Copyright
©2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Co.
World J Gastroenterol. Apr 14, 2014; 20(14): 3905-3915
Published online Apr 14, 2014. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i14.3905
Published online Apr 14, 2014. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i14.3905
Ref. | Regimen | No. of patients | Response rate | Median PFS/TTP and OS (mo) |
Van Cutsem et al[23] | DCF vs CF | 445 | 37% vs 25% | TTP, 5.6 vs 3.7; OS, 9.2 vs 8.6 |
Cunningham et al[20] | EOF vs EOX vs ECX vs ECF | 1002 | 42.4% vs 47.9% vs 46.4% vs 40.7% | PFS, 6.5 vs 7.0 vs 6.7 vs 6.2;OS, 9.3 vs 11.2 vs 9.9 vs 9.9 |
Kang et al[21] | CX vs CF | 316 | 41% vs 29% | PFS, 5.6 vs 5.0; OS, 10.5 vs 9.3 |
Al-Batran et al[24] | FLC vs FLO | 220 | 34.8% vs 24.5% | PFS, 5.8 vs 3.9; OS, 10.7 vs 8.8 |
Dank et al[32] | IF vs CF | 333 | 31.8% vs 25.8% | TTP, 5.0 vs 4.2; OS, 9.0 vs 8.7 |
Koizumi et al[36] | CS vs S | 305 | 54% vs 31% | PFS, 6.0 vs 4.0; OS, 13 vs 11 |
Ajani et al[39] | CS vs CF | 1053 | 29.1% vs 31.9% | PFS, 4.8 vs 5.5; OS, 8.6 vs 7.9 |
Yoshida et al[40] | DS vs S | 635 | 38.8% vs 26.8% | PFS, 5.29 vs 4.17; OS, 12.48 vs 10.78 |
- Citation: Bilici A. Treatment options in patients with metastatic gastric cancer: Current status and future perspectives. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20(14): 3905-3915
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v20/i14/3905.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v20.i14.3905