Efficacy and safety of SOX and mFOLFOX6 chemotherapy regimen for advanced gastric cancer

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-2015.2024.01.012

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To analyze and compare the clinical efficacy and safety of SOX chemotherapy regimen (tegafur+oxaliplatin) and mFOLFOX6 chemotherapy regimen (oxaliplatin+ calcium folinate+ fluorouracil) for first-line chemotherapy of advanced gastric cancer.

Methods

A total of 80 patients with advanced gastric cancer admitted to Taihe County People's Hospital from January 1, 2018 to March 31, 2022 were prospectively included in this study, and all the patients were divided into control group (using mFOLFOX6 chemotherapy regimen) and research group (using SOX chemotherapy regimen) according to the random alphabet method, with 40 cases in each group. Patients of the two groups were treated with chemotherapy for 2 cycles. The clinical efficacy, serum tumor marker level and quality of life were compared between the two groups after chemotherapy. The patients were followed up for 1 year to observe the survival of the patients after chemotherapy, and the progression-free survival was calculated by Kaplan-Meier survival curve. Meanwhile, the incidence of adverse reactions during chemotherapy was compared between the two groups.

Results

The total clinical effective rate and total disease control rate of the study group were better than those of the control group (P<0.05), and there were no statistically significant difference in the complete remission rate and partial remission rate between the two groups (P>0.05). Before chemotherapy, there were no statistically significant differences in CEA, CA199 and KPS score between the two groups (P>0.05). After chemotherapy, CEA and CA199 levels of the two groups were significantly decreased, and the study group was lower than the control group (P<0.05), and the KPS scores of the two groups were significantly increased, and the study group was higher than the control group (P<0.05). After 1-year follow-up, the progression-free survival of the study group was significantly longer than that of the control group (P<0.001), and the total incidence of adverse reactions during chemotherapy was not statistically significant when comparing the two groups (P>0.05).

Conclusion

Compared with mFOLFOX6 chemotherapy regimen, the treatment of advanced gastric cancer patients with SOX chemotherapy regimen has better clinical efficacy, quality of life is improved, progression-free survival is prolonged.

Key words: Advanced gastric cancer, Chemotherapy, Clinical efficacy, Progression-free survival, Adverse effects

Xuemei Ge. Efficacy and safety of SOX and mFOLFOX6 chemotherapy regimen for advanced gastric cancer[J]. Chinese Journal of Digestion and Medical Imageology(Electronic Edition), 2024, 14(01): 67-71.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhxhbyyxzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-2015.2024.01.012

https://zhxhbyyxzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2024/V14/I01/67

Figures/Tables 5

References 20

[1]	Smyth EC, Nilsson M, Grabsch HI, et al. Gastric cancer[J]. Lancet, 2020, 396(10251): 635-648.
[2]	Lopez MJ, Carbajal J, Alfaro AL, et al. Characteristics of Gastric Cancer Around The World[J]. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol, 2022: 103841.
[3]	Ajani JA, D'amico TA, Bentrem DJ, et al. Gastric Cancer, Version 2. 2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology[J]. J Natl Compr Canc Netw, 2022, 20(2): 167-192.
[4]	Norwood DA, Montalvan-Sanchez E, Dominguez RL, et al. Gastric Cancer: Emerging Trends in Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment[J]. Gastroenterol Clin North Am, 2022, 51(3): 501-518.
[5]	Li GZ, Doherty GM, Wang J. Surgical Management of Gastric Cancer: A Review[J]. JAMA Surg, 2022, 157(5): 446-454.
[6]	Kubota Y, Kawazoe A, Mishima S, et al. Comprehensive clinical and molecular characterization of claudin 18. 2 expression in advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer[J]. ESMO Open, 2023, 8(1): 100762.
[7]	贾新立, 何世威, 田秀岭, 等. 甲磺酸阿帕替尼治疗晚期胃癌的疗效及安全性分析[J]. 现代肿瘤医学, 2021, 29(7): 1192-1195.
[8]	McNair KM, Zeitlin D, Slivka AM, et al. Translation of Karnofsky Performance Status(KPS) for use in inpatient cancer rehabilitation[J]. PM R, 2023, 15(1): 65-68.
[9]	Buddle JE, Fagan RP. Pathogenicity and virulence of Clostridioides difficile[J]. Virulence, 2023, 14(1): 2150452.
[10]	Mohammadi F, Oshvandi K, Kamallan SR, et al. Effectiveness of sodium bicarbonate and zinc chloride mouthwashes in the treatment of oral mucositis and quality of life in patients with cancer under chemotherapy[J]. Nurs Open, 2022, 9(3): 1602-1611.
[11]	Cao LL, Peng M, Xie X, et al. Artificial intelligence in liver ultrasound[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2022, 28(27): 3398-3409.
[12]	Seeneevassen L, Bessède E, Mégraud F, et al. Gastric Cancer: Advances in Carcinogenesis Research and New Therapeutic Strategies[J]. Int J Mol Sci, 2021, 22(7): 3418.
[13]	Ilson DH. Advances in the treatment of gastric cancer: 2020-2021[J]. Curr Opin Gastroenterol, 2021, 37(6): 615-618.
[14]	Kang YK, Yook JH, Park YK, et al. PRODIGY: A Phase III Study of Neoadjuvant Docetaxel, Oxaliplatin, and S-1 Plus Surgery and Adjuvant S-1 Versus Surgery and Adjuvant S-1 for Resectable Advanced Gastric Cancer[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2021, 39(26): 2903-2913.
[15]	曾毅栋, 刘志奇. S-1联合奥沙利铂一线治疗晚期胃癌临床疗效分析[J]. 现代诊断与治疗, 2017, 28(02): 246-248.
[16]	郭洪波, 范招银, 朱珠, 等. 奥沙利铂联合氟尿嘧啶治疗晚期胃癌的近期疗效及预后[J]. 临床合理用药杂志, 2022, 15(35): 80-82.
[17]	傅燕群, 吴清艺, 苏新莹. 卡培他滨+奥沙利铂(XELOX)方案与5-氟尿嘧啶+亚叶酸钙+奥沙利铂(FOLFOXs)在晚期胃癌治疗中的疗效对比[J]. 中外医疗, 2020, 39(1): 93-95.
[18]	佟强. 紫杉醇联合亚叶酸钙和氟尿嘧啶辅助治疗晚期胃癌疗效的回顾性研究[J]. 中国医药指南, 2020, 18(30): 79-80.
[19]	付贵, 宋娜莎, 裴志东. FOLFOX、SOX、mFOLFOX6化疗方案治疗晚期胃癌的对照研究[J]. 深圳中西医结合杂志, 2023, 33(1): 19-22, 137.
[20]	封芳, 胡韶军. 阿帕替尼联合SOX化疗方案对晚期胃癌患者近期疗效及免疫功能的影响[J]. 中国医学创新, 2022, 19(36): 54-59.

