Docetaxel versus active symptom control for refractory oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma (COUGAR-02): an open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial

Regorafenib combined with irinotecan as second-line treatment in metastatic gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinomas: results of PRODIGE 58-UCGI35-REGIRI Unicancer randomised phase II study

BACKGROUND

Several options have been evaluated in metastatic gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinomas (mGA) after failure of first-line fluoropyrimidine and platinum-based chemotherapy. Regorafenib (REGO), a receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has shown promising activity as second- and third-line treatment of mGA.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

PRODIGE58-UCGI35-REGIRI was a comparative, prospective, phase II, open-label study evaluating the safety and efficacy of REGO [160 mg/day on day 2 (D2)-D8/D16-D22] plus irinotecan (IRI: 180 mg/m2 intravenously on D1/D15 every 28 days) versus IRI alone in patients with mGA (gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction/tumour Siewert II and III) after failure of first-line fluoropyrimidine and platinum-based chemotherapy. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Forty-four patients were included in the REGIRI arm and 45 in the IRI arm, primary tumours (67.4%) were mainly localised in the gastro-oesophageal junction, and 60.7% patients had synchronous metastases. With a median follow-up of 19.4 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 16.8-29.9 months], median OS was 6.3 months (95% CI 5.2-7.1 months) versus 8.2 months (95% CI 5.2-9.7 months) in the REGIRI versus IRI arms (hazard ratio 1.11, 95% CI 0.70-1.74, P = 0.66). Median progression-free survival was 2.2 months versus 1.9 months, objective response rate 15.9% versus 13.3%, and disease control rate 45.5% versus 33.3%. Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were reported for 52.3% of patients in the REGIRI arm versus 23.3% in the IRI arm with four toxic deaths (two homozygous UGT1A1∗28 patients died from sepsis and thrombotic microangiopathy, and two heterozygous UGT1A1∗1/∗28 patients from diarrhoea and pulmonary embolism), versus one (UGT1A1∗1 wild-type patient died from primary tumour perforation). Main grade ≥3 AEs were diarrhoea (18.2% versus 7.0%), hypertension (9.1% versus 0.0%), asthenia (6.8% versus 0.0%), febrile neutropenia (6.8% versus 0.0%), neutropenia (6.8% versus 11.6%), and weight decrease (6.8% versus 0.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

The study was stopped early because of limited efficacy and increased toxicities in the REGIRI arm, possibly due to drug interactions. No optimal sub-population that could benefit from a REGIRI regimen exposure was identified.

Twenty-one-year report from the Danish Health Authority Expert Advisory Panel for review of treatment of 10 000 cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Patients with hard-to-treat or rare cancers and those not responding to standard-of-care (SoC) treatment have unmet needs. Limited access to novel drugs is an increasing additional challenge. In 2003, the Danish government adopted a Health Act to ensure that treatment of patients with life-threatening disease could be reevaluated by independent experts. The Danish Health Authority (DHA) set up an Expert Advisory Panel to provide advice on possibilities for further treatment of patients, including treatment not approved nationally. A few years later, clinical units were established that could offer unestablished treatment to patients by referral from the Panel. The treatment was first reimbursed by the Government and later by regional authorities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We present the structure, workflow, and impact of the Health Act for 21 years for patients with cancer. Annual reports from the DHA were the primary data source.

RESULTS

11 034 cases from 9603 cancer patients were evaluated by the Panel from 2003 to 2023, representing a median of 372 unique cases yearly. In 53%, the Panel advised on further treatment in Denmark, and of these, 56% were recommended nationally nonapproved treatment, 21% SoC treatment or workup, and 19% clinical trial participation. In 4.5% of cases, advice was given on treatment abroad. A significant decline in admissions to the Panel from a peak of 1167 patients in 2008 to 3-400 yearly from 2012 to 2017 followed the conversion of nonapproved treatments to SoC practice. A shift in drug reimbursement, independent of Panel advise, reduced the clinical impact and explained the further decline observed in admissions lately to only 51 patients in 2023.

CONCLUSIONS

This unique national scheme provided early access to treatment for patients with no further SoC options and facilitated the introduction of new cancer treatments, initiation of clinical trials, and establishment of trial units in the country. The scheme may be adapted to other countries with a public healthcare system. Results of the current report indicate that impact is dependent on delivering clinical units and reimbursement associated with the recommended treatment.

Circulating tumor DNA strongly predicts efficacy of chemotherapy plus immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced gastro-esophageal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Efficacy of 2nd line treatment in advanced gastric or gastro-esophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma remains limited with no identified strong predictor of treatment efficacy. We evaluated the prognostic value of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in predicting the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) plus chemotherapy in the randomized PRODIGE 59-FFCD 1707-DURIGAST trial.

METHODS

ctDNA was evaluated before treatment (baseline) and at 4 weeks (before the third cycle of treatment, C3) using droplet-digital PCR assays based on the detection of CpG methylation.

RESULTS

Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were shorter in patients with a high (>1.1 ng/mL) versus low (<1.1 ng/mL) ctDNA concentration at baseline (2.3 vs. 5.8 months; HR = 2.19; 95% CI, 1.09-4.41; p = 0.03 and 4.5 vs. 12.9 months; HR = 2.73; 95% CI, 1.29-5.75; p < 0.01), respectively, after adjustment for identified prognostic variables. Patients with a ctDNA decrease ≤75% between baseline and C3 versus a ctDNA decrease >75% had a worse objective response rate (p = 0.007), shorter PFS (2.2 vs. 7.4 months, HR = 1.90; 95% CI, 1.03-3.51; p = 0.04) and OS (6.6 vs 16.0 months; HR = 2.18; 95% CI, 1.09-4.37; p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

An early decrease in ctDNA concentration is a strong predictor of the therapeutic efficacy of ICI plus chemotherapy in advanced gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma. Clinical Trial Information NCT03959293 (DURIGAST).

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.

Current status and perspectives of esophageal cancer: a comprehensive review

Esophageal cancer (EC) continues to be a significant global health concern, with two main subtypes: esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and esophageal adenocarcinoma. Prevention and changes in etiology, improvements in early detection, and refinements in the treatment have led to remarkable progress in the outcomes of EC patients in the past two decades. This seminar provides an in-depth analysis of advances in the epidemiology, disease biology, screening, diagnosis, and treatment landscape of esophageal cancer, focusing on the ongoing debate surrounding multimodality therapy. Despite significant advancements, EC remains a deadly disease, underscoring the need for continued research into early detection methods, understanding the molecular mechanisms, and developing effective treatments.

Reversal of chemotherapy resistance in gastric cancer with traditional Chinese medicine as sensitizer: potential mechanism of action

Gastric cancer (GC) remains one of the most common types of cancer, ranking fifth among cancer-related deaths worldwide. Chemotherapy is an effective treatment for advanced GC. However, the development of chemotherapy resistance, which involves the malfunction of several signaling pathways and is the consequence of numerous variables interacting, seriously affects patient treatment and leads to poor clinical outcomes. Therefore, in order to treat GC, it is imperative to find novel medications that will increase chemotherapy sensitivity and reverse chemotherapy resistance. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has been extensively researched as an adjuvant medication in recent years. It has been shown to have anticancer benefits and to be crucial in enhancing chemotherapy sensitivity and reducing chemotherapy resistance. Given this, the mechanism of treatment resistance in GC is summed up in this work. The theoretical foundation for TCM as a sensitizer in adjuvant treatment of GC is established by introducing the primary signal pathways and possible targets implicated in improving chemotherapy sensitivity and reversing chemotherapy resistance of GC by TCM and active ingredients.

