Efficacy and safety of raltitrexed plus S-1 regorafenib in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a real-world propensity score matching study
Background: Raltitrexed plus S-1 (RS) and regorafenib both showed considerable efficacy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. This study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of two different regimens in patients with refractory mCRC. Methods: This retrospective cohort study inclu...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Yu-Wen Zhou [verfasserIn] Jia-Ling Wang [verfasserIn] Qing-Fang Li [verfasserIn] Yuan-Lin He [verfasserIn] Lin-Juan Li [verfasserIn] Rui-Zhi Liu [verfasserIn] Ye Chen [verfasserIn] Shuang Zhang [verfasserIn] Meng Qiu [verfasserIn] Ji-Yan Liu [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2022 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
In: Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology - SAGE Publishing, 2018, 15(2022) |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:15 ; year:2022 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1177/17562848221098246 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
DOAJ041638638 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | DOAJ041638638 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230503024942.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 230227s2022 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1177/17562848221098246 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)DOAJ041638638 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)DOAJ08c84f2b75664e119d3f20bab9e93c89 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 050 | 0 | |a RC799-869 | |
| 100 | 0 | |a Yu-Wen Zhou |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Efficacy and safety of raltitrexed plus S-1 regorafenib in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a real-world propensity score matching study |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2022 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Background: Raltitrexed plus S-1 (RS) and regorafenib both showed considerable efficacy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. This study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of two different regimens in patients with refractory mCRC. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included mCRC patients who were treated with RS or regorafenib from February 2017 to June 2021. A propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to balance the baseline characteristics of all patients. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), tumor response, and safety of two regimens were evaluated. Results: A total of 187 patients were included in our study, with 107 patients in the RS group and 80 patients in the regorafenib group. After PSM, 78 pairs were recognized. Patients treated with RS had a semblable PFS compared to those treated with regorafenib before PSM (4.8 months vs 5.5 months, p = 0.400) and after PSM (4.7 months vs 5.4 months, p = 0.430). Patients in the RS group were associated with a longer OS than those in the regorafenib group (13.4 months vs 10.1 months, p = 0.010). A similar trend of OS was also obtained in the matched cohort (13.3 months vs 10.0 months, p = 0.024). Both objective response rate (12.8% vs 5.1%, p = 0.093) and disease control rate (53.8% vs 46.2%, p = 0.337) in the RS cohort were higher than those in the regorafenib group, without significant differences. Adverse events (AEs) of each group were well tolerated. Conclusion: Patients treated with RS demonstrated a longer OS than those treated with regorafenib and had manageable AEs, which could be recognized as a primary choice for refractory mCRC. Plain Language Summary Efficacy and Safety of Raltitrexed plus S-1 Versus Regorafenib in Patients with Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Real - world Propensity Score Matching Study Both raltitrexed plus S-1 (RS) and regorafenib showed considerable efficacy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. No study has compared the two regimens yet. Therefore, we compare the efficacy and safety between RS and regorafenib to provide an optimal treatment option. We retrospectively included patients with mCRC who failed at least two standard treatments. All enrolled patients received RS or regorafenib treatments. We conducted a propensity score matching to eliminate differences in the enrolled patients. After the analysis, we found no significant differences in progression-free survival in patients between the two groups. However, patients treated with RS had a longer OS than those treated with regorafenib, whether before matching (13.4 months vs 10.1 months, p = 0.010) or after matching (13.3 months vs 10.0 months, p = 0.024). In addition, the adverse effects caused by cancer-related therapy were tolerable for the patient. Certainly, this is a non-randomized retrospective study with a small sample size, so we conducted a propensity score matching to minimize potential bias. Importantly, this is the first research comparing the two treatments, and we believe that the results of this article could present a primary choice for clinical doctors dealing with patients with standard treatments that failed mCRC. | ||
| 653 | 0 | |a Diseases of the digestive system. Gastroenterology | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Jia-Ling Wang |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Qing-Fang Li |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Yuan-Lin He |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Lin-Juan Li |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Rui-Zhi Liu |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Ye Chen |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Shuang Zhang |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Meng Qiu |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Ji-Yan Liu |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i In |t Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology |d SAGE Publishing, 2018 |g 15(2022) |w (DE-627)573742669 |w (DE-600)2440710-0 |x 17562848 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:15 |g year:2022 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1177/17562848221098246 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doaj.org/article/08c84f2b75664e119d3f20bab9e93c89 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1177/17562848221098246 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/1756-2848 |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_DOAJ | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHA | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_20 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_23 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_24 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_31 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_32 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_39 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_60 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_62 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_63 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_65 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_69 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_73 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_74 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_95 