Advances in monotherapy and combination therapy of S-1 for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a narrative review

Feiyi Cao,Cuiping Gu,Wei Hong,Ying Jin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/tcr-23-2019

2024-04-13

Translational Cancer Research

Abstract:Advances in monotherapy and combination therapy of S-1 for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a narrative review

oncology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Anlotinib-containing Regimen for Advanced Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Protocol of Meta-Analysis

Guocan Yu,Qingshan Cai,Xudong Xu,Yanqin Shen,Kan Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37766/inplasy2021.1.0034

2021-01-01

Abstract:Review question / Objective: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is a highly malignant lung cancer with a very poor prognosis.To improve the prognosis of SCLC, effective treatment options are needed, but current clinical treatment options are still limited, especially for patients who have failed first or second line therapy.The application of anlotinib as a potentially beneficial new treatment option for SCLC is also very convenient.The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of anlotinib-containing regimen for the treatment of SCLC.Information sources: We will search SinoMed, Wanfang Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Embase, Cochrane Library, and PubMed for relevant articles that may meet the criteria published before January 10, 2021.We will also evaluate whether the references cited in the reviews meet the criteria to find additional articles.
Efficacy and outcome analysis: monotherapy and combination therapy of S-1 for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Feiyi Cao,Wenjing Wang,Cuiping Gu,Yao Zhou,Ying Jin,Wei Hong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd-24-940

2024-11-01

Journal of Thoracic Disease

Abstract:Keywords: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs); second-line treatment; non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); S-1

respiratory system
S-1 As Monotherapy or in Combination with Leucovorin As Second-Line Treatment in Gemcitabine-Refractory Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: a Randomized, Open-Label, Multicenter, Phase II Study.

Feijiao Ge,Nong Xu,Yuxian Bai,Yi Ba,Yanqiao Zhang,Fei Li,Huayan Xu,Ru Jia,Yan Wang,Li Lin,Jianming Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2014-0223

IF: 45.3

2014-01-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:BACKGROUND:In this study, we compared the efficacy and safety of the oral fluoropyrimidine S-1 as monotherapy or in combination with leucovorin as the second-line treatment for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer whose disease had progressed on gemcitabine treatment.METHODS:The study was a randomized, open-label, controlled study. Patients randomly received S-1 or S-1 in combination with leucovorin (SL arm) in 21-day cycles. The primary endpoint was the 6-month survival rate.RESULTS:A total of 92 patients were randomized to S-1 (n = 47) and SL (n = 45). No statistically significant differences were observed between the two arms with regard to 6-month survival rates (40% vs. 49%), median overall survival (5.5 vs. 6.3 months), median progression-free survival (1.9 vs. 3.0 months), and overall response rate (4.7% vs. 8.3%). The rate of major grade 3-4 adverse events of digestive toxicity was significantly higher in the SL arm than in the S-1 arm.CONCLUSION:Compared with S-1, SL did not improve the survival of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer who had failed to benefit from prior gemcitabine treatment, but SL had a higher adverse event rate.
A Meta-Analysis of Safety and Efficacy on First-Line S-1 Therapy in Cancer Patients.

Yingying Miao,Ping Zhan,Tangfeng Lv,Yong Song

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2218-6751.2015.07.21

2015-01-01

Abstract:BACKGROUNDThe incidence of grade 3/4 adverse effects due to S-1 therapy and the efficacy of S-1-based therapy vs. S-1 monotherapy have not been well described. We conducted an updated meta-analysis to evaluate this problem.METHODSWe searched the electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane database to investigate the effects of phase 2 and 3 prospective clinical trials on first-line S-1 therapy in cancer patients. Data from included studies were pooled using Stata version 12.0.RESULTSTwenty eight studies were included. First-line S-1 monotherapy showed low incidence of grade 3/4 adverse effects. And the highest rate grade 3/4 hematological event was neutropenia [7%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 5-8%]; the highest rate grade 3/4 non-hematological event was anorexia (7%, 95% CI: 6-9%). Longer overall survival (OS) time and progression-free survival (PFS) time was exhibited in S-1-based therapy, compared with S-1 monotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) 0.836, 95% CI: 0.761-0.911, P=0.000, and HR 0.650, 95% CI: 0.540-0.759, P=0.000, respectively]. However, the incidence of grade 3/4 adverse effects was also higher in S-1-based therapy than S-1 monotherapy in cancer patients, with relative risk (RR) of neutropenia and anorexia were respectively 4.62 (95% CI: 2.92-7.30) and 1.46 (95% CI: 0.84-2.55).CONCLUSIONSS-1 monotherapy was demonstrated with low incidence of high grade adverse effects, therefore it is well tolerated for majority cancer patients; S-1-based therapy significantly improved OS and PFS compared with S-1 monotherapy, with an increased risk of high grade adverse effects.
Therapeutic Efficacy and Safety of S-1-Based Combination Therapy Compare with S-1 Monotherapy Following Gemcitabine Failure in Pancreatic Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Sinan Lu,Yuan Zhang,Xiaohu Zhou,Dongkai Zhou,Qifan Yang,Bingjie Ju,Xinyi Zhao,Zhenhua Hu,Haiyang Xie,Lin Zhou,Shusen Zheng,Weilin Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep36944

