Docetaxel/cisplatin followed by FOLFIRI versus the reverse sequence in metastatic gastric cancer

Advanced Gastric Cancer: Current Treatment Landscape and a Future Outlook for Sequential and Personalized Guide: Swiss Expert Statement Article

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Several treatment possibilities have been investigated, but only a few show clinically meaningful results.

SUMMARY

Systemic treatment options for advanced gastric cancer (aGC) have evolved over the recent years, implementing the growing molecular knowledge of this heterogeneous disease. Molecular profiling (at least for HER-2-expression, microsatellite instability status, Epstein-Barr virus expression, and programmed death ligand-1 expression/combined positive score [CPS]) is recommended for all therapy-fit patients prior to the start of a systemic treatment and is crucial for decisions on treatment strategy and drug selection. Various examples like the application of trastuzumab in the HER-2-positive subgroup underline the benefits of this approach starting from the first-line setting. A combination of platinum and fluoropyrimidine remains the first-line chemotherapy backbone in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer. Triplet combinations adding taxanes to the doublet regimen are reserved for certain scenarios. Unfortunately, almost all patients who receive first-line treatment (with or without anti-HER-2 blockade) progress and <70% are eligible for a second-line therapy. The addition of monoclonal antibodies has substantially improved outcomes in this setting. As such, ramucirumab has led to significant and clinically meaningful advancements in the second-line treatment. Furthermore, immuno-oncology with checkpoint inhibition and immune stimulation has evolved in the field of aGC. Recent first-line data show a significant survival benefit in aGC patients with a CPS ≥ 5 under immunochemotherapy. Nonetheless, the impact of immunotherapy combinations and immunochemotherapy remains an area of investigation. Key Message: In this review, we highlight recent improvements in the treatment landscape of advanced gastric cancer, the heterogeneity of this disease, and possible personalized targets.

Short-term efficacy of different chemotherapy regimens in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer: a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

A network meta-analysis was performed to compare the short-term efficacy of different chemotherapy regimens in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials of different chemotherapy regimens for advanced gastric cancer were included in this study. Network meta-analysis combined direct evidence and indirect evidence to evaluate the odds ratio and draw surface under the cumulative ranking curves of different chemotherapy regimens in advanced gastric cancer.

RESULTS

The results of surface under the cumulative ranking curves showed that S-1 and capecitabine regimens were better than fluorouracil. As for multi-drug combination regimens, the disease control rate of cisplatin + capecitabine, docetaxel + cisplatin + fluorouracil and etoposide + cisplatin + capecitabine regimens were relatively better, while fluorouracil + adriamycin + mitomycin regimen was relatively poorer when compared with cisplatin + fluorouracil regimen. Additionally, the overall response ratio of cisplatin + capecitabine, paclitaxel + fluorouracil, docetaxel + cisplatin + fluorouracil and etoposide + cisplatin + fluorouracil regimens were relatively better, while the disease control rate of fluorouracil + adriamycin + mitomycin regimen was relatively poorer when compared with cisplatin + fluorouracil regimen. Furthermore, the results of cluster analysis demonstrated that cisplatin + capecitabine, etoposide + cisplatin + capecitabine, S-1 + paclitaxel and S-1 + irinotecan chemotherapy regimens had better disease control rate and overall response ratio for advanced gastric cancer patients.

CONCLUSION

This network meta-analysis clearly showed that multi-drug combination chemotherapy regimens based on capecitabine and S-1 might be the best chemotherapy regimen for advanced gastric cancer.