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_105 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_110 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_120 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_121 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_151 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_161 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_170 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_206 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_213 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_230 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_285 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_293 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_374 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_602 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2014 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2704 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2707 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2889 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2890 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4037 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4125 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4126 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4249 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4305 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4306 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4307 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4313 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4322 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4323 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4324 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4325 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4338 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4367 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4700 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 15 |j 2022 | ||
| author_variant |
y w z ywz j l w jlw q f l qfl y l h ylh l j l ljl r z l rzl y c yc s z sz m q mq j y l jyl |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:17562848:2022----::fiaynsftorlirxdls1eoaeiiptetwtrfatrmtsaiclrcacnea |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2022 |
| callnumber-subject-code |
RC |
| publishDate |
2022 |
| allfields |
10.1177/17562848221098246 doi (DE-627)DOAJ041638638 (DE-599)DOAJ08c84f2b75664e119d3f20bab9e93c89 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC799-869 Yu-Wen Zhou verfasserin aut Efficacy and safety of raltitrexed plus S-1 regorafenib in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a real-world propensity score matching study 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Raltitrexed plus S-1 (RS) and regorafenib both showed considerable efficacy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. This study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of two different regimens in patients with refractory mCRC. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included mCRC patients who were treated with RS or regorafenib from February 2017 to June 2021. A propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to balance the baseline characteristics of all patients. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), tumor response, and safety of two regimens were evaluated. Results: A total of 187 patients were included in our study, with 107 patients in the RS group and 80 patients in the regorafenib group. After PSM, 78 pairs were recognized. Patients treated with RS had a semblable PFS compared to those treated with regorafenib before PSM (4.8 months vs 5.5 months, p = 0.400) and after PSM (4.7 months vs 5.4 months, p = 0.430). Patients in the RS group were associated with a longer OS than those in the regorafenib group (13.4 months vs 10.1 months, p = 0.010). A similar trend of OS was also obtained in the matched cohort (13.3 months vs 10.0 months, p = 0.024). Both objective response rate (12.8% vs 5.1%, p = 0.093) and disease control rate (53.8% vs 46.2%, p = 0.337) in the RS cohort were higher than those in the regorafenib group, without significant differences. Adverse events (AEs) of each group were well tolerated. Conclusion: Patients treated with RS demonstrated a longer OS than those treated with regorafenib and had manageable AEs, which could be recognized as a primary choice for refractory mCRC. Plain Language Summary Efficacy and Safety of Raltitrexed plus S-1 Versus Regorafenib in Patients with Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Real - world Propensity Score Matching Study Both raltitrexed plus S-1 (RS) and regorafenib showed considerable efficacy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. No study has compared the two regimens yet. Therefore, we compare the efficacy and safety between RS and regorafenib to provide an optimal treatment option. We retrospectively included patients with mCRC who failed at least two standard treatments. All enrolled patients received RS or regorafenib treatments. We conducted a propensity score matching to eliminate differences in the enrolled patients. After the analysis, we found no significant differences in progression-free survival in patients between the two groups. However, patients treated with RS had a longer OS than those treated with regorafenib, whether before matching (13.4 months vs 10.1 months, p = 0.010) or after matching (13.3 months vs 10.0 months, p = 0.024). In addition, the adverse effects caused by cancer-related therapy were tolerable for the patient. Certainly, this is a non-randomized retrospective study with a small sample size, so we conducted a propensity score matching to minimize potential bias. Importantly, this is the first research comparing the two treatments, and we believe that the results of this article could present a primary choice for clinical doctors dealing with patients with standard treatments that failed mCRC. Diseases of the digestive system. Gastroenterology Jia-Ling Wang verfasserin aut Qing-Fang Li verfasserin aut Yuan-Lin He verfasserin aut Lin-Juan Li verfasserin aut Rui-Zhi Liu verfasserin aut Ye Chen verfasserin aut Shuang Zhang verfasserin aut Meng Qiu verfasserin aut Ji-Yan Liu verfasserin aut In Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology SAGE Publishing, 2018 15(2022) (DE-627)573742669 (DE-600)2440710-0 17562848 nnns volume:15 year:2022 https://doi.org/10.1177/17562848221098246 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/08c84f2b75664e119d3f20bab9e93c89 kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1177/17562848221098246 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1756-2848 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_121 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_374 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2704 GBV_ILN_2707 GBV_ILN_2889 GBV_ILN_2890 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 15 2022 |
| spelling |