IF: 4.6

2016-01-01

Scientific Reports

Abstract:S-1 monotherapy is widely used following gemcitabine failure in pancreatic cancer, especially in East Asia. We performed a meta-analysis to determine whether S-1-based combination therapy had better efficacy and safety compared with S-1 monotherapy. We searched Pubmed, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane CENTRAL and subsequently included five trials with a total of 690 patients. The combined hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio; the corresponding 95% confidence intervals of progression-free survival, overall survival, and overall response rate; and grade 3–4 adverse events were examined. Five randomized controlled trials were included. Meta-analysis demonstrated S-1-based combination therapy significantly increased progression-free survival (HR = 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67–0.90, p = 0.0009) and overall response rate (HR = 1.74, 95% CI: 1.20–2.52, p = 0.003). Evidence was insufficient to confirm that S-1-based combined regimens improved overall survival (HR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.75–1.00, p = 0.05). There was no significant difference in adverse events between the two treatment arms. In conclusion, S-1-based combination therapy improved progression-free survival and overall response rate compared to S-1 monotherapy with acceptable toxicity.
New advances in antiangiogenic combination therapeutic strategies for advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Huiping Qiang,Qing Chang,Jianlin Xu,Jialin Qian,Yanwei Zhang,Yuqiong Lei,Baohui Han,Tianqing Chu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-020-03129-6

Abstract:Purpose: Tumor growth relies on the sufficient blood supply and continuously requires new blood vessels to maintain, which lead to vascular abnormalities (Folkman, N Engl J Med 285:1182-1186, 1971). Antiangiogenic therapy has emerged with the goal of normalizing vasculature and tumor microenvironment (TME). Some antiangiogenic therapies combined with chemotherapy, targeted therapy or immunotherapy have been approved for clinical application. In this review, we summarize the recent advances of antiangiogenic combination therapeutic strategies in advanced NSCLC. Methods: References of this review are searched through PubMed and EMBASE and the abstracts of cancer conferences. The ClinicalTrials.gov database was used for relative trials. Results: Based on different mechanisms, antiangiogenic agents can be divided into monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), which mainly include bevacizumab and ramucirumab, and multi-target antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) which include sunitinib, sorafenib, nintedanib, apatinib, anlotinib, fruquintinib, etc. In recent years, a number of large clinical studies have shown that antiangiogenic agents have conferred a significant overall survival (OS) benefit to patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). More and more evidences confirm that the combination of antiangiogenic agents with chemotherapy, targeted therapy and immunotherapy can improve the effect and prolong the survival of NSCLC patients. However, many problems about the application of antiangiogenic agents on advanced NSCLC patients still need to be explored. For example, the combination therapy of multi-target antiangiogenic agents is just beginning, and the biomarkers are not clear. Conclusions: Antiangiogenic agents can achieve therapeutic benefit in advanced NSCLC patients and the combination of chemotherapy, targeted therapy or immunotherapy can lead to synergistic effect. However, exploring the best combination therapy and efficacy-related biomarkers needs further study.
S-1-basedvsnon-S-1-based Chemotherapy in Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Jian,Kan Yang,Victoria C. Yan,Quan Zhou,Shaoying Ke,Min MIN,Qiang,Xin Yao,Chunni,Jinfen Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v20.i33.11886

