Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 25, 2026

Multianimal Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Tumor Measurements in Pancreatic Cancer Mouse Models
Published on: February 3, 2026
S-1 monotherapy versus S-1 combination therapy in gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic cancer: A meta-analysis
Sheng Zhong1, Shuai Qie, Liu Yang
1Department of Neurosurgery, the First Hospital of Jilin University Clinical College, Jilin University, Changchun, China Department of the Radiotherapy, Hebei University Affiliated Hospital, Baoding Public Health College, Jilin University Basic Medical College, Qiqihar Medical University, Qiqihar Radiology Department, Jixi Mining General Hospital, Jixi Hepatopancreatobiliary Medicine Department, the First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China.
Background:
Pancreatic cancer (PC) is one of the most lethal digestive system tumors. Most new cases are diagnosed based on metastasis or local aggression and are known as "advanced PC." Recently, studies investigating S-1 have indicated that it has a better clinical curative effect on PC. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of S-1 monotherapy compared with S-1 combination regimens in patients with gemcitabine (GEM)-refractory PC.
Methods:
Trials published between 1978 and 2016 were identified by an electronic search of public databases (Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library). All prospective studies were independently identified by 2 authors for inclusion. The response rate (RR), progression-free and overall survival (PFS and OS, respectively), and the primary toxicities were extracted for the meta-analysis.
Results:
Four randomized controlled trials consisting of 623 patients were included in the analysis, among which 315 patients underwent S-1 monotherapy and 308 patients underwent S-1 combination therapy. The pooled data showed a significantly higher response rate and longer PFS in the S-1 combination group than in the S-1 monotherapy group (RR, 1.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-2.57; P = .005 and hazard ration [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.91; P = .005). There were no significant differences in OS or adverse events.
Conclusions:
Compared with the S-1 monotherapy group, the S-1 combination group had a higher response rate and longer PFS. Both groups had few adverse events, which were balanced between the groups. The subgroup analysis suggested that S-1 combination regimens with leucovorin or irinotecan (CPT-11) provided promising efficacy. These promising combination regimens should be considered for patients with advanced PC who choose S-1 as their second-line therapy.
More Related Videos
12:34Robot-Assisted Radical Antegrade Modular Pancreatosplenectomy Including Resection and Reconstruction of the Spleno-Mesenteric Junction
Published on: January 3, 2020
08:57Sample Extraction and Simultaneous Chromatographic Quantitation of Doxorubicin and Mitomycin C Following Drug Combination Delivery in Nanoparticles to Tumor-bearing Mice
Published on: October 5, 2017
Related Concept Videos
Combination Therapies and Personalized Medicine
The combination of the drug acetazolamide and sulforaphane is a good example of combination therapy to treat cancer. The cells in the interior of a large tumor often die due to the hypoxic and...
Targeted Cancer Therapies
There are several types of targeted therapies against...
Combined Effects of Drugs: Synergism
Such synergistic combinations...