A randomised phase II trial of capecitabine plus cisplatin versus S-1 plus cisplatin as a first-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer: Capecitabine plus cisplatin ascertainment versus S-1 plus cisplatin randomised PII trial (XParTS II)

Meta-analysis of three randomized trials of capecitabine plus cisplatin (XP) versus S-1 plus cisplatin (SP) as first-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

S-1 plus cisplatin (SP) and capecitabine plus cisplatin (XP) are standard first-line regimens for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) worldwide. We conducted a meta-analysis using individual participant data (IPD) to investigate which is more suitable.

METHODS

IPD from three randomized trials were collected. In these trials, patients with AGC were randomly allocated to SP (S-1 80-120 mg for 21 days plus cisplatin 60 mg/m2 (q5w)) or XP (capecitabine 2000 mg/m2 for 14 days plus cisplatin 80 mg/m2 (q3w)).

RESULTS

In 211 eligible patients, median overall survival (OS) for SP versus XP was 13.5 and 11.7 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.787; p = 0.114), progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.2 and 5.1 months (HR, 0.767; P = 0.076), and TTF was 5.1 and 4.0 months (HR, 0.611; P = 0.001). The most common grade ≥ 3 adverse events with SP or XP were neutropenia (18% vs. 29%) and anorexia (16% vs.18%). Subgroup analysis demonstrated significant interaction between treatment effect and performance status > 1 (HR, 0.685; P = 0.036), measurable lesion (HR, 0.709; P = 0.049), primary upper third tumor (HR, 0.539; P = 0.040), and differentiated type (HR, 0.549; interaction, 0.236; P = 0.019). For the differentiated type, OS was significantly longer in the SP group (13.2 months) than in the XP group (11.1 months) (HR, 0.549; P = 0.019). For the undifferentiated type, OS was similar in the SP group (14.2 months) and in the XP group (12.4 months) (HR, 0.868; P = 0.476).

CONCLUSIONS

SP and XP were both effective and well tolerated. SP might be suitable for the pathological differentiated subtype of AGC.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The HERBIS-2, HERBIS-4A, and XParTS II trials were registered with UMIN-CTR as UMIN000006105, UMIN000006755, and UMIN000006045, respectively.

Application and progress of palliative therapy in advanced gastric carcinomas

Gastric carcinomas have high morbidity and mortality. It produces no noticeable symptoms in the early stage while causing complex complications in its advanced stage, making treatment difficult. Palliative therapy aims to relieve the symptoms of cancer patients and focuses on improving their quality of life. At present, five palliative therapies for advanced gastric carcinomas are offered: resection, gastrojejunostomy, stenting, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. In recent years, palliative therapy has been used in the clinical treatment of advanced gastric carcinomas and related complications because of its efficacy in gastric outlet obstruction and gastric bleeding. In the future, multimodal and interdisciplinary palliative therapies can be applied to control general symptoms to improve patients’ condition, prolong their lifespan and improve their quality of life.

Histology Classification Highlights Differences in Efficacy of S-1 versus Capecitabine, in Combination with Cisplatin, for HER2-Negative Unresectable Advanced or Recurrent Gastric Cancer with Measurable Disease

It has been suggested that the therapeutic efficacy of S-1 + cisplatin (SP) and capecitabine + cisplatin (XP) may differ depending on the histology of the tumor, but no clear evidence exists. Individual participant data were obtained from three randomized phase II trials in which such patients received either SP (S-1 [40-60 mg twice daily for 21 days] plus cisplatin [60 mg/m² on day 8], every 5 weeks) or XP (capecitabine [1000 mg/m² twice daily for 14 days] plus cisplatin [80 mg/m² on day 1], every 3 weeks). A total of 162 patients were included, with 79 patients in the SP arm and 83 patients in the XP arm. Although there was also no difference between arms in ORR according to histological classification, differentiated tumors showed a significantly better OS (but not PFS) for SP versus XP that was associated with a deeper tumor shrinkage. Undifferentiated tumors showed a consistently better OS, and PFS for SP versus XP, likely because cases without tumor shrinkage tended to be fewer for SP. Our data thus showed that SP was superior to XP in this setting, but there were qualitative differences in therapeutic efficacy dependent on tumor histology.

Prognosis of Adjuvant SOX vs XELOX Chemotherapy for Gastric Cancer After D2 Gastrectomy in Chinese Patients

Introduction

To compare the prognosis of adjuvant SOX (S-1 and oxaliplatin) vs XELOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin) chemotherapy in Chinese patients with gastric cancer (GC) after D2 gastrectomy.

Methods

This was a real-world study of patients with GC (stages II-III) who underwent D2 gastrectomy and received adjuvant SOX or XELOX between 01/2010 and 06/2017 in Zhongshan Hospital affiliated to Fudan University. The patients were matched by propensity score matching. The primary and secondary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS), respectively. Adverse events (AEs) were compared.

Results

A total of 552 patients were included. The median follow-up time was 24.9 months. There were no differences in DFS (median, 44.4 vs 41.2 months; HR=1.17, 95% CI: 0.92-1.48) and OS (median, 61.5 vs 65.3 months; HR=1.01, 95% CI: 0.73-1.39) between the XELOX and SOX groups. Both DFS and OS had no significant differences between SOX and XELOX for all subgroups based on sex (P=0.949, P=0.990), age (P=0.303, P=0.392), Lauren type (P=0.362, P=0.573), type of gastrectomy (P=0.607 P=0.989), and pathological TNM stage (P=0.899, P=0.888). A total of 86 patients in the SOX subgroup (34.2%) experienced AEs, similar to the rate found in the XELOX subgroup (104 patients or 41.4%; P=0.098).