Positioning of second-line treatment for advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma

Tumors of the upper gastrointestinal tract are increasing in incidence; yet, approaches to the treatment of advanced gastric and/or gastroesophageal junction cancer vary widely, with no internationally agreed first‐line regimens. Recent clinical trials have shown that second‐line treatment is now possible for selected patients with advanced disease, and current data suggest that the combination of ramucirumab plus paclitaxel may become a standard of care in the second‐line setting for metastatic gastric cancer. Several prognostic factors have been identified for overall survival in the second‐line setting; this emphasizes the need for careful sequencing of all treatments to ensure that individual patients receive optimum care. This article reviews published data on the treatment of advanced gastric cancer, with a particular emphasis on second‐line chemotherapy, and suggests treatment sequences based on current understanding.

Systemic therapy beyond first-line in advanced gastric cancer: An overview of the main randomized clinical trials

Following progression on first-line platinum and fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy, prognosis for advanced gastric cancer patients is extremely poor. Thus, new and effective treatments are required. Based on positive results of recent randomized controlled trials, second-line monochemotherapies with either irinotecan or taxanes confer a median overall survival of approximately 5 months in gastro-esophageal and gastric adenocarcinoma. Combination of weekly paclitaxel and ramucirumab, a novel anti-angiogenic VEGFR2 antibody, pushes the overall survival up to over 9.5 months, whereas apatinib, a novel oral VEGFR2 tyrosine kinase inhibitor, seems to be promising in heavily pretreated patients. In contrast, the role of EGFR/HER2 and mTOR inhibitors is controversial. Studies are heterogeneous for tumor population, geographical areas, quality of life assessment, type of first-line therapy and response to that, making clinical practice application of the trial results difficult. Furthermore, sustainability is challenging due to high cost of novel biotherapies.

[Efficacy and Safety of FOLFIRI after Failure of FOLFOX-4 in Advanced Gastric Cancer]

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of irinotecan based FOLFIRI chemotherapy as a second-line treatment after failure of FOLFOX-4 chemotherapy in patients with advanced gastric cancer.

METHODS

Fifty-two patients who were pathologically diagnosed with unresectable gastric cancer and received FOLFIRI chemotherapy after failure of FOLFOX-4 chemotherapy between September 2005 and February 2012 were enrolled in this study. Data were collected by retrospectively reviewing the medical records. The response to chemotherapy was assessed every 3 cycles by World Health Organization criteria and long term survival was analyzed. The toxicities were evaluated for every course of chemotherapy according to National Cancer Institution (NCI) toxicity criteria version 3.0.

RESULTS

Median age of the patients was 57 years. Median overall survival (OS) and time to progression (TTP) were 7.8 and 5 months, respectively. The number of patients showing complete remission, partial remission, stable disease, and progressive disease were 0 (0.0%), 9 (17.3%), 30 (57.7%), and 13 (25.0%), respectively. The overall response rate was 17.3%. During a total of 345 cycles, anemia worse than NCI toxicity grade 3 occurred in 2.9%, leukopenia in 20.3%, neutropenia in 12.2%, and thrombocytopenia in 1.5%. Patients with less organ involvement by metastasis, less than 34 U/mL of CA 19-9 and good responsiveness to third cycle of second line chemotherapy were associated with longer OS and TTP.

CONCLUSIONS

FOLFIRI chemotherapy has a modest efficacy with acceptable toxicities in patients with advanced gastric cancer as a second-line treatment. Further well-controlled studies are needed to elucidate the efficacy of FOLFIRI chemotherapy as second-line treatment in patients with advanced stomach cancer.

Sequential treatment with epirubicin, oxaliplatin and 5FU (EOF) followed by docetaxel, oxaliplatin and 5FU (DOF) in patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal cancer: a single-institution experience

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the activity and safety of epirubicin (EPI), oxaliplatin (l-OHP) and 5fluorouracil (5FU) (EOF) followed by docetaxel (D), l-OHP and 5FU (DOF) in patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer.