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.

Nivolumab combination therapies in patients with advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer: the phase II FRACTION gastric cancer study

BACKGROUND

Nivolumab-based therapies are efficacious with acceptable safety in patients with gastric cancer (GC) and gastroesophageal junction cancer (GEJC). Novel nivolumab-based combination immunotherapies may offer enhanced efficacy in these indications. FRACTION-GC was a signal-seeking, randomized, open-label, phase II adaptive-design trial assessing efficacy and safety of nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab [cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) antibody], relatlimab (lymphocyte-activation gene 3 antibody), or IDO1i (BMS986205, an indoleamine-2,3-dioxygenase-1 inhibitor) in patients with unresectable, advanced/metastatic GC/GEJC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Previously treated patients with GC/GEJC were randomized to receive nivolumab + ipilimumab, nivolumab + relatlimab, or nivolumab + IDO1i across two tracks: anti-programmed death-(ligand) 1/anti-CTLA-4-naïve (track 1) and -experienced (track 2). Primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) by investigator per RECIST v1.1, duration of response, and progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 24 weeks. Secondary endpoint was safety.

RESULTS

Eighty-one patients in track 1 and 81 in track 2 received one combination therapy. With a median follow-up of 50.2 months, ORR [95% confidence interval (CI)] by investigator for nivolumab + ipilimumab, nivolumab + relatlimab, and nivolumab + IDO1i in track 1 was 4% (0.1% to 21.9%), 5% (0.1% to 24.9%), and 13% (4.4% to 28.1%), and for track 2 was 9% (1.1% to 28.0%), 6% (0.7% to 18.7%), and 0% (0% to 15.4%), respectively. PFS rate at 24 weeks (95% CI) was 24% (11% to 39%) for nivolumab + IDO1i track 1, 17% (16% to 32%) for nivolumab + relatlimab track 2, and not estimable for other treatment arms. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 22%, 5%, and 18% of patients receiving nivolumab + ipilimumab, nivolumab + relatlimab, and nivolumab + IDO1i in track 1 and in 35%, 11%, and 18% of patients in track 2, respectively. No treatment-related deaths were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

While ORR did not meet prespecified expansion criteria in any treatment arm, the safety profile of the combinations was manageable. FRACTION-GC represents a novel adaptive protocol for testing multiple combination immunotherapies.

[Chemotherapy for Metastatic Gastric Cancer]

Gastric cancer is the fourth most common malignancy in Korea and remains the fifth and seventh leading cause of cancer death in males and females, respectively. Although the survival rates for gastric cancer have improved, unresectable or metastatic gastric cancer still has an abysmal prognosis, and the five-year survival rate for patients with stage IV gastric cancer is approximately 6.6% in Korea. The treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic gastric cancer is based on chemotherapy. A combination of fluoropyrimidine and platinum is the most widely used first-line treatment for gastric cancer worldwide. In recent decades, a better understanding of cancer biology has led to targeted therapies becoming the treatment paradigm for many cancers, including gastric cancer. In addition, immunotherapies have also been reported to improve survival in several cancers, particularly in patients with unresectable or metastatic gastric cancer who have failed multiple lines of chemotherapy. This review evaluates landmark studies on chemotherapy for unresectable or metastatic gastric cancer, including targeted therapies and immunotherapies.

Efficacy and safety of PD-1 inhibitors as second-line treatment for advanced squamous esophageal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis with a focus on PD-L1 expression levels

Background

PD-1 inhibitors have shown promising efficacy in enhancing OS and AEs as second-line therapies for patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). However, there remains no clear consensus on which PD-1 inhibitor provides the best balance between efficacy and safety. To address this key issue in the second-line treatment of ESCC, we conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) with a focus on OS benefits, particularly in patients with different levels of PD-L1 expression.

Methods

A systematic search of relevant literature was conducted in Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library, covering publications from the inception of these database to June 2024. The evaluated endpoints included OS, progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), AEs, and Grade ≥ 3 adverse events (Grade ≥ 3 AEs). A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis were performed to assess the efficacy and safety of various immunotherapy regimens in patients with advanced ESCC. To ensure transparency, novelty, and reliability, this study was prospectively registered in the systematic review registry (CRD42024540581).

Results

Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs), encompassing 2,078 patients and six treatment regimens, were included in this study. Among advanced ESCC patients not selected based on PD-L1 expression, Sintilimab demonstrated the greatest OS benefit (HR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.50-0.98). Camrelizumab showed the most favorable improvement in PFS compared to chemotherapy (HR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.47-0.87) and also achieved the best ORR benefit (OR = 3.72, 95% CI: 1.98-6.99). In terms of safety, Nivolumab (OR = 0.10, 95% CI: 0.05-0.19) and Tislelizumab (OR = 0.18, 95% CI: 0.10-0.33) exhibited significant safety advantages over chemotherapy concerning AEs. Moreover, Nivolumab (OR = 0.13, 95% CI: 0.08-0.20) was associated with a markedly lower risk of Grade ≥ 3 AEs compared to chemotherapy. Subgroup analysis based on PD-L1 expression revealed that Tislelizumab (HR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.37-0.76) offered the greatest OS benefit for patients with PD-L1 ≥ 10%, while Camrelizumab (HR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.57-0.89) was the most likely regimen to provide an OS advantage for patients with PD-L1 < 10%.

Conclusion

Compared to chemotherapy, PD-1 inhibitors may provide improved survival outcomes for patients with advanced ESCC. Among patients not selected based on PD-L1 expression, Sintilimab is most likely to deliver the best survival benefit. For patients with PD-L1 expression ≥ 10%, Tislelizumab is expected to offer the greatest efficacy, while Camrelizumab appears to be the most effective for those with PD-L1 < 10%.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42024540581.

Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2024: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach (Update of 2022 Guideline)

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area. Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version. Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

A Comprehensive and Comparative Review of Global Gastric Cancer Treatment Guidelines: 2024 Update

Differences in demographics, medical expertise, and patient healthcare resources across countries have led to significant variations in guidelines. In light of these differences, in this review, we aimed to explore and compare the most recent updates to gastric cancer treatment from five guidelines that are available in English. These English-version guidelines, which have been recently published and updated for journal publication, include those published in South Korea in 2024, Japan in 2021, China in 2023, the United States in 2024, and Europe in 2024. The South Korean and Japanese guidelines provide a higher proportion of content to endoscopic and surgical treatments, reflecting their focus on minimally invasive techniques, function-preserving surgeries, and systemic therapy. The Chinese guidelines provide recommendations addressing not only surgical approaches but also perioperative chemotherapy and palliative systemic therapy. Meanwhile, in the United States and European guidelines, a higher proportion of the content is dedicated to perioperative and palliative systemic therapy, aligning with their approaches to advanced-stage disease management. All guidelines address surgical and systemic chemotherapy treatments; however, the proportion and emphasis of content vary based on the patient distribution and treatment approaches specific to each country. With emerging research findings on gastric cancer treatment worldwide, the national guidelines are being progressively revised and updated. Understanding the commonalities and differences among national guidelines, along with the underlying evidence, can provide valuable insights into the treatment of gastric cancer.

An Evaluation of an Algorithm for the Selection of Flexible Survival Models for Cancer Immunotherapies: Pass or Fail?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Accurately extrapolating survival beyond trial follow-up is essential in a health technology assessment where model choice often substantially impacts estimates of clinical and cost effectiveness. Evidence suggests standard parametric models often provide poor fits to long-term data from immuno-oncology trials. Palmer et al. developed an algorithm to aid the selection of more flexible survival models for these interventions. We assess the usability of the algorithm, identify areas for improvement and evaluate whether it effectively identifies models capable of accurate extrapolation.

