Comparison of the efficacy and safety of S-1-based and capecitabine-based regimens in gastrointestinal cancer: a meta-analysis

Multicenter phase II study of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin in older patients with advanced gastric cancer: the Tokyo Cooperative Oncology Group (TCOG) GI-1601 study

BACKGROUND

Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CapeOX) is a standard treatment option for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). We conducted a prospective multicenter phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CapeOX as a first-line therapy for AGC in older patients.

METHODS

Chemotherapy-naive patients aged ≥ 70 years with AGC were eligible. Initial treatment comprised capecitabine (2000 mg/m2 on days 1-14) and oxaliplatin (130 mg/m2 on day 1) every 3 weeks. After the initial feasibility assessment, the dose was reduced considering toxicity (capecitabine, 1500 mg/m2 on days 1-14; and oxaliplatin, 100 mg/m2 on day 1 every 3 weeks). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

In total, 108 patients were enrolled, of whom 104 were evaluated. Thirty-nine patients received the original-dose treatment, whereas 65 received the reduced-dose treatment. The median OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and time to treatment failure (TTF) were 12.9 (95% CI 11.6-14.8), 5.7 (95% CI 5.0-7.0), and 4.3 (95% CI 3.9-5.7) months, respectively, for all patients; 13.4 (95% CI 9.5-16.0), 5.8 (95% CI 4.1-7.8), and 5.3 (95% CI 3.5-7.2) months in the original-dose group; and 12.8 (95% CI 11.3-15.3), 5.7 (95% CI 4.4-7.0), and 4.1 (95% CI 3.7-5.7) months in the reduced-dose group. The most common grade 3/4 toxicities were neutropenia (17.9%), anemia (12.8%), and thrombocytopenia (12.8%) in the original-dose group and neutropenia (13.8%) and anorexia (12.3%) in the reduced-dose group.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings demonstrate CapeOX's efficacy and safety in older AGC patients.

Systematic review and non-inferiority meta-analysis of randomised phase II/III trials on S-1-based therapy versus 5-fluorouracil- or capecitabine-based therapy in the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

S-1 is an oral fluoropyrimidine that is increasingly used in Western countries for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We conducted a non-inferiority meta-analysis on the efficacy of S-1-based therapy versus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)- or capecitabine-based therapy in the treatment of patients with mCRC.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Opengrey were searched for randomised clinical trials until May 2021. Data were extracted for progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and adverse events. Pooled effect estimates, stratified by treatment line, with corresponding 99% confidence intervals (CI) were presented. For PFS, a pre-defined non-inferiority margin (ΔNI) of 1.25 was selected.

RESULTS

Ten studies (n = 2117) were included, of which six studies reported PFS and OS data and 10 studies reported ORR data. S-1-based therapy was shown to be non-inferior to 5-FU/capecitabine-based therapy in terms of PFS (HRtotal 0.95, 99% CI 0.83-1.08) with its CI upper limit well below ΔNI, and at least as efficacious in terms of OS (HRtotal 0.93, 99% CI 0.81-1.07), and ORR (RRtotal 1.06, 99% CI 0.90-1.24).

CONCLUSIONS

S-1-based therapy is non-inferior to 5-FU/capecitabine-based therapy in the treatment of mCRC regarding PFS and at least as efficacious as 5-FU/capecitabine-based therapy in terms of ORR and OS. These data support the use of S-1 in mCRC patients who are intolerant to 5-FU/capecitabine-based treatment.

Safety of alternate-day treatment with TS-1TM (tegafur/gimeracil/oteracil) in tumor-bearing dogs: a pilot study

Tegafur is a prodrug of fluoropyrimidine 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), while TS-1^TM is an oral fixed-dose combination of three active drugs, tegafur, gimeracil, and oteracil. This pilot study evaluated the safety of tegafur/gimeracil/oteracil in the treatment of cancers in dogs. Tegafur/gimeracil/oteracil was administered orally at a mean dose of 1.1 mg/kg twice daily on alternate days, Monday-Wednesday-Friday, every week to 11 dogs with tumors. Partial response and stable disease were observed in one dog each, whereas six exhibited progressive disease. Three dogs were not assessed. Adverse events, the most serious being grade 2, were noted in seven dogs. Adverse events were acceptable, and the drug was effective in some dogs. Therefore, tegafur/gimeracil/oteracil may be useful for treating malignant solid tumors in canines.