10.1177/17562848221098246 doi (DE-627)DOAJ041638638 (DE-599)DOAJ08c84f2b75664e119d3f20bab9e93c89 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC799-869 Yu-Wen Zhou verfasserin aut Efficacy and safety of raltitrexed plus S-1 regorafenib in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a real-world propensity score matching study 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Raltitrexed plus S-1 (RS) and regorafenib both showed considerable efficacy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. This study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of two different regimens in patients with refractory mCRC. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included mCRC patients who were treated with RS or regorafenib from February 2017 to June 2021. A propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to balance the baseline characteristics of all patients. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), tumor response, and safety of two regimens were evaluated. Results: A total of 187 patients were included in our study, with 107 patients in the RS group and 80 patients in the regorafenib group. After PSM, 78 pairs were recognized. Patients treated with RS had a semblable PFS compared to those treated with regorafenib before PSM (4.8 months vs 5.5 months, p = 0.400) and after PSM (4.7 months vs 5.4 months, p = 0.430). Patients in the RS group were associated with a longer OS than those in the regorafenib group (13.4 months vs 10.1 months, p = 0.010). A similar trend of OS was also obtained in the matched cohort (13.3 months vs 10.0 months, p = 0.024). Both objective response rate (12.8% vs 5.1%, p = 0.093) and disease control rate (53.8% vs 46.2%, p = 0.337) in the RS cohort were higher than those in the regorafenib group, without significant differences. Adverse events (AEs) of each group were well tolerated. Conclusion: Patients treated with RS demonstrated a longer OS than those treated with regorafenib and had manageable AEs, which could be recognized as a primary choice for refractory mCRC. Plain Language Summary Efficacy and Safety of Raltitrexed plus S-1 Versus Regorafenib in Patients with Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Real - world Propensity Score Matching Study Both raltitrexed plus S-1 (RS) and regorafenib showed considerable efficacy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. No study has compared the two regimens yet. Therefore, we compare the efficacy and safety between RS and regorafenib to provide an optimal treatment option. We retrospectively included patients with mCRC who failed at least two standard treatments. All enrolled patients received RS or regorafenib treatments. We conducted a propensity score matching to eliminate differences in the enrolled patients. After the analysis, we found no significant differences in progression-free survival in patients between the two groups. However, patients treated with RS had a longer OS than those treated with regorafenib, whether before matching (13.4 months vs 10.1 months, p = 0.010) or after matching (13.3 months vs 10.0 months, p = 0.024). In addition, the adverse effects caused by cancer-related therapy were tolerable for the patient. Certainly, this is a non-randomized retrospective study with a small sample size, so we conducted a propensity score matching to minimize potential bias. Importantly, this is the first research comparing the two treatments, and we believe that the results of this article could present a primary choice for clinical doctors dealing with patients with standard treatments that failed mCRC. Diseases of the digestive system. Gastroenterology Jia-Ling Wang verfasserin aut Qing-Fang Li verfasserin aut Yuan-Lin He verfasserin aut Lin-Juan Li verfasserin aut Rui-Zhi Liu verfasserin aut Ye Chen verfasserin aut Shuang Zhang verfasserin aut Meng Qiu verfasserin aut Ji-Yan Liu verfasserin aut In Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology SAGE Publishing, 2018 15(2022) (DE-627)573742669 (DE-600)2440710-0 17562848 nnns volume:15 year:2022 https://doi.org/10.1177/17562848221098246 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/08c84f2b75664e119d3f20bab9e93c89 kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1177/17562848221098246 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1756-2848 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_121 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_374 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2704 GBV_ILN_2707 GBV_ILN_2889 GBV_ILN_2890 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 15 2022 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1177/17562848221098246 doi (DE-627)DOAJ041638638 (DE-599)DOAJ08c84f2b75664e119d3f20bab9e93c89 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC799-869 Yu-Wen Zhou verfasserin aut Efficacy and safety of raltitrexed plus S-1 regorafenib in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a real-world propensity score matching study 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Raltitrexed plus S-1 (RS) and regorafenib both showed considerable efficacy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. This study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of two different regimens in patients with refractory mCRC. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included mCRC patients who were treated with RS or regorafenib from February 2017 to June 2021. A propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to balance the baseline characteristics of all patients. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), tumor response, and safety of two regimens were evaluated. Results: A total of 187 patients were included in our study, with 107 patients in the RS group and 80 patients in the regorafenib group. After PSM, 78 pairs were recognized. Patients treated with RS had a semblable PFS compared to those treated with regorafenib before PSM (4.8 months vs 5.5 months, p = 0.400) and after PSM (4.7 months vs 5.4 months, p = 0.430). Patients in the RS group were associated with a longer OS than those in the regorafenib group (13.4 months vs 10.1 months, p = 0.010). A similar trend of OS was also obtained in the matched cohort (13.3 months vs 10.0 months, p = 0.024). Both objective response rate (12.8% vs 5.1%, p = 0.093) and disease control rate (53.8% vs 46.2%, p = 0.337) in the RS cohort were higher than those in the regorafenib group, without significant differences. Adverse events (AEs) of each group were well tolerated. Conclusion: Patients treated with RS demonstrated a longer OS than those treated with regorafenib and had manageable AEs, which could be recognized as a primary choice for refractory mCRC. Plain Language Summary Efficacy and Safety of Raltitrexed plus S-1 Versus Regorafenib in Patients with Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Real - world Propensity Score Matching Study Both raltitrexed plus S-1 (RS) and regorafenib showed considerable efficacy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. No study has compared the two regimens yet. Therefore, we compare the efficacy and safety between RS and regorafenib to provide an optimal treatment option. We retrospectively included patients with mCRC who failed at least two standard treatments. All enrolled patients received RS or regorafenib treatments. We conducted a propensity score matching to eliminate differences in the enrolled patients. After the analysis, we found no significant differences in progression-free survival in patients between the two groups. However, patients treated with RS had a longer OS than those treated with regorafenib, whether before matching (13.4 months vs 10.1 months, p = 0.010) or after matching (13.3 months vs 10.0 months, p = 0.024). In addition, the adverse effects caused by cancer-related therapy were tolerable for the