-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2020Salvage systemic therapy has become the new standard of care in patients with advanced gastric and oesophago-gastric junction (OGJ) adenocarcinoma, following disease... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Salvage systemic therapy has become the new standard of care in patients with advanced gastric and oesophago-gastric junction (OGJ) adenocarcinoma, following disease progression on first-line fluoropyrimidine and platinum-containing chemotherapy. Pharmacological agents proven to be effective in this setting include both chemotherapy and biological therapy, however, the consensus on the best salvage systemic therapy has not been reached.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of systemic chemotherapy and biological therapy, either alone or in combination, on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with advanced gastric and OGJ adenocarcinoma, whose disease has progressed on, or relapsed after first-line fluoropyrimidine and platinum-containing chemotherapy. Adverse events (AEs), tumour response rate (TRR) and quality of life (QoL) associated with systemic chemotherapy and/or biological therapy were additionally assessed.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, trial registries and proceedings of the major oncology conferences up to October 2020. We additionally handsearched the reference lists of studies. No language restriction was applied.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing salvage systemic therapy (chemotherapy and/or biological therapy) and either another type of salvage systemic therapy, placebo, best supportive care (BSC) or no treatment in patients with gastric and OGJ adenocarcinoma refractory to first-line fluoropyrimidine and platinum-containing chemotherapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed selection of eligible studies and the primary author extracted study characteristics and outcome data from included studies. We assessed the quality and risk of bias of eligible studies according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We expressed pooled estimates of effect using hazard ratio (HR) calculated using an inverse variance random-effects model for time-to-event data, and risk ratio (RR) calculated using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model for binary data. The certainty of evidence was graded using GRADEpro.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 17 RCTs with 5110 participants for inclusion in this review. Tweenty-nine studies are ongoing and twenty studies are awaiting classification. No studies examined the following comparisons: chemotherapy combined with biological therapy versus placebo, BSC or no treatment, chemotherapy combined with biological therapy versus biological therapy, biological therapy versus biological therapy and chemotherapy combined with biological therapy versus chemotherapy combined with biological therapy. Chemotherapy versus placebo, best supportive care or no treatment Chemotherapy probably improves OS (HR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.83, moderate-certainty evidence) based on two studies involving 547 participants and improves PFS (HR = 0.57, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.69, high-certainty evidence) based on one study involving 507 participants over placebo and BSC. Chemotherapy probably increases serious AEs (SAEs) (RR = 1.38, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.59, moderate-certainty evidence) based on one study involving 503 participants. Biological therapy versus placebo, best supportive care or no treatment Biological therapy improves OS (HR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.73, high-certainty evidence) and probably improves PFS (HR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.57, moderate-certainty evidence) over placebo based on three studies involving 781 participants. There is currently insufficient evidence for increased SAEs from biological therapy (RR = 1.14, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.37, low-certainty evidence) based on two studies involving 638 participants. Chemotherapy versus biological therapy This comparison only considered immunotherapy. There is probably no evidence of a difference for OS (HR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.02, moderate-certainty evidence) between chemotherapy and immunotherapy, and immunotherapy probably reduces PFS (HR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.57, moderate-certainty evidence) based on one study involving 395 participants. SAEs may be less frequent with immunotherapy compared to chemotherapy (RR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.57, low-certainty evidence). Chemotherapy combined with biological therapy versus chemotherapy Addition of biological therapy to chemotherapy probably does not improve OS (HR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.04, moderate-certainty evidence) and we are uncertain whether it improves PFS (HR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.02, very low-certainty evidence) based on seven studies involving 2743 participants. We are similarly uncertain whether combined chemotherapy and biological therapy increases SAEs (RR = 1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.44, very low-certainty evidence) based on four studies involving 1618 participants. Chemotherapy versus chemotherapy There is no evidence of a difference for OS and PFS between irinotecan and paclitaxel (HR = 1.13, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.48, low-certainty evidence for OS; HR = 1.14, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.48, low-certainty evidence for PFS) based on one study involving 219 participants. Similarly, there is no evidence to indicate improved OS and PFS from addition of another chemotherapy to docetaxel (HR = 1.05, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.54, low-certainty evidence for OS; HR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.09, low-certainty evidence for PFS) based on two studies involving 121 participants. Grade ≥ 3 neutropenia occurred commonly with both mono- and poly-chemotherapy except for docetaxel-S1 and EOX chemotherapy.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Survival outcome of patients with advanced gastric and OGJ adenocarcinoma whose disease progressed on first-line fluoropyrimidine and platinum-containing chemotherapy can be improved by chemotherapy and biological therapy. Biological therapy, in particular, achieves this without clear increase in SAEs or QoL impairment. Whether biological therapy is preferred over chemotherapy is still unclear and there is no evidence of a difference for OS outcome, although immunotherapy may be associated with less SAEs. Addition of biological therapy to chemotherapy and poly-chemotherapy are associated with frequent treatment-related toxicity without clear survival benefit.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Antineoplastic Agents; Combined Modality Therapy; Docetaxel; Esophageal Neoplasms; Esophagogastric Junction; Humans; Immunotherapy; Irinotecan; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Paclitaxel; Placebos; Progression-Free Survival; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Salvage Therapy; Stomach Neoplasms
PubMed: 33210731
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012078.pub2 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2020Recent randomized clinical trials have examined the efficacy of different combinations of systemic and local treatment approaches for metastatic hormone-sensitive...