2014-01-01

Abstract:AIM: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of S-1-based vs non-S-1-based chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer(AGC). METHODS: We extracted reported endpoints, including overall survival(OS), progression-free survival(PFS), time-to-treatment failure(TTF), objective response rate(ORR) and adverse effects, from randomized controlled trials identified in PubMed, the Cochrane library, Science Direct, EMBASE and American Society of Clinical Oncology meetings. Stata software was used to calculate the pooled values.RESULTS: Seven randomized controlled trials involving 2176 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to non-S-1-based regimens, the use of S-1-based regimens were associated with an increase in ORR(RR = 1.300; 95%CI: 1.028-1.645); OS(HR = 0.89; 95%CI: 0.81-0.99; P = 0.025), TTF(HR = 0.83; 95%CI: 0.75-0.92; P = 0.000), and a lower risk of febrile neutropenia(RR = 0.225; P = 0.000) and stomatitis(RR = 0.230; P = 0.032). OS, PFS and TTFwere prolonged, especially in the Asian population. In subgroup analysis, statistically significant increases in ORR(RR = 1.454; P = 0.029), OS(HR = 0.895; P = 0.041) and TTF(HR = 0.832; P = 0.000) were found when S-1-based chemotherapy was compared to 5-fluorouracil(5-FU)-based chemotherapy. The incidence of leukopenia(RR = 0.584; P = 0.002) and stomatitis(RR = 0.230; P = 0.032) was higher in the 5-FU-based arm. S-1-based regimens had no advantage in ORR, OS, PFS, TTF and grade 3 or 4 adverse events over capecitabine-based regimens. CONCLUSION: S-1-based chemotherapy may be a good choice for AGC because of longer survival times, better tolerance and more convenient use.
S-1-based vs non-S-1-based chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer: a meta-analysis.

Jian Yang,Yan Zhou,Ke Min,Qiang Yao,Chun-Ni Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v20.i33.11886

IF: 5.374

2014-01-01

World Journal of Gastroenterology

Abstract:AIM: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of S-1-based vs non-S-1-based chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer (AGC). METHODS: We extracted reported endpoints, including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), time-to-treatment failure (TTF), objective response rate (ORR) and adverse effects, from randomized controlled trials identified in PubMed, the Cochrane library, Science Direct, EMBASE and American Society of Clinical Oncology meetings. Stata software was used to calculate the pooled values. RESULTS: Seven randomized controlled trials involving 2176 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to non-S-1-based regimens, the use of S-1-based regimens were associated with an increase in ORR (RR = 1.300; 95%CI: 1.028-1.645); OS (HR = 0.89; 95%CI: 0.81-0.99; P = 0.025), TTF (HR = 0.83; 95%CI: 0.75-0.92; P = 0.000), and a lower risk of febrile neutropenia (RR = 0.225; P = 0.000) and stomatitis (RR = 0.230; P = 0.032). OS, PFS and TTF were prolonged, especially in the Asian population. In subgroup analysis, statistically significant increases in ORR (RR = 1.454; P = 0.029), OS (HR = 0.895; P = 0.041) and TTF (HR = 0.832; P = 0.000) were found when S-1-based chemotherapy was compared to 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-based chemotherapy. The incidence of leukopenia (RR = 0.584; P = 0.002) and stomatitis (RR = 0.230; P = 0.032) was higher in the 5-FU-based arm. S-1-based regimens had no advantage in ORR, OS, PFS, TTF and grade 3 or 4 adverse events over capecitabine-based regimens. CONCLUSION: S-1-based chemotherapy may be a good choice for AGC because of longer survival times, better tolerance and more convenient use. (C) 2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
S-1 Monotherapy As Second Line Chemotherapy in Advanced Gastric Cancer Patients Previously Treated with Cisplatin/Infusional Fluorouracil

Fangfang Lv,Xin Liu,Biyun Wang,Haiyi Guo,Jin Li,Lin Shen,Maolin Jin

2014-01-01

Abstract:The treatment choice of advanced gastric carcinoma after failure from first-line therapy is quite limited. To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of S-1 monotherapy in patients with advanced gastric cancer after failure of first line cisplatin and fluorouracil combination (CF). S-1 monotherapy as a second line treatment was given to the patients who had failed to CF combination in SC-101 study. The efficacy and toxicity of S-1 monotherapy were evaluated exploratory. The results indicated that forty-one patients received S-1 as a second line therapy after disease progression. The overall response rate and disease control rate were 14.6% and 41.5%, respectively. The median progression free survival (PFS) was 5.1 months (range: 2.9~6.2 month). The median overall survival time was 6.4 months. The survival rates at 6 month and 1 year were 56% and 7.3%, respectively. Grade 3/4 adverse events were uncommonly occurred, including anemia (2.4%), neutropenia (2.4%), thrombocytopenia (4.9%) and rash (2.4%). There were no unexpected or life-threatening toxicities. Only one patient experienced dose reduction due to grade 3 rash. In conclusion, S-1 monotherapy provided a mild response rate and overall survival, and a favorable toxicity profile in the second line setting after the first line failure to cisplatin and fluorouracil combination.
Immunotherapy Combined with Chemotherapy Versus Chemotherapy Alone As the First‐line Treatment of PD‐L1‐negative and Driver‐gene‐negative Advanced Nonsquamous Non‐small‐cell Lung Cancer: an Updated Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis

Yun Chai,Xinyu Wu,Yifeng Zou,Xue Zhang,Hua Bai,Mei Dong,Jianchun Duan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1759-7714.14664

IF: 3.223

2022-01-01

Thoracic Cancer

Abstract:This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as the first-line therapy for patients with programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1)-negative and driver-gene-negative advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Eligible randomized trials were identified following the systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, Wanfang Data, and China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database from January 2000 to June 2022.Seven trials involving 1132 patients with PD-L1-negative and driver-gene-negative advanced nonsquamous NSCLC were included. Immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy showed significantly superior objective response rate (ORR) compared with chemotherapy alone (odds ratio 2.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.69-4.65). Immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy also significantly prolonged the progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.63, 95% CI 0.55-0.74, p < 0.001) and overall survival (OS) (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.56-0.82, p < 0.001) of patients with PD-L1-negative and driver-gene-negative advanced nonsquamous NSCLC compared to chemotherapy alone. In terms of ≥3 treatment-related adverse events, patients receiving immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy were at higher risk than chemotherapy alone (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.47-2.05).This meta-analysis suggested that immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy yielded a better ORR, PFS, and OS, and a higher incidence of treatment-related adverse events as the first-line therapy for patients with PD-L1-negative and driver-gene-negative nonsquamous advanced NSCLC in comparison to chemotherapy alone. A rational treatment protocol should be selected according to the individual condition of the patients.
Efficacy and safety of anlotinib combined with S‐1 as a third‐ or later‐line treatment for advanced non‐small cell lung cancer in China: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Haonan Xu,Yuwen Liang,Wenqiang Tang,Xiongxin Yang,Xiaobo Du

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2024.14746

2024-10-16

Oncology Letters

Abstract:Anlotinib is presently used as a third‐line treatment for non‐small cell lung cancer. However, it is not yet reported whether combining anlotinib with S‐1 as a third‐ or later‐line treatment offers superior outcomes compared with anlotinib alone. The present meta‐analysis aimed to address this question by systematically searching the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CMB and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases for eligible studies published from the establishment of the database to January 10, 2024. Primary outcomes of interest included progression‐free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) and the incidence of adverse effects, which were presented as hazard ratios and 95% CIs. The present analysis included 5 retrospective studies with a total of 317 patients and compared the outcomes of patients treated with a combination of anlotinib and S‐1 (experimental group) compared with anlotinib alone (control group). The combination treatment significantly improved PFS, OS, ORR and DCR in the experimental group compared with the control group. Bone marrow suppression and fatigue were significantly higher in the experimental group compared with the control group. However, incidences of hypertension, proteinuria, gastrointestinal adverse reactions, hepatic and renal insufficiency and functional hand‐foot syndrome were higher in the control group compared with the experimental group, but there was no statistical significance. In summary, combining anlotinib with S‐1 may be more effective compared with anlotinib alone for treating advanced non‐small cell lung cancer. Despite the higher incidence of adverse reactions with the combination therapy, these reactions could be considered manageable and controllable.

oncology
Advances of clinically approved small-molecule drugs for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer

Zhen-Xi Niu,Ya-Tao Wang,Nan Lu,Jin-Feng Sun,Peng Nie,Piet Herdewijn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmech.2023.115868

IF: 7.088

2023-10-15

European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry

Abstract:Lung cancer continues to pose a significant challenge as a prominent contributor to global cancer-related mortality. Despite the considerable strides made in therapeutic interventions within the past decade, a substantial population of patients diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) still face the grim reality of an incurable condition. In the realm of optimal management strategies for individuals afflicted with locally advanced, yet amenable to surgical resection, NSCLC, a therapeutic approach encompassing chemoradiation stands as a fundamental component. Significant strides have been made in the therapeutic landscape of NSCLC during the preceding two decades, facilitating an enhanced comprehension of the underlying disease biology, and mechanisms governing tumor progression, as well as advancements in early detection modalities and multimodal therapeutic interventions. Nevertheless, the overall rates of curative interventions and survival outcomes for NSCLC continue to exhibit a discouragingly low trajectory, particularly in the context of metastatic disease. Hence, the imperative for sustained research endeavors in the realm of novel pharmaceutical agents and combinatorial therapeutic approaches remains paramount, with the overarching objective of broadening the scope of clinical advantages conferred upon a wider demographic of patients, thereby fostering tangible improvements in outcomes pertaining to NSCLC. The primary objective of this review is to provide an all-encompassing examination encompassing the clinical application and synthetic routes of specific drugs, with the explicit aim of disseminating invaluable knowledge that can inform future research and development endeavors focused on NSCLC.

