Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2016 Jun;95(24):e3916.
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003916.

Can S-1 replace fluorouracil for advanced gastric cancer? A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Can S-1 replace fluorouracil for advanced gastric cancer? A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis

Xiao-Dong Chen et al. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Jun.

Erratum in

  • Erratum: Medicine, Volume 95, Issue 24: Erratum.
    [No authors listed] [No authors listed] Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Aug 7;95(31):e5074. doi: 10.1097/01.md.0000490009.39850.74. eCollection 2016 Aug. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016. PMID: 31265618 Free PMC article.

Abstract

It remains to be seen whether S-1 can be a replacement for infusional fluorouracil (5-FU) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of S-1 with 5-FU in AGC.PubMed and Cochrane Library were searched. Randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses comparing S-1 with 5-FU for AGC were eligible. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2.Seven trials involving 2443 patients were included. Compared with 5-FU, S-1 showed no significant prolongation of overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.83-1.01], P = 0.07) and progression-free survival (HR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.70-1.13], P = 0.35), but longer time to treatment failure (HR = 0.74, 95% CI [0.56-0.97], P = 0.03). The objective response rates were comparable (risk ratio [RR] = 1.36, 95% CI [0.95, 1.96], P = 0.10). Regarding treatment-related deaths and hematological toxicities, there was significant heterogeneity between Asian and non-Asian trials, and subgroup analysis was applied. In Asian patients, there was a significant increase in hematological toxicities such as leukopenia (grade 1-4: RR = 1.22, 95% CI [1.08, 1.37], P = 0.001; grade 3-4: RR = 2.21, 95% CI [1.52, 3.21], P < 0.0001), neutropenia (grade 1-4: RR = 1.29, 95% CI [1.11, 1.48], P = 0.0005; grade 3-4: RR = 1.87, 95% CI [1.11, 3.17], P = 0.02), and thrombocytopenia (grade 1-4: RR = 1.71, 95% CI [1.22, 2.41], P = 0.002) in S-1-containing regimens compared with 5-FU-containing regimens, but without significant difference in treatment-related mortality rate (risk difference [RD] = 0.00, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.01], P = 0.68). In non-Asian patients, S-1-containing regimens were, however, associated with significantly fewer treatment-related deaths (RD = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.05, -0.00], P = 0.04), as well as less all grade 1-4 and grade 3-4 hematological toxicities except anemia. There was no significant heterogeneity in nonhematologic toxicities between Asian and non-Asian trials. Lower incidence of grade 1-4 nausea, diarrhea, mucositis, grade 3-4 mucositis, increased creatinine, and decreased calculated creatinine clearance was observed in S-1-containing regimens.S-1 could not improve OS, but increase some hematological toxicities in Asian patients. Therefore, special attention on hematological toxicities should be paid to Asian patients because S-1 is administered on an outpatient basis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of literature search and selection procedure.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plot of overall survival associated with the S-1-containing chemotherapy compared with the 5-FU-containing chemotherapy.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plot of subgroup analysis of overall survival by region.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Forest plot of subgroup analysis of overall survival by regimen. SP = S-1 plus cisplatin, FP = 5-FU plus cisplatin, SPtx = S-1 plus paclitaxel, FPtx = 5-FU plus paclitaxel.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Forest plot of progression-free survival associated with the S-1-containing chemotherapy compared with the 5-FU-containing chemotherapy.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Forest plot of time to treatment failure associated with the S-1-containing chemotherapy compared with the 5-FU-containing chemotherapy.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Begg funnel plot of publication bias test: (A) overall survival (OS) and (B) objective response rate (ORR). Each point represents a separate study for the indicated association; log = natural logarithm, s.e. = standard error.

References

    1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, et al. GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11 [Internet]. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; Available at: http://globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/fact_sheets_population.aspx Accessed January 17, 2016.
    1. Wagner AD, Grothe W, Haerting J, et al. Chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on aggregate data. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:2903–9. - PubMed
    1. Wöhrer SS, Raderer M, Hejna M. Palliative chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer. Ann Oncol 2004;15:1585–95. - PubMed
    1. Shirasaka T. Development history and concept of an oral anticancer agent S-1 (TS-1): its clinical usefulness and future vistas. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2009;39:2–15. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Boku N. JCOG trials of systemic chemotherapy for unresectable or recurrent gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer 2009;12:43–9. - PubMed