Comparative Efficacy of Combined Radiotherapy, Systemic Therapy, and Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.
Recent randomized clinical trials have examined the efficacy of different combinations of systemic and local treatment approaches for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). We compared the efficacy of these combined regimens in order to identify the optimal therapy for specific patient subgroups. The treatments were abiraterone (ABI), apalutamide (APA), docetaxel (DOC), enzalutamide (ENZ), and radiotherapy (RT) combined with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). Five electronic databases were searched up to May 7, 2020 for relevant trials. The risk of bias in the included trials was evaluated with the Cochrane tool. The hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was determined for the included trials and indirect comparisons were performed using the R software. In total, 10 randomized, controlled trials with 11,194 patients were included in the meta-analysis. ADT + RT was superior to ADT monotherapy in terms of overall survival (HR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.85-1.1) and conferred a survival benefit in a subgroup of low-volume patients (HR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.54-0.87). Combined systemic treatments were significantly superior to ADT monotherapy in comparisons of survival and prostate-specific antigen response, including in the high-volume subgroup; meanwhile, in the low-volume subgroup only ADT + ENZ (HR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.21-0.69) showed a significant clinical benefit. In the Gleason score <8 subgroup, all combined systemic treatments were superior to ADT monotherapy, but the results were only significant for ADT + APA (HR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.33-0.95) and ADT + DOC (HR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.54-0.92). In the Gleason score ≥8 subgroup, ADT monotherapy was inferior (albeit not significantly) to combined treatments. In a ranking of performed comparisons, ADT + ENZ was the optimal regimen, although this was non-significant. Combined therapies also demonstrated superiority in quality-of-life indicators such as time to skeletal events and pain progression. ADT + radiotherapy led to superior outcomes in mHSPC patients with low-volume disease. While all combined systemic regimens confer a survival advantage over ADT monotherapy, the optimal treatment approach for certain mHSPC patient subgroups remains to be determined.
PubMed: 33194648
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.567616 -
Asian Journal of Andrology 2021Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status and Gleason score are commonly investigated factors for overall survival (OS) in men with...
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status and Gleason score are commonly investigated factors for overall survival (OS) in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). However, there is a lack of consistency regarding their prognostic or predictive value for OS. Therefore, we performed this meta-analysis to assess the associations of ECOG performance status and Gleason score with OS in CRPC patients and compare the two markers in patients under different treatment regimens or with different chemotherapy histories. A systematic literature review of monotherapy studies in CRPC patients was conducted in the PubMed database until May 2019. The data from 8247 patients in 34 studies, including clinical trials and real-world data, were included in our meta-analysis. Of these, twenty studies reported multivariate results and were included in our main analysis. CRPC patients with higher ECOG performance statuses (≥ 2) had a significantly increased mortality risk than those with lower ECOG performance statuses (<2), hazard ratio (HR): 2.10, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.68-2.62, and P < 0.001. The synthesized HR of OS stratified by Gleason score was 1.01, with a 95% CI of 0.62-1.67 (Gleason score ≥ 8 vs <8). Subgroup analysis showed that there was no significant difference in pooled HRs for patients administered taxane chemotherapy (docetaxel and cabazitaxel) and androgen-targeting therapy (abiraterone acetate and enzalutamide) or for patients with different chemotherapy histories. ECOG performance status was identified as a significant prognostic factor in CRPC patients, while Gleason score showed a weak prognostic value for OS based on the available data in our meta-analysis.