patient. Certainly, this is a non-randomized retrospective study with a small sample size, so we conducted a propensity score matching to minimize potential bias. Importantly, this is the first research comparing the two treatments, and we believe that the results of this article could present a primary choice for clinical doctors dealing with patients with standard treatments that failed mCRC. Diseases of the digestive system. Gastroenterology Jia-Ling Wang verfasserin aut Qing-Fang Li verfasserin aut Yuan-Lin He verfasserin aut Lin-Juan Li verfasserin aut Rui-Zhi Liu verfasserin aut Ye Chen verfasserin aut Shuang Zhang verfasserin aut Meng Qiu verfasserin aut Ji-Yan Liu verfasserin aut In Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology SAGE Publishing, 2018 15(2022) (DE-627)573742669 (DE-600)2440710-0 17562848 nnns volume:15 year:2022 https://doi.org/10.1177/17562848221098246 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/08c84f2b75664e119d3f20bab9e93c89 kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1177/17562848221098246 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1756-2848 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_121 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_374 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2704 GBV_ILN_2707 GBV_ILN_2889 GBV_ILN_2890 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 15 2022 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1177/17562848221098246 doi (DE-627)DOAJ041638638 (DE-599)DOAJ08c84f2b75664e119d3f20bab9e93c89 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC799-869 Yu-Wen Zhou verfasserin aut Efficacy and safety of raltitrexed plus S-1 regorafenib in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a real-world propensity score matching study 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Raltitrexed plus S-1 (RS) and regorafenib both showed considerable efficacy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. This study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of two different regimens in patients with refractory mCRC. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included mCRC patients who were treated with RS or regorafenib from February 2017 to June 2021. A propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to balance the baseline characteristics of all patients. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), tumor response, and safety of two regimens were evaluated. Results: A total of 187 patients were included in our study, with 107 patients in the RS group and 80 patients in the regorafenib group. After PSM, 78 pairs were recognized. Patients treated with RS had a semblable PFS compared to those treated with regorafenib before PSM (4.8 months vs 5.5 months, p = 0.400) and after PSM (4.7 months vs 5.4 months, p = 0.430). Patients in the RS group were associated with a longer OS than those in the regorafenib group (13.4 months vs 10.1 months, p = 0.010). A similar trend of OS was also obtained in the matched cohort (13.3 months vs 10.0 months, p = 0.024). Both objective response rate (12.8% vs 5.1%, p = 0.093) and disease control rate (53.8% vs 46.2%, p = 0.337) in the RS cohort were higher than those in the regorafenib group, without significant differences. Adverse events (AEs) of each group were well tolerated. Conclusion: Patients treated with RS demonstrated a longer OS than those treated with regorafenib and had manageable AEs, which could be recognized as a primary choice for refractory mCRC. Plain Language Summary Efficacy and Safety of Raltitrexed plus S-1 Versus Regorafenib in Patients with Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Real - world Propensity Score Matching Study Both raltitrexed plus S-1 (RS) and regorafenib showed considerable efficacy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. No study has compared the two regimens yet. Therefore, we compare the efficacy and safety between RS and regorafenib to provide an optimal treatment option. We retrospectively included patients with mCRC who failed at least two standard treatments. All enrolled patients received RS or regorafenib treatments. We conducted a propensity score matching to eliminate differences in the enrolled patients. After the analysis, we found no significant differences in progression-free survival in patients between the two groups. However, patients treated with RS had a longer OS than those treated with regorafenib, whether before matching (13.4 months vs 10.1 months, p = 0.010) or after matching (13.3 months vs 10.0 months, p = 0.024). In addition, the adverse effects caused by cancer-related therapy were tolerable for the patient. Certainly, this is a non-randomized retrospective study with a small sample size, so we conducted a propensity score matching to minimize potential bias. Importantly, this is the first research comparing the two treatments, and we believe that the results of this article could present a primary choice for clinical doctors dealing with patients with standard treatments that failed mCRC. Diseases of the digestive system. Gastroenterology Jia-Ling Wang verfasserin aut Qing-Fang Li verfasserin aut Yuan-Lin He verfasserin aut Lin-Juan Li verfasserin aut Rui-Zhi Liu verfasserin aut Ye Chen verfasserin aut Shuang Zhang verfasserin aut Meng Qiu verfasserin aut Ji-Yan Liu verfasserin aut In Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology SAGE Publishing, 2018 15(2022) (DE-627)573742669 (DE-600)2440710-0 17562848 nnns volume:15 year:2022 https://doi.org/10.1177/17562848221098246 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/08c84f2b75664e119d3f20bab9e93c89 kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1177/17562848221098246 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1756-2848 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_121 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_374 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2704 GBV_ILN_2707 GBV_ILN_2889 GBV_ILN_2890 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 15 2022 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1177/17562848221098246 doi (DE-627)DOAJ041638638 (DE-599)DOAJ08c84f2b75664e119d3f20bab9e93c89 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC799-869 Yu-Wen Zhou verfasserin aut Efficacy and safety of raltitrexed plus S-1 regorafenib in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a real-world propensity score matching study 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Raltitrexed plus S-1 (RS) and regorafenib both showed considerable efficacy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. This study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of two different regimens in patients with refractory mCRC. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included mCRC patients who were treated with RS or regorafenib from February 2017 to June 2021. A propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to balance the baseline characteristics of all patients. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), tumor response, and safety of two regimens were evaluated. Results: A total of 187 patients were included in our study, with 107 patients in the RS group and 80 patients in the regorafenib group. After PSM, 78 pairs were recognized. Patients treated with RS had a semblable PFS compared to those treated with regorafenib before PSM (4.8 months vs 5.5 months, p = 0.400) and after PSM (4.7 months vs 5.4 months, p = 0.430). Patients in the RS group were associated with a longer OS than those in the regorafenib group (13.4 months vs 10.1 months, p = 0.010). A similar trend of OS was also obtained in the matched cohort (13.3 months vs 10.0 months, p = 0.024). Both objective response rate (12.8% vs 5.1%, p = 0.093) and disease control rate (53.8% vs 46.2%, p = 0.337) in the RS cohort were higher than those in the regorafenib group, without significant differences. Adverse events (AEs) of each group were well tolerated. Conclusion: Patients treated with RS demonstrated a longer OS than those treated with regorafenib and had manageable AEs, which could be recognized as a primary choice for refractory mCRC. Plain Language Summary Efficacy and Safety of Raltitrexed plus S-1 Versus Regorafenib in Patients with Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Real - world Propensity Score Matching Study Both raltitrexed plus S-1 (RS) and regorafenib showed considerable efficacy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. No study has compared the two regimens yet. Therefore, we compare the efficacy and safety between RS and regorafenib to provide an optimal treatment option. We retrospectively included patients with mCRC who failed at least two standard treatments. All enrolled patients received RS or regorafenib treatments. We conducted a propensity score matching to eliminate differences in the enrolled patients. After the analysis, we found no significant differences in progression-free survival in patients between the two groups. However, patients treated with RS had a longer OS than those treated with regorafenib, whether before matching (13.4 months vs 10.1 months, p = 0.010) or after matching (13.3 months vs 10.0 months, p = 0.024). In addition, the adverse effects caused by cancer-related therapy were tolerable for the patient. Certainly, this is a non-randomized retrospective study with a small sample size, so we conducted a propensity score matching to minimize potential bias. Importantly, this is the first research comparing the two treatments, and we believe that the results of this article could present a primary choice for clinical doctors dealing with patients with standard treatments that failed mCRC. Diseases of the digestive system. Gastroenterology Jia-Ling Wang verfasserin aut Qing-Fang Li verfasserin aut Yuan-Lin He verfasserin aut Lin-Juan Li verfasserin aut Rui-Zhi Liu verfasserin aut Ye Chen verfasserin aut Shuang Zhang verfasserin aut Meng Qiu verfasserin aut Ji-Yan Liu verfasserin aut In Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology SAGE Publishing, 2018 15(2022) (DE-627)573742669 (DE-600)2440710-0 17562848 nnns volume:15 year:2022 https://doi.org/10.1177/17562848221098246 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/08c84f2b75664e119d3f20bab9e93c89 kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1177/17562848221098246 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1756-2848 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_121 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_374 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2704 GBV_ILN_2707 GBV_ILN_2889 GBV_ILN_2890 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 15 2022 |
| language |
English |
| source |
In Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology 15(2022) volume:15 year:2022 |
| sourceStr |
In Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology 15(2022) volume:15 year:2022 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Diseases of the digestive system. Gastroenterology |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
| container_title |
Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Yu-Wen Zhou @@aut@@ Jia-Ling Wang @@aut@@ Qing-Fang Li @@aut@@ Yuan-Lin He @@aut@@ Lin-Juan Li @@aut@@ Rui-Zhi Liu @@aut@@ Ye Chen @@aut@@ Shuang Zhang @@aut@@ Meng Qiu @@aut@@ Ji-Yan Liu @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2022-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
573742669 |
| id |
DOAJ041638638 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ041638638</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230503024942.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2022 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1177/17562848221098246</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ041638638</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ08c84f2b75664e119d3f20bab9e93c89</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RC799-869</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yu-Wen Zhou</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Efficacy and safety of raltitrexed plus S-1 regorafenib in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a real-world propensity score matching study</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background: Raltitrexed plus S-1 (RS) and regorafenib both showed considerable efficacy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. This study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of two different regimens in patients with refractory mCRC. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included mCRC patients who were treated with RS or regorafenib from February 2017 to June 2021. A propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to balance the baseline characteristics of all patients. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), tumor response, and safety of two regimens were evaluated. Results: A total of 187 patients were included in our study, with 107 patients in the RS group and 80 patients in the regorafenib group. After PSM, 78 pairs were recognized. Patients treated with RS had a semblable PFS compared to those treated with regorafenib before PSM (4.8 months vs 5.5 months, p = 0.400) and after PSM (4.7 months vs 5.4 months, p = 0.430). Patients in the RS group were associated with a longer OS than those in the regorafenib group (13.4 months vs 10.1 months, p = 0.010). A similar trend of OS was also obtained in the matched cohort (13.3 months vs 10.0 months, p = 0.024). Both objective response rate (12.8% vs 5.1%, p = 0.093) and disease control rate (53.8% vs 46.2%, p = 0.337) in the RS cohort were higher than those in the regorafenib group, without significant differences. Adverse events (AEs) of each group were well tolerated. Conclusion: Patients treated with RS demonstrated a longer OS than those treated with regorafenib and had manageable AEs, which could be recognized as a primary choice for refractory mCRC. Plain Language Summary Efficacy and Safety of Raltitrexed plus S-1 Versus Regorafenib in Patients with Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Real - world Propensity Score Matching Study Both raltitrexed plus S-1 (RS) and regorafenib showed considerable efficacy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. No study has compared the two regimens yet. Therefore, we compare the efficacy and safety between RS and regorafenib to provide an optimal treatment option. We retrospectively included patients with mCRC who failed at least two standard treatments. All enrolled patients received RS or regorafenib treatments. We conducted a propensity score matching to eliminate differences in the enrolled patients. After the analysis, we found no significant differences in progression-free survival in patients between the two groups. However, patients treated with RS had a longer OS than those treated with regorafenib, whether before matching (13.4 months vs 10.1 months, p = 0.010) or after matching (13.3 months vs 10.0 months, p = 0.024). In addition, the adverse effects caused by cancer-related therapy were tolerable for the patient. Certainly, this is a non-randomized retrospective study with a small sample size, so we conducted a propensity score matching to minimize potential bias. Importantly, this is the first research comparing the two treatments, and we believe that the results of this article could present a primary choice for clinical doctors dealing with patients with standard treatments that failed mCRC.