RF Safe

[Preliminary clinical comparison of HLF and ELF regimen in the treatment of advanced gastric carcinoma in middle-aged and elderly patients].

Zhonghua zhong liu za zhi [Chinese journal of oncology] · 2000 · Mixed · Low evidence

← Research stream
MixedLow evidencePaper 3948

In 25 patients treated with HLF, response rate was 48.0% (0 CR, 12 PR, 11 NC, 2 PD). In 23 patients treated with ELF, response rate was 39.1% (0 CR, 9 PR, 11 NC, 3 PD); the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Grade III–IV stomatocace was …

Study snapshot

PublicationZhonghua zhong liu za zhi [Chinese journal of oncology] · 2000
Study typeother
Reported directionMixed
Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To observe the therapeutic effects and toxicity of HLF (hydroxycamptothecin HCPT/leucovorin LV/fluorouracil 5-Fu) regimen and ELF (etoposide VP-16/LV/5-Fu) regimen in middle-aged and elderly patients with advanced gastric carcinoma. METHODS: A group of twenty-five cases were treated with HLF regimen, and the other group of 23 cases were treated with ELF regimen. RESULTS: Of the 25 cases treated with HLF regimen, there was no complete remission (CR), but there were 12 partial response (PR), 11 no response (NC), and 2 had progressive disease (PD). The response rate (RR) was 48.0%. Of the 23 patients treated with ELF regimen, there was no CR, there were 9 PR, 11 NC, and 3 PD. The RR was 39.1% (P > 0.05). The main toxicity was myelosuppression and stomatocace. Grade III-IV stomatocace in HLF regimen group (68.0%) was more commonly seen than that in ELF regimen group (39.1%, P < 0.05). There was no cardiac or renal toxicity observed. CONCLUSION: HLF regimen is promising for treatment of advanced gastric carcinoma in middle-aged and elderly patients with the merits of low toxicity affecting heart, kidney and bladder except stomatocace, which is worthy of further clinical trial.

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typeother
Effect directionmixed
PopulationMiddle-aged and elderly patients with advanced gastric carcinoma
Sample size48
ExposureNot supplied
Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

In 25 patients treated with HLF, response rate was 48.0% (0 CR, 12 PR, 11 NC, 2 PD). In 23 patients treated with ELF, response rate was 39.1% (0 CR, 9 PR, 11 NC, 3 PD); the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Grade III–IV stomatocace was more common with HLF (68.0%) than ELF (39.1%, P < 0.05); no cardiac or renal toxicity was observed.

Outcomes measured

  • Tumor response (CR/PR/NC/PD; response rate)
  • Toxicity (myelosuppression, stomatocace; grade III–IV stomatocace)
  • Cardiac toxicity
  • Renal toxicity

Limitations

  • No randomization described in abstract
  • Small sample size (n=48)
  • No survival outcomes reported (e.g., overall survival, progression-free survival)
  • Limited toxicity detail beyond selected adverse events
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "other",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": null,
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Middle-aged and elderly patients with advanced gastric carcinoma",
  "sample_size": 48,
  "outcomes": [
    "Tumor response (CR/PR/NC/PD; response rate)",
    "Toxicity (myelosuppression, stomatocace; grade III–IV stomatocace)",
    "Cardiac toxicity",
    "Renal toxicity"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In 25 patients treated with HLF, response rate was 48.0% (0 CR, 12 PR, 11 NC, 2 PD). In 23 patients treated with ELF, response rate was 39.1% (0 CR, 9 PR, 11 NC, 3 PD); the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Grade III–IV stomatocace was more common with HLF (68.0%) than ELF (39.1%, P < 0.05); no cardiac or renal toxicity was observed.",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "No randomization described in abstract",
    "Small sample size (n=48)",
    "No survival outcomes reported (e.g., overall survival, progression-free survival)",
    "Limited toxicity detail beyond selected adverse events"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "advanced gastric carcinoma",
    "chemotherapy",
    "hydroxycamptothecin",
    "leucovorin",
    "fluorouracil",
    "etoposide",
    "response rate",
    "toxicity",
    "myelosuppression",
    "stomatocace"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": []
}
AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: Not supplied
PubMed: 11778280

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library