METHODS

We applied the Palmer algorithm to the CheckMate-649 trial, which investigated nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. We evaluated the algorithm's performance by comparing survival estimates from identified models using the 12-month data cut to survival observed in the 48-month data cut.

RESULTS

The Palmer algorithm offers a systematic procedure for model selection, encouraging detailed analyses and ensuring that crucial stages in the selection process are not overlooked. In our study, a range of models were identified as potentially appropriate for extrapolating survival, but only flexible parametric non-mixture cure models provided extrapolations that were plausible and accurately predicted subsequently observed survival. The algorithm could be improved with minor additions around the specification of hazard plots and setting out plausibility criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

The Palmer algorithm provides a systematic framework for identifying suitable survival models, and for defining plausibility criteria for extrapolation validity. Using the algorithm ensures that model selection is based on explicit justification and evidence, which could reduce discordance in health technology appraisals.

Outcomes in older adults with metastatic esophageal and gastric carcinoma treated with palliative chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

The incidence of esophageal and gastric carcinoma (GEC) in elderly patients is increasing, yet patients ≥75 years have historically been underrepresented in clinical trials. We sought to investigate palliative chemotherapy administration patterns and survival outcomes in older adults.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis identified patients aged 65-74 (young-old) and ≥75 years (older-old) diagnosed with advanced GEC. Patient and tumor characteristics were recorded, with descriptive analysis, time-to-event data analysis using Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis performed.

RESULTS

One hundred and ninety-eight "young-old" and 109 'older-old' patients were identified. Patient characteristics were similar between groups except for Charlson Co-morbidity Index (CCI), with lower co-morbidities in the "young-old" compared to "older-old" cohort (P < .001; CCI = 0 in 103 (52%) "young-old" vs 31 (28%) "older-old"). The primary diagnosis in both groups was adenocarcinoma. 119 (60%) "young-old" and 25 (23%) "older-old" patients received chemotherapy (P < .001). Performance status was the primary explanation for chemotherapy non-receipt in both cohorts; age was the explanation in 21 (25%) "older-old" patients and none in the "young-old" patients. PFS for first-line systemic therapy in "young-old" patients was 6.4 (95% CI 5.9-7.6) versus 7.5 months (95% CI 5.1-11.3) in "older-old" patients (P = .69) whilst respective OS was 12.3 (95% CI 10.1-15.5) and 10.4 months (95% CI 9.0-14.6) (P = .0816). Toxicity prompted chemotherapy cessation in 17 (15%) "young-old" and 3 (13%) "older-old" patients (P = .97). Multivariate analysis identified CCI and ECOG performance status as predictive for PFS and OS, respectively. No causative relationship was identified with other variables.

CONCLUSION

Our study of real-world older-adults show that significant number of "older-old" patients with GEC do not receive chemotherapy. Among "older-old" adults who do receive systemic therapy, outcomes are comparable; this underscores the importance of geriatric assessment-guided care and suggests that age alone should not be a barrier to receipt of chemotherapy in patients with advanced GEC.

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.

Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Systemic Treatments for Advanced and Metastatic Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

Recent advances in the development of biomarker-directed therapy and immunotherapy, for advanced and metastatic gastric cancers, have the potential to improve survival and quality of life. Much attention has been directed towards second- and later-line treatments, and the landscape here is evolving rapidly. However, uncertainty in relative effectiveness, high costs and uncertainty in cost effectiveness represent challenges for decision makers.

OBJECTIVE

To identify economic evaluations for the second-line or later-line treatment of advanced and metastatic gastric cancer. Also, to assess key criteria (including model assumptions, inputs and outcomes), reporting completeness and methodological quality to inform future cost-effectiveness evaluations.

METHODS

A systematic literature search (from database inception to 5 March 2023) of EconLit via EBSCOhost, Cochrane Library (restricted to National Health Service [NHS] Economic Evaluation Database and Health Technology Assessment [HTA] Database), Embase, MEDLINE and of grey literature was conducted. This aimed to identify systemic treatments that align with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines. Data were collected on key criteria and on reporting completeness and methodological quality. A narrative synthesis focussed on cost-effectiveness and cost-of-illness studies. Outcomes of interest included total and incremental costs and outcomes (life-years and quality-adjusted life-years), ratios of incremental costs per unit outcome and other summary cost and outcome measures. Also, for cost-effectiveness studies, reporting completeness and the methodological quality were assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) and the Philips Checklist, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 19 eligible economic evaluations were identified (cost-effectiveness studies [n = 15] and cost-of-illness studies [n = 4]). There was a general lack of consistency in the methodological approaches taken across studies. In the main, the cost-effectiveness studies indicated that the intervention under consideration was more effective and more costly than the comparator(s). However, most interventions were not cost effective. No studies were fully compliant with reporting-completeness and methodological-quality requirements. Given the lack of consistency in the approaches taken across cost-of-illness studies, outcomes could not be directly compared.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the first published systematic literature review that has qualitatively synthesised economic evaluations for advanced and metastatic gastric cancer. There were differences in the approaches taken across the cost-effectiveness studies and the cost-of-illness studies. The conclusions of most of the cost-effectiveness studies were consistent despite identified differences in approaches. In the main, the interventions under consideration were not cost effective, presenting challenges to sustainability and affordability. We highlight a requirement for cost-effectiveness evaluations and for second-line or later-line treatments of advanced and metastatic gastric cancer that consider all relevant comparators and that are compliant with reporting-completeness and methodological-quality requirements. By addressing the methodological gaps identified here, future healthcare decision-making, within the context of this rapidly changing treatment landscape, would be better informed.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023405951.

Utilising systematic reviews to assess potential overtreatment and claim for better evidence-based research: an analysis of anticancer drugs versus supportive care in advanced esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Highlighting the identified gaps in evidence-based research concerning advanced esophageal cancer (EC) treatment and care, this review evaluates the efficacy and safety of anticancer drugs compared to supportive care for advanced EC patients, aiming to assess the appropriateness of usual treatments and identify the gaps that need to be filled with primary research.

METHODS

We searched (May 2022) MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Epistemonikos, and trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and PROSPERO) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anticancer drugs (chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or biological/targeted therapy) with supportive care in advanced EC. The results were summarised using GRADE summary of finding tables.

RESULTS

We included 15 RCTs. Most studies did not have a special focus on EC, did not detail the treatment lines in all patients, and did not evaluate all outcomes. Anticancer drugs may result in a slight increase in overall survival (OS) (HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.71, 0.86; MD 0.83 months) and better progression-free survival (PFS) (HR 0.56 95% CI 0.49, 0.64, MD 0.68 months), but also may increase toxicity (RR 1.37; 95% CI 1.13, 1.65), without a significant improvement in quality of life. The certainty of evidence was low or very low due to indirectness of results and lack of specific focus on EC in some studies.

CONCLUSION

RCTs on advanced EC lack specificity, detailed treatment line information, and evaluation of all relevant outcomes. Moreover, when they find any benefit, this is negligible. Therefore, the certainty to justify anticancer drug treatments instead of supportive care in advanced EC is low or very low, and this information should be actively shared with affected patients. More and better RCTs should be conducted to assess whether any old or new proposed treatment for advanced EC patients provides a better balance of benefits and harms than the supportive care.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

The study protocol was registered in OSF ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/7CHX6 ) on 2022-03-29.