A Study of the S-1 or Capecitabine as First-line Regimen in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Real World Study

Objectives: To compare the 2-year overall survival (OS) rate and safety between patients using S-1 and capecitabine in the first-treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in the real clinical setting. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, patients satisfying the following criteria were identified from 10 centers in China. The 2-year OS rate and safety were assessed. The propensity score matching (PSM) was used to control basic characteristics of the two groups to balance the processing bias and confoundings. Results: A total of 1367 patients were identified, 824 patients accepted capecitabine and 546 patients accepted S-1. After PSM, 533 eligible patients were included in each group without statistical significance in age, sex, BMI, KPS score and comorbidities. The 2-year OS rate between two groups was without significant statistical difference (61.9% vs. 62.9%, p=0.4295). The subgroup analysis showed that the 2-year OS rate had no significant difference between men and women, younger and older than 60 years old, different metastatic sites, different chemotherapy courses between S-1 and capecitabine groups. The hematological adverse events were all without statistical difference between two groups, but the incidence of diarrhea (16.4% vs. 23.6%, p=0.0018) and hand-foot syndrome (28.7% vs. 46.7%, p<0.001) in S-1 group were lower than those in the capecitabine group. Conclusions: Compared to capecitabine, S-1 had a similar 2-year OS rate but had a lower incidence of adverse events in the real clinical setting. So, S-1 could be a good choice in the first-treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in China.

Should S-1 be better than capecitabine for patients with advanced gastric cancer in Asia? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

S-1 or capecitabine (Cap) containing treatment is an increasingly used strategy in patients with advanced gastric cancer in Asia. It is unclear whether there is sufficient evidence to support which regimen is better.

Methods

A systematic review of retrospective studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing S-1 with Cap containing treatment in advanced gastric cancer patients was performed. Embase, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, and reference lists were searched from inception until August 2018 for relevant studies. Outcomes of interest included 1-year overall survival (OS), 1-year progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events. Meta-analyses of the random events were performed. We also performed sensitivity analysis to examine whether the results of the meta-analyses were robust.

Results

A total of 770 subjects from six RCTs and two retrospective studies in Asia were analyzed. Compared with S-1, Cap containing treatment had better ORR (overall risk ratio =0.85, 95% CI: 0.72, 0.99, I ²=0%, P=0.043) and higher incidence of all-grade hand-foot syndrome (HFS) (overall risk ratio =0.29, 95% CI: 0.20, 0.40, I ²=0%, P<0.001) and neutropenia (overall risk ratio =0.85, 95% CI: 0.73, 0.99, I ²=0%, P=0.039). But there was no statistical difference in 1-year PFS, 1-year OS, incidence of other all-grade or grade 3-4 adverse events between S-1 and Cap containing arms (P>0.05). We found no publication bias in this review.

Conclusion

This systematic review showed that for Asian patients, Cap shows superiority in ORR but not 1-year OS or PFS, and it will increase the risk of all-grade HFS and neutropenia. Until now, S-1 containing treatment might be a better choice for advanced gastric cancer patients. But more high-quality RCTs are needed to confirm these results.

Comparing cytotoxic backbones for first-line trastuzumab-containing regimens in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive advanced oesophagogastric cancer: A meta-analysis

According to the Trastuzumab for Gastric Cancer (ToGA) study, trastuzumab plus cisplatin and capecitabine/5-fluorouracil (5-FU) is standard first-line treatment for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive advanced oesophagogastric cancer. We examined the relative efficacy and safety of alternative trastuzumab-based cytotoxic backbone regimens compared to the standard ToGA regimen using meta-analysis. We searched Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL and ASCO and ESMO up to March 2017 for studies investigating alternative first-line trastuzumab-based regimens for HER2-positive oesophagogastric cancer, defined as high protein expression IHC3+ or IHC2+ and gene amplification by in situ hybridisation. We compared primary outcome overall survival (OS) of alternative trastuzumab-based regimens to the ToGA regimen. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were calculated by extraction of the published Kaplan-Meier curves. Incidence counts and toxicity sample-sizes were extracted for adverse events and compared using single-arm proportion meta-analysis in R. Fifteen studies (N = 557 patients) were included. OS was significantly longer with regimen trastuzumab plus doublet oxaliplatin and capecitabine/5-FU (median OS = 20.7 months) versus ToGA (16.0 months, HR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.59-0.99) and was less toxic. Trastuzumab plus doublet cisplatin and S-1 showed no OS difference versus ToGA, but showed a different toxicity profile, including less hand-foot syndrome. Trastuzumab plus cisplatin or capecitabine as singlet backbone showed significantly worse survival and more toxicity versus ToGA regimen. Trastuzumab with triplet cytotoxic backbones or with bevacizumab and doublet cytotoxic backbone showed no survival benefit and more toxicity. In conclusion, trastuzumab plus doublet cytotoxic backbone containing oxaliplatin is preferable over the ToGA regimen with cisplatin. S-1 can substitute capecitabine or 5-FU when specific toxicities are encountered.