METHODS

Forty-five patients were enrolled: 26 gastric and 19 GEJ cancer. Median age was 69 years (range 34-83); ECOG performance status was 0-1 in 37 patients. Treatment consisted of EPI 50 mg/m(2) combined with l-OHP 130 mg/m(2) on day 1 and continuous infusion 5FU 750 mg/m(2) days 1-5 (EOF), every 3 weeks for a maximum of 4 cycles. After EOF completion, patients received D 70 mg/m(2) combined with l-OHP 130 mg/m(2) on day 1 and continuous infusion 5FU 750 mg/m(2) days 1-5 (DOF), every 3 weeks for a maximum of 4 cycles.

RESULTS

After sequential EOF/DOF, the overall response rate was 51.1 % (95 % CI 35.7-66.2 %) and 93.3 % of patients were progression free 6 months after the onset of chemotherapy. The median progression-free survival was 9.5 months (95 % CI 8.0-11.9 months), and the median overall survival was 15.8 months (95 % CI 13.6-18.9 months). Grade 3 neutropenia was observed in 15 patients (33.3 %) after sequential EOF/DOF.

CONCLUSIONS

The sequential treatment EOF/DOF is feasible in well-selected patients with advanced gastric or GEJ cancer and shows encouraging survival results.

Platinum-based versus non-platinum-based chemotherapy as first line treatment of inoperable, advanced gastric adenocarcinoma: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although the platinum regimen is adopted widely nowadays in spite of the excessive side effects, there is still no international standard for palliative chemotherapy of advanced gastric cancer. This meta-analysis assessed the efficacy and tolerability of platinum versus non-platinum chemotherapy as first-line palliative treatment in patients with inoperable, advanced gastric cancer.

METHODS

Randomized phase II and III clinical trials on first-line palliative chemotherapy in inoperable, advanced gastric cancer were identified by electronic searches of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register, and hand searches of relevant abstract books and reference lists. Response rates, overall survival, and toxicity were analyzed. Depending on whether new-generation agents (S-1, taxanes and irinotecan) were utilized, the non-platinum regimens were divided into two subgroup.

RESULTS

Compared to non-platinum regimens containing new-generation agents, the use of platinum-based regimens was associated with better response (risk ratio (RR) = 1.94, 95%CI[1.48, 2.55], p<0.001), an increase of overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.85, 95%CI[0.78, 0.92], p<0.001), a higher risk of hematological and non-hematological toxicity. No statistically significant increase in response (RR = 1.03, 95%CI [0.85, 1.24], p = 0.76) or overall survival (HR = 1.07, 95%CI [0.88, 1.30], p = 0.49) was found when platinum therapies were compared to new-generation agent based combination regimens. The toxicity of platinum-based regimens was significantly higher for hematologic toxicity, nausea and vomiting, and neurotoxicity, but not for diarrhea and toxic death rate.

CONCLUSION

New-generation agent based combination regimens achieved similar response rate and overall survival as platinum-based therapy that had generally higher side effects. S-1, taxanes and irinotecan seemed to be valid options for patients with inoperable, advanced gastric cancer as first-line chemotherapy.

Randomised phase II trial of docetaxel and sunitinib in patients with metastatic gastric cancer who were previously treated with fluoropyrimidine and platinum

BACKGROUND

Docetaxel is widely used as a chemotherapeutic agent for gastric cancer treatment. A combined regimen with sunitinib demonstrated a synergistic antitumour effect in a preclinical model. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this combination in patients with unresectable or metastatic advanced gastric cancer following failure of treatment with a fluoropyrimidine and platinum combination.

METHODS

This open-label, phase II, randomised trial enrolled patients with unresectable or metastatic gastric cancer. Patients were assigned to either a docetaxel monotherapy arm (D only arm: 60 mg m(-2), every 3 weeks) or a combination arm (DS arm: docetaxel+sunitinib 37.5 mg every day). The primary end point of the study was time to progression and the secondary end points were overall response rate, disease control rate, overall survival, and toxicity profile. A pharmacokinetic study was also performed.