Topics: Abiraterone Acetate; Antineoplastic Agents; Benzamides; Docetaxel; Humans; Male; Neoplasm Grading; Nitriles; Phenylthiohydantoin; Prognosis; Proportional Hazards Models; Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant; Radium; Severity of Illness Index; Survival Rate; Taxoids; Tissue Extracts
PubMed: 33159024
DOI: 10.4103/aja.aja_53_20 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2020To compare the efficacy and safety of current systemic combination therapies for patients with mHSPC and help select candidates for optimal treatment. Databases of...
Comparison of Current Systemic Combination Therapies for Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer and Selection of Candidates for Optimal Treatment: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.
To compare the efficacy and safety of current systemic combination therapies for patients with mHSPC and help select candidates for optimal treatment. Databases of MEDLINE and EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Clinical Trial.gov were searched for eligible studies. Direct and network meta-analysis were conducted to compare various systemic combination therapies and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was generated for treatment ranking. Subgroup analyses were performed according to the extent of metastasis. Adverse events (AEs) were compared among the effective treatments. Ten trials with 16 publications were included in this network meta-analysis. Direct and network meta-analysis consistently suggested that androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) combined with docetaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide, or apalutamide could significantly improve overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival (FFS) compared to ADT alone in men with mHSPC. SUCRA analysis demonstrated the superiority of ADT plus abiraterone or enzalutamide over other therapies. Subgroup analyses indicated that additional abiraterone to ADT had the highest ranking in patients with high-volume diseases or visceral metastases and enzalutamide plus ADT outperformed other treatments in patients with low-volume diseases or without visceral metastases. Different combination therapies had variable AE profiles and ADT in addition with docetaxel or abiraterone had the highest risk of AEs. ADT plus docetaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide, or apalutamide were associated with significantly improved survival in patients with mHSPC. ADT plus abiraterone or enzalutamide appeared to be the most effective treatments. Clinicians should balance the efficacy, potential AEs, and disease status to select the optimal treatment.
PubMed: 33072564
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.519388 -
Oncoimmunology Jun 2020Therapeutic strategies with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) counteract the immunosuppressive effects of programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) and ligand-1 (PD-L1)....
BACKGROUND
Therapeutic strategies with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) counteract the immunosuppressive effects of programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) and ligand-1 (PD-L1). ICI treatment has emerged in first- and second-line therapy of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). As immunotherapeutic treatment with ICIs is a dynamic field where new drugs and combinations are constantly evaluated, we conducted an up-to-date systematic review on comparative efficacy and safety in patients with advanced NSCLC.
METHODS
We searched PubMed up to February 2020 and Embase, CENTRAL, and clinical trial registries up to August 2018. Additionally, we checked reference lists. We dually screened titles, abstracts and, subsequently, full-texts for eligibility. Two reviewers assessed the risk of bias and graded the certainty of evidence following GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). For second-line therapy, we performed random-effects meta-analyses. Due to considerable clinical heterogeneity, we reported first-line results narratively.
RESULTS
Of 1497 references, we identified 22 relevant publications of 16 studies. For first-line therapy, a combination of an ICI with chemotherapy improved progression-free survival and overall survival compared to chemotherapy but increased the risk of serious adverse events. Single-agent pembrolizumab increased overall and progression-free survival in patients with PD-L1 expression of ≥50% and resulted in less TRAE than chemotherapy. Compared to placebo, maintenance therapy with durvalumab increased overall and progression-free survival at the downside of higher risk of TRAE. For second-line therapy, a random-effects meta-analysis yielded a statistically significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for ICIs compared to docetaxel (HR 0.69; 95% CI: 0.63-0.75 for OS; HR 0.85; 95% CI: 0.77 - 0.93 for PFS; 6 studies, 3478 patients; median OS benefit in months: 2.4 to 4.2). In meta-analysis, risk of any treatment-related adverse events of any grade was lower for ICI than docetaxel as second-line therapy (RR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.73-0.79; 6 studies, 3763 patients).
