A clinical study of docetaxel with or without 5'DFUR as a second-line chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer

Mismatch between evidence and related clinical recommendations about the treatment of advanced esophageal cancer patients with anticancer drugs: A critical historical review

PURPOSE

to analyze the most robust research and recommendations that have informed the potential superiority of treatments with anticancer drugs over any type of supportive care for advanced esophageal cancer (EC).

METHODS

We conducted a critical historical review. First, we identified randomized clinical trials (RCTs) from a previous scoping review conducted by our research group, ASTAC, updating the search strategy. Second, we searched for the most important and recognized international clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in advanced EC. Finally, we performed a systematic document analysis to compare whether the recommendations proposed in the CPGs were supported by the previously identified relevant evidence.

RESULTS

We identified and assessed 15 RCTs and 11 CPGs from ESMO (eight), ASCO (two), and NICE (one) published over the last 40 years. There is a clear mismatch between these guidelines' recommendations and the available RCTs regarding the efficacy of anticancer drugs compared to best supportive care (BSC).

CONCLUSION

There is a lack of consistent evidence to support the treatment of advanced EC patients with anticancer drugs, and a notable mismatch exists between the available evidence and the recommendations made by relevant CPGs. As a result, these guidelines may be biased in favoring the use of anticancer drugs over supportive care and in consequence it is advisable to be very prudent when proposing systemic treatments to patients with advanced EC. Further rigorous and independent research is needed to better evaluate the true benefits of anticancer treatments in advanced EC and to update the CPGs accordingly.

Clinical Outcomes for Previously Treated Patients with Advanced Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Although second-line treatments improve survival compared to best supportive care in patients with advanced gastric cancer with disease progression on first-line therapy, prognosis remains poor. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to quantify the efficacy of second-or-later line systemic therapies in this target population.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (January 1, 2000 to July 6, 2021) of Embase, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL with additional searches of 2019-2021 annual ASCO and ESMO conferences was conducted to identify studies in the target population. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed among studies involving chemotherapies and targeted therapies relevant in treatment guidelines and HTA activities. Outcomes of interest were objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) presented as Kaplan-Meier data. Randomized controlled trials reporting any of the outcomes of interest were included. For OS and PFS, individual patient-level data were reconstructed from published Kaplan-Meier curves.

RESULTS

Forty-four trials were eligible for the analysis. Pooled ORR (42 trials; 77 treatment arms; 7256 participants) was 15.0% (95% confidence interval (CI) 12.7-17.5%). Median OS from the pooled analysis (34 trials; 64 treatment arms; 60,350 person-months) was 7.9 months (95% CI 7.4-8.5). Median PFS from the pooled analysis (32 trials; 61 treatment arms; 28,860 person-months) was 3.5 months (95% CI 3.2-3.7).

CONCLUSION

Our study confirms poor prognosis among patients with advanced gastric cancer, following disease progression on first-line therapy. Despite the approved, recommended, and experimental systemic treatments available, there is still an unmet need for novel interventions for this indication.

Salvage systemic therapy for advanced gastric and oesophago-gastric junction adenocarcinoma

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.

Systemic therapy for previously treated advanced gastric cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Although paclitaxel plus ramucirumab has been recommended as the preferred second-line strategy, other regimens also display potentially comparable efficacies. Record retrieval was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, ASCO and ESMO meeting libraries. Randomized controlled trials featuring comparisons between different systemic treatments among previously treated patients with advanced gastric cancer were eligible for our systematic review. Network calculation were based on random-effects model and the relative ranking of each regimen was numerically indicated by P-score (CRD42018104672). Concerning second-line regimens, "paclitaxel plus olaparib" and "paclitaxel plus ramucirumab" dominated the overall survival ranking while "paclitaxel plus ramucirumab" additionally topped the hierarchy for progression-free survival. Among refractory or third-line only cases, apatinib reigned the hierarchy by significantly and insignificantly surpassing placebo and nivolumab respectively. In conclusion, paclitaxel plus ramucirumab is the optimal second-line regimen. Both apatinib and nivolumab could be potentially recommended as refractory regimens.

A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis for Identifying the Optimal Taxane-Based Chemotherapy Regimens for Treating Gastric Cancer

Background: Several taxane-based chemotherapy regimens are effective in the treatment of gastric cancer; nevertheless, their comparative efficacy and safety remain disputed. This network meta-analysis (NMA) was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of different taxane-based chemotherapy regimens against gastric cancer.

Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted to identify all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in multiple electronic databases. A Bayesian NMA was performed to combine the direct and indirect evidence and estimate the comparative efficacy and safety of different taxane-based chemotherapy regimens simultaneously by utilizing WinBUGS 1.4.3 and Stata 13.1 software. The efficacy outcomes included overall survival rate (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR), and the safety outcomes were adverse reactions (ADRs), namely, neutropenia, leucopenia, vomiting, and fatigue.

Results: A total of 37 RCTs were identified involving 7,178 patients with gastric cancer, and 10 taxane-based chemotherapy regimens (RT, T, TC, TCF, TF, TO, TOF, mTCF, mTF, and mTOF) were collected in gastric cancer therapy. According to the results of cluster analysis, compared with other taxane-based chemotherapy regimens, the regimens of TOF, mTCF, and TF were associated with the most favorable clinical efficacy in improving OS, PFS, and ORR. On the other hand, the regimens of T and mTF had the potential to be the most tolerable and acceptable therapeutic alternative in terms of ADRs.

Conclusions: The current NMA provides the evidence that the combination of taxanes (paclitaxel or docetaxel) and fluorouracil is associated with the most preferable and beneficial option for patients with gastric cancer, although additional results from multicenter trials and high-quality studies will be pivotal for supporting our findings.

Clinical use of trastuzumab combined with different chemotherapy regimens in multi-line treatment of advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive gastric cancer: A case report

It is generally acknowledged that gastric cancer requires comprehensive treatment approaches to be adopted. For patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2)-overexpressing gastric cancer, targeting HER2 with trastuzumab in first-line therapy combined with standard chemotherapy significantly improves the prognosis. However, there is a lack of international guidance for second-line treatment if a patient experiences disease progression. There is also no accepted conclusion regarding the efficiency of cross-line therapy with trastuzumab. The present study reports the case of a 55-year-old male with gastric cancer who underwent radical gastrectomy. Immunohistochemistry indicated that samples were EGFR(+) and HER-2(3+), with Ki-67 (20%). From abdominal computed tomography scanning and contrast-enhanced ultrasound following surgery, hepatic metastasis was identified and the patient was administered microwave thermocoagulation therapy. Since December 2012, the patient received multi-line chemotherapy regimens as follows: i) Oxaliplatin, tegafur/gimeracil/oteracil and trastuzumab; ii) paclitaxel liposome and S-1 plus trastuzumab; iii) apatinib; iv) epirubicin/oxaliplatin/xeloda; and v) irinotecan plus trastuzumab. During the course of therapy, the trastuzumab served an important function in multi-line therapy and the patient benefited from the combined therapy. The application of trastuzumab in the multi-line treatment of a patient with HER2-positive advanced gastric cancer may be worthy of investigation for use in the clinic.

Chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer is the fifth most common cancer worldwide. In "Western" countries, most people are either diagnosed at an advanced stage, or develop a relapse after surgery with curative intent. In people with advanced disease, significant benefits from targeted therapies are currently limited to HER-2 positive disease treated with trastuzumab, in combination with chemotherapy, in first-line. In second-line, ramucirumab, alone or in combination with paclitaxel, demonstrated significant survival benefits. Thus, systemic chemotherapy remains the mainstay of treatment for advanced gastric cancer. Uncertainty remains regarding the choice of the regimen.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of chemotherapy versus best supportive care (BSC), combination versus single-agent chemotherapy and different chemotherapy combinations in advanced gastric cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and Embase up to June 2016, reference lists of studies, and contacted pharmaceutical companies and experts to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered only RCTs on systemic, intravenous or oral chemotherapy versus BSC, combination versus single-agent chemotherapy and different chemotherapy regimens in advanced gastric cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified studies and extracted data. A third investigator was consulted in case of disagreements. We contacted study authors to obtain missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 64 RCTs, of which 60 RCTs (11,698 participants) provided data for the meta-analysis of overall survival. We found chemotherapy extends overall survival (OS) by approximately 6.7 months more than BSC (hazard ratio (HR) 0.3, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.24 to 0.55, 184 participants, three studies, moderate-quality evidence). Combination chemotherapy extends OS slightly (by an additional month) versus single-agent chemotherapy (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.89, 4447 participants, 23 studies, moderate-quality evidence), which is partly counterbalanced by increased toxicity. The benefit of epirubicin in three-drug combinations, in which cisplatin is replaced by oxaliplatin and 5-FU is replaced by capecitabine is unknown.Irinotecan extends OS slightly (by an additional 1.6 months) versus non-irinotecan-containing regimens (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.95, 2135 participants, 10 studies, high-quality evidence).Docetaxel extends OS slightly (just over one month) compared to non-docetaxel-containing regimens (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.95, 2001 participants, eight studies, high-quality evidence). However, due to subgroup analyses, we are uncertain whether docetaxel-containing combinations (docetaxel added to a single-agent or two-drug combination) extends OS due to moderate-quality evidence (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.91, 1466 participants, four studies, moderate-quality evidence). When another chemotherapy was replaced by docetaxel, there is probably little or no difference in OS (HR 1.05; 0.87 to 1.27, 479 participants, three studies, moderate-quality evidence). We found there is probably little or no difference in OS when comparing capecitabine versus 5-FU-containing regimens (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.11, 732 participants, five studies, moderate-quality evidence) .Oxaliplatin may extend (by less than one month) OS versus cisplatin-containing regimens (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.98, 1105 participants, five studies, low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether taxane-platinum combinations with (versus without) fluoropyrimidines extend OS due to very low-quality evidence (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.06, 482 participants, three studies, very low-quality evidence). S-1 regimens improve OS slightly (by less than an additional month) versus 5-FU-containing regimens (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.00, 1793 participants, four studies, high-quality evidence), however since S-1 is used in different doses and schedules between Asian and non-Asian population, the applicability of this finding to individual populations is uncertain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Chemotherapy improves survival (by an additional 6.7 months) in comparison to BSC, and combination chemotherapy improves survival (by an additional month) compared to single-agent 5-FU. Testing all patients for HER-2 status may help to identify patients with HER-2-positive tumours, for whom, in the absence of contraindications, trastuzumab in combination with capecitabine or 5-FU in combination with cisplatin has been shown to be beneficial. For HER-2 negative people, all different two-and three-drug combinations including irinotecan, docetaxel, oxaliplatin or oral 5-FU prodrugs are valid treatment options for advanced gastric cancer, and consideration of the side effects of each regimen is essential in the treatment decision. Irinotecan-containing combinations and docetaxel-containing combinations (in which docetaxel was added to a single-agent or two-drug (platinum/5-FUcombination) show significant survival benefits in the comparisons studied above. Furthermore, docetaxel-containing three-drug regimens have increased response rates, but the advantages of the docetaxel-containing three-drug combinations (DCF, FLO-T) are counterbalanced by increased toxicity. Additionally, oxaliplatin-containing regimens demonstrated a benefit in OS as compared to the same regimen containing cisplatin, and there is a modest survival improvement of S-1 compared to 5-FU-containing regimens.Whether the survival benefit for three-drug combinations including cisplatin, 5-FU, and epirubicin as compared to the same regimen without epirubicin is still valid when second-line therapy is routinely administered and when cisplatin is replaced by oxaliplatin and 5-FU by capecitabine is questionable. Furthermore, the magnitude of the observed survival benefits for the three-drug regimens is not large enough to be clinically meaningful as defined recently by the American Society for Clinical Oncology (Ellis 2014). In contrast to the comparisons in which a survival benefit was observed by adding a third drug to a two-drug regimen at the cost of increased toxicity, the comparison of regimens in which another chemotherapy was replaced by irinotecan was associated with a survival benefit (of borderline statistical significance), but without increased toxicity. For this reason irinotecan/5-FU-containing combinations are an attractive option for first-line treatment. Although they need to be interpreted with caution, subgroup analyses of one study suggest that elderly people have a greater benefit form oxaliplatin, as compared to cisplatin-based regimens, and that people with locally advanced disease or younger than 65 years might benefit more from a three-drug regimen including 5-FU, docetaxel, and oxaliplatin as compared to a two-drug combination of 5-FU and oxaliplatin, a hypothesis that needs further confirmation. For people with good performance status, the benefit of second-line chemotherapy has been established in several RCTs.

Second- and third-line systemic therapy in patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer: a systematic review of the literature

The optimal second- and third-line chemotherapy and targeted therapy for patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer is still a matter of debate. Therefore, a literature search was carried out in Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and oncology conferences until January 2016 for randomized controlled trials that compared second- or third-line therapy. We included 28 studies with 4810 patients. Second-line, single-agent taxane/irinotecan showed increased survival compared to best supportive care (BSC) (hazard ratio 0.65, 95 % confidence interval 0.53-0.79). Median survival gain ranged from 1.4 to 2.7 months among individual studies. Taxane- and irinotecan-based regimens showed equal survival benefit. Doublet chemotherapy taxane/irinotecan plus platinum and fluoropyrimidine was not different in survival, but showed increased toxicity vs. taxane/irinotecan monotherapy. Compared to BSC, second-line ramucirumab and second- or third-line everolimus and regorafenib showed limited median survival gain ranging from 1.1 to 1.4 months, and progression-free survival gain, ranging from 0.3 to 1.6 months. Third- or later-line apatinib showed increased survival benefit over BSC (HR 0.50, 0.32-0.79). Median survival gain ranged from 1.8 to 2.3 months. Compared to taxane-alone, survival was superior for second-line ramucirumab plus taxane (HR 0.81, 0.68-0.96), and olaparib plus taxane (HR 0.56, 0.35-0.87), with median survival gains of 2.2 and 4.8 months respectively. Targeted agents, either in monotherapy or combined with chemotherapy showed increased toxicity compared to BSC and chemotherapy-alone. This review indicates that, given the survival benefit in a phase III study setting, ramucirumab plus taxane is the preferred second-line treatment. Taxane or irinotecan monotherapy are alternatives, although the absolute survival benefit was limited. In third-line setting, apatinib monotherapy is preferred.

