{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.051215277777777776, 'fraction_numerical': 0.029513888888888888, 'mean_word_length': 4.337962962962963, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Comparative study of UFT plus mitomycin C and UFT plus doxorubicin in adenocarcinoma. Hirosaki Cooperative Group of Cancer Chemotherapy].

A multicenter cooperative study was conducted to compare the clinical efficacy of UFT-M (UFT, Mitomycin C (MMC)) and UFT-D (UFT, Doxorubicin (DXR)). A total of 62 cases with adenocarcinoma were enrolled in this study. Eligible cases included 25 patients with gastric cancer, 22 with pancreas or biliary tract cancer and 10 with other cancers. They were divided into two groups; 30 in UFT-M and 27 in UFT-D. The treatment schedules were as follows: UFT 400-600 mg/day orally every day, MMC 4-6 mg/m2, IV, every week (UFT-M); UFT 400-600 mg/day orally every day, DXR 20 mg/m2, IV, every 3 weeks (UFT-D). For gastric cancer, 3 of 17 cases treated by UFT-M showed PR, whereas no case showed PR in UFT-D. As for toxicity, bone marrow suppression was more commonly observed in UFT-M than in UFT-D. There was no statistical difference in survival between the two treatment regimens. These results suggested that UFT-D was not effective but UFT-M was a more promising combination therapy against advanced gastric cancer.