组别	例数	性别[例(%)]		年龄(岁,±s)	ECOG评分(±s)	转移情况[例(%)]		病理类型[例(%)]
组别	例数	男	女	年龄(岁,±s)	ECOG评分(±s)	单一	2个及以上	低分化	高分化
对照组	40	30(75.00)	10(25.00)	69.77±10.96	65.15±2.75	28(70.00)	12(30.00)	30(75.00)	10(25.00)
研究组	40	29(72.5)	11(27.5)	63.75±10.99	67.52±11.73	24(60.00)	16(40.00)	23(57.50)	17(42.50)
t/χ²		0.065		4.6472)	5.279	0.879		2.739
P		0.799		0.162	0.792	0.348		0.097

组别	例数	性别[例(%)]		年龄(岁,±s)	ECOG评分(±s)	转移情况[例(%)]		病理类型[例(%)]
组别	例数	男	女	年龄(岁,±s)	ECOG评分(±s)	单一	2个及以上	低分化	高分化
对照组	40	30(75.00)	10(25.00)	69.77±10.96	65.15±2.75	28(70.00)	12(30.00)	30(75.00)	10(25.00)
研究组	40	29(72.5)	11(27.5)	63.75±10.99	67.52±11.73	24(60.00)	16(40.00)	23(57.50)	17(42.50)
t/χ²		0.065		4.6472)	5.279	0.879		2.739
P		0.799		0.162	0.792	0.348		0.097

组别	例数	完全缓解	部分缓解	稳定	病情进展	总有效率	总疾病控制率
对照组	40	10(25.00)	13(32.50)	6(15.00)	11(27.50)	23(57.50)	29(72.50)
研究组	40	15(37.50)	16(40.00)	8(20.00)	1(2.50)	31(77.50)	39(97.50)
χ²		00.938	0.310	0.286	8.333	1.185	3.374
P		0.317	0.577	0.592	0.003	0.276	0.046

组别	例数	完全缓解	部分缓解	稳定	病情进展	总有效率	总疾病控制率
对照组	40	10(25.00)	13(32.50)	6(15.00)	11(27.50)	23(57.50)	29(72.50)
研究组	40	15(37.50)	16(40.00)	8(20.00)	1(2.50)	31(77.50)	39(97.50)
χ²		00.938	0.310	0.286	8.333	1.185	3.374
P		0.317	0.577	0.592	0.003	0.276	0.046

组别	例数	CEA(ng/mL)				CA199(IU/mL)
组别	例数	化疗前	化疗后	t	P^a	化疗前	化疗后	t	P^a
对照组	40	47.16±5.34	29.37±3.67	5.617	0.032	81.63±8.52	46.01±4.77	4.611	0.023
研究组	40	46.61±4.26	25.10±3.42	3.384	0.046	81.81±8.72	42.51±4.05	6.682	0.015
t		3.482	6.334			1.471	7.439
P		0.273	0.023			0.602	0.018

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export