Doublet Versus Single Agent as Second-Line Treatment for Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of 10 Randomized Controlled Trials

The purpose of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the efficacy and safety of doublet versus single agent as second-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer (AGC).A comprehensive literature search was performed to identify relevant RCTs. All clinical studies were independently identified by 2 authors for inclusion. Demographic data, treatment regimens, objective response rate (ORR), and progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were extracted and analyzed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (Version 2.0).Ten RCTs involving 1698 pretreated AGC patients were ultimately identified. The pooled results demonstrated that doublet combination therapy as second-line treatment for AGC significantly improved OS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.78-0.97, P = 0.011), PFS (HR 0.79, 95% CI: 0.72-0.87, P < 0.001), and ORR (relative risk [RR] 1.57, 95% CI: 1.27-1.95, P < 0.001). Sub-group analysis according to treatment regimens also showed that targeted agent plus chemotherapy significantly improve OS, PFS, and ORR. However, no significant survival benefits had been observed in doublet cytotoxic chemotherapy when compared with single cytotoxic agent. Additionally, more incidences of grade 3 or 4 myelosuppression toxicities, diarrhea, and fatigue were observed in doublet combination groups, while equivalent frequencies of grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia and nausea were found between the 2 groups.In comparison with single cytotoxic agent alone, the addition of targeted agent to mono-chemotherapy as salvage treatment for pretreated AGC patients provide substantial survival benefits, while no significant survival benefits were observed in doublet cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens.

Chemotherapy or targeted therapy as second-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer. A systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies

Chemotherapy is a cornerstone in treatments of gastric cancer, but despite its benefit, less than 60% of patients receive salvage therapy in clinical practice. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis based on trial data on the role of second-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer. MEDLINE/PubMed and Cochrane Library were searched for randomized phase III trials that compared active therapy to best supportive care in advanced gastric cancer. Data extraction was conducted according to the PRISMA statement. Summary HR for OS was calculated using a hierarchical Bayesian model and subgroup analysis was performed based on baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG) performance status (0 vs. 1 or more). A total of 1,407 patients were evaluable for efficacy, 908 were treated in the experimental arms, with chemotherapy (231 pts) or with targeted therapies (677 pts). The risk of death was decreased by 18% (HR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.79-0.85; posterior probability HR≥1: <0.00001) with active therapies. Chemotherapy and ramucirumab were able to decrease this risk by 27% and 22%, respectively. No differences were found between chemotherapy and ramucirumab. In patients with ECOG = 0 a greater benefit was found for chemotherapy with a reduction of the risk of death by 43% and no benefits were found for ramucirumab or everolimus. In patients with ECOG = 1 or more a significant reduction of the risk of death by 32% was reported in patients treated with ramucirumab, even if no significant difference was reported between chemotherapy and ramucirumab. This analysis reports that active and available therapies are able to prolong survival in patients with advanced gastric cancer with a different outcome based on initial patient's performance status. New trials based on a better patient stratification are awaited.

Pharmacoethnicity of docetaxel-induced severe neutropenia: integrated analysis of published phase II and III trials

BACKGROUND

Ethnic differences in drug susceptibility and toxicity are a major concern, not only in drug development but also in the clinical setting. We review the toxicity profiles of docetaxel according to dose and ethnicity.

METHODS

We analyzed phase II and III clinical trials that included a once-every-3-weeks single-agent docetaxel arm. Logistic regression analysis was applied to identify the significant variables affecting the reported incidence of docetaxel-induced severe neutropenia.

RESULTS

Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified studies conducted in Asia [odds ratio (OR) 19.0; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 3.64-99.0] and docetaxel dose (OR 1.08; 95% CI 1.03-1.13) as independent variables for the incidence of grade 3/4 neutropenia.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a significant difference in the incidence of docetaxel-induced severe neutropenia between Asian and non-Asian clinical studies. Physicians and pharmacists should consider ethnic diversity in docetaxel toxicity when interpreting the results of clinical trials.