Irinotecan plus cisplatin therapy and S-1 plus cisplatin therapy for advanced or recurrent gastric cancer in a single institution

Camptothecin and Its Derivatives from Traditional Chinese Medicine in Combination with Anticancer Therapy Regimens: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background/Objectives: Camptothecin (CPT) and its derivatives, irinotecan and topotecan, are integral components of cancer chemotherapy, often used in combination therapies. This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy of CPT-based combination treatments in cancer patients. Methods: We systematically searched the literature database using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist for articles published between 2000 and 2022. Published studies were retrieved through an electronic search on the Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases. A total of 138 studies were downloaded and examined, and 71 eligible studies were selected for meta-analysis after excluding studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria. Results: Ultimately, a total of 71 studies were included in the analysis, comprising non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), colorectal cancer (COLRC), oesophageal/gastric cancer (O/GC), and small cell lung cancer (SCLC). For NSCLC, the objective response rate (RR) was 31.8% (95% CI: 27.3-37.1%, p = 0.025), with irinotecan plus cisplatin showing significantly higher efficacy compared to other irinotecan-based combinations. In COLRC, irinotecan and 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin plus bevacizumab demonstrated superior efficacy with a RR of 44% (95% CI: 34-58, p < 0.001) and minimal haematological toxicity. In O/GC, irinotecan-based combinations showed an average RR of 43% (95% CI: 27-70, p < 0.001) and average overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) rates of 10.2 and 5.5 months, respectively. For SCLC, irinotecan-based combinations had a higher control response than topotecan-based ones, while the latter exhibited higher rates of stable and progressive disease. The overall RR for SCLC was 45% (95% CI: 34.3-60.2, p < 0.001). Conclusions: The existing evidence underscored the potential of CPT-based combination therapy in various cancers. Among the various combinations discussed in this analysis, irinotecan plus cisplatin demonstrated the highest objective RR in 12 trials focused on NSCLC. This study provides valuable insights into potential treatment strategies for various types of cancer, emphasising the importance of personalised and tailored approaches to maximise efficacy and minimise adverse effects.

Head and neck cancer prevention: from primary prevention to impact of clinicians on reducing burden

Survival from head and neck cancers (HNCs) of the lip, oral cavity, pharynx, and larynx has increased by 10% over the past few decades. Little over half of patients who develop HNCs will survive beyond 5 years. Survival is lower for individuals in many countries where traditional risk factors such as tobacco smoking, alcohol drinking, and betel quid chewing are highly prevalent but tertiary health care center access is limited or unavailable. Early diagnosis of HNC is the most important prognostic factor for each tumor site. Molecular-based research on HNC tumors holds promise for early stage detection, screening, vaccination, disease follow-up, and progression. Future investments for HNC control must consider both effectiveness and sustainability for both high- and low-resource countries alike, with priority toward risk factor prevention and earlier diagnosis.

Palliative chemotherapy and targeted therapies for esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer

BACKGROUND

Almost half of people with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer have metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis. Chemotherapy and targeted therapies are increasingly used with a palliative intent to control tumor growth, improve quality of life, and prolong survival. To date, and with the exception of ramucirumab, evidence for the efficacy of palliative treatments for esophageal and gastroesophageal cancer is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of cytostatic or targeted therapy for treating esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer with palliative intent.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Web of Science, PubMed Publisher, Google Scholar, and trial registries up to 13 May 2015, and we handsearched the reference lists of studies. We did not restrict the search to publications in English. Additional searches were run in September 2017 prior to publication, and they are listed in the 'Studies awaiting assessment' section.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy versus best supportive care or control in people with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data. We assessed the quality and risk of bias of eligible studies according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We calculated pooled estimates of effect using an inverse variance random-effects model for meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 41 RCTs with 11,853 participants for inclusion in the review as well as 49 ongoing studies. For the main comparison of adding a cytostatic and/or targeted agent to a control arm, we included 11 studies with 1347 participants. This analysis demonstrated an increase in overall survival in favor of the arm with an additional cytostatic or targeted therapeutic agent with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.75 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 0.84, high-quality evidence). The median increased survival time was one month. Five studies in 750 participants contributed data to the comparison of palliative therapy versus best supportive care. We found a benefit in overall survival in favor of the group receiving palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy compared to best supportive care (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.92, high-quality evidence). Subcomparisons including only people receiving second-line therapies, chemotherapies, targeted therapies, adenocarcinomas, and squamous cell carcinomas all showed a similar benefit. The only individual agent that more than one study found to improve both overall survival and progression-free survival was ramucirumab. Palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy increased the frequency of grade 3 or higher treatment-related toxicity. However, treatment-related deaths did not occur more