Efficacy and safety evaluation of frontline immunotherapy combinations in advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a network meta-analysis highlighting the value of PD-L1 expression positivity scores

Introduction

The systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) consolidate all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to initial immunotherapy treatments for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Our goal is to thoroughly assess the effectiveness and safety of various immunotherapy methods, focusing on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) among patients with advanced ESCC positive for PD-L1.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases, covering all records from their inception until January 22, 2024. The inclusion criteria targeted patients with advanced ESCC undergoing first-line immunotherapy or chemotherapy, limiting the study selection to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) exclusively. The study upholds the values of openness, originality, and dependability, as evidenced by its enrollment in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42024504992).

Results

Our analysis encompasses 7 RCTs, totaling 4688 patients, and evaluates 8 distinct immunotherapy combinations. In advanced ESCC patients irrespective of PD-L1 expression, both sintilimab-chemotherapy and toripalimab-chemotherapy regimens demonstrated comparable OS benefits (HR=0.92, 95% CI: 0.64-1.33). The most pronounced PFS advantages were seen with sintilimab-chemotherapy and camrelizumab-chemotherapy as compared to standard chemotherapy (HR=0.56, 95% CI: 0.46-0.58). Notably, camrelizumab-chemotherapy (HR=0.83, 95% CI: 0.59-1.16) and nivolumab-ipilimumab (HR=0.84, 95% CI: 0.60-1.17) demonstrated significant safety profiles over chemotherapy alone. Subgroup analysis based on PD-L1 expression revealed nivolumab-chemotherapy to yield the highest OS benefit (HR=0.54, 95% CI: 0.37-0.79) in ESCC patients with PD-L1 expression ≥1%. Furthermore, camrelizumab-chemotherapy (HR=0.51, 95% CI: 0.39-0.67) exhibited superior PFS benefits. Among patients with PD-L1 expression ≥10%, camrelizumab-chemotherapy (HR=0.52, 95% CI: 0.35-0.78) emerged as the most efficacious in improving OS, while serplulimab-chemotherapy (HR=0.48, 95% CI: 0.34-0.68) was associated with the longest PFS benefit.

Conclusion

The integration of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) with chemotherapy appears to significantly enhance survival outcomes in patients with advanced ESCC compared to chemotherapy alone. Sintilimab-chemotherapy is potentially the optimal regimen for patients without PD-L1 expression. In contrast, nivolumab-chemotherapy and camrelizumab-chemotherapy are likely to offer the best OS and PFS benefits, respectively, in patients with PD-L1 expression ≥1%. Among those with PD-L1 expression ≥10%, camrelizumab-chemotherapy is projected to provide the greatest OS advantage, whereas serplulimab-chemotherapy is anticipated to offer the most prolonged PFS benefit. Since most of the patients in this study originated from Asia, the above findings are more applicable to the Asian population.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42024504992.

Comparison of the second-line treatment efficacy in advanced gastric cancer patients previously treated with taxane-based triplet chemotherapy: a Turkish Oncology Group Study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of FOLFIRI and paclitaxel in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) who were previously treated with first-line modified docetaxel, cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil (mDCF), or 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, docetaxel (FLOT).

METHODS

Patients who received a triplet regimen in the first line setting and were treated with FOLFIRI or paclitaxel in the second-line treatment were included.

RESULTS

The study included 198 patients, with 115 receiving FOLFIRI and 83 receiving paclitaxel. The median age was 58 (range = 24-69). The median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 5.2 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 4.4-5.5] months in the FOLFIRI arm, and 4.1 (95% CI = 3.3-4.6) months in the paclitaxel arm (p = .007). The median overall survival (mOS) was 9.4 (95% CI = 7.4-10.5) months in the FOLFIRI arm and 7.2 (95% CI = 5.6-8.3) months in the paclitaxel arm (p = .008). Grade 3-4 neuropathy was higher in patients receiving paclitaxel compared to those receiving FOLFIRI (p = .04). Grade 3-4 diarrhea was 8% in the FOLFIRI arm and 2.4% in the paclitaxel arm (p = .02).

CONCLUSION

Beyond progression with docetaxel-based triplet chemotherapy, FOLFIRI may be preferred as a second-line treatment over paclitaxel due to its longer mPFS and mOS.

Phase 1/2a Study of Rivoceranib, a Selective VEGFR-2 Angiogenesis Inhibitor, in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors

PURPOSE

This study aimed to report the results from an early-phase study of rivoceranib, an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor highly selective for vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2, in patients with advanced solid tumors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this open-label, single-arm, dose-escalating, multicenter three-part phase 1/2a trial, patients had advanced solid tumors refractory to conventional therapy. Part 1 evaluated the safety and pharmacokinetics of five ascending once-daily doses of rivoceranib from 81 mg to 685 mg. Part 2 evaluated the safety and antitumor activity of once-daily rivoceranib 685 mg. Part 3 was conducted later, due to lack of maximum tolerated dose determination in part 1, to evaluate the safety and preliminary efficacy of once-daily rivoceranib 805 mg in patients with unresectable or advanced gastric cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 61 patients were enrolled in parts 1 (n=25), 2 (n=30), and 3 (n=6). In parts 1 and 2, patients were white (45.5%) or Asian (54.5%), and 65.6% were male. The most common grade ≥ 3 adverse events were hypertension (32.7%), hyponatremia (10.9%), and hypophosphatemia (10.9%). The objective response rate (ORR) was 15.2%. In part 3, dose-limiting toxicities occurred in two out of six patients: grade 3 febrile neutropenia decreased appetite, and fatigue. The ORR was 33%.

CONCLUSION

The recommended phase 2 dose of rivoceranib was determined to be 685 mg once daily, which showed adequate efficacy with a manageable safety profile (NCT01497704 and NCT02711969).

Advances in diagnosis and management of cancer of the esophagus

Esophageal cancer is the seventh most common malignancy worldwide, with over 470 000 new cases diagnosed each year. Two distinct histological subtypes predominate, and should be considered biologically separate disease entities.1 These subtypes are esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Outcomes remain poor regardless of subtype, with most patients presenting with late stage disease.2 Novel strategies to improve early detection of the respective precursor lesions, squamous dysplasia, and Barrett's esophagus offer the potential to improve outcomes. The introduction of a limited number of biologic agents, as well as immune checkpoint inhibitors, is resulting in improvements in the systemic treatment of locally advanced and metastatic esophageal cancer. These developments, coupled with improvements in minimally invasive surgical and endoscopic treatment approaches, as well as adaptive and precision radiotherapy technologies, offer the potential to improve outcomes still further. This review summarizes the latest advances in the diagnosis and management of esophageal cancer, and the developments in understanding of the biology of this disease.

FOLFIRI Plus Durvalumab With or Without Tremelimumab in Second-Line Treatment of Advanced Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma: The PRODIGE 59-FFCD 1707-DURIGAST Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Efficacy of second-line chemotherapy in advanced gastric or gastrooesphageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma remains limited.

OJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of 1 or 2 immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with FOLFIRI (leucovorin [folinic acid], fluorouracil, and irinotecan) in the treatment of advanced gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The PRODIGE 59-FFCD 1707-DURIGAST trial is a randomized, multicenter, noncomparative, phase 2 trial, conducted from August 27, 2020, and June 4, 2021, at 37 centers in France that included patients with advanced gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma who had disease progression after platinum-based first-line chemotherapy.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomized to receive FOLFIRI plus durvalumab (anti-programmed cell death 1 [PD-L1]) (FD arm) or FOLFIRI plus durvalumab and tremelimumab (anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated protein 4 [CTLA-4]) (FDT arm). The efficacy analyses used a clinical cutoff date of January 9, 2023.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES

The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) at 4 months according to RECIST 1.1 criteria evaluated by investigators.