CONCLUSION
In first-line therapy of patients with advanced NSCLC, ICI is effective when combined with chemotherapy not depending on PD-L1 expression, or as monotherapy in high PD-L1 expressing tumors. For second-line therapy, single-agent ICI improves efficacy and safety compared to docetaxel.
Topics: Aged; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Humans; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Progression-Free Survival
PubMed: 32923134
DOI: 10.1080/2162402X.2020.1774314 -
PloS One 2020Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have been rapidly evolving. ICIs are likely to be more effective but also lead to...
BACKGROUND
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have been rapidly evolving. ICIs are likely to be more effective but also lead to escalating healthcare costs.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
METHODS
We searched the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for studies comparing the cost effectiveness of ICIs for NSCLC. Potential studies identified were independently checked for eligibility by two authors, with disagreement resolved by a third reviewer. Quality of the included studies was evaluated using Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklists.
RESULTS
A total of 22 economic studies were included. Overall reporting of the identified studies largely met CHEERS recommendations. In the first-line setting, for advanced or metastatic NSCLC patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50%, pembrolizumab appeared cost-effective compared with platinum-based chemotherapy in the US and Hong Kong (China), but not in the UK and China. The cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of NSCLC in PD-L1 ≥ 1% patients remained obscure. Regardless of PD-L1 expression status, pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy could be a cost-effective first-line therapy in the US. On the contrary, addition of atezolizumab to the combination of bevacizumab and chemotherapy was not cost-effective for patients with metastatic non-squamous NSCLC from the US payer perspective. In the second-line setting compared with docetaxel, pembrolizumab was cost-effective; though nivolumab was not cost-effective in the base case, it could be by increased PD-L1 threshold. Results of the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab second-line treatment remained inconsistent. In addition, the adoption of durvalumab consolidation therapy after chemoradiotherapy could be cost-effective versus no consolidation therapy for patients with stage III NSCLC.
CONCLUSIONS
Immunotherapy can be a cost-effective option for treatment of NSCLC in several scenarios. A discount of the agents or the use of PD-L1 expression as a biomarker improves the cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Immunotherapy; Lung Neoplasms
PubMed: 32877435
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238536 -
Journal of Comparative Effectiveness... Aug 2020To perform indirect treatment comparisons of entrectinib versus alternative fusion-positive non-small cell lung cancer treatments. Relevant studies with crizotinib... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
To perform indirect treatment comparisons of entrectinib versus alternative fusion-positive non-small cell lung cancer treatments. Relevant studies with crizotinib and chemotherapy as comparators of interest identified by systematic literature review were selected for matching-adjusted indirect comparison by feasibility assessment. Matching was based on known prognostic/predictive factors and scenario analyses were used for unreported confounders in comparator trials. Entrectinib yielded significantly better responses versus crizotinib in all scenarios (odds ratio [OR]: 2.43-2.74). Overall survival (hazard ratio: 0.47-0.61) and adverse event-related discontinuation (OR: 0.79-0.90) favored entrectinib. Progression-free survival was similar across treatments, except in one scenario. These results suggested improved outcomes with entrectinib versus crizotinib/chemotherapy and may help to make better informed treatment decisions.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Benzamides; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Crizotinib; Humans; Indazoles; Lung; Lung Neoplasms; Protein-Tyrosine Kinases; Proto-Oncogene Proteins
PubMed: 32648475
DOI: 10.2217/cer-2020-0063 -
Cancers May 2020Prostate cancer (PrC) is the second-most frequent cancer in men, its incidence is emerging globally and is the fifth leading cause of death worldwide. While diagnosis...
Prostate cancer (PrC) is the second-most frequent cancer in men, its incidence is emerging globally and is the fifth leading cause of death worldwide. While diagnosis and prognosis of PrC have been studied well, the associated therapeutic biomarkers have not yet been investigated comprehensively. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the theragnostic effects of microRNA expressions on chemoresistance in prostate cancer and to analyse the utility of miRNAs as clinical theragnostic biomarkers. A systematic literature search for studies reporting miRNA expressions and their role in chemoresistance in PrC published until 2018 was collected from bibliographic databases. The evaluation of data was performed as per PRISMA guidelines for systematic review and meta-analysis. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) software. Heterogeneity between studies was analysed using Cochran's Q test, I and the Tau statistic. Quality assessment of the studies was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for the methodological assessment of cohort studies. Publication bias was assessed using Egger's bias indicator test, Orwin and classic fail-safe N test, Begg and Mazumdar rank collection test, and Duval and Tweedie's trim and fill methods. Out of 2909 studies retrieved, 79 studies were shortlisted and reviewed. A total of 17 studies met our eligibility criteria, from which 779 PrC patients and 17 chemotherapy drugs were examined, including docetaxel and paclitaxel. The majority of the drug regulatory genes reported were involved in cell survival, angiogenesis and cell proliferation pathways. We studied 42 miRNAs across all studies, out of which two miRNAs were found to be influencing chemosensitivity, while 21 were involved in chemoresistance. However, the remaining 19 miRNAs did not appear to have any theragnostic effects. Besides, the prognostic impact of the miRNAs was evaluated and had a pooled HR value of 1.960 with 95% CI (1.377-2.791). The observation of the current study depicts the significance of miRNA expression as a theragnostic biomarker in medical oncology. This review suggests the involvement of specific miRNAs as predictors of chemoresistance and sensitivity in PrC. Hence, the current systematic review and meta-analysis provide insight on the use of miRNA as PrC biomarkers, which can be harnessed as molecular candidates for therapeutic targeting.
PubMed: 32397507
DOI: 10.3390/cancers12051199 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2020Immunotherapy in lung cancer treatment is a long history paved with failures and some successes. During the last decade, the discovery of checkpoints inhibitors led to...
Immunotherapy in lung cancer treatment is a long history paved with failures and some successes. During the last decade, the discovery of checkpoints inhibitors led to major advances in treating advanced and metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Impressive data from early phase I-II studies were subsequently confirmed in large prospective randomized trials and meta-analyses (High-level of evidence). Three anti- programmed death-1 (PD1) (pembrolizumab, nivolumab) or antiPD-ligand(L)1 (atezolizumab) antibodies showed clinically significant improved survival compared to second-line docetaxel. Then, first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy demonstrated its superiority over platinum-doublet in high PD-L1 NSCLC. The addition of pembrolizumab or atezolizumab to chemotherapy derived the same results regardless of the PD-L1 status. On the opposite, antiCTLA4 (Cytotoxic T-Lymphocyte Associated 4) results are currently disappointing in unselected patients while recent development suggest that the combination of antiPD1 and antiCTLA4 (nivolumab-ipilimumab) positively impact on overall survival. Some secondary analyses also showed that immunotherapy has a positive impact on quality of life and that the clinical improvement can be done at an acceptable incremental cost per QALY. A lot of questions remain unresolved: which is the best treatment duration and is it the same for all patients, how to choose the patients that will have the highest benefit of immunotherapy, how to identify the patients who will have rapid progression, how to improve the current data (new targets, new combinations)….
PubMed: 32266275
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2020.00090 -
Scientific Reports Nov 2019FLOT regimen became the standard perioperative treatment in several centers around the world for esophagogastric tumors despite concerns about toxicity. In addition,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
FLOT regimen became the standard perioperative treatment in several centers around the world for esophagogastric tumors despite concerns about toxicity. In addition, FLOT has never been compared with other docetaxel-based regimens. To address this question, we conducted a systematic review of PubMed, Embase and Web of Science including prospective or retrospective studies of docetaxel based perioperative regimen in gastric and esophagogastric tumors. Data regarding chemotherapy regimens, efficacy and toxicity were extracted. Outcomes were compared using a random effects model. Of 548 abstracts, 16 were considered eligible. Comparing the studies with meta-analysis we can see that the regimens are similar in terms of pathological complete response, resection rate, progression free survival and overall survival in one year, without significant heterogeneity. The meta-regression of docetaxel dose failed to show any association with dose ranging between 120-450 mg/m². Regarding the toxicity of the regimens it is noted that the regimens are quite toxic (up to 50-70% of grade 3-4 neutropenia). The results of this meta-analysis with a combined sample size of more than 1,000 patients suggest that docetaxel perioperative regimens are equivalent in outcomes. Prospective trials addressing modified regimens should be performed to provide less toxic strategies and be applicable to all patients.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents, Phytogenic; Docetaxel; Esophageal Neoplasms; Humans; Perioperative Care; Stomach Neoplasms
PubMed: 31676841
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-52334-y