RESULTS

A total of 107 patients were entered into the study. The TTP was not significantly prolonged in the DS arm when compared with the D only arm (DS vs D only arm: 3.9 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.9-4.9) vs 2.6 months (95% CI 1.8-3.5) (P=0.206). The hazard ratio for TTP was 0.77 (95% CI 0.52-1.16). However, the objective response rate was significantly higher in the DS arm (41.1% vs 14.3%, P=0.002). Patients in the DS arm experienced stomatitis, diarrhoea, and hand-foot syndrome more frequently.

CONCLUSION

The addition of sunitinib to docetaxel did not significantly prolong TTP, although it significantly increased response.

Randomised phase II trial of docetaxel and sunitinib in patients with metastatic gastric cancer who were previously treated with fluoropyrimidine and platinum

BACKGROUND

Docetaxel is widely used as a chemotherapeutic agent for gastric cancer treatment. A combined regimen with sunitinib demonstrated a synergistic antitumour effect in a preclinical model. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this combination in patients with unresectable or metastatic advanced gastric cancer following failure of treatment with a fluoropyrimidine and platinum combination.

METHODS

This open-label, phase II, randomised trial enrolled patients with unresectable or metastatic gastric cancer. Patients were assigned to either a docetaxel monotherapy arm (D only arm: 60 mg m(-2), every 3 weeks) or a combination arm (DS arm: docetaxel+sunitinib 37.5 mg every day). The primary end point of the study was time to progression and the secondary end points were overall response rate, disease control rate, overall survival, and toxicity profile. A pharmacokinetic study was also performed.

RESULTS

A total of 107 patients were entered into the study. The TTP was not significantly prolonged in the DS arm when compared with the D only arm (DS vs D only arm: 3.9 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.9-4.9) vs 2.6 months (95% CI 1.8-3.5) (P=0.206). The hazard ratio for TTP was 0.77 (95% CI 0.52-1.16). However, the objective response rate was significantly higher in the DS arm (41.1% vs 14.3%, P=0.002). Patients in the DS arm experienced stomatitis, diarrhoea, and hand-foot syndrome more frequently.

CONCLUSION

The addition of sunitinib to docetaxel did not significantly prolong TTP, although it significantly increased response.

Prognostic factors of second and third line chemotherapy using 5-fu with platinum, irinotecan, and taxane for advanced gastric cancer

Purpose

The aims of this study are to find out whether the sequence of chemotherapeutic regimens including second- and third-line taxane and irinotecan influences the survival of patients with unresectable gastric carcinoma and to identify clinical characteristics of patients with improved response.

Materials and Methods

Fifty gastric carcinoma patients who were treated by third-line sequential chemotherapy between November 2004 and July 2010 were enrolled in this study. Their overall survival (OS) and time to progression (TTP) were set up as primary and secondary end points. For the sequence of chemotherapy regimen, two arms were used. Arm A was defined as 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)+cisplatin (FP) or folinic acid, 5-FU and oxaliplati (FOLFOX), followed by folinic acid, 5-FU and irinotecan (FOLFIRI), and paclitaxel or docetaxel plus 5-FU, with or without epirubicin. Arm B was defined as FP or FOLFOX, followed by paclitaxel or docetaxel plus 5-FU, and FOLFIRI.

Results

The median OS of all patients was 16.0 months (95% confidence interval, 13.6 to 18.3 months), which is longer than historical control of patients who did not receive third-line chemotherapy. The sequence of second and third-line regimen, including irinotecan and taxane, did not present significant difference in OS or TTP after failure of 5-FU with platinum chemotherapy. In survival analysis of patients' clinicopathologic characteristics, poor prognosis was shown in patients with poorly differentiated histologic features, elevated serum carcinoembryonic level, and shorter TTP of first line chemotherapy.

Conclusion

It is possible for patients to respond differently to chemotherapy due to differences in clinical features and underlying gene expression profiles. Development of individualized chemotherapy regimens based on gene expression profiles is warranted.