Efficacy of adjuvant S-1 vs capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) chemotherapy among gastric cancer patients after D2 gastrectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

e16115 Background: Adjuvant chemotherapy improves outcomes after D2 gastrectomy for gastric cancer. S-1 and XELOX are commonly used regimens, but their relative efficacy remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing S-1 therapy with XELOX in gastric cancer patients undergoing D2 gastrectomy. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search across five databases: PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov for articles comparing efficacy and safety of S-1 vs XELOX adjuvant chemotherapies in gastric cancer patients after D2 gastrectomy. Nine studies fulfilling the eligibility criteria were included in the review and analysis. The analysis was conducted on RStudio v4.5.0 using the 'meta' package. The generic inverse variance method was used for continuous data, and the Mantel–Haenszel method was used for binary data. The pooled analysis is presented as hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Nine studies evaluating S-1 vs XELOX were included. There was no significant difference in DFS (HR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.72 – 1.22; p-value = 0.634; I 2 = 88.1%) or OS (HR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.59 – 1.21; p-value = 0.363; I 2 = 79%) between the two regimens. One-year DFS (OR: 1.26, 95% CI: 0.71 – 2.23; p = 0.421; I 2 = 76.9%), 3-year DFS (OR: 1.18, 95% CI: 0.75 – 1.85; p = 0.483; I 2 = 85.3%), and 5-year DFS (OR: 1.34, 95% CI: 0.95 – 1.89; p = 0.101; I 2 = 74.4%) were similar between S-1 and XELOX. Likewise, 1-year OS, 3-year OS, and 5-year OS showed no significant differences between the two regimens: (OR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.33 – 2.90; p = 0.961; I 2 = 86.6%), (OR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.69 – 2.08; p = 0.517; I 2 = 85.3%), and (OR: 1.55, 95% CI: 0.99 – 2.42; p = 0.054; I 2 = 87.7%), respectively. Heterogeneity was moderate to high across outcomes, but results were robust on sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: Among gastric cancer patients following D2 gastrectomy, adjuvant S-1 demonstrates efficacy comparable to XELOX, with no significant differences observed in disease-free or overall survival across short- and long-term follow-up.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2026-05-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2026.44.16_suppl.e16115
Primary Topic
Gastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Efficacy of adjuvant S-1 vs capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) chemotherapy among gastric cancer patients after D2 gastrectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abu Huraira Bin Gulzar, Eeshal Fatima, Safi Ur Rehman Daim, Syeda Takreem Fatima et al.
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Gastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
article

Efficacy of adjuvant S-1 vs capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) chemotherapy among gastric cancer patients after D2 gastrectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abu Huraira Bin Gulzar, Eeshal Fatima, Safi Ur Rehman Daim, Syeda Takreem Fatima, Ali Hamza, Hiba Sohail, FNU Kalpina, A H M E D Raza, Zaheer Qureshi
article en

Abstract

e16115 Background: Adjuvant chemotherapy improves outcomes after D2 gastrectomy for gastric cancer. S-1 and XELOX are commonly used regimens, but their relative efficacy remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing S-1 therapy with XELOX in gastric cancer patients undergoing D2 gastrectomy. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search across five databases: PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov for articles comparing efficacy and safety of S-1 vs XELOX adjuvant chemotherapies in gastric cancer patients after D2 gastrectomy. Nine studies fulfilling the eligibility criteria were included in the review and analysis. The analysis was conducted on RStudio v4.5.0 using the 'meta' package. The generic inverse variance method was used for continuous data, and the Mantel–Haenszel method was used for binary data. The pooled analysis is presented as hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Nine studies evaluating S-1 vs XELOX were included. There was no significant difference in DFS (HR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.72 – 1.22; p-value = 0.634; I 2 = 88.1%) or OS (HR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.59 – 1.21; p-value = 0.363; I 2 = 79%) between the two regimens. One-year DFS (OR: 1.26, 95% CI: 0.71 – 2.23; p = 0.421; I 2 = 76.9%), 3-year DFS (OR: 1.18, 95% CI: 0.75 – 1.85; p = 0.483; I 2 = 85.3%), and 5-year DFS (OR: 1.34, 95% CI: 0.95 – 1.89; p = 0.101; I 2 = 74.4%) were similar between S-1 and XELOX. Likewise, 1-year OS, 3-year OS, and 5-year OS showed no significant differences between the two regimens: (OR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.33 – 2.90; p = 0.961; I 2 = 86.6%), (OR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.69 – 2.08; p = 0.517; I 2 = 85.3%), and (OR: 1.55, 95% CI: 0.99 – 2.42; p = 0.054; I 2 = 87.7%), respectively. Heterogeneity was moderate to high across outcomes, but results were robust on sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: Among gastric cancer patients following D2 gastrectomy, adjuvant S-1 demonstrates efficacy comparable to XELOX, with no significant differences observed in disease-free or overall survival across short- and long-term follow-up.

Journal of Clinical OncologyVol. 44(16_suppl)
Services Institute of Medical Sciences (PK), Carle Foundation Hospital (US), Dow University of Health Sciences (PK), Rowan University (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Gastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.