Comparison of efficacy and safety of S-1 and capecitabine in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of S-1 and capecitabine in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma (mCRC). METHODS: Eligible prospective clinical trials were searched and available data were extracted. Odds ratio and hazard ratio of available outcomes including objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs) were pooled for analysis. RESULTS: A total of 6 studies including 828 patients were included. The results of pooled analysis showed no statistical difference in short-term efficacy including ORR (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68-1.19; P = .48) or DCR (95% CI: 0.65-1.29; P = .61), or long-term efficacy including PFS (95% CI: 0.75-1.08; P = .26) or OS (95% CI: 0.78-1.13; P = .50). Symptoms of diarrhea at any grade were more prevalent (95% CI: 1.21-2.29; P = .002) in patients treated with S-1, while hand-foot syndrome (HFS) at any grade (95% CI: 0.24-0.48; P < .0001) or high grade (95% CI: 0.09-0.48; P < .0001) was more frequent in capecitabine group. AEs including leucopenia, neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, vomiting, oral mucositis, stomatitis, elevated alanine transaminase, or peripheral neuropathy showed no statistical difference between S-1 and capecitabine group (all P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis reveals that S-1 has comparable efficacy, lower risk of HFS and higher incidence of diarrhea compared to capecitabine for treatment in patients with mCRC.