Interaction between calcium channel blockers and capecitabine in colorectal cancer patients with hypertension

Table 1 Comparison of baseline data between the two groups, n (%)/mean ± SD

Indicators	Control group (n = 60)	Experimental group (n = 60)	t/χ²	P value
Age (years)	66.15 ± 7.31	65.82 ± 7.25	0.249	0.804
Gender			0.139	0.709
Male	35 (58.33)	37 (61.67)
Female	25 (41.67)	23 (38.33)
ECOG score			0.141	0.707
0 points	24 (40.00)	22 (36.67)
1 point	36 (60.00)	38 (63.33)
T stage			0.498	0.779
T2	5	7
T3	33	30
T4	22	23
N stage			0.310	0.577
N1	34 (56.67)	37 (61.67)
N2	26 (43.33)	23 (38.33)
Systolic blood pressure (mmHg)	153.63 ± 5.19	153.60 ± 5.29	0.025	0.980
Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg)	96.44 ± 3.72	95.83 ± 3.92	0.877	0.382
CEA (ng/mL)	15.89 ± 2.46	15.95 ± 2.53	-0.132	0.896
CA19-9 (U/mL)	82.54 ± 6.88	82.67 ± 7.23	-0.101	0.902

It compares the continuous variables (e.g., age, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, carcinoembryonic antigen, carbohydrate antigen 19-9) between the two groups using an independent samples t-test, and the categorical variables (e.g., gender, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score, T stage, N stage) using the χ² test. The results show that there is no statistically significant difference between the groups for any baseline characteristic (all P > 0.05), indicating that the groups are comparable. CEA: Carcinoembryonic antigen; CA19-9: Carbohydrate antigen 19-9; ECOG: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.

Table 2 Comparison of blood pressure control before and after treatment, mean ± SD

Group	Systolic blood pressure (mmHg)		Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg)
	Before treatment	After treatment	Before treatment	After treatment
Control group (n = 60)	153.63 ± 5.19	126.42 ± 9.43	96.44 ± 3.72	82.69 ± 2.97
Experimental group (n = 60)	153.60 ± 5.29	119.04 ± 10.44	95.83 ± 3.92	78.90 ± 4.23
t value	0.025	4.064	0.877	5.685
P value	0.980	< 0.001	0.382	< 0.001

It compares the systolic and diastolic blood pressure levels before and after treatment in both groups using the independent samples t-test. The results show that there was no significant difference in baseline blood pressure between the two groups (P > 0.05), while both groups showed significant post-treatment blood pressure reduction, with the experimental group demonstrating a greater decrease (P < 0.001).

Table 3 Comparison of tumor marker levels before and after treatment, mean ± SD

Group	CEA (ng/mL)		CA19-9 (U/mL)
	Before treatment	After treatment	Before treatment	After treatment
Control group (n = 60)	15.89 ± 2.46	8.55 ± 0.68	82.54 ± 6.88	34.69 ± 5.51
Experimental group (n = 60)	15.95 ± 2.53	7.85 ± 0.98	82.67 ± 7.23	31.55 ± 3.86
t value	-0.132	4.540	-0.101	3.614
P value	0.896	< 0.001	0.902	< 0.001

It compares the carcinoembryonic antigen and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 levels before and after treatment in both groups using the independent samples t-test. The results show no significant difference in baseline tumor marker levels between the two groups (P > 0.05), while both groups showed significant post-treatment reduction in carcinoembryonic antigen and carbohydrate antigen 19-9, with the experimental group demonstrating a greater decrease (P < 0.001). CEA: Carcinoembryonic antigen; CA19-9: Carbohydrate antigen 19-9.

Table 4 Results of repeated-measures analysis of variance for blood pressure and tumor markers

Outcome	Effect	F (df)	P value	η²
Systolic blood pressure	Time	32.5 (1118)	0.001	0.216
	Time × group	6.8 (1118)	0.010	0.055
	Group	5.3 (1118)	0.023	0.043
Diastolic blood pressure	Time	25.1 (1118)	0.001	0.175
	Time × group	5.1 (1118)	0.026	0.041
	Group	4.2 (1118)	0.043	0.034
CEA	Time	28.3 (1118)	0.001	0.193
	Time × group	4.0 (1118)	0.048	0.033
	Group	4.1 (1118)	0.046	0.034
CA19-9	Time	34.7 (1118)	0.001	0.227
	Time × group	4.5 (1118)	0.036	0.037
	Group	4.3 (1118)	0.041	0.035

It summarizes the results of the repeated-measures analysis of variance performed to evaluate the effects of time, group, and the time × group interaction on systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, carcinoembryonic antigen, and carbohydrate antigen 19-9. The analysis reveals significant main effects of time and group, as well as significant time × group interactions for all outcomes (P < 0.05). CEA: Carcinoembryonic antigen; CA19-9: Carbohydrate antigen 19-9.

Table 5 Comparison of adverse reactions between the two groups, n (%)

Group	Hand-foot syndrome	Disgust and vomiting	Diarrhea	Stomatitis	Bone marrow suppression
					Grade 1-4	Grade 3
Control group (n = 60)	20 (33.33)	24 (40.00)	16 (26.67)	12 (20.00)	27 (45.00)	5 (8.33)
Experimental group (n = 60)	18 (30.00)	23 (38.33)	15 (25.00)	11 (18.33)	25 (41.67)	4 (6.67)
χ²	0.154	0.035	0.044	0.054	0.136	-
P value	0.695	0.852	0.835	0.817	0.713	0.729

It compares the incidence of adverse reactions (hand-foot syndrome, disgust and vomiting, diarrhea, stomatitis, bone marrow suppression) between the two groups using the χ² test. For Bone marrow suppression (grade 3), the exact probability method was used. The results show no statistically significant differences in the incidence of any adverse reaction between the control and experimental groups (all P > 0.05).