Randomised phase III trial of second-line irinotecan plus cisplatin versus irinotecan alone in patients with advanced gastric cancer refractory to S-1 monotherapy: TRICS trial

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.

Differences in efficacy of biweekly irinotecan plus cisplatin versus irinotecan alone in second-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer with or without prior gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Biweekly irinotecan plus cisplatin combination therapy (BIRIP) and irinotecan monotherapy (IRI) are both expectable second-line chemotherapy (SLC) options for treating advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Although many patients receiving SLC have undergone gastrectomy, the impact of gastrectomy on SLC remains unclear, and the impact of gastrectomy may vary from regimen to regimen.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 290 eligible patients registered in two randomized phase III trials evaluating BIRIP (IRI, 60 mg/m2; CDDP, 30 mg/m2, q2w) or IRI (150 mg/m2, q2w) for patients with AGC was classified into the prior gastrectomy subgroup (PGG) or the no gastrectomy subgroup (NGG). We performed a subgroup analysis to evaluate the impact of gastrectomy on second-line BIRIP and IRI.

RESULTS

The BIRIP demonstrated significantly longer OS (11.1 vs. 6.8 months; HR 0.64; P = 0.026) and PFS (3.7 vs. 2.3 months; HR 0.54; P = 0.003) than the IRI, as well as better ORR (23.5% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.046) and DCR (74.5% vs. 47.6%, P = 0.010) in NGG. Although in PGG, the BIRIP failed to demonstrate differences in OS (13.8 vs. 13.8 months; HR 0.94; P = 0.722), PFS (4.9 vs. 4.5 months; HR 0.82; P = 0.194), ORR (18.3% vs. 20.5%) and DCR (70.4% vs. 65.1%). The incidence of grade 3 or worse adverse events did not differ except for a high incidence of anemia in the BIRIP group in PGG.

CONCLUSIONS

BIRIP was an effective treatment option that may improve survival outcomes among patients with AGC without previous gastrectomy.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN000025367.

Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials in Patients with Previously Treated Advanced Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer: Comparisons Involving Ramucirumab

PURPOSE

With relatively few direct comparisons among treatment options for previously treated advanced gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer, network meta-analysis (NMA) may inform evidence-based decision-making. Ramucirumab plus paclitaxel (RAM + PTX) is a preferred regimen in guideline recommendations. NMA of key outcomes may further characterize the relative clinical value of RAM + PTX.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials of adult patients with previously treated advanced gastric/GEJ cancer informed a NMA which compared overall survival, progression-free survival, and discontinuations due to adverse events. Comparisons were reported relative to placebo/best supportive care (BSC) when possible, otherwise relative to RAM + PTX.

RESULTS

The base-case NMA focused on second-line treatment only, from 19 of 28 studies identified. For overall survival, seven of 16 regimens were favorable relative to placebo/BSC, with RAM + PTX as the most favorable. For progression-free survival, five of 14 regimens were unfavorable relative to RAM + PTX. For discontinuations due to adverse events, two of 13 regimens were similar to placebo/BSC: ramucirumab monotherapy and fluorouracil; relative to RAM-PTX, all regimens were similar except ramucirumab monotherapy which was favorable and irinotecan + cisplatin which was unfavorable.

CONCLUSION

This NMA of trials of previously treated gastric/GEJ cancer suggests that RAM + PTX has one of the more favorable clinical profiles.

Estimating survival scenarios in advanced or metastatic gastric and oesophageal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review of randomized-controlled trials

BACKGROUND

We aimed to summarize survival data from RCTs in patients with GO adenocarcinoma; estimate and explain worst-, typical-, and best-case-scenarios of survival time; and determine if simple multiples of median overall survival (mOS) could estimate these percentiles.

METHODS

We systematically searched RCTs of systemic therapies for GO adenocarcinoma published 2000-2022. The following key percentiles were extracted from overall survival curves: 90th (worst-case), 75th (lower-typical), 25th (upper-typical), and 10th (best-case). We tested if these percentiles could be estimated by simple multiples of mOS: 0.25 of the median for the 90th percentile, 0.5 for the 75th, 2 for the 25th, and 3 for the 10th.

RESULTS

We identified 44 trials (22,447 participants). For first line chemotherapy and immunotherapy combined (CI) trials (n = 3) worst-to-best case survival time ranged from 4 months to not reached, compared to 3-30 months for other trials (n = 27) and 1-23 months for subsequent lines (n = 14). Simple multiples of mOS accurately estimated the following survival percentiles: 90th (n = 3/3 trials), 75th (n = 3/3), and 25th (n = 2/3) in first line CI trials. In other first line trials, the mOS accurately estimated the 90th survival percentile in n = 22/27 trials, 75th percentile in n = 26/27, 25th percentile in 27/27 trials, and 10th percentile in 22/27 trials. Simple multiples of the mOS accurately predicted the 90th, 75th, 25th, and 10th survival percentiles in the majority of trials of second and subsequent lines apart from chemotherapy and immunotherapy only trials.

CONCLUSION

We provide realistic, evidence-based prognostic information as scenarios for survival time which can inform clinical decision-making. Simple multiples of the mOS accurately estimated the percentiles for most groups.

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.