RESULTS

Overall, between August 27, 2020, and June 4, 2021, 96 patients were randomized (48 in each arm). The median age was 59.7 years, 28 patients (30.4%) were women and 49 (53.3%) had GEJ tumors. Four month PFS was 44.7% (90% CI, 32.3-57.7) and 55.6% (90% CI, 42.3-68.3) in the FD and FDT arms, respectively. The primary end point was not met. Median PFS was 3.8 and 5.4 months, objective response rates were 34.7% and 37.7%, and median overall survival was 13.2 and 9.5 months in the FD and FDT arms, respectively. Disease control beyond 1 year was 14.9% in the FD arm and 24.4% in the FDT arm. Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 22 (47.8%) patients in each arm. A combined positive score (CPS) PD-L1 of 5 or higher was observed in 18 tumors (34.0%) and a tumor proportion score (TPS) PD-L1 of 1% or higher in 13 tumors (24.5%). Median PFS according to CPS PD-L1 was similar (3.6 months for PD-L1 CPS ≥5 vs 5.4 months for PD-L1 CPS <5) by contrast for TPS PD-L1 (6.0 months for PD-L1 TPS ≥1% vs 3.8 months for PD-L1 TPS <1%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors with FOLFIRI in second-line treatment for advanced gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma showed an acceptable safety profile but antitumor activity only in a subgroup of patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03959293.

Real-World Effectiveness and Safety of Ramucirumab as a Second-Line Treatment for Patients with Unresectable Advanced or Metastatic Gastric/Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma in Japan and South Korea: A Systematic Literature Review

INTRODUCTION

Gastric cancer has the highest incidence and mortality in Eastern Asia. The efficacy and safety of ramucirumab (RAM) monotherapy or in combination with paclitaxel (PTX) for patients with unresectable advanced or metastatic gastric/gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (G/GEA) have been established in clinical trials. To assess the effectiveness and safety of RAM or RAM-based therapy as a second-line treatment in real-world clinical practice in Eastern Asia and to pave the way for future research, a systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted.

METHODS

Studies published between January 2014 and December 2021 were identified in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, and CBM databases.

RESULTS

This SLR included 23 studies from Japan and South Korea, of which 22 were retrospective and 11 were full-text articles. Most studies investigated RAM + PTX (range of median overall survival [mOS] 7.4-12.2 months; median progression-free survival [mPFS] 3.35-7.0 months). Data were limited for RAM, RAM + albumin-bound paclitaxel, and RAM + taxane. RAM + PTX was associated with longer survival (mOS 9.3-12.2 months vs. 5.2-9.7 months; mPFS 4.1-5.1 months vs. 3.0-4.1 months) than PTX. Patients with prior anti-programmed cell death 1 (anti-PD-1) exposure experienced longer mPFS (4.8 vs. 3.4 months) from RAM + taxane than those without prior anti-PD-1 exposure. Few patients (3.3-6.3%) discontinued RAM or RAM-based therapy because of adverse events (AEs). Hematological toxicities were most frequently occurring AEs and no new safety signals were identified compared to clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

RAM + PTX as a second-line treatment is effective and associated with an acceptable toxicity profile in patients with advanced or metastatic G/GEA in real-world settings of Japan and South Korea. More studies are recommended to further evaluate effectiveness and safety of RAM or RAM-based therapy, especially after anti-PD-1 therapy, in a wider Eastern Asian population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

INPLASY registration number INPLASY2022120023.

Efficacy and safety of surufatinib plus toripalimab, a chemotherapy-free regimen, in patients with advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, or biliary tract cancer

BACKGROUND

The programmed death 1 inhibitor toripalimab plus the angio-immuno kinase inhibitor surufatinib showed a tolerable safety profile and preliminary efficacy in patients with advanced solid tumors in a phase I study.

METHODS

This open-label, multi-cohort study in China enrolled patients with advanced solid tumors who had failed or were intolerable to standard treatment into tumor-specific cohorts. Patients received surufatinib (250 mg orally, once daily) plus toripalimab (240 mg intravenously, once every three weeks). Results for three cohorts (gastric/gastroesophageal junction [GC/GEJ] adenocarcinoma, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma [ESCC], and biliary tract carcinoma [BTC]) are reported here. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per Response Evaluation criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1.

RESULTS

Between December 17, 2019, and January 29, 2021, 60 patients were enrolled (GC/GEJ, n = 20; ESCC, n = 20; BTC, n = 20). At data cutoff (February 28, 2023), ORRs were 31.6%, 30.0%, and 11.1%, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 4.1, 2.7, and 2.9 months, respectively. Median overall survival was 13.7, 10.4, and 7.0 months, respectively. Overall, grade ≥  3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 28 (46.7%) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Surufatinib plus toripalimab showed promising antitumor activity and a tolerable safety profile in immunotherapy-naïve patients with GC/GEJ adenocarcinoma, ESCC, or BTC. These findings warrant further study in larger randomized trials comparing surufatinib plus toripalimab with standard therapies in these tumors.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov NCT04169672.

State of the scientific evidence and recommendations for the management of older patients with gastric cancer

Gastric cancer is one of the most frequent and deadly tumours worldwide. However, the evidence that currently exists for the treatment of older adults is limited and is derived mainly from clinical trials in which older patients are poorly represented. In this article, a group of experts selected from the Oncogeriatrics Section of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM), the Spanish Group for the Treatment of Digestive Tumours (TTD), and the Spanish Multidisciplinary Group on Digestive Cancer (GEMCAD) reviews the existing scientific evidence for older patients (≥65 years old) with gastric cancer and establishes a series of recommendations that allow optimization of management during all phases of the disease. Geriatric assessment (GA) and a multidisciplinary approach should be fundamental parts of the process. In early stages, endoscopic submucosal resection or laparoscopic gastrectomy is recommended depending on the stage. In locally advanced stage, the tolerability of triplet regimens has been established; however, as in the metastatic stage, platinum- and fluoropyrimidine-based regimens with the possibility of lower dose intensity are recommended resulting in similar efficacy. Likewise, the administration of trastuzumab, ramucirumab and immunotherapy for unresectable metastatic or locally advanced disease is safe. Supportive treatment acquires special importance in a population with different life expectancies than at a younger age. It is essential to consider the general state of the patient and the psychosocial dimension.

PD-1 inhibitor combined with albumin paclitaxel and apatinib as second-line treatment for patients with metastatic gastric cancer: a single-center, single-arm, phase II study

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have been approved for first- and third-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer. However, pembrolizumab alone in the second line did not improve overall survival compared to chemotherapy in the KEYNOTE-061 study. In this study, we aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of a three-drug regimen of PD-1 inhibitor combined with albumin paclitaxel and apatinib (a VEGFR inhibitor) for the second-line treatment of patients with metastatic gastric cancer (mGC).

METHODS

This was a single-center, single-arm, phase II clinical study. Patients with mGC with stable microsatellite and negative HER-2 expression who failed first-line chemotherapy were enrolled. The enrolled patients were treated with PD-1 inhibitor (selected according to patients' requirements) in combination with albumin paclitaxel (125 mg/m2, intravenously, days 1 and 8, or 250 mg/m2, intravenously, day 1) and apatinib (250 or 500 mg, orally, days 1-21) every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), duration of response, and adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

From July 11, 2019, to October 13, 2022, a total of 43 patients were enrolled, of whom 10 were PD-L1 negative, 11 were PD-L1 positive, and 22 had unknown PD-L1 expression. As of the data cutoff on April 1st, 2023, nine patients had partial response, 29 had stable disease, and five experienced progressive disease, with the ORR of 20.9% and DCR of 88.3%. The median PFS was 6.2 months (95% CI, 3.9-9.3), and the median OS was 10.1 months (95% CI, 7.5-14.1). All patients suffered from alopecia and neurotoxicity. The other main AEs of grade 1 or 2 were bone marrow suppression (N = 21, 48.8%), hand-foot reaction (N = 19, 44.2%), hypertension (N = 18, 41.9%), hypothyroidism (N = 11, 25.6%), gastrointestinal bleeding (N = 3, 7.0%), and liver function damage (N = 5, 11.6%). Two patients reported grade 3-4 immune-related liver damage.

CONCLUSION

Second-line PD-1 inhibitor combined with albumin paclitaxel and apatinib showed certain efficacy and safety in patients with mGC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical trials, NCT04182724. Registered 27 November 2019; retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04182724.

TRIFLURIDINE/TIPIRACIL (FTD/TPI) with or without bevacizumab in previously treated patients with esophago-gastric adenocarcinoma, a randomised phase III trial

Background

Trifluridine-tipiracil has shown a survival benefit compared with placebo in patients with chemorefractory metastatic esophago-gastric adenocarcinoma. We aimed to compare the efficacy of trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab vs trifluridine-tipiracil monotherapy in pre-treated patients with metastatic esophago-gastric adenocarcinoma.

Methods

This investigator-initiated, open-label, randomized trial enrolled patients with metastatic esophago-gastric adenocarcinoma. The main inclusion criteria were patients with pre-treated metastatic esophago-gastric adenocarcinoma, and WHO performance status 0 or 1. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral trifluridine-tipiracil (35 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-5 and 8-12 every 28 days) alone or combined with bevacizumab (5 mg/kg on days 1 and 15) until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient decision to withdraw. Randomisation was stratified by sex and treatment line. The primary endpoint was investigator-evaluated progression-free survival. All analyses were based on intention to treat. This trial is registered with EudraCT, 2018-004845-18.

Findings

From Oct 1, 2019, to Sept 30, 2021, 103 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to trifluridine-tipiracil (n = 53) or trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab (n = 50). The clinical cut-off date was March 1st, 2023, after a median follow-up of 36.6 months. Median progression-free survival was 3.1 months (95% CI 2.0-4.3) in the trifluridine-tipiracil group vs 3.9 months (3.0-6.3) in the trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab group (hazard ratio 0.68, 95% CI 0.46-1.02; p = 0.058). The most frequent grade 3 or worse adverse event was neutropenia, observed in 26 (49%) patients in the trifluridine-tipiracil group vs 23 patients (46%) in the trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab group. At least one hospitalization was observed in 21 patients (40%) in the trifluridine-tipiracil group and 22 patients (44%) in the trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab group. No deaths were deemed treatment related.

Interpretation

In patients with pre-treated metastatic esophago-gastric cancer, trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab, compared to trifluridine-tipiracil monotherapy, did not significantly prolong progression-free survival. The combination of trifluridine-tipiracil with bevacizumab was well tolerated without increase in severe neutropenia and no new safety signals.

Funding

Servier, Roche.

German, Austrian, and Swiss guidelines for systemic treatment of gastric cancer

The updated edition of the German, Austrian and Swiss Guidelines for Systemic Treatment of Gastric Cancer was completed in August 2023, incorporating new evidence that emerged after publication of the previous edition. It consists of a text-based "Diagnosis" part and a "Therapy" part including recommendations and treatment algorithms. The treatment part includes a comprehensive description regarding perioperative and palliative systemic therapy for gastric cancer and summarizes recommended standard of care for surgery and endoscopic resection. The guidelines are based on a literature search and evaluation by a multidisciplinary panel of experts nominated by the hematology and oncology scientific societies of the three involved countries.

Endoscopic Palliative Therapies for Esophageal Cancer

Endoscopic palliation of dysphagia for patients with inoperable esophageal cancer is complex, highly dependent on local expertise, and best done in a multidisciplinary fashion. Systemic therapy is the standard of care because it has been shown to improve survival. Esophageal stenting has traditionally been the most used endoscopic modality. Some modalities such as laser and photodynamic therapy are rarely used. There has been an increasing amount of data on cryotherapy, especially for patients with mild-to-moderate dysphagia on systemic chemotherapy. This article will discuss the latest evidence guiding the palliation of esophageal cancer.

Individual Irinotecan Therapy Under the Guidance of Pre-Treated UGT1A1*6 Genotyping in Gastric Cancer

Background: Severe delayed diarrhea and hematological toxicity limit the use of irinotecan. Uridine diphosphate glucuronosyltransferase 1A1 (UGT1A1) is a critical enzyme in irinotecan metabolism. The study aims to investigate the safety and efficacy of irinotecan under the guidance of the pre-treatment UGT1A1 genotype in the second-line treatment of gastric cancer. Methods: This study involved 110 patients. Irinotecan was injected intravenously every 3 weeks, and the dose of irinotecan was determined by polymorphism of the UGT1A1 gene, which was divided into three groups (125 mg/m2: GG type; 100 mg/m2: GA type; 75 mg/m2: AA type). The primary end point was overall survival (OS), the secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. Results: One hundred and seven patients received irinotecan treatment and three patients with AA type received paclitaxel treatment. Among 107 patients, there were no significant differences in PFS (4.8 m vs 4.9 m vs 4.4 m; p = 0.5249) and OS (9.3 m vs 9.3 m vs NA; p = 0.6821) among patients with GG/GA/AA subtypes after dose adjustment. For the patient with homozygosity mutation, treatment was switched to paclitaxel. There were no significant differences in PFS and OS among patients with different alleles or after dose adjustment (p > 0.05). There was a significant difference in the risk of delayed diarrhea (p = 0.000), leukopenia (p = 0.003) and neutropenia (p = 0.000) in patients with different UGT1A1*6 genotypes, while no difference in patients with different UGT1A1*28 genotypes. Additionally, grade 3/4 diarrhea, neutropenia, and leukopenia were significantly more common in AA genotype patients compared to GG (2%, 19%, 24%) or GA (23%, 31%, 31%) genotype patients. Conclusion: Individual irinotecan treatment shows encouraging survival and tolerability outcomes in patients with GG/GA subtype. Irinotecan may be not suitable for patients with AA subtype.

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.

Optimizing the Continuum of Care in Gastric Cancer

Gastric cancer (GC) still ranks as the fifth most common malignancy and the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Despite the recent progress in the therapeutic algorithm of the advanced disease with the advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and next-generation HER2-directed therapies, survival rates remain poor, with a median survival hardly exceeding 12 months. Furthermore, only 40% of patients remain eligible for second- and later-line treatments due to the aggressiveness of the disease and the rapid deterioration of performance status (PS). Thus, current research is focusing either on the identification of novel treatment options or the development of personalized strategies to optimize the continuum of care and ultimately improve patients' outcome. In this article, we provide an overview of the current treatment landscape for advanced GC with a particular emphasis on later-line treatments and outline novel perspectives on the horizon.

Ibrutinib combination therapy for advanced gastrointestinal and genitourinary tumours: results from a phase 1b/2 study

BACKGROUND

Ibrutinib, a first-in-class inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase, is approved for the treatment of various B-cell malignancies and chronic graft-versus-host disease. Based on encouraging preclinical data, safety and efficacy of ibrutinib combined with companion drugs for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), gastric/gastroesophageal junctional adenocarcinoma (GC), and colorectal adenocarcinoma (CRC) were evaluated.

