BACKGROUND As the first-line regimens for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer, both docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil(DCF) and epirubicin, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil(ECF) regimens are commonly used in c...BACKGROUND As the first-line regimens for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer, both docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil(DCF) and epirubicin, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil(ECF) regimens are commonly used in clinical practice, but there is still controversy about which is better.AIM To compare the efficacy and safety of DCF and ECF regimens by conducting this meta-analysis.METHODS Computer searches in PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, Science Direct, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library and Scopus were performed to find the clinical studies of all comparisons between DCF and ECF regimens. We used progression-free survival(PFS), overall survival(OS), objective response rate(ORR), disease control rate(DCR), and adverse effects(AEs) as endpoints for analysis.RESULTS Our meta-analysis included seven qualified studies involving a total of 598 patients. The pooled hazard ratios between the DCF and ECF groups were comparable in PFS(95%CI: 0.58-1.46, P = 0.73), OS(95%CI: 0.65-1.10, P = 0.21),and total AEs(95%CI: 0.93-1.29, P = 0.30). The DCF group was significantly better than the ECF group in terms of ORR(95%CI: 1.13-1.75, P = 0.002) and DCR(95%CI: 1.03-1.41, P = 0.02). However, the incidence rate of grade 3-4 AEs was also greater in the DCF group than in the ECF group(95%CI: 1.16-1.88, P = 0.002),especially for neutropenia and febrile neutropenia.CONCLUSION With better ORR and DCR values, the DCF regimen seems to be more suitable for advanced gastric cancer than the ECF regimen. However, the higher rate of AEs in the DCF group still needs to be noticed.展开更多
基金Supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China,No.81560345
文摘BACKGROUND As the first-line regimens for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer, both docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil(DCF) and epirubicin, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil(ECF) regimens are commonly used in clinical practice, but there is still controversy about which is better.AIM To compare the efficacy and safety of DCF and ECF regimens by conducting this meta-analysis.METHODS Computer searches in PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, Science Direct, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library and Scopus were performed to find the clinical studies of all comparisons between DCF and ECF regimens. We used progression-free survival(PFS), overall survival(OS), objective response rate(ORR), disease control rate(DCR), and adverse effects(AEs) as endpoints for analysis.RESULTS Our meta-analysis included seven qualified studies involving a total of 598 patients. The pooled hazard ratios between the DCF and ECF groups were comparable in PFS(95%CI: 0.58-1.46, P = 0.73), OS(95%CI: 0.65-1.10, P = 0.21),and total AEs(95%CI: 0.93-1.29, P = 0.30). The DCF group was significantly better than the ECF group in terms of ORR(95%CI: 1.13-1.75, P = 0.002) and DCR(95%CI: 1.03-1.41, P = 0.02). However, the incidence rate of grade 3-4 AEs was also greater in the DCF group than in the ECF group(95%CI: 1.16-1.88, P = 0.002),especially for neutropenia and febrile neutropenia.CONCLUSION With better ORR and DCR values, the DCF regimen seems to be more suitable for advanced gastric cancer than the ECF regimen. However, the higher rate of AEs in the DCF group still needs to be noticed.