Comparison of Two Chemotherapy Regimens After First-Line Treatment for HER2-Negative Metastatic Gastric Cancer

AIM

Metastatic stage gastric cancer is a disease with a poor prognosis and the likelihood of achieving a cure in these patients is low. Treatment response to subsequent-line treatments is poor. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of the folinic acid, fluorouracil and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) and paclitaxel+carboplatin regimens, which are used in subsequent lines of therapy in advanced-stage gastric cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study included 40 patients who have metastatic stage gastric cancer and received FOLFIRI or paclitaxel+carboplatin therapy in subsequent lines of therapy between 2017 and 2022. The data of the patients were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

At diagnosis median age was 51 (23-88) years. The tumor was localized in the gastroesophageal junction in eight (20%) patients and in other gastric locations in 32 (80%) patients. At diagnosis, 75% (n=30) of the patients presented with the disease in the metastatic stage, while 25% (n=10) presented with stage II-III disease. Regarding the treatments received in the second and further lines of therapy, 18 (45%) patients received paclitaxel+carboplatin and 22 (55%) patients received a FOLFIRI regimen. Of these treatments, 67.5% (n=27) were given as the second line and 32.5% (n=13) were given as third-line therapy. The objective response rate (ORR) was 45.5% in the FOLFIRI arm compared to 16.7% in the paclitaxel+carboplatin arm (p=0.05). Both treatment arms had a median progression-free survival (PFS) of three months (p=0.82). The median overall survival (OS) time was seven months in the FOLFIRI arm compared to eight months in the paclitaxel+carboplatin arm (p=0.71). Side effects were similar between both treatment arms.

CONCLUSION

This study determined that FOLFIRI and paclitaxel+carboplatin treatments have similar OS, PFS, and side effect profiles in subsequent line treatment of gastric cancer. The FOLFIRI treatment regimen yielded a higher ORR.

Efficacy of Trastuzumab + Cisplatin Combined with Irinotecan on the Quality of Life of Patients with Advanced Her-2 Positive Gastric Cancer

Objective

To observe the effect of trastuzumab and cisplatin combined with irinotecan in the treatment of advanced Her-2 positive gastric cancer and its influence on disease control rate.

Methods

From January 2018 to January 2021, 120 patients with advanced Her-2 positive gastric cancer admitted to our hospital were selected as the research subjects. According to the treatment plan of the patients, they were divided into a control group and a joint group, with 60 cases in each group; the control group was given trastuzumab + cisplatin, the joint group was treated with irinotecan on this basis, and the clinical effects and disease control rate of the two groups were observed.

Results

After treatment, there were 4 patients with CR in the joint group and 0 patients with CR in the control group. The ORR and DCR of the joint group were significantly higher than those of the control group (P < 0.05). The expression levels of CA199, CEA, and CA724 after treatment in the two groups were significantly reduced (P < 0.05), and the reduction in the joint group after treatment was more evident as compared with the control group (P < 0.05). The joint group witnessed better memory function, physical function, behavioral function, emotional function, and communication function than the control group (P < 0.05), and the scores of all dimensions of the two groups of patients after treatment were superior to those before treatment (P < 0.05). The occurrence of side effects was not statistically different between the two groups of patients (P > 0.05). The 1-year survival rate of the control group was 41.67%, the PFS was 6.33 ± 1.02 months, and the OS was 15.51 ± 2.16 months; the 1-year survival rate of the joint group was 43.33%, and the PFS was 8.05 ± 1.07 months, and OS was 16.03 ± 2.44 months; there was no significant difference in the 1-year survival rate between the two groups (P > 0.05), the difference in PFS between the groups was significant (t = 9.013, P < 0.001), and the difference in OS between the groups was not significant (t = 1.236, P=0.219).

Conclusion

Trastuzumab + cisplatin combined with irinotecan yields a promising result in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer. It can effectively regulate the expression level of tumor markers, delay disease progression, and improve the quality of life of patients. Moreover, irinotecan will not bring more toxic side effects.

The clinical position of ramucirumab-containing regimens for advanced gastric cancer: a review of clinical trial data

Despite the availability of multiple treatment options, the prognosis for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) remains poor and more effective treatment options are needed. Ramucirumab is an established and recommended second-line treatment for AGC. In recently completed and ongoing clinical trials, ramucirumab has been investigated in combination with new therapeutics and in new clinical settings to address the unmet treatment needs of AGC. In this review, the findings of recent clinical trials are discussed. The aims of this review are to present the current picture of ramucirumab-containing regimens in AGC and offer practical guidance on the clinical position and target populations of ramucirumab-containing regimens in light of emerging therapeutic developments.

A global perspective in second-line treatment patterns for patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Esophageal cancer is a highly prevalent cancer associated with low survival, especially among those with advanced disease. Second-line (2L) treatment patterns and related clinical outcomes of patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (advESCC) treated in routine clinical care were examined globally and regionally.

METHODS

A retrospective, noninterventional study collected physician-provided chart data of patients aged ≥20 years receiving either 2L active systemic therapy or BSC following first-line active therapy for advESCC from 11 countries in Asian and Western regions (September-October 2018). Bivariate analyses examined treatment and outcomes by region.