New Perspectives in the Treatment of Advanced Gastric Cancer: S-1 as a Novel Oral 5-FU Therapy in Combination with Cisplatin

Oral fluoropyrimidines have been available for more than 10 years. Capecitabine is well established in treating solid tumors in Europe. S-1 (Teysuno®), an oral formulation containing the 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) prodrug tegafur and the two enzyme modulators gimeracil and oteracil, has not been available in non-Asia countries until recently. In Japan, S-1 in combination with cisplatin is the recommended first-line treatment in patients with gastric cancer. In Europe, the first trials with S-1 were disappointing due to high unacceptable incidences of adverse events. Pharmacokinetic studies showed differences in Asian and Caucasian patients; therefore, a new non-Asian study program was initiated, which led to the pivotal phase 3 trial First-Line Advanced Gastric Cancer Study (FLAGS). In FLAGS, 1,053 patients with advanced gastric cancer from 24 non-Asian countries were enrolled. S-1 plus cisplatin showed no overall survival (OS) benefit when compared to 5-FU plus cisplatin. The primary endpoint superior OS was not met but better tolerability was shown. A post hoc noninferiority OS and safety analysis showed that S-1 plus cisplatin has the same efficacy as 5-FU plus cisplatin but a more favorable safety profile. This led to the approval of S-1 in combination with cisplatin in gastric cancer in Europe in 2011. This article reviews the mode of action of S-1, pivotal study results from an EU point of view, and future perspectives.

The efficacy and safety of S-1-based regimens in the first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

S-1 is first-line therapy for advanced gastric cancer in Asia and is used with increased frequency in Western counties. We conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and toxicity of S-1-based therapy compared with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/capecitabine-based therapy and S-1-based combination therapy compared with S-1 monotherapy.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting abstracts, European Society for Medical Oncology meeting abstracts and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for randomized clinical trials until May 2015. Data were extracted for overall survival (OS), progression-free-survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and grade 1-2 and grade 3-4 adverse events. Stratified OS data for subgroups were extracted.

RESULTS

S-1 was not different from 5-FU (eight studies, n = 2788) in terms of OS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.93, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.85-1.01] and PFS (HR 0.87, 95 % CI 0.73-1.04), whereas ORR was higher (risk ratio 1.43, 95 % CI 1.05-1.96). There was no subgroup difference in efficacy among Asian and Western patients, but in Western patients S-1 was associated with a lower rate of febrile neutropenia, toxicity-related deaths and grade 3-4 stomatitis and mucositis compared with 5-FU. S-1 showed no difference in efficacy compared with capecitabine (three studies, n = 329), but was associated with a lower rate of grade 3-4 neutropenia and grade 1-2 hand-foot syndrome. S-1-combination therapy was superior to S-1 monotherapy (eight studies, n = 1808) in terms of OS (HR 0.76, 95 % CI 0.65-0.90), PFS (HR 0.68, 95 % CI 0.56-0.82) and ORR (risk ratio 1.20, 95 % CI 1.04-1.38) but was more toxic. Survival benefit of S-1 combination therapy over S-1 monotherapy was most pronounced in patients with non-measurable disease, diffuse-type histological features and peritoneal metastasis.

CONCLUSIONS

S-1 is effective and tolerable as first-line therapy for advanced gastric cancer in both Asian and Western countries.

The addition of S-1 to gemcitabine-based chemotherapy improves survival with increased toxicity for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: combined meta-analysis of efficacy and safety profile

PURPOSE

To investigate the efficiency and safety profile of the addition of S-1 to gemcitabine (GEM)-based chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer (APC).

METHODS

Computerized search was undertaken to identify randomized controlled trials of S-1 plus GEM versus GEM monotherapy in APC patients. The outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate, and toxicities.

RESULTS

Five studies with 917 patients were included. Overall, there was a significant difference between the two regimens in terms of OS (HR=0.83, 95%CI=0.72-0.96, P=0.01), PFS (HR=0.64, 95%CI=0.56-0.74, P<0.0001), and overall response rate (ORR; RR=2.36, 95%CI=1.73-3.22, P<0.00001). Occurrence of grade 3/4 hematological toxicities (neutropenia, thrombocytopenia) and non-hematological toxicities (diarrhea, nausea/vomit, rush, stomatitis/mucositis) were significantly higher with GEM/S-1 treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis indicated a significant survival benefit with increased toxicity when S-1 was combined with GEM. GEM/S-1 might be an option of first-line chemotherapy for APC patients, at least in Asia.