chemistry, medicinal
S-1 plus cisplatin versus fluorouracil plus cisplatin in advanced gastric or gastro-esophageal junction adenocarcinoma patients: a pilot study

yuhong li,miaozhen qiu,jianming xu,g sun,huishan lu,yunpeng liu,meizuo zhong,helong zhang,shiying yu,wei li,xiaohua hu,jiejun wang,ying cheng,juntian zhou,zengqing guo,zhongzhen guan,r xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.5959

2015-01-01

Oncotarget

Abstract:The safety and efficacy of S-1 plus cisplatin in Chinese advanced gastric cancer patients in first line setting is unknown. In this pilot study, patients with advanced gastric or gastro-esophageal junction adenocarcinoma were enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1: 1 ratio to receive S-1 plus cisplatin (CS group) or 5-FU plus cisplatin (CF group). The primary endpoint was time to progression (TTP). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and safety. This study was registered on ClinicalTrials. Gov, number NCT01198392. A total of 236 patients were enrolled. Median TTP was 5.51 months in CS group compared with 4.62 months in CF group [hazard ratio (HR) 1.028, 95% confidential interval (CI) 0.758-1.394, p = 0.859]. Median OS was 10.00 months and 10.46 months in CS and CF groups (HR 1.046, 95% CI 0.709-1.543, p = 0.820), respectively. The most common adverse events in both groups were anemia, leukopenia, neutropenia, nausea, thrombocytopenia, vomiting, anorexia and diarrhea. We find that S-1 plus cisplatin is an effective and tolerable option for advanced gastric or gastro-esophageal junction adenocarcinoma patients in China.
S-1-Based Chemotherapy Versus Capecitabine-Based Chemotherapy As First-Line Treatment for Advanced Gastric Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis

Ming-ming He,Wen-jing Wu,Feng Wang,Zhi-qiang Wang,Dong-sheng Zhang,Hui-yan Luo,Miao-zhen Qiu,Feng-hua Wang,Chao Ren,Zhao-lei Zeng,Rui-hua Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0082798

IF: 3.7

2013-01-01

PLoS ONE

Abstract:BackgroundAlthough both oral fluoropyrimidines were reported effective and safe, doubts exist about whether S-1 or capecitabine is more advantageous in advanced gastric carcinoma (AGC). Herein, we performed a meta-analysis to comprehensively compare the efficacy and safety of S-1-based chemotherapy versus capecitabine-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment for AGC.MethodsPubMed/Medline, EmBase, Cochrane library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched for articles comparing S-1-based chemotherapy to capecitabine-based chemotherapy for AGC. Primary outcomes were overall response rate (ORR), time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS), progression-free probability, and survival probability. Secondary outcomes were toxicities. Fixed-effects model were used and all the results were confirmed by random-effects model.ResultsFive randomized controlled trials and five cohort studies with 821 patients were included. We found equivalent ORR (38.3% vs. 39.1%, odds ratio [OR] 0.92, 95% conﬁdence interval [CI] 0.69-1.24, P = 0.59), TTP (harzad ratio [HR] 0.98, 95% CI 0.82-1.16, P = 0.79), OS (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87-1.13, P = 0.91), progression-free probability (3-month OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.62-1.68, P = 0.94; 6-month OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.88-2.04, P = 0.18) and survival probability (0.5-year OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.61-1.31, P =0.57; 1-year OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.70- 1.33, P = 0.84; 2-year OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.61-2.17, P = 0.66). Equivalent grade 3 to 4 hematological and non-hematological toxicities were found except hand-foot syndrome was less prominent in S-1-based chemotherapy (0.3% vs. 5.9%, OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.06-0.56, P = 0.003). There're no significant heterogeneity and publication bias. Cumulative analysis found stable time-dependent trend. Consistent results stratified by study design, age, regimen, cycle, country were observed.ConclusionS-1-based chemotherapy was associated with non-inferior antitumor efficacy and better safety profile, compared with capecitabine-based therapy. We recommended S-1 and capecitabine can be used interchangeably for AGC, at least in Asia.
Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of S-1-based and Capecitabine-Based Regimens in Gastrointestinal Cancer: a Meta-Analysis.