RESULTS

AdvESCC patients (Asia = 192; West = 195) were examined, of which 58.1% (Asia n = 101; West n = 124) received active systemic therapy. While regional differences in tumor classification and staging at diagnosis were observed with less advanced tumors in Asia, no regional differences for these characteristics at 2L initiation were reported. Both taxane- and nontaxane-based therapies were used as 2L therapy among Asian and Western patients, although more western than Asian patients received immuno- or targeted therapies (17.0% vs. 3.0%; p = 0.001). Alopecia (10.7%), neutropenia (9.3%), and fatigue (9.3%) were the most-commonly reported adverse events (AEs) in both regions. Significantly higher 2L AE-related emergency room visits (Asia = 22.5% vs. West = 8.0%; p < 0.001) and hospitalizations (Asia = 25.9 ± 31.2 vs. West = 4.7 ± 7.0, p < 0.001) were observed in Asian than in Western patients. No regional differences were reported for response to 2L treatment or the percent of patients who received third-line treatment/died.

CONCLUSIONS

While regional variations were observed throughout the course of a patient's advESCC journey, disease response and treatment outcomes were similar.

Prospective Multicenter Interventional Study of Surgical Resection for Liver Metastasis from Gastric Cancer: R0 Resection Rate, and Operative Morbidity and Mortality

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment for liver metastasis from gastric cancer (LMGC) remains uncertain. The relevance of surgical resection is controversial. We conducted a prospective multicenter interventional study of surgical resection for LMGC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with synchronous or metachronous LMGC who were surgically fit were registered. The primary endpoint was 3-year overall survival (OS) of patients who underwent R0 resection. Secondary endpoints were R0 resection rate, operative morbidity and mortality, 3-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) of R0 patients, and OS in all registered patients.

RESULTS

Seventy patients were registered from 24 institutions between December 2011 and November 2019 and received preoperative chemotherapy. Three patients were ineligible, and 19 patients discontinued treatment, with disease progression in 12, adverse events in 4, and consent withdrawal in 3 before surgery. Of the 48 patients eventually undergoing surgery, R0 resection of the primary and/or metastatic GC was accomplished in 43 patients, while 1 patient discontinued treatment for positive peritoneal lavage cytology and 4 patients were considered ineligible based on postoperative pathological findings other than GC. The R0 resection rate of all eligible patients was 68.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 55.3-79.4%, 43/63 patients], while that of all resected patients was 89.6% (95% CI 77.3-96.5%, 43/48 patients). Postoperative complications were identified in 12 out of 43 patients (27.9%), and Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher complications occurred in seven patients (16.3%). No hospital mortality was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

R0 resection for LMGC could be performed in approximately two-thirds of all eligible patients, with acceptable surgical morbidity and mortality.

A Bayesian network meta-analysis on systemic therapy for previously treated gastric cancer

We conducted a systemic literature review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to identify phase III RCTs on salvage treatment of advanced gastric cancer (AGC) and performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis with random-effects model. The overall survival (OS) was the primary outcome of interest. A total of 20 randomized phase III trials were selected. For the second-line treatment, olaparib plus paclitaxel had the highest surface under the cumulative ranking curve value (90.5%), followed by paclitaxel plus ramucirumab (88.4%) and pembrolizumab (86.5%), indicating that these treatments could be the most effective regimens in terms of OS. Nivolumab, chemotherapy, and apatinib showed significant OS benefit compared with best supportive care for the third-line treatment. In conclusion, pembrolizumab may be the most preferable regimen as a second-line treatment for patients with PD-L1-expressing AGC, while paclitaxel-based combinations are recommended for PD-L1-negative AGC. Nivolumab might be the most preferable third-line treatment.

Toward a Treatment Sequencing Strategy: A Systematic Review of Treatment Regimens in Advanced Gastric Cancer/Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Platinum and fluoropyrimidine combinations typically comprise first-line (1L) therapy in advanced gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (G/GEA), although controversy exists regarding the use of 5doublet versus triplet cytotoxic regimens. Historically, second-line (2L) and third-line or later (3L+) therapy has been fragmented. Recent trials have increased the need for optimal treatment sequencing in advanced G/GEA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of peer-reviewed manuscripts of randomized clinical trials examining 1L, 2L, and 3L+ therapy for advanced G/GEA published from 2009 through November 19, 2019. When available, overall survival, progression-free survival, time to progression, overall response rate, and toxicity were extracted from each and compared descriptively.

RESULTS

In 1L therapy, chemotherapy triplets demonstrated variable efficacy improvements with invariable increased toxicity compared with platinum/fluoropyrimidine doublets. Currently, the only published report of positive outcomes using biologics in 1L describes adding trastuzumab in HER2-overexpressing advanced G/GEA. In 2L, doublet chemotherapy regimens are not uniformly more efficacious than single-agent taxanes or irinotecan, and ramucirumab has demonstrated improved outcomes both as monotherapy and in combination.

CONCLUSION

For advanced G/GEA, review of trial results from 2009-2019 support 1L therapy with platinum and fluoropyrimidine and sequencing with taxanes or irinotecan in combination with biologics as effective 2L options. Escalating to a triplet may add some efficacy at the expense of added toxicity.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The rapidly changing treatment landscape for advanced gastric cancer includes increasing options for refractory disease. With multiple first-line platinum-based regimens, identification of those with the best benefit-to-risk ratio may provide guidance on treatment sequencing strategies. This article presents findings from the published literature of randomized controlled trials that included a first-line platinum/fluoropyrimidine combination and, for second-line trials, patients with platinum/fluoropyrimidine-refractory disease. This guiding summary could be a tool for clinicians to identify the optimal first-line regimen(s) followed by a strategy for subsequent regimens.