A Meta-analysis Reveals S-1-based Chemotherapy Improves the Survival of Patients With Advanced Gastric Cancer

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of S-1-based therapy versus non-S-1-based therapy in advanced gastric cancer (AGC) patients.Eligible studies stratifying objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs) in AGC patients were identified from Embase, Pubmed, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases. The STATA package (version 11.0) was used to pool the data from the eligible studies.Fifteen studies with 2973 AGC cases, of which 1497 (50.4%) received S-1-based therapy and 1476 (49.6%) received non-S-1-based therapy, were identified in the meta-analysis. AGC patients who had received S-1-based therapy had a higher median OS, median PFS, and ORR than those who had received 5-fluorouracil (FU)-based therapy (OS: hazard ratio [HR] 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80-0.98, P = 0.015; PFS: HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80-0.98, P = 0.016; ORR: OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08-1.45, P = 0.003, respectively). S-1-based therapy had similar efficacy to capecitabine-based therapy in terms of median OS (HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91-1.41, P = 0.253), median PFS (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.82-1.25, P = 0.927), and ORR (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.63-1.12, P = 0.226). Subgroup analysis for grade 3 to 4 toxicity showed higher incidence of neutropenia (relative risk [RR] = 0.827, P = 0.006), nausea (RR = 0.808, P = 0.040), and lower diarrhea (RR = 1.716, P = 0.012) in 5-FU-based arm, and higher diarrhea (RR = 0.386, P = 0.007) in capecitabine-based arm.S-1-based chemotherapy is favorable to AGC patients with better clinical benefit than 5-FU-based chemotherapy and with equivalent antitumor compare with capecitabine-based therapy.

S-1 plus oxaliplatin versus capecitabine plus oxaliplatin for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: updated results from a phase 3 trial

Background

We report updated progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) data from a trial that compared capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CapeOX) versus S-1 plus oxaliplatin (SOX) for the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.

Methods

This trial was a randomized, two-armed, non-inferiority phase 3 comparison of CapeOX (capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1–14 and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1) versus SOX (S-1 40 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1–14 and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1). The primary end point was to show non-inferiority of SOX relative to CapeOX in terms of PFS. Thus, a follow-up exploratory analysis of PFS and OS was performed.

Results

The intention to treat (ITT) population was comprised of 340 patients (SOX arm: 168 and CapeOX arm: 172). The updated median PFS was 7.1 months (95% CI 6.4-8.0) in the SOX group and 6.3 months (95% CI 4.9-6.7) in the CapeOX group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83 [0.66-1.04], p = .10). The median OS was 19.0 months (95% CI 15.3-23.0) in the SOX group and 18.4 months (95% CI 14.1-20.7) in the CapeOX group (HR, 0.86 [0.68-1.08], p = .19). Subgroup analyses according to principal demographic factors such as sex, age, ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) performance status, primary tumor location, measurability, previous adjuvant therapy, number of metastatic organs, and liver metastases showed no interaction between any of these characteristics and the treatment.

Conclusions

Updated survival analysis shows that SOX is similar to CapeOX, confirming the initial PFS analysis. Therefore, the SOX regimen could be an alternative first-line doublet chemotherapy strategy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Trial registration

NCT00677443 and May 12 2008

Efficacy of S-1 in colorectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

S-1 is an oral fluoropyrimidine that consists of tegafur, 5-chloro-2, 4-dihydroxypyridine and potassium oxonate. It has been developed as a prodrug of 5-fluorouracil with the goal of improving therapeutic efficacy and tolerability.

AREAS COVERED

This review aims to provide an evidence-based update of clinical trials that have investigated the clinical efficacy, adverse-event profile, dosage and administration of S-1, given alone or in combination with conventional chemotherapeutics and new target-oriented drugs, in the management of colorectal cancer (CRC). Additionally, differences in the tolerability and pharmacokinetics of S-1 between Caucasians and Asians have been described. Finally, the therapeutic efficacy of S-1 regarding metastatic CRC or postoperative CRC has been discussed. Available data have stimulated further research, including Phase III trials for the treatment of advanced CRC.

EXPERT OPINION

Treatment using S-1 combined with oxaliplatin (± bevacizumab) and irinotecan has achieved promising results in terms of feasibility, safety and effectiveness. Furthermore, S-1 is an acceptable treatment as adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer.