.5 months in the Cap group and 9.0 months in the S1 group (P>0.05). Both groups showed better responses than the observation group, which demonstrated a median progression of 6.0 months (P<0.001). The median overall survivals were 14.5, 15.0, and 14.0 months in the Cap, S-1, and observation groups, respectively (P=0.188). The most common adverse effects observed among the patients with maintenance treatments included myelo-suppression, gastrointestinal reaction, fatigue, hand-foot syndrome, and stomatitis. No death occurred in relation to the therapy. Conclusion:The effectiveness of Capecitabine and S-1 as maintenance chemotherapies in AGC patients after the first-line induction chemotherapy are similar, and both can prolong the time of disease pro-gression with low toxicity.