Development of Natural Bioactive Alkaloids: Anticancer perspective

Cancer is a frightful disease that still poses a 'nightmare' worldwide, causing millions of casualties annually due to one of the human race's most significant healthcare challenges that requires a pragmatic treatment strategy. However, plants and plant-derived products revolutionize the field as they are quick, cleaner, eco-friendly, low-cost, effective, and less toxic than conventional treatment methods. Plants are repositories for new chemical entities and have a promising cancer research path, supplying 60% of the anticancer agents currently used. Alkaloids are important chemical compounds that serve as a rich reservoir for drug discovery and development. However, some alkaloids derived from natural herbs display anti-proliferation and antimetastatic activity on different forms of cancer, both in vitro and in vivo. Alkaloids have also been widely formulated as anticancer medications, such as camptothecin and vinblastine. Still, more research and clinical trials are required before final recommendations can be made on specific alkaloids. This review focuses on the naturally-derived bioactive alkaloids with prospective anticancer properties based on the information in the literature.

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.

Differences in disease status between patients with progression after first-line chemotherapy versus early relapse after adjuvant chemotherapy who undergo second-line chemotherapy for gastric cancer: Exploratory analysis of the randomized phase III TRICS trial

BACKGROUND

Second-line chemotherapy (SLC) improves survival in advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Patients receiving SLC are categorized into two disease status groups: tumour progression after first-line chemotherapy and early recurrence after adjuvant chemotherapy. Differences between these groups have not yet been clarified.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 163 eligible patients registered in the randomized phase III TRICS trial evaluating SLC for patients with AGC was classified into the progressive disease (PD) group (n = 55) or the early relapse (ER) group (n = 108). We compared overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), and safety. Adjusted OS and adjusted PFS were estimated using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW).

RESULTS

The ER group had a lower median age than the PD group (66 vs. 72 years; P = 0.016), performance status (PS) 0 was more frequently seen in the ER group (87% vs. 71%; P = 0.012). The adjusted median OS was 13.7 months in the ER group and 13.6 months in the PD group (IPTW hazard ratio [HR]: 1.023; P = 0.854). The adjusted median PFS was 4.9 months in the ER group and 4.4 months in the PD group (IPTW HR: 0.707; P = 0.004). ORR was significantly better in the ER group than the PD group (21.3% vs. 4.9%; P = 0.020). No significant differences were observed in the incidence of adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

ER was associated with improved PFS and better ORR than PD, although no difference in survival was demonstrated. From the viewpoint of treatment outcome, it seems appropriate to treat patients with ER in the same way as patients with PD.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN 000002571.

Real-world treatment patterns, healthcare resource use and clinical outcomes of patients receiving second line therapy for advanced or metastatic gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Second-line (2 L) chemotherapies for advanced or metastatic gastric cancer have shown improved survival but there is no commonly accepted standard of care. This study examines real-world patient characteristics, treatment patterns, healthcare resource use (HCRU) and clinical outcomes in this setting.

METHODS

Retrospective chart reviews were performed at participating institutions from Australia, Canada, Italy and UK for adult patients receiving 2 L treatment for advanced/metastatic disease from January 2013 to July 2015. Data were collected for 12 months or until death.

RESULTS

Two hundred eighty patients were included, mean age was 60.9 years and 68.9% were male. Half (51.8%) received monotherapy in 2 L, of whom 69.0% received taxanes. Irinotecan monotherapy was common in Australia (30.0% of monotherapy patients) and Canada (43.8%), but infrequent in Italy and UK. Doublet chemotherapy was used in 36.4% of 2 L patients, most commonly fluoropyrimidine + irinotecan. Use of targeted therapies (trastuzumab, ramucirumab) was infrequent except in Italy. Estimated median real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) and real-world overall survival (rwOS) from the time of 2 L treatment initiation was 3.09 (95% CI: 2.76-3.68) and 6.54 (5.29-7.76) months, respectively, and estimated 12-month rwPFS and rwOS rate was 8 and 26%, respectively. Only a minority (26.8%) of patients were hospitalized during the follow-up period, with the lowest hospitalization in Italy (16.7%). Laboratory and imaging tests were performed for 93.2 and 70.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

About half of patients received monotherapy as 2 L chemotherapy for advanced/metastatic gastric cancer and a third received doublets. Real-world clinical outcomes for 2 L treatment are poor and HCRU is considerable.

Meta-analysis of two randomized phase III trials (TCOG GI-0801 and ECRIN TRICS) of biweekly irinotecan plus cisplatin versus irinotecan alone as second-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Biweekly irinotecan (CPT-11) plus cisplatin (CDDP) combination (BIRIP) and CPT-11 alone are both expectable options for treating advanced gastric cancer (AGC) in a second-line setting. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of these two regimens in patients enrolled two randomized phase III trials.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Individual patient-level data from two randomized phase III trials were collected for this study. In both trials, patients with AGC refractory to S-1-based chemotherapy were randomly allocated to BIRIP (CPT-11, 60 mg/m²; CDDP, 30 mg/m², q2w) or to CPT-11 (150 mg/m², q2w).

RESULTS

Cumulative data from 290 eligible patients were evaluated. The OS was 12.3 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 10.5-14.1] in the BIRIP group and 11.3 months (95% CI 10.0-13.2) in the CPT-11 group (hazard ratio 0.87; 95% CI 0.68-1.12, P = 0.272), while PFS was significantly longer in the BIRIP group (4.3 months [95% CI 3.5-5.1]) than in the CPT-11 group (3.3 months [2.9-4.1]; HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.61-0.98, P = 0.035). The response rate was 20.5% in the BIRIP group and 16.0% in the CPT-11 group (P = 0.361). However, the disease control rate was significantly better in the BIRIP group (72.1%) than in the CPT-11 group (59.2%) (P = 0.032). The two groups did not differ significantly in the incidences of grade 3 or worse adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Both BIRIP and CPT-11 may be good therapeutic options for patients with AGC as second-line treatment.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN 000025367.

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.

Continuation of trastuzumab beyond progression in HER2-positive advanced esophagogastric cancer: a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

After progression on first-line trastuzumab-based therapy, no HER2-targeted agent is available for patients with HER2-positive esophagogastric cancer. However, continuation of trastuzumab after progression is an established strategy in HER2-positive breast cancer. We conducted a meta-analysis to investigate whether continuation of trastuzumab beyond first-line therapy in combination with chemotherapy is more effective compared to chemotherapy-alone.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL and meeting abstracts from ASCO and ESMO were searched up to June 2018 for studies (any design) investigating second-line trastuzumab plus chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy-alone for patients with HER2-positive esophagogastric cancer that progressed on first-line trastuzumab-based therapy. Meta-analysis was performed on the primary outcome, overall survival (OS), and on secondary outcomes progression-free survival (PFS), objective-response rate (ORR), and adverse events.

RESULTS

Four cohort studies and one randomized controlled trial (RCT) were included with n = 200 patients who received second-line trastuzumab plus chemotherapy and n = 183 who received chemotherapy-alone. Meta-analysis showed that trastuzumab plus chemotherapy did not prolonged OS [HR = 0.72, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 0.47-1.08, p=.11). PFS was longer with trastzumab plus chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy-alone (HR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.45-0.91, p<.05). There was no significant difference in ORR between the trastuzumab plus chemotherapy-group and the chemotherapy-alone group (ORR = 19.1% versus ORR = 13.4%, p=.13) and no significant differences in grade 3/4 and grade 1/2 adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis showed that patients who progressed on first-line trastuzumab-based therapy but of whom trastuzumab was continued in second-line and added to chemotherapy did not show longer OS or a higher ORR compared to patients receiving second-line chemotherapy-alone. However, PFS was prolonged and trastuzumab was not associated with additional safety concerns. In absence of available second-line HER2-targeted agents, a large prospective RCT should investigate if continuation of trastuzumab might be an attractive strategy, as this meta-analysis was mostly based on non-randomized studies and a RCT with a small sample size.

Irinotecan-containing doublet treatment versus irinotecan monotherapy as second-line choice for advanced gastric cancer

Background

For patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC), second-line chemotherapy regimen remains controversial. The efficacy and safety of irinotecan-containing doublet treatment and irinotecan monotherapy were compared in this systematic analysis.

Methods

A search was conducted on EMBASE and Medline databases. All articles compared irinotecan-containing doublet to irinotecan as second-line chemotherapy for AGC. STATA statistical software (Version 12.0) was used to analyze the data.

Results

Seven studies, including 905 cases, were included in the analysis. Irinotecan-containing doublet treatment significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared to irinotecan monotherapy (HR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.70–0.95). However, doublet treatment neither significantly prolong overall survival compared to monotherapy (HR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.81–1.10), nor did it significantly increase the overall response rates and disease control rates, when compared to monotherapy. In addition, the irinotecan-containing doublet group had an increase in incidences of ≥ Grade 3 neutropenia (RR = 1.23, 95% CI: 1.01–1.51) and anemia (RR = 2.00, 95% CI: 1.37–2.92).

Conclusions

When compared to irinotecan monotherapy, irinotecan-containing doublet treatment increased progression free survival and was tolerable as a second- line chemotherapy for AGC.

Anticancer Activity of Natural Compounds from Plant and Marine Environment

This paper describes the substances of plant and marine origin that have anticancer properties. The chemical structure of the molecules of these substances, their properties, mechanisms of action, their structure⁻activity relationships, along with their anticancer properties and their potential as chemotherapeutic drugs are discussed in this paper. This paper presents natural substances from plants, animals, and their aquatic environments. These substances include the vinca alkaloids, mistletoe plant extracts, podophyllotoxin derivatives, taxanes, camptothecin, combretastatin, and others including geniposide, colchicine, artesunate, homoharringtonine, salvicine, ellipticine, roscovitine, maytanasin, tapsigargin, and bruceantin. Compounds (psammaplin, didemnin, dolastin, ecteinascidin, and halichondrin) isolated from the marine plants and animals such as microalgae, cyanobacteria, heterotrophic bacteria, invertebrates (e.g., sponges, tunicates, and soft corals) as well as certain other substances that have been tested on cells and experimental animals and used in human chemotherapy.

Prognostic and predictive factors for overall survival in metastatic oesophagogastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Consistent evidence on prognostic and predictive factors for advanced oesophagogastric cancer is lacking. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases for phase II/III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) until February 2017 on palliative systemic therapy for advanced oesophagogastric cancer that reported prognostic or predictive factors for overall survival (PROSPERO-CRD42014015177). Prognostic factors were identified from multivariate regression analyses in study reports. Factors were considered potentially clinically relevant if statistically significant (P ≤ 0.05) in multivariate analysis in ≥50% of the total number of patients in the pooled sample of the RCTs and were reported with a pooled sample size of ≥600 patients in the first-line or ≥300 patients in the beyond first-line setting. Predictive factors were identified from time-to-event stratified treatment comparisons and deemed potentially clinically relevant if the P-value for interaction between subgroups was ≤0.20 and the hazard ratio in one of the subgroups was significant (P ≤ 0.05).

RESULTS

Forty-six original RCTs were included (n = 15,392 patients) reporting on first-line (n = 33) and beyond first-line therapy (n = 13). Seventeen prognostic factors for overall survival in the first-line and four in the beyond first-line treatment setting were potentially clinically relevant. Twenty-one predictive factors in first-line and nine in beyond first-line treatment setting were potentially relevant regarding treatment efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

The prognostic and predictive factors identified in this systematic review can be used to characterise patients in clinical practice, be included in future trial designs, enrich prognostic tools and generate hypotheses to be tested in future research to promote patient-centred treatment.

Second-line therapy in advanced upper gastrointestinal cancers: current status and new prospects

The prognosis of patients with advanced upper gastrointestinal cancers (UGC) remains poor. Current available systemic armamentarium is limited, and little progress has been made over the last decades. Main achievements have been obtained in first-line setting, however an increasingly proportion of patients are considered for second-line therapy, although data from randomized trials are scarce or even lacking. In this comprehensive review we examine the literature to summarize the efficacy and limitations of second-line systemic options in patients with advanced UGC, with a glimpse into the innovations.

Outcomes with Palliative Weekly Paclitaxel in Advanced, Recurrent, and Metastatic Esophageal Cancer - Real World Experience

Background: In advanced esophageal cancer, combination chemotherapy regimens provide effective palliation but result in substantial toxicity. Aim: The aim of the study was to evaluate outcomes of recurrent and metastatic esophageal carcinoma treated with weekly paclitaxel. Objectives: The objective of the study was to determine the clinical and laboratory factors predicting response and affecting overall survival (OS) in patients receiving palliative chemotherapy for advanced esophageal/gastroesophageal cancer. Materials and Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients with advanced esophageal cancer, not amenable to definitive intent therapy that was treated with intravenous weekly paclitaxel was done. Progression-free survival (PFS) and OS were calculated with Kaplan–Meir analysis while factors affecting outcome were subjected to log rank test and multivariate analysis. Results: Between September 2010 and October 2014, 350 patients were included in analysis. Median follow-up is 8 months. Median age was 55 years, with a male:female ratio of 2.4:1. Nearly 34.5% were mid esophageal and 51% were lower third and gastroesophageal junction tumors. Almost 58% of the tumors had squamous histology. Performance status was >2 in 25.4%. Almost 62% patients had received prior therapy. Median number of cycles of weekly paclitaxel delivered was 12 with median duration of 3 months. Nearly 51% of patients had improvement in dysphagia, with time to symptom improvement of 20 days. In 31% patients, feeding nasogastric tube could be removed. Overall response rate was 32% (complete remission, 2.5% + partial remission, 29.5%). Median PFS was 4.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.6–4.3 months) and median OS was 10 months (95% CI: 8.5–11.4 months). Performance status and pretreatment albumin significantly affected OS. Conclusion: Metronomic weekly paclitaxel chemotherapy provides good palliative benefit in advanced unresectable/metastatic esophageal cancer with minimal toxicity. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (PS 0 and 1) and baseline serum albumin level >3.7 g/dl significantly improved survival.

Anticancer Effect of a Novel Octahydropyrazino[2,1-a:5,4-a']diisoquinoline Derivative and Its Synergistic Action with Nigella sativa in Human Gastric Cancer Cells

Many studies have shown that naturally occurring compounds may support prevention and treatment of various diseases, including cancer. Pharmacological investigations revealed a wide spectrum of Nigella sativa biological activities. Combining natural compounds together with synthetic drugs may increase the anticancer activity and limit severe side effects of such a treatment and may be an alternative to monotherapy. The aim of the study was to evaluate the cytotoxic and proapoptotic effects of a novel octahydropyrazino[2,1-a:5,4-a']diisoquinoline derivative and its effect in combination with Nigella sativa seed oil or extract in human gastric cancer cells (AGS). Etoposide was used as a reference. Our studies proved that combination strategy based on novel octahydropyrazino[2,1-a:5,4-a']diisoquinoline derivative (OM-90) with Nigella sativa seed oil or extract represents the strongest efficacy in AGS cancer cells as compared to monotherapy and combined treatment with Nigella sativa seed oil or extract together with etoposide. Such a combination also leads to the activation of mitochondrial pathway, which plays a significant role in molecular mechanism of induction of apoptosis by these compounds.

A Bayesian network meta-analysis on second-line systemic therapy in advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

It is unclear which regimen is the most efficacious among the available therapies for advanced gastric cancer in the second-line setting. We performed a network meta-analysis to determine their relative benefits.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) through the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases and American Society of Clinical Oncology abstracts up to June 2014 to identify phase III RCTs on advanced gastric cancer in the second-line setting. Overall survival (OS) data were the primary outcome of interest. Hazard ratios (HRs) were extracted from the publications on the basis of reported values or were extracted from survival curves by established methods. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed with WinBUGS to compare all regimens simultaneously.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs (2439 patients) were identified and contained extractable data for quantitative analysis. Network meta-analysis showed that paclitaxel plus ramucirumab was superior to single-agent ramucirumab [OS HR 0.51, 95 % credible region (CR) 0.30-0.86], paclitaxel (OS HR 0.81, 95 % CR 0.68-0.96), docetaxel (OS HR 0.56, 95 % CR 0.33-0.94), and irinotecan (OS HR 0.71, 95 % CR 0.52-0.99). Paclitaxel plus ramucirumab also had an 89 % probability of being the best regimen among all these regimens. Single-agent ramucirumab, paclitaxel, docetaxel, and irinotecan were comparable to each other with respect to OS and were superior to best supportive care.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first network meta-analysis to compare all second-line regimens reported in phase III gastric cancer trials. The results suggest the paclitaxel plus ramucirumab combination is the most effective therapy and should be the reference regimen for future comparative trials.

Efficacy and safety of SOX chemotherapy with or without surgery in AFP-producing advanced gastric cancer

The present study investigated the clinical efficacy of S-1 plus oxaliplatin (SOX) regimen, with or without surgery in α-fetoprotein-producing gastric cancer (APGC) with liver metastasis. A total of 24 patients with APGC treated at the Liaocheng People's Hospital between January 2011 and December 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical efficacy and patient safety were compared between the two groups. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the SOX group were 6.5 [95% confidence interval (CI), 4.6–8.4] and 13.5 (95% CI, 8.1–18.9) months, respectively. The corresponding indicators in the SOX and surgery group were 7.0 (95% CI, 5.7–8.3) and 14 (95% CI, 11.0–17.1) months, respectively. There was no significant difference in PFS and OS between the two groups (P=0.703 and 0.710, respectively). The adverse effects of leucopenia, neutropenia, anemia and diarrhea occurred in ~10% of patients in the SOX group and in 14.3% (2/14), 7.14% (1/14), 14.3% (2/14) and 7.14% (1/14), respectively, in the surgery group. No significant difference was identified between groups in terms of overall incidence of adverse effects (P=0.17). However, severe adverse events, including gastroplegia, pancreatic fistula, pulmonary infection and refractory ascites, occurred only in the SOX plus surgery group [incidence rate for severe adverse events, 7.14% (1/14); P<0.001 between groups]. In conclusion, SOX chemotherapy is safe and effective in patients with APGC and liver metastasis. However, the addition of surgery to SOX chemotherapy may not improve the disease control rate and may increase the adverse effects.

Second-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced gastric cancer

The first choice for treating patients with metastatic gastric cancer is chemotherapy, and combination therapy with fluorouracil, platinum, and trastuzumab has been established as the standard first-line chemotherapy. For further improvement of treatment outcomes, it is important to develop second- and third-line chemotherapy. In the first decade of this century, irinotecan and taxanes, cytotoxic agents, and various molecular targeted agents began to be developed as second-line therapy. Treatment with paclitaxcel weekly in combination with ramucirumab targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 has become the first choice for second-line therapy. Immune checkpoint inhibitors are now being developed, and the current treatment strategies for advanced gastric cancer may undergo major changes in the future. This review summarizes the transitions and future prospects of clinical developments for second-line therapy in patients with advanced gastric cancer.

A Multicenter Randomized Phase II Study of Docetaxel vs. Docetaxel Plus Cisplatin vs. Docetaxel Plus S-1 as Second-Line Chemotherapy in Metastatic Gastric Cancer Patients Who Had Progressed after Cisplatin Plus Either S-1 or Capecitabine

Purpose

This study evaluated the re-challenge of S-1 or cisplatin in combination with docetaxel in metastatic gastric cancer (MGC) that had progressed on a cisplatin plus either S-1 or capecitabine regimen.

Materials and Methods

Patients with progressive disease after first-line cisplatin plus S-1 or capecitabine were randomized to receive 3-week cycles of docetaxel 75 mg/m² intravenously (IV) on D1 (D), docetaxel 60 mg/m² IV plus cisplatin 60 mg/m² IV on D1 (DC), or docetaxel 60 mg/m² IV D1 plus oral S-1 30 mg/m² twice a day on D1-14 (DS).

Results

Seventy-two patients were randomized to the D (n=23), DC (n=24), or DS (n=25) group. The confirmed response rate was 4.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0% to 12.6%), 4.3% (95% CI, 0% to 12.6%), and 8.7% (95% CI, 0% to 20.2%) for the D, DC, and DS groups, respectively. Compared to the D arm, the DS arm had a better progression-free survival (2.7 months vs. 1.3 months, p=0.034) without any deterioration in safety or quality of life, whereas the DC arm had a similar progression-free survival (1.8 months vs. 1.3 months, p=0.804) and poorer overall survival (5.6 months vs. 10.0 months, p=0.035).

Conclusion

A re-challenge with S-1, but not cisplatin, in combination with docetaxel has potential anticancer benefits over docetaxel alone in MGC with progression after prior cisplatin plus S-1 or capecitabine.