Xunlei Zhang,Chunxiang Cao,Qi Zhang,Yi Chen,Dongying Gu,Yunzhu Shen,Yongling Gong,Jinfei Chen,Cuiju Tang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0084230

IF: 3.7

2014-01-01

PLoS ONE

Abstract:PurposeOral fluoropyrimidine (S-1, capecitabine) has been considered as an important part of various regimens. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of S-1-based therapy versus capecitabine -based therapy in gastrointestinal cancers.MethodsEligible studies were identified from Pubmed, EMBASE. Additionally, abstracts presented at American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) conferences held between 2000 and 2013 were searched to identify relevant clinical trials. The outcome included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) and advent events.ResultsA total of 6 studies (4 RCTs and 2 retrospective analysis studies) containing 790 participants were included in this meta-analysis, including 401 patients in the S-1-based group and 389 patients in the capecitabine-based group. Results of our meta-analysis indicated that S-1-based and capecitabine-based regimens showed very similar efficacy in terms of PFS (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.78-1.09, P = 0.360), OS (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.84-1.21, P = 0.949), ORR (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.87-1.25, P = 0.683) and DCR (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94-1.10, P = 0.639). There was also no significant difference in toxicity between regimens other than mild more hand-foot syndrome in capecitabine-based regimens.ConclusionBoth the S-1-based and capecitabine-based regimens are equally active and well tolerated, and have the potential of backbone chemotherapy regimen in further studies of gastrointestinal cancers.
The Efficacy and Safety of Anlotinib Alone and in Combination with Other Drugs in Advanced Lung Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Lei Li,Hui Zhang,Yalin Xie,Ning Su,Shan Su,Xianlan Zhang,Wenchang Cen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1475871

2022-02-25

Abstract:Objective: Lung cancer is a disease associated with high levels of morbidity and mortality, with approximately 2.1 million new cases every year. Anlotinib is a new small-molecule multitarget tyrosine kinase inhibitor independently developed in China that can inhibit the formation of tumor blood vessels and has a therapeutic effect on various cancers. However, the application of anlotinib in lung cancer needs further investigation. Methods: We collected the progress notes of 43 patients with advanced lung cancer treated at the Oncology Department of Guangzhou Chest Hospital from March 2019 to March 2021. Additionally, we assessed the differences between drug combination therapy and single-drug therapy among patients treated with anlotinib. Results: Patients in both the anlotinib-combination and anlotinib-monotherapy groups experienced remission; however, the overall disease control rate in the anlotinib-combination group was higher than that in the anlotinib-monotherapy group. Reexamination via computed tomography showed that patients in the anlotinib-combination group had better recovery than those in the anlotinib-monotherapy group. Although the overall incidence of adverse reactions in the anlotinib-combination group was higher than that in the monotherapy group, most of the adverse reactions were I-II levels and improved after symptomatic treatment. Conclusion: Anlotinib combined with other therapies is better than anlotinib alone for the management of patients with advanced lung cancer.
The prospect of immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a narrative review

Xiangu Ning,Yang Yu,Songjun Shao,Rong Deng,Jie Yu,Xuming Wang,Xueke She,Depei Huang,Xudong Shen,Weiming Duan,Jin Duan,Hushan Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-21-4878

IF: 3.616

2021-11-01

Annals of Translational Medicine

Abstract:OBJECTIVE: Based on a thorough analysis of monotherapy (pembrolizumab) and chemoimmunotherapy, the immunomodulatory effects of chemotherapy agents are emphasized.BACKGROUND: The combination of chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors should and is already being regarded as a new standard strategy for the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC. As some scientists hold, chemoimmunotherapy is the beginning of a new era of lung cancer therapy. Scientists of this field are trying to make the perfect blend, that is, to explore the perfect condition for combination therapy. However, first, we should fully understand the specific role of chemotherapy agents in combination therapy and its specific mechanism. However, our current consideration of this aspect is not comprehensive enough. Based on a full understanding of the mechanisms and roles of these partner treatments, can the perfect blend or a more appropriate combination strategy of cancer immunotherapy be established?METHODS: Search and discuss the literature of pembrolizumab in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer, as well as previous studies on the immune regulatory function of chemotherapeutic agents, to analyze the mechanism of chemotherapeutic agents in combination immunotherapy.CONCLUSION: Here, we carefully analyzed the details of clinical trials of pembrolizumab in the treatment of NSCLC, and reviewed literature in this field. Therefore, we aim to put forward that chemoimmunotherapy is not a simple model of one plus another. Accordingly, we believe that the more likely role of chemotherapeutics in combination therapy with pembrolizumab is an immunomodulator. Based on this perspective, we propose that more attention and efforts should be devoted to understanding and exploring the immunomodulatory function of chemotherapy agents.