METHODS

Ibrutinib 560 mg or 840 mg once daily was administered with standard doses of everolimus for RCC, docetaxel for GC, and cetuximab for CRC. Endpoints included determination of the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of ibrutinib in phase 1b and efficacy (overall response rate [ORR] for GC and CRC; progression-free survival [PFS] for CRC) in phase 2.

RESULTS

A total of 39 (RCC), 46 (GC), and 50 (RCC) patients were enrolled and received the RP2D. Safety profiles were consistent with the individual agents used in the study. Confirmed ORRs were 3% (RCC), 21% (GC), and 19% (CRC). Median (90% CI) PFS was 5.6 (3.9-7.5) months in RCC, 4.0 (2.7-4.2) months in GC, and 5.4 (4.1-5.8) months in CRC.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinically meaningful increases in efficacy were not observed compared to historical controls; however, the data may warrant further evaluation of ibrutinib combinations in other solid tumours.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02599324.

Updated Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Gastric Cancer

Surgical resection is currently the best curative approach for gastric cancer (GC); however, the prognosis of patients with advanced GC remains poor even with curative resection. For this reason, perioperative chemotherapy has been combined with surgery to reduce the risk of postoperative recurrence. Standard perioperative chemotherapy for resectable advanced GC varies from region to region. Postoperative S-1 therapy was standardized via the ACTS-GC study in East Asia, perioperative ECF (Epirubicin + Cisplatin + Fluorouracil) was standardized via the MAGIC study in Europe, and postoperative chemoradiotherapy was standardized via the US intergroup study in North America. Since then, more intensive regimens have been developed. In recent years, perioperative therapy using novel agents, such as molecular-targeted drugs and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), has also been tested and evaluated in the three major regions (East Asia, Europe, and North America) with promising results. Perioperative chemotherapy has become an integral part of many treatment strategies and requires continued research and evaluation.

Efficacy and safety of PD‑1/PD‑L1 inhibitors combined with chemotherapy in patients with advanced gastric or gastro‑esophageal junction cancer: A systematic review and meta‑analysis

Although the efficacy and safety of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor combined with chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone has been analyzed, there have been no in-depth studies on the outcomes of patients with PD-L1 positive advanced gastric or gastro-esophageal junction cancer patients (GC/GEJC). This systematic review and meta-analysis focused on comparing the efficacy and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors vs. PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combined with chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy in PD-L1 positive advanced GC/GEJC patients, aiming to provide more precise guidance for the clinical treatment of GC/GEJC. In this meta-analysis, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from the establishment of the database till June 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which control patients underwent chemotherapy and experimental group patients underwent PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors or PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combined with chemotherapy were included in this investigation. Investigations without complete information, studies from which information could not be extracted, duplicate articles, animal studies, review articles, and systematic reviews were excluded. The pooled results suggested that chemotherapy combined with immunotherapy prolonged overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced GC/GEJC, while progression free-survival (PFS) with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors alone or in combination with chemotherapy were all improved compared with chemotherapy alone. However, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors did not significantly increase objective response rates (ORR) in PD-L1-positive patients compared with chemotherapy, but in combination with chemotherapy, they did improve ORR. The pooled results also showed that patients treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors had higher stable disease (SD) and progressive disease (PD) rates compared to chemotherapy in PD-L1-positive patients. Additionally, in PD-L1-positive patients, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors alone or combined with chemotherapy increased OS compared with chemotherapy alone. However, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors only prolonged PFS compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with a combined positive score (CPS; 100% of cells were required to be positively stained) for PD-L1, but when combined with chemotherapy, OS and PFS were prolonged in all PD-L1-positive patients compared with chemotherapy alone. Finally, the pooled results showed that the incidence of adverse events of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in PD-L1-zpositive patients was significantly lower than that in patients treated with chemotherapy alone. In conclusion, single agent of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor alone or combined with chemotherapy significantly prolongs the survival of patients compared with chemotherapy alone, with fewer adverse effects. However, the degree of CPS may affect efficacy, thus further investigation is required.

Nab-Paclitaxel in the Treatment of Gastrointestinal Cancers-Improvements in Clinical Efficacy and Safety

Taxanes (paclitaxel and docetaxel) are one of the most useful classes of anticancer drugs. Taxanes are highly hydrophobic; therefore, these drugs must be dissolved in organic solvents (polysorbate or Cremophor EL), which contribute to their toxicities. To reduce this toxicity and to enhance their efficacy, novel formulations have been developed. Nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) is an albumin-stabilized, Cremophor-free, and water-soluble nanoparticle formulation of paclitaxel. Nab-paclitaxel has better solubility and less infusion-associated toxicity compared to solvent-based paclitaxel. Additionally, nab-paclitaxel can be given at higher doses and concentrations compared with solvent-based paclitaxel. Based on its superior clinical efficacy and safety profile, nab-paclitaxel received FDA approval for metastatic breast cancer (2008) and NSCLC (2011). Among gastrointestinal cancers, it is now approved in the USA for treating patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas as first-line therapy in combination with gemcitabine. Furthermore, several clinical trials have suggested the potential efficacy of nab-paclitaxel as a single agent or in combination with other agents for the treatment of metastatic esophageal, gastric, bowel, and biliary tract cancers. Nab-paclitaxel has been demonstrated to have greater overall response rates (ORR) with enhanced progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and a superior safety profile with fewer adverse effects in patients with gastrointestinal tract cancers. This review summarizes the advantages associated with nab-paclitaxel-based regimens in terms of improving clinical efficacy and the safety profile in upper gastrointestinal cancer.

HER2-Positive Gastric Cancer: The Role of Immunotherapy and Novel Therapeutic Strategies

Gastric cancer is an aggressive disease with increasing global incidence in recent years. Human epidermal growth receptor 2 (HER2) is overexpressed in approximately 10-20% of gastric cancers. The implementation of targeted therapy against HER2 as part of the standard of care treatment in metastatic disease has improved the prognosis of this subset of patients. However, gastric cancer still has high mortality rates and urgently requires new treatment strategies. The combination of immunotherapy with HER2-targeted therapies has shown synergistic effects in preclinical models, this being the rationale behind exploring this combination in clinical trials in locally advanced and metastatic settings. Additionally, the irruption of antibody-drug conjugates and other novel HER2-targeted agents has led to the development of numerous clinical trials showing promising results. This review presents the molecular mechanisms supporting the use of HER2-targeted drugs in combination with immunotherapy and provides an overview of the therapeutic scenario of HER2-positive disease. We focus on the role of immunotherapy but also summarize emerging therapies and combinations under clinical research that may change the standard treatment in HER-2 positive disease in the future.

The first Middle East and North Africa expert consensus recommendations for management of advanced gastric cancer

Gastric cancer (GC) ranks as the fifth most prevalent cancer and the fourth deadliest cancer worldwide. In the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, GC represents about 4.8% of cancer cases with more than 35,000 new cases in 2020. To strengthen and improve the management of this cancer in the region, a group of MENA experts in the field of GC developed the first MENA consensus recommendations for the management of advanced GC. A total of 28 statements were drafted, discussed and voted on, using a modified Delphi process, during a virtual consensus meeting. The statements addressed the areas of epidemiology, biomarkers and treatment.

