4.7 Article

A randomised multicentre phase II trial of capecitabine vs S-I as first-line treatment in elderly patients with metastatic or recurrent unresectable gastric cancer

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 99, Issue 4, Pages 584-590

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604536

Keywords

capecitabine; S-I; gastric cancer; elderly; efficacy; safety

Categories

Funding

  1. Korea Health Promotion Institute [0610520-3] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This randomised multicentre phase II study was conducted to investigate the activity and safety of two oral fluoropyrimidines, capecitabine or S-I, in elderly patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Elderly (>= 65 years) chemo-naive patients with AGC were randomly assigned to receive capecitabine 1250 mg m(-2) two times daily on days 1-14 every 3 weeks or S-I 40 - 60 mg two times daily according to body surface area on days 1 - 28 every 6 weeks. Ninety-six patients were enrolled and 91 patients were randomised to capecitabine (N=46) or S-I (N=45). Overall response rate, the primary end point, was 27.2% ( 95% CI, 14.1 - 40.4, 12 of 44 assessable patients) with capecitabine and 28.9% ( 95% CI, 15.6 - 42.1, 13 of 45) with S-I. Median times to progression and overall survival in the capecitabine arm (4.7 and 9.5 months, respectively) were similar to those in the S-I arm (4.2 and 8.2 months, respectively). The incidence of grade 3 - 4 granulocytopenia was 6.8% with capecitabine and 4.8% with S-I. Grade 3 - 4 nonhaematologic toxicities were: asthenia (9.1% with capecitabine vs 7.1% with S-I), anorexia (6.8 vs 9.5%), diarrhoea (2.3 vs 0%), and hand - foot syndrome (6.8 vs 0%). Both capecitabine and S-I monotherapies were active and tolerable as first-line treatment for elderly patients with AGC.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available