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Diseases of the digestive system. Gastroenterology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jia-Ling Wang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Qing-Fang Li</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yuan-Lin He</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lin-Juan Li</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rui-Zhi Liu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ye Chen</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Shuang Zhang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Meng Qiu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ji-Yan Liu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology</subfield><subfield code="d">SAGE Publishing, 2018</subfield><subfield code="g">15(2022)</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)573742669</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2440710-0</subfield><subfield code="x">17562848</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:15</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1177/17562848221098246</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/08c84f2b75664e119d3f20bab9e93c89</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1177/17562848221098246</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1756-2848</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_32</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_120</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_121</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_374</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2704</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2707</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2889</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2890</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">15</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| callnumber-first |
R - Medicine |
| author |
Yu-Wen Zhou |
| spellingShingle |
Yu-Wen Zhou misc RC799-869 misc Diseases of the digestive system. Gastroenterology Efficacy and safety of raltitrexed plus S-1 regorafenib in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a real-world propensity score matching study |
| authorStr |
Yu-Wen Zhou |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)573742669 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut |
| collection |
DOAJ |
| remote_str |
true |
| callnumber-label |
RC799-869 |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
17562848 |
| topic_title |
RC799-869 Efficacy and safety of raltitrexed plus S-1 regorafenib in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a real-world propensity score matching study |
| topic |
misc RC799-869 misc Diseases of the digestive system. Gastroenterology |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc RC799-869 misc Diseases of the digestive system. Gastroenterology |
| topic_browse |
misc RC799-869 misc Diseases of the digestive system. Gastroenterology |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
573742669 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)573742669 (DE-600)2440710-0 |
| title |
Efficacy and safety of raltitrexed plus S-1 regorafenib in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a real-world propensity score matching study |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)DOAJ041638638 (DE-599)DOAJ08c84f2b75664e119d3f20bab9e93c89 |
| title_full |
Efficacy and safety of raltitrexed plus S-1 regorafenib in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a real-world propensity score matching study |
| author_sort |
Yu-Wen Zhou |
| journal |
Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology |
| journalStr |
Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology |
| callnumber-first-code |
R |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
true |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2022 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| author_browse |
Yu-Wen Zhou Jia-Ling Wang Qing-Fang Li Yuan-Lin He Lin-Juan Li Rui-Zhi Liu Ye Chen Shuang Zhang Meng Qiu Ji-Yan Liu |
| container_volume |
15 |
| class |
RC799-869 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Yu-Wen Zhou |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1177/17562848221098246 |
| author2-role |
verfasserin |
| title_sort |
efficacy and safety of raltitrexed plus s-1 regorafenib in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a real-world propensity score matching study |
| callnumber |
RC799-869 |
| title_auth |
Efficacy and safety of raltitrexed plus S-1 regorafenib in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a real-world propensity score matching study |
| abstract |
Background: Raltitrexed plus S-1 (RS) and regorafenib both showed considerable efficacy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. This study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of two different regimens in patients with refractory mCRC. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included mCRC patients who were treated with RS or regorafenib from February 2017 to June 2021. A propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to balance the baseline characteristics of all patients. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), tumor response, and safety of two regimens were evaluated. Results: A total of 187 patients were included in our study, with 107 patients in the RS group and 80 patients in the regorafenib group. After PSM, 78 pairs were recognized. Patients treated with RS had a semblable PFS compared to those treated with regorafenib before PSM (4.8 months vs 5.5 months, p = 0.400) and after PSM (4.7 months vs 5.4 months, p = 0.430). Patients in the RS group were associated with a longer OS than those in the regorafenib group (13.4 months vs 10.1 months, p = 0.010). A similar trend of OS was also obtained in the matched cohort (13.3 months vs 10.0 months, p = 0.024). Both objective response rate (12.8% vs 5.1%, p = 0.093) and disease control rate (53.8% vs 46.2%, p = 0.337) in the RS cohort were higher than those in the regorafenib group, without significant differences. Adverse events (AEs) of each group were well tolerated. Conclusion: Patients treated with RS demonstrated a longer OS than those treated with regorafenib and had manageable AEs, which could be recognized as a primary choice for refractory mCRC. Plain Language Summary Efficacy and Safety of Raltitrexed plus S-1 Versus Regorafenib in Patients with Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Real - world Propensity Score Matching Study Both raltitrexed plus S-1 (RS) and regorafenib showed considerable efficacy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. No study has compared the two regimens