The Role of Staging Laparoscopy for Gastric Cancer Patients: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives

A significant proportion of patients diagnosed with gastric cancer is discovered with peritoneal metastases at laparotomy. Despite the continuous improvement in the performance of radiological imaging, the preoperative recognition of such an advanced disease is still challenging during the diagnostic work-up, since the sensitivity of CT scans to peritoneal carcinomatosis is not always adequate. Staging laparoscopy offers the chance to significantly increase the rate of promptly diagnosed peritoneal metastases, thus reducing the number of unnecessary laparotomies and modifying the initial treatment strategy of gastric cancer. The aim of this review was to provide a comprehensive summary of the current literature regarding the role of staging laparoscopy in the management of gastric cancer. Indications, techniques, accuracy, advantages, and limitations of staging laparoscopy and peritoneal cytology were discussed. Furthermore, a focus on current evidence regarding the application of artificial intelligence and image-guided surgery in staging laparoscopy was included in order to provide a picture of the future perspectives of this technique and its integration with modern tools in the preoperative management of gastric cancer.

Second-Line Chemotherapy in Gastric Cancer: a Retrospective Study

Second-line chemotherapy is recommended for patients who have disease progression after first-line chemotherapy and have a good performance status. The aim of our study is thus to determine which chemotherapy regimen is more appropriate for second-line gastric cancer treatment. Patients were included if they met the following inclusion criteria: metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma pathology; no previous treatment for local gastric cancer (surgery, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy); received first-line chemotherapy for metastatic gastric cancer and had the disease progress afterward; had adequate organ functions for second-line chemotherapy; had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score 0-2; and were HER-2 negative. The patients were examined in three groups according to the second-line chemotherapy regimen they received. These three groups were compared in terms of overall and progression-free survival. The three groups were statistically similar in overall survival, which was the primary endpoint of the study; the median overall survival was 5 months in the FOLFIRI group (n = 79), 6.5 months in the platinum-based group (n = 55), and 5.6 months in the taxane-based group (n = 40) (p = 0.554). There was no statistical difference between the groups' progression-free survival either; the median progression-free survival time was 3.43 months in the FOLFIRI group, 4 months in the platinum-based group, and 2.77 months in the taxane-based group (p = 0.546). There was no statistically significant difference between the three irinotecan-based, platinum-based, and taxane-based treatments. According to our study's results, the chemotherapy given in second-line treatment should be decided on an individual basis according to toxicity and cost.

Comparative analysis of systemic oncological treatments and best supportive care for advanced gastresophageal cancer: A comprehensive scoping review and evidence map

OBJECTIVE

To identify, describe, and organize the available evidence regarding systemic oncological treatments compared to best supportive care (BSC) for advanced gastresophageal cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a thorough search across MEDLINE (PubMed), EMbase (Ovid), The Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, PROSPERO, and Clinicaltrials.gov. Our inclusion criteria encompassed systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental and observational studies involving patients with advanced esophageal or gastric cancer receiving chemotherapy, immunotherapy or biological/targeted therapy compared to BSC. The outcomes included survival, quality of life, functional status, toxicity, and quality of end-of-life care.

RESULTS

We included and mapped 72 studies, comprising SRs, experimental and observational designs, 12 on esophageal cancer, 51 on gastric cancer, and 10 both locations. Most compared schemes including chemotherapy (47 studies), but did not report therapeutic lines. Moreover, BSC as a control arm was poorly defined, including integral support and placebo. Data favor the use of systemic oncological treatments in survival outcomes and BSC in toxicity. Data for outcomes including quality of life, functional status, and quality of end-of-life care were limited. We found sundry evidence gaps specifically in assessing new treatments such as immunotherapy and important outcomes such as functional status, symptoms control, hospital admissions, and the quality of end-life care for all the treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

There are important evidence gaps regarding new for patients with advanced gastresophageal cancer and the effect of systemic oncological treatments on important patient-centered outcomes beyond survival. Future research should clearly describe the population included, specifying previous treatments and considering therapeutic, and consider all patient-centered outcomes. Otherwise, it will be complex to apply research results into practice.

Efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in advanced gastroesophageal cancer based on characteristics: a meta-analysis

Objective: Evaluate the potency of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies in advanced gastroesophageal cancer patients with different clinical features. Methods: Randomized, controlled trials comparing anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies with chemotherapy in individuals with gastroesophageal cancer were retrieved. Results: 15 trials involving 9194 individuals were included. PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors significantly improved overall survival (OS) but not progression-free survival. Significantly improved OS was observed in PD-L1 combined positive score ≥1, primary esophageal cancer, primary gastric cancer and Asian patients. Subgroup analysis revealed significant OS benefit achieved for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, but not for esophageal adenocarcinoma. Conclusion: PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors improved OS in advanced gastroesophageal carcinoma, especially in patients with esophageal cancer. Race, primary tumor sites and PD-L1 combined positive score can be used to predict the potency of immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Enhancing gastric cancer conventional chemotherapy effects by triple angiokinase inhibitor nintedanib in preclinical models

Background

Gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) is the fourth leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Systemic chemotherapy is a preferred treatment option for advanced and recurrent GAC, but response rates and survival prolongation remain limited. Tumor angiogenesis plays a critical role in GAC growth, invasion and metastasis. We investigated the antitumor efficacy of nintedanib, a potent triple angiokinase inhibitor for VEGFR-1/2/3, PDGFR-α/β and FGFR-1/2/3, alone or in combination with chemotherapy, in preclinical models of GAC.

Methods

Animal survival studies were performed in peritoneal dissemination xenografts in NOD/SCID mice using human GAC cell lines MKN-45 and KATO-III. Tumor growth inhibition studies were performed in subcutaneous xenografts in NOD/SCID mice using human GAC cell lines MKN-45 and SNU-5. The mechanistic evaluation involved Immunohistochemistry analyses in tumor tissues obtained from subcutaneous xenografts. In vitro cell viability assays were performed using a colorimetric WST-1 reagent.

Results

In MKN-45 GAC cell-derived peritoneal dissemination xenografts, animal survival was improved by nintedanib (33%), docetaxel (100%) and irinotecan (181%), while oxaliplatin, 5-FU and epirubicin had no effect. The addition of nintedanib to docetaxel (157%) or irinotecan (214%) led to a further extension in animal survival. In KATO-III GAC cell-derived xenografts carrying FGFR2 gene amplification, nintedanib extended survival by 209%. Again, the addition of nintedanib further enhanced the animal survival benefits of docetaxel (273%) and irinotecan (332%). In MKN-45 subcutaneous xenografts, nintedanib, epirubicin, docetaxel and irinotecan reduced tumor growth (range: 68-87%), while 5-FU and oxaliplatin had a smaller effect (40%). Nintedanib addition to all chemotherapeutics demonstrated a further reduction in tumor growth. Subcutaneous tumor analysis revealed that nintedanib attenuated tumor cell proliferation, reduced tumor vasculature and increased tumor cell death.

Conclusion

Nintedanib showed notable antitumor efficacy and significantly improved taxane or irinotecan chemotherapy responses. These findings indicate that nintedanib, alone and in combination with a taxane or irinotecan, has the potential for improving clinical GAC therapy.

Therapeutic Advances in the Treatment of Gastroesophageal Cancers

Gastroesophageal cancers are a group of aggressive malignancies that are inherently heterogeneous with poor prognosis. Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, esophageal adenocarcinoma, gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, and gastric adenocarcinoma all have distinct underlying molecular biology, which can impact available targets and treatment response. Multimodality therapy is needed in the localized setting and treatment decisions require multidisciplinary discussions. Systemic therapies for treatment of advanced/metastatic disease should be biomarker-driven, when appropriate. Current FDA approved treatments include HER2-targeted therapy, immunotherapy, and chemotherapy. However, novel therapeutic targets are under development and future treatments will be personalized based on molecular profiling. Herein, we review the current treatment approaches and discuss promising advances in targeted therapies for gastroesophageal cancers.

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.