oncology,medicine, research & experimental
Medical treatment of non-small cell lung cancer:An update

Yong SONG,Jian-wei GAO

DOI: https://doi.org/10.16571/j.cnki.1008-8199.2017.11.001

2017-01-01

Abstract:Non-small cell lung cancer ( NSCLC) is the most common histological type and accounts for approximately 80%-85%of lung cancers , which can be classified into lung adenocarcinoma , squamous cell carcinomas , and so on.With the coming era of precise treatment, NSCLC is further divided into treatable oncogenic alterations negative-and positive-NSCLC.For patients without treatable oncogenic alterations , platinum-based chemotherapy remains the cornerstone of the treatment , and antiangiogenesis therapy al-so plays an important role in the subsequent treatment .For those with treatable oncogenic alterations , in addition to standard first gener-ation EGFR-TKIs and ALK-TKIs, second and third generation targeted drugs have been investigated in first line or post -resistance treat-ment.The application of immune checkpoint inhibitors has become a new trend of lung cancer treatment .Our review summarizes recent advances in chemotherapy , antiangiogenesis therapy ,target therapy , and immunotherapyof NSCLC .
Could S-1-based Non-Platinum Doublet Chemotherapy Be a New Option As a Second-Line Treatment for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients? A Multicenter Retrospective Study.

Xiangling Wang,Ting Wang,Yunxia Chu,Jie Liu,Cuihua Yi,Xuejun Yu,Yonggang Wang,Tianying Zheng,Fangli Cao,Linli Qu,Bo Yu,Huayong Liu,Fei Ding,Shuang Wang,Xiangbo Wang,Jing Hao,Xiuwen Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2023.1089234

IF: 4.7

2023-01-01

Frontiers in Oncology

Abstract:Background For patients who have contraindications to or have failed checkpoint inhibitors, chemotherapy remains the standard second-line option to treat non-oncogene-addicted advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of S-1-based non-platinum combination in advanced NSCLC patients who had failed platinum doublet chemotherapy. Methods During January 2015 and May 2020, advanced NSCLC patients who received S-1 plus docetaxel or gemcitabine after the failure of platinum-based chemotherapy were consecutively retrieved from eight cancer centers. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), and safety. By using the method of matching-adjusted indirect comparison, the individual PFS and OS of included patients were adjusted by weight matching and then compared with those of the docetaxel arm in a balanced trial population (East Asia S-1 Trial in Lung Cancer). Results A total of 87 patients met the inclusion criteria. The ORR was 22.89% (vs. 10% of historical control, p < 0.001) and the DCR was 80.72%. The median PFS and OS were 5.23 months (95% CI: 3.91–6.55 months) and 14.40 months (95% CI: 13.21–15.59 months), respectively. After matching with a balanced population in the docetaxel arm from the East Asia S-1 Trial in Lung Cancer, the weighted median PFS and OS were 7.90 months (vs. 2.89 months) and 19.37 months (vs. 12.52 months), respectively. Time to start of first subsequent therapy (TSFT) from first-line chemotherapy (TSFT > 9 months vs. TSFT ≤ 9 months) was an independent predictive factor of second-line PFS (8.7 months vs. 5.0 months, HR = 0.461, p = 0.049). The median OS in patients who achieved response was 23.5 months (95% CI: 11.8–31.6 months), which was significantly longer than those with stable disease (14.9 months, 95% CI: 12.9–19.4 months, p < 0.001) or progression (4.9 months, 95% CI: 3.2–9.5 months, p < 0.001). The most common adverse events were anemia (60.92%), nausea (55.17%), and leukocytopenia (33.33%). Conclusions S-1-based non-platinum combination had promising efficacy and safety in advanced NSCLC patients who had failed platinum doublet chemotherapy, suggesting that it could be a favorable second-line treatment option.
An Open-Label, Randomized, Multicenter, Phase III Study of S-1 and Cisplatin Versus Docetaxel and Cisplatin in Patients with Untreated Advanced Non-Small-cell Lung Cancer.