Discussion

The results suggested that adjuvant SOX chemotherapy has similar survival benefits compared to XELOX chemotherapy in Chinese patients with pathological stage II or III GC after D2 gastrectomy.

Clinical outcomes of capecitabine-based versus S-1-based regimens as first-line chemotherapy in patients with unresectable or metastatic gastric cancer: a propensity score matched single-center comparison

Background

Fluoropyrimidine-based regimens are the cornerstone of first-line chemotherapy for metastatic gastric cancer (GC). Capecitabine or S-1 might be used as an alternative to infusional 5-fluorouracil, especially in pan-Asian. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of capecitabine-based and S-1-based regimens as first-line chemotherapy in Chinese patients with unresectable or metastatic GC.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study including unresectable or metastatic GC patients treated with the capecitabine-based or S-1-based regimen as first-line chemotherapy at the First Hospital of China Medical University. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to reduce selection bias. Overall survival (OS) outcomes were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. Prognostic significance was determined using multivariate Cox regression analysis. In addition, subgroup analyses were conducted to determine the effectiveness of capecitabine-based and S-1-based regimens in clinically relevant patient subsets.

Results

The clinical data of 469 patients included between October 2005 and September 2018. PSM analysis identified 187 patients receiving capecitabine-based or S-1-based regimen. No significant difference in OS (10.7 vs. 11.1 months, P=0.523) was detected between the two groups after PSM. In the subgroup analysis, the median OS (12.2 vs. 9.3 months, P=0.013) was longer for patients with peritoneum metastasis who received the capecitabine-based regimen compared to those who received the S-1-based regimen.

Conclusions

No significant difference in clinical outcomes was observed between the capecitabine and S-1-based regimen as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic or unresectable GC patients in China. The capecitabine-based regimen should be considered in the treatment of the GC patients with peritoneum metastasis.

Comparison of S-1-cisplatin every 5 weeks with capecitabine-cisplatin every 3 weeks for HER2-negative gastric cancer (recurrent after S-1 adjuvant therapy or chemotherapy-naïve advanced): pooled analysis of HERBIS-2 (OGSG 1103) and HERBIS-4A (OGSG 1105) trials

BACKGROUND

We previously reported the HERBIS-4A phase II trial comparing S-1 plus cisplatin (SP) with capecitabine plus cisplatin (XP) in chemotherapy-naïve patients with HER2-negative advanced gastric cancer (GC). We performed a pooled analysis of HERBIS-4A and HERBIS-2, the phase II trial comparing SP with XP in HER2-negative recurrent GC patients with a recurrence-free interval after S-1 adjuvant therapy of ≥ 6 months.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either SP [S-1 (40-60 mg twice daily for 21 days) plus cisplatin (60 mg/m² on day 8), every 5 weeks] or XP [capecitabine (1000 mg/m² twice daily for 14 days) plus cisplatin (80 mg/m² on day 1), every 3 weeks].

RESULTS

In the pooled analysis, SP (n = 44-50) showed a longer progression-free survival [6.4 versus 5.1 months; hazard ratio (HR), 0.666; P = 0.062], overall survival (14.8 versus 10.6 months; HR, 0.695; P = 0.099), and time to treatment failure (4.6 versus 3.6 months; HR, 0.668; P = 0.045) as well as a higher disease control rate (86.4% versus 68.1%, P = 0.149) compared with XP (n = 47-51). A significant survival advantage for SP over XP was apparent in patients with a performance status of 0, a differentiated-type tumor histology, or a primary tumor localization to the upper portion of the stomach.

CONCLUSION

Our pooled analysis supports the use of SP in the first-line setting for patients with HER2-negative advanced or recurrent GC with a recurrence-free interval of ≥ 6 months.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The HERBIS-2 trial was registered with UMIN-CTR as UMIN000006105.

Should S-1 be better than capecitabine for patients with advanced gastric cancer in Asia? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

S-1 or capecitabine (Cap) containing treatment is an increasingly used strategy in patients with advanced gastric cancer in Asia. It is unclear whether there is sufficient evidence to support which regimen is better.

Methods

A systematic review of retrospective studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing S-1 with Cap containing treatment in advanced gastric cancer patients was performed. Embase, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, and reference lists were searched from inception until August 2018 for relevant studies. Outcomes of interest included 1-year overall survival (OS), 1-year progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events. Meta-analyses of the random events were performed. We also performed sensitivity analysis to examine whether the results of the meta-analyses were robust.

Results

A total of 770 subjects from six RCTs and two retrospective studies in Asia were analyzed. Compared with S-1, Cap containing treatment had better ORR (overall risk ratio =0.85, 95% CI: 0.72, 0.99, I ²=0%, P=0.043) and higher incidence of all-grade hand-foot syndrome (HFS) (overall risk ratio =0.29, 95% CI: 0.20, 0.40, I ²=0%, P<0.001) and neutropenia (overall risk ratio =0.85, 95% CI: 0.73, 0.99, I ²=0%, P=0.039). But there was no statistical difference in 1-year PFS, 1-year OS, incidence of other all-grade or grade 3-4 adverse events between S-1 and Cap containing arms (P>0.05). We found no publication bias in this review.

Conclusion

This systematic review showed that for Asian patients, Cap shows superiority in ORR but not 1-year OS or PFS, and it will increase the risk of all-grade HFS and neutropenia. Until now, S-1 containing treatment might be a better choice for advanced gastric cancer patients. But more high-quality RCTs are needed to confirm these results.

Influence of the substituent on the phosphine ligand in novel rhenium(i) aldehydes. Synthesis, computational studies and first insights into the antiproliferative activity

Cyrhetrenyl phosphine derivatives were synthesized and evaluated as potential anticancer agents. Electrochemical and computational studies were carried out.