Phase II study of sequential cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) followed by irinotecan plus 5-FU/LV followed by docetaxel plus 5-FU/LV in patients with metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma

Identification of stem cell-related subtypes and risk scoring for gastric cancer based on stem genomic profiling

BACKGROUND

Although numerous studies demonstrate the role of cancer stem cells in occurrence, recurrence, and distant metastases in gastric cancer (GC), little is known about the evolving genetic and epigenetic changes in the stem and progenitor cells. The purpose of this study was to identify the stem cell subtypes in GC and examine their clinical relevance.

METHODS

Two publicly available datasets were used to identify GC stem cell subtypes, and consensus clustering was performed by unsupervised machine learning methods. The cancer stem cell (CSC) typing-related risk scoring (RS) model was established through multivariate Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

Cross-platform dataset-based two stable GC stem cell subtypes, namely low stem cell enrichment (SCE_L) and high stem cell enrichment (SCE_H), were prudently identified. Gene set enrichment analysis revealed that the classical oncogenic pathways, immune-related pathways, and regulation of stem cell division were active in SCE_H; ferroptosis, NK cell activation, and post-mutation repair pathways were active in SCE_L. GC stem cell subtypes could accurately predict clinical outcomes in patients, tumor microenvironment cell-infiltration characteristics, somatic mutation landscape, and potential responses to immunotherapy, targeted therapy, and chemotherapy. Additionally, a CSC typing-related RS model was established; it was strongly independent and could accurately predict the patient's overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated the complex oncogenic mechanisms underlying GC. The findings provide a basis and reference for the diagnosis and treatment of GC.

Locally advanced gastro-oesophageal cancer: Recent therapeutic advances and research directions

Gastric (GC) and gastro-oesophageal (GOJC) adenocarcinomas are often considered as a single entity, even though differences exist in epidemiology, clinical presentation, molecular biology and treatment options. Locally advanced, resectable disease represents a particularly challenging scenario, as many critical issues need to be addressed. In both GC and GOJC among Western countries, systemic chemotherapy demonstrated the greatest benefit when administered before and after surgery and perioperative chemotherapy has been set as a standard in this setting. Nonetheless, multiple chemotherapy regimens have been tested and direct comparisons have been only recently presented. Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy is an option as well, but several trials have questioned its role when more effective combination regimens are used. With regards to GOJC, preoperative chemoradiotherapy is an alternative to perioperative chemotherapy, as it is associated with higher pathologic responses and a different toxicity profile: however, a definitive comparison with chemotherapy is ongoing. Herein, we review the current options for the treatment of resectable GC and GOJC and the main open questions in the management of these patients, trying to depict an update of the available algorithms for everyday practice. Moreover, we summarize the design and preliminary results of the randomized trials in progress that will hopefully give definitive answers to the most debated issues in the field.

Three drugs vs two drugs first-line chemotherapy regimen in advanced gastric cancer patients: a retrospective analysis

The definition of the standard chemotherapy regimen for advanced gastric cancer is still a matter of debate. Aim of our analysis was to retrospectively assess whether an intensive, three-drugs, front line approach could be comparable to a sequential (two-drugs front line then second line) in terms of RR (response rate), PFS (progression free survival) and OS (overall survival) in advanced gastric cancer patients in the clinical practice. Patients with metastatic gastric cancer who have received a first-line combination chemotherapy with a two or three-drugs regimen were included in our analysis. We divided our patients into two groups, A and B, based on the first line chemotherapy administered (group A = three drugs; group B = two drugs). A total of 425 patients were eligible for our analysis. 216 patients (50.8 %) received three chemotherapeutic agents (group A) and 209 patients (49.2 %) received a two drugs regimen as first-line combination chemotherapy (group B). RR for group A and B was 44 and 29.6 %, respectively (p = 0.0005), median PFS was 7.3 months in group A and 4.5 months in group B (p = 0.0007). No significant difference was found in terms of OS. The addition of a third drug to a doublet chemotherapy regimen appeared more active in terms of response rate and PFS. However median OS resulted comparable. On this basis, the use of a sequential approach may represent a reasonable strategy for patients unwilling or unable to undergo a more intensive treatment without compromising OS.

Sequential chemotherapy with cisplatin, leucovorin, and 5-fluorouracil followed by docetaxel in previously untreated patients with metastatic gastric cancer: a phase II study

BACKGROUND

The combination of docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) has demonstrated a survival advantage over cisplatin and 5-FU, but with substantial hematological toxicity. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of a sequential regimen with cisplatin, leucovorin, and 5-FU (PLF) followed by docetaxel in metastatic gastric cancer patients.

METHODS

Treatment consisted of 4 cycles of biweekly PLF (cisplatin 50 mg/m(2) as a 30-min infusion on day 1, leucovorin 200 mg/m(2) in a 2-h infusion, and 5-FU 2,800 mg/m(2) in a 48-h continuous infusion starting on day 1) followed, in cases of response or stable disease, by 3 cycles of docetaxel (75 mg/m(2), every 3 weeks).

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients were enrolled, with an average age of 64 years (range 34-69). The main cumulative grade 3-4 toxicities were: neutropenia (38.2%), febrile neutropenia (11.8%), and fatigue (14.7%). After the planned 7 cycles of treatment, the overall response rate was 38.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 21.9-54.6), with 3 complete and 10 partial responses. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 4.8 and 10.6 months, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with metastatic gastric cancer, the sequential administration of cisplatin, leucovorin, 5-FU, and docetaxel may be an effective palliative option and offers a far more favorable toxicity profile than the simultaneous use of docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-FU.

Phase I study of matuzumab in combination with 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin and cisplatin (PLF) in patients with advanced gastric and esophagogastric adenocarcinomas

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the safety and tolerability of two different weekly doses of the fully humanized epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeting monoclonal antibody matuzumab combined with high-dose 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin and cisplatin (PLF) in the first-line treatment of patients with EGFR-positive advanced gastric and esophagogastric adenocarcinomas.

METHODS

Patients were treated in two matuzumab dose groups with the first cohort of patients receiving 400 mg matuzumab in combination with PLF. Based on the safety observations the next cohort of patients received 800 mg matuzumab. The study was conducted in two parts, with phase A, designed to assess the safety and tolerability of the combination, and phase B designed to be a treatment continuation for those patients benefiting from treatment. Treatment cycles were 7 weeks each. Each patient received the dose of matuzumab they were assigned to at study entry for the duration of the study.

RESULTS

Fifteen EGFR-positive patients were enrolled into the two matuzumab dose groups; 400 mg dose n=7; 800 mg dose n=8. All patients experienced at least one adverse event (AE). No patient experienced any serious AE which was considered to be related to matuzumab. Two grade 3 AEs possibly related to matuzumab occurred in 2 different patients (13.3 %), both in the 800 mg dose group. No dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was observed in the 400 mg group. The maximum tolerated dose of matuzumab was not reached. The best confirmed overall response rate was 26.7 %.

CONCLUSION

Matuzumab, in combination with PLF, demonstrated an acceptable safety profile with modest anti-tumor activity.