Article Sidebar
Published:
May 11, 2018Keywords:
Article Details
Submission of a manuscript to this journal is a representation that the manuscript has not been published previously and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.
All authors named in each manuscript would be required to sign a form (to be supplied by the Editor) so that they may retain their copyright in the article but to assign to us (the Publishers) and its licensees in perpetuity, in all forms, formats and media (whether known or created in the future) to (i) publish, reproduce, distribute, display and store the contribution, (ii) translate the contribution into other languages, create adaptations, reprints, include within collections and create summaries, extracts and/or abstracts of the contribution, (iii) create any other derivative works(s) based on the contribution, (iv) to exploit all subsidiary rights in the contribution, (v) the inclusion of electronic links from the contribution to third party material where-ever it may be located, and (vi) license any thrid party to do any or all of the above.
Main Article Content
Comparison of capecitabine and tegafur/gimeracil/oteracil (S-1) in the treatment of advanced breast carcinoma in the elderly
Abstract
Purpose: To analyse and compare the clinical effects and safety of capecitabine and tegafur/gimeracil/oteracil (S-1) in the treatment of advanced breast carcinoma.
Methods: Eighty-four metastatic breast cancer elderly patients for whom first or second-line treatment had failed, were selected from among those admitted to the oncology ward of Binjiang People’s Hospital, China between January 2014 and June 2015. They were randomly divided into S-1 group (n =41) and capecitabine group (n = 41) and received varying doses of those drugs according to body surface area. Clinical effects, progression-free survival, and incidence of adverse reactions were compared for the two groups following treatment.
Results: Disease control rate (CR) in S-1 group was 55.6 %, much higher than 35.1 % observed for capecitabine group (p < 0.05). The disease control rate for the S-1 group was 93.7 %, also much higher than the 70.6 % found in capecitabine group. Survival analysis showed that the median survival times of the two groups did not differ significantly (p > 0.05). Furthermore, some adverse reactions such as myelosuppression and lack of strength, did not differ significantly between the two groups (p > 0.05), whereas others, including leukopenia, nausea and vomiting and hand-foot syndrome were more serious and frequent in capecitabine group than in S-1 group (p < 0.05).
Conclusion: Monotherapy with S-1 is more effective than that with capecitabine. Adverse reactions are minimal for both drugs.
Keywords: Breast carcinoma, Capecitabine, S-1, Adverse reactions, Myelosuppression, Leukopenia, Hand-foot syndrome