Jianxing He,Yuankai Shi,Jianhua Chang,Mengzhao Wang,Baohui Han,Xiaoqing Liu,Gongyan Chen,Caicun Zhou,Jiwei Liu,Hongming Pan,Cheng Huang,Shucai Zhang,Jifeng Feng,Xiaoyan Lin,Jie Wang,Jianjin Huang,Fang Li,Shukui Qin,Zhehai Wang,Liwei Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2015.33.15_suppl.8039

IF: 45.3

2015-01-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:8039 Background: Platinum-based doublet chemotherapy is the standard chemotherapy regimen for treatment-naïve advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC). S-1, an oral fluoropyrimidine, combined with carboplatin or cisplatin (CDDP) has shown no less efficacy than standard platinum doublet chemotherapy in Japanese NSCLC patients. However, the effectiveness in Chinese NSCLC patients is uncertain. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of these chemotherapy regimens in Chinese NSCLC patients. Methods: In this study, we recruited patients aged 18-70 years with stage IIIB, IV or recurrence, histologically or cytologically confirmed NSCLC, ECOG performance status of 0-1, have at least one measurable lesion, and adequate organ function. Patients were randomized in 1:1 ratio to receive either S-1 (80–120 mg/day, PO, BID, days 1 to 21) with 60 mg/m2 CDDP on day 8 every 5 weeks (SP) or docetaxel and CDDP (both 75 mg/m2) on day 1 every 3 weeks (DP), for up to 6 cycles. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) and all CT scans were extramurally reviewed by Independent Review Committee (IRC). Non-inferiority study design was employed as upper confidence interval (CI) limit for hazard ratio (HR) < 1.33. Results: Between March 2011 and November 2012, 246 patients from 21 institutions in China were randomly assigned and received SP or DP treatment (124 vs 122) with 18-month follow-up period from the last patient randomized. In the SP and DP group, median PFS was 5.9 and 5.7 months (HR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.96) respectively, median overall survival was 19.1 and 14.8 months, respectively (HR = 0.84; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.14). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in both treatment groups were neutropenia 3.3% vs 55.1%, leukopenia 1.7% vs 39.0%, and febrile neutropenia 0.8% vs 5.9%, of 121 patients in the SP group and of 118 patients in the DP group, respectively. Conclusions: The efficacy of SP was non-inferior to DP. Well-tolerated safety could be provided by SP regimen. SP would be a new first-line chemotherapy regimen for Chinese patients with advanced NSCLC. Clinical trial information: Japic CTI-111479.

Advances in monotherapy and combination therapy of S-1 for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a narrative review

Anlotinib-containing Regimen for Advanced Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Protocol of Meta-Analysis

Efficacy and outcome analysis: monotherapy and combination therapy of S-1 for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

S-1 As Monotherapy or in Combination with Leucovorin As Second-Line Treatment in Gemcitabine-Refractory Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: a Randomized, Open-Label, Multicenter, Phase II Study.

A Meta-Analysis of Safety and Efficacy on First-Line S-1 Therapy in Cancer Patients.

Therapeutic Efficacy and Safety of S-1-Based Combination Therapy Compare with S-1 Monotherapy Following Gemcitabine Failure in Pancreatic Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

New advances in antiangiogenic combination therapeutic strategies for advanced non-small cell lung cancer

S-1-basedvsnon-S-1-based Chemotherapy in Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

S-1-based vs non-S-1-based chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer: a meta-analysis.

S-1 Monotherapy As Second Line Chemotherapy in Advanced Gastric Cancer Patients Previously Treated with Cisplatin/Infusional Fluorouracil

Immunotherapy Combined with Chemotherapy Versus Chemotherapy Alone As the First‐line Treatment of PD‐L1‐negative and Driver‐gene‐negative Advanced Nonsquamous Non‐small‐cell Lung Cancer: an Updated Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis

Efficacy and safety of anlotinib combined with S‐1 as a third‐ or later‐line treatment for advanced non‐small cell lung cancer in China: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Advances of clinically approved small-molecule drugs for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer

S-1 plus cisplatin versus fluorouracil plus cisplatin in advanced gastric or gastro-esophageal junction adenocarcinoma patients: a pilot study

S-1-Based Chemotherapy Versus Capecitabine-Based Chemotherapy As First-Line Treatment for Advanced Gastric Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of S-1-based and Capecitabine-Based Regimens in Gastrointestinal Cancer: a Meta-Analysis.

The Efficacy and Safety of Anlotinib Alone and in Combination with Other Drugs in Advanced Lung Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study

The prospect of immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a narrative review

Medical treatment of non-small cell lung cancer:An update

Could S-1-based Non-Platinum Doublet Chemotherapy Be a New Option As a Second-Line Treatment for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients? A Multicenter Retrospective Study.

An Open-Label, Randomized, Multicenter, Phase III Study of S-1 and Cisplatin Versus Docetaxel and Cisplatin in Patients with Untreated Advanced Non-Small-cell Lung Cancer.