Paris Saponin I Sensitizes Gastric Cancer Cell Lines to Cisplatin via Cell Cycle Arrest and Apoptosis

BACKGROUND Dose-related toxicity is the major restriction of cisplatin and cisplatin-combination chemotherapy, and is a challenge for advanced gastric cancer treatment. We explored the possibility of using Paris saponin I as an agent to sensitize gastric cancer cells to cisplatin, and examined the underlying mechanism. MATERIAL AND METHODS Growth inhibition was detected by MTT assay. The cell cycle and apoptosis were detected using flow cytometry and Annexin V/PI staining. The P21waf1/cip1, Bcl-2, Bax, and caspase-3 protein expression were detected using Western blot analysis. RESULTS The results revealed that PSI sensitized gastric cancer cells to cisplatin, with low toxicity. The IC50 value of cisplatin in SGC-7901 cell lines was decreased when combined with PSI. PSI promoted cisplatin-induced G2/M phase arrest and apoptosis in a cisplatin concentration-dependent manner. Bcl-2 protein expression decreased, but Bax, caspase-3, and P21waf1/cip1 protein expression increased with PSI treatment. CONCLUSIONS The underlying mechanism of Paris saponin I may be related to targeting the apoptosis pathway and cell cycle blocking, which suggests that PSI is a potential therapeutic sensitizer for cisplatin in treating gastric cancer.

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.

Efficacy and safety of irinotecan monotherapy as third-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer

PURPOSE

Although irinotecan monotherapy is often used in third-line treatment after the failure of taxanes in Japanese clinical practice, its survival benefit is still unclear. The aim of this study is to investigate the efficacy and safety of irinotecan monotherapy as third-line treatment.

METHODS

Clinical data from consecutive patients in whom irinotecan had been initiated as third-line treatment between December 2003 and July 2015 in Shizuoka Cancer Center were retrospectively analyzed. Patients who were refractory or intolerant to fluoropyrimidine with or without platinum in first-line treatment and subsequent therapy with taxanes were included in this study. Irinotecan was administered at 150 mg/m(2) every 2 weeks.

RESULTS

The data of 50 patients who met the inclusion criteria were analyzed. The overall response rate was 18.4 % (7/38) among the patients with measurable disease. The median progression-free survival time was 66 days, and the median survival time was 180 days from the initiation of irinotecan therapy. The major grade 3 or 4 adverse events including neutropenia, fatigue, and anorexia were observed in 12 (24 %), 8 (16 %), and 7 (14 %), respectively. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Thirteen patients (26 %) required a dose reduction to 120 mg/m(2) or less from the initiation of irinotecan.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that irinotecan as third-line treatment has an anti-tumor effect and is feasible with optimal dose modification for advanced gastric cancer.

Evolving treatments for advanced gastric cancer: appraisal of the survival trend

Introduction and areas covered: We analysed the results of the main clinical studies looking at patients with advanced gastric or esophagogastric junction cancer, in order to differentiate between what is already clinical evidence and what is a promise for the cure of such patients. Thus, achievements from key studies, which had been purposely directed at chemotherapy, molecular target therapies and immunotherapy in both first and second-line setting were analysed. Metronomic chemotherapy, which consists of the administration of continuative low-dose anticancer drugs, was considered also. Expert commentary: It was found that patients included in experimental arms of randomized trials compared with controls have often benefited from a statistically significant extension of overall survival. However, further studies are awaited to bring new drugs into clinical practice and to validate candidate biomarkers predictive of response.

Irinotecan Monotherapy Versus Irinotecan-Based Combination as Second-Line Chemotherapy in Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Purpose

A meta-analysis was conducted to examine the question of whether combination regimens are more effective than monotherapy as a second-line chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer.

Materials and Methods

The MEDLINE and the EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials were searched using appropriate keywords. Only randomized controlled trials were eligible.

Results

Taxane-based study is rare; thus, four irinotecan-based studies were finally included in the meta-analysis. Out of 661 patients, 331 patients were assigned to combination therapy and 330 to monotherapy. Cisplatin or fluoropyrimidine (S-1 or 5-fluorouracil) was used as a combination partner to irinotecan. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS) and for progression-free survival (PFS) was 0.938 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.796 to 1.104; p=0.442) and 0.815 (95% CI, 0.693 to 0.958; p=0.013). In subgroup analysis according to previous exposure to a partner agent, the PFS benefit of combination was observed only in the partially exposed group (HR, 0.784; 95% CI, 0.628 to 0.980; p=0.032).

Conclusion

Second-line irinotecan-based combination was not associated with increased OS, but with PFS benefit, which seemed particularly significant for patients receiving combination with a new agent.

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.

Second-line treatment of metastatic gastric cancer: Current options and future directions

Gastric cancer remains one among the leading causes of cancer-related deaths, regardless of its decreasing incidence and newly available treatment options. Most patients present at an advanced stage and are treated with upfront systemic chemotherapy. Those patients receiving first-line therapy may initially respond to treatment, but many of them relapse over time. In such condition, second-line treatment for disease progression remains the only available option. Although there exists no standard approach in the second-line setting, several phase III trials have shown modest survival benefit in patients receiving irinotecan, taxane and ramucirumab over the best supportive care or active agents. This review analyzes the currently available treatment regimens and future directions of research in the second-line setting for metastatic gastric cancer with the best available evidence. Additionally, the prognostic factors that influence patient survival in those receiving second-line therapy are discussed.