yet. Therefore, we compare the efficacy and safety between RS and regorafenib to provide an optimal treatment option. We retrospectively included patients with mCRC who failed at least two standard treatments. All enrolled patients received RS or regorafenib treatments. We conducted a propensity score matching to eliminate differences in the enrolled patients. After the analysis, we found no significant differences in progression-free survival in patients between the two groups. However, patients treated with RS had a longer OS than those treated with regorafenib, whether before matching (13.4 months vs 10.1 months, p = 0.010) or after matching (13.3 months vs 10.0 months, p = 0.024). In addition, the adverse effects caused by cancer-related therapy were tolerable for the patient. Certainly, this is a non-randomized retrospective study with a small sample size, so we conducted a propensity score matching to minimize potential bias. Importantly, this is the first research comparing the two treatments, and we believe that the results of this article could present a primary choice for clinical doctors dealing with patients with standard treatments that failed mCRC. |
| abstractGer |
Background: Raltitrexed plus S-1 (RS) and regorafenib both showed considerable efficacy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. This study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of two different regimens in patients with refractory mCRC. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included mCRC patients who were treated with RS or regorafenib from February 2017 to June 2021. A propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to balance the baseline characteristics of all patients. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), tumor response, and safety of two regimens were evaluated. Results: A total of 187 patients were included in our study, with 107 patients in the RS group and 80 patients in the regorafenib group. After PSM, 78 pairs were recognized. Patients treated with RS had a semblable PFS compared to those treated with regorafenib before PSM (4.8 months vs 5.5 months, p = 0.400) and after PSM (4.7 months vs 5.4 months, p = 0.430). Patients in the RS group were associated with a longer OS than those in the regorafenib group (13.4 months vs 10.1 months, p = 0.010). A similar trend of OS was also obtained in the matched cohort (13.3 months vs 10.0 months, p = 0.024). Both objective response rate (12.8% vs 5.1%, p = 0.093) and disease control rate (53.8% vs 46.2%, p = 0.337) in the RS cohort were higher than those in the regorafenib group, without significant differences. Adverse events (AEs) of each group were well tolerated. Conclusion: Patients treated with RS demonstrated a longer OS than those treated with regorafenib and had manageable AEs, which could be recognized as a primary choice for refractory mCRC. Plain Language Summary Efficacy and Safety of Raltitrexed plus S-1 Versus Regorafenib in Patients with Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Real - world Propensity Score Matching Study Both raltitrexed plus S-1 (RS) and regorafenib showed considerable efficacy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. No study has compared the two regimens yet. Therefore, we compare the efficacy and safety between RS and regorafenib to provide an optimal treatment option. We retrospectively included patients with mCRC who failed at least two standard treatments. All enrolled patients received RS or regorafenib treatments. We conducted a propensity score matching to eliminate differences in the enrolled patients. After the analysis, we found no significant differences in progression-free survival in patients between the two groups. However, patients treated with RS had a longer OS than those treated with regorafenib, whether before matching (13.4 months vs 10.1 months, p = 0.010) or after matching (13.3 months vs 10.0 months, p = 0.024). In addition, the adverse effects caused by cancer-related therapy were tolerable for the patient. Certainly, this is a non-randomized retrospective study with a small sample size, so we conducted a propensity score matching to minimize potential bias. Importantly, this is the first research comparing the two treatments, and we believe that the results of this article could present a primary choice for clinical doctors dealing with patients with standard treatments that failed mCRC. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Background: Raltitrexed plus S-1 (RS) and regorafenib both showed considerable efficacy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. This study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of two different regimens in patients with refractory mCRC. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included mCRC patients who were treated with RS or regorafenib from February 2017 to June 2021. A propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to balance the baseline characteristics of all patients. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), tumor response, and safety of two regimens were evaluated. Results: A total of 187 patients were included in our study, with 107 patients in the RS group and 80 patients in the regorafenib group. After PSM, 78 pairs were recognized. Patients treated with RS had a semblable PFS compared to those treated with regorafenib before PSM (4.8 months vs 5.5 months, p = 0.400) and after PSM (4.7 months vs 5.4 months, p = 0.430). Patients in the RS group were associated with a longer OS than those in the regorafenib group (13.4 months vs 10.1 months, p = 0.010). A similar trend of OS was also obtained in the matched cohort (13.3 months vs 10.0 months, p = 0.024). Both objective response rate (12.8% vs 5.1%, p = 0.093) and disease control rate (53.8% vs 46.2%, p = 0.337) in the RS cohort were higher than those in the regorafenib group, without significant differences. Adverse events (AEs) of each group were well tolerated. Conclusion: Patients treated with RS demonstrated a longer OS than those treated with regorafenib and had manageable AEs, which could be recognized as a primary choice for refractory mCRC. Plain Language Summary Efficacy and Safety of Raltitrexed plus S-1 Versus Regorafenib in Patients with Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Real - world Propensity Score Matching Study Both raltitrexed plus S-1 (RS) and regorafenib showed considerable efficacy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. No study has compared the two regimens yet. Therefore, we compare the efficacy and safety between RS and regorafenib to provide an optimal treatment option. We retrospectively included patients with mCRC who failed at least two standard treatments. All enrolled patients received RS or regorafenib treatments. We conducted a propensity score matching to eliminate differences in the enrolled patients. After the analysis, we found no significant differences in progression-free survival in patients between the two groups. However, patients treated with RS had a longer OS than those treated with regorafenib, whether before matching (13.4 months vs 10.1 months, p = 0.010) or after matching (13.3 months vs 10.0 months, p = 0.024). In addition, the adverse effects caused by cancer-related therapy were tolerable for the patient. Certainly, this is a non-randomized retrospective study with a small sample size, so we conducted a propensity score matching to minimize potential bias. Importantly, this is the first research comparing the two treatments, and we believe that the results of this article could present a primary choice for clinical doctors dealing with patients with standard treatments that failed mCRC. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_121 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_374 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2704 GBV_ILN_2707 GBV_ILN_2889 GBV_ILN_2890 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 |
| title_short |
Efficacy and safety of raltitrexed plus S-1 regorafenib in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a real-world propensity score matching study |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1177/17562848221098246 https://doaj.org/article/08c84f2b75664e119d3f20bab9e93c89 https://doaj.org/toc/1756-2848 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Jia-Ling Wang Qing-Fang Li Yuan-Lin He Lin-Juan Li Rui-Zhi Liu Ye Chen Shuang Zhang Meng Qiu Ji-Yan Liu |
| author2Str |
Jia-Ling Wang Qing-Fang Li Yuan-Lin He Lin-Juan Li Rui-Zhi Liu Ye Chen Shuang Zhang Meng Qiu Ji-Yan Liu |
| ppnlink |
573742669 |
| callnumber-subject |
RC - Internal Medicine |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
true |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1177/17562848221098246 |
| callnumber-a |
RC799-869 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T21:20:20.206Z |
| _version_ |
1803594361951223809 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ041638638</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230503024942.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2022 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1177/17562848221098246</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ041638638</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ08c84f2b75664e119d3f20bab9e93c89</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RC799-869</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yu-Wen Zhou</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Efficacy and safety of raltitrexed plus S-1 regorafenib in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a real-world propensity score matching study</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background: Raltitrexed plus S-1 (RS) and regorafenib both showed considerable efficacy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. This study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of two different regimens in patients with refractory mCRC. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included mCRC patients who were treated with RS or regorafenib from February 2017 to June 2021. A propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to balance the baseline characteristics of all patients. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), tumor response, and safety of two regimens were evaluated. Results: A total of 187 patients were included in our study, with 107 patients in the RS group and 80 patients in the regorafenib group. After PSM, 78 pairs were recognized. Patients treated with RS had a semblable PFS compared to those treated with regorafenib before PSM (4.8 months vs 5.5 months, p = 0.400) and after PSM (4.7 months vs 5.4 months, p = 0.430). Patients in the RS group were associated with a longer OS than those in the regorafenib group (13.4 months vs 10.1 months, p = 0.010). A similar trend of OS was also obtained in the matched cohort (13.3 months vs 10.0 months, p = 0.024). Both objective response rate (12.8% vs 5.1%, p = 0.093) and disease control rate (53.8% vs 46.2%, p = 0.337) in the RS cohort were higher than those in the regorafenib group, without significant differences. Adverse events (AEs) of each group were well tolerated. Conclusion: Patients treated with RS demonstrated a longer OS than those treated with regorafenib and had manageable AEs, which could be recognized as a primary choice for refractory mCRC. Plain Language Summary Efficacy and Safety of Raltitrexed plus S-1 Versus Regorafenib in Patients with Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Real - world Propensity Score Matching Study Both raltitrexed plus S-1 (RS) and regorafenib showed considerable efficacy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. No study has compared the two regimens yet. Therefore, we compare the efficacy and safety between RS and regorafenib to provide an optimal treatment option. We retrospectively included patients with mCRC who failed at least two standard treatments. All enrolled patients received RS or regorafenib treatments. We conducted a propensity score matching to eliminate differences in the enrolled patients. After the analysis, we found no significant differences in progression-free survival in patients between the two groups. However, patients treated with RS had a longer OS than those treated with regorafenib, whether before matching (13.4 months vs 10.1 months, p = 0.010) or after matching (13.3 months vs 10.0 months, p = 0.024). In addition, the adverse effects caused by cancer-related therapy were tolerable for the patient. Certainly, this is a non-randomized retrospective study with a small sample size, so we conducted a propensity score matching to minimize potential bias. Importantly, this is the first research comparing the two treatments, and we believe that the results of this article could present a primary choice for clinical doctors dealing with patients with standard treatments that failed mCRC.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Diseases of the digestive system. Gastroenterology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jia-Ling Wang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Qing-Fang Li</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yuan-Lin He</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lin-Juan Li</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rui-Zhi Liu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ye Chen</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Shuang Zhang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Meng Qiu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ji-Yan Liu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology</subfield><subfield code="d">SAGE Publishing, 2018</subfield><subfield code="g">15(2022)</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)573742669</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2440710-0</subfield><subfield code="x">17562848</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:15</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1177/17562848221098246</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/08c84f2b75664e119d3f20bab9e93c89</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1177/17562848221098246</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1756-2848</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_32</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_120</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_121</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_374</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2704</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2707</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2889</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2890</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">15</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.398569 |