Skip to main content
. 2017 Aug 29;2017(8):CD004064. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004064.pub4

Summary of findings 6. Docetaxel versus non‐docetaxel‐containing regimens for advanced gastric cancer.

Docetaxel versus non‐docetaxel‐containing regimens for advanced gastric cancer
Patient or population: people with advanced gastric cancer
 Settings: outpatient clinics participating in international multicentre studies
 Intervention: docetaxel
Control: non‐docetaxel‐containing regimens
Outcomes Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) Relative effect
 (95% CI) No of Participants
 (studies) Quality of the evidence
 (GRADE) Comments
Assumed risk Corresponding risk
Non‐docetaxel‐containing regimens Chemotherapy with docetaxel
Overall survival Study population HR 0.86
(0.78 to 0.95)
2001
 (8 studies) ⊕⊕⊕⊕
 high Weighted average of median survival durations from included studies
9.9 months 11.2 months
Overall survival ‐ Substitutive comparisons Study population HR 1.05
(0.87 to 1.27)
479
 (3 studies) ⊕⊕⊕⊝
 moderate1 Weighted average of median survival durations from included studies
9.4 months 9.2 months
Overall survival ‐ Additive comparisons Study population HR 0.80
(0.71 to 0.91)
1466
 (4 studies) ⊕⊕⊕⊝
 moderate2 Weighted average of median survival durations from included studies
10.6 months 12.3 months
Overall survival ‐ Other comparisons Study population HR 0.80
(0.46 to 1.39)
56
 (1 study) ⊕⊝⊝⊝
 very low1,2,3 Median survival durations from the only included study
9.5 months 11.9 months
Tumour response Study population OR 1.37
(1.03 to 1.83)
1820
 (9 studies) ⊕⊕⊕⊝
 moderate4  
311 per 1000 382 per 1000 
 (317 to 452)
Moderate
310 per 1000 381 per 1000 
 (316 to 451)
Tumour response ‐ Substitutive comparison Study population OR 1.03
(0.71 to 1.50)
525
 (4 studies) ⊕⊕⊕⊝
 moderate1  
314 per 1000 320 per 1000 
 (245 to 407)
Moderate
327 per 1000 334 per 1000 
 (256 to 422)
Tumour response ‐ Additive comparison Study population OR 1.83
(1.45 to 2.32)
1235
 (4 studies) ⊕⊕⊕⊕
 high  
295 per 1000 434 per 1000 
 (378 to 493)
Moderate
296 per 1000 435 per 1000 
 (379 to 494)
Tumour response ‐ Other comparison Study population OR 0.33
(0.12 to 0.96)
60
 (1 study) ⊕⊝⊝⊝
 very low1,3  
600 per 1000 331 per 1000 
 (153 to 590)
Moderate
600 per 1000 331 per 1000 
 (153 to 590)
Time to progression Study population HR 1.06
(0.85 to 1.32)
360
 (2 studies) ⊕⊝⊝⊝
 very low1,2,3 Weighted average of median survival durations from included studies
6.0 months 5.9 months
Progression‐free survival Study population HR 0.76
(0.63 to 0.91)
1498
 (5 studies) ⊕⊕⊕⊝
 moderate4 Weighted average of median survival durations from included studies
4.8 months 6.0 months
Progression‐free survival ‐ Substitutive comparisons Study population HR 1.15
(0.77 to 1.72)
119
 (1 study) ⊕⊝⊝⊝
 very low1,2,3 Median survival durations from the only included study
4.9 months 4.6 months
Progression‐free survival ‐ Additive comparison Study population HR 0.70
(0.61 to 0.81)
1323
 (3 studies) ⊕⊕⊕⊕
 high Weighted average of median survival durations from included studies
4.3 months 6.0 months
Progression‐free survival ‐ Other comparison Study population HR 0.94
(0.55 to 1.60)
56
 (1 study) ⊕⊝⊝⊝
 very low1,3 Median survival durations from the only included study
6.4 months 6.8 months
Treatment‐related death Study population OR 1.10 
 (0.55 to 2.20) 2113
 (7 studies) ⊕⊕⊕⊝
 moderate1  
12 per 1000 14 per 1000 
 (7 to 27)
Moderate
5 per 1000 5 per 1000 
 (3 to 11)
Treatment discontinuation due to toxicity Study population OR 0.81
(0.53 to 1.25)
1066
 (5 studies) ⊕⊕⊝⊝
 low1,4  
211 per 1000 178 per 1000 
 (124 to 251)
Moderate
197 per 1000 166 per 1000 
 (115 to 235)
*For time‐to‐event outcomes, e.g. overall survival, the assumed and corresponding risks were obtained by calculating the weighted average of the median survival durations reported in included studies. For dichotomous outcomes, the assumed and corresponding risks (and their 95% confidence interval) are based on proportions of events in the control and intervention groups respectively.
 CI: Confidence interval; OR: Odds ratio; HR: Hazard ratio;
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
 High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
 Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
 Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
 Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1 Downgraded by one level for imprecision.
 2 Downgraded by one level for risk of bias.
 3 Downgraded by two levels for serious imprecision.
 4 Downgraded by one level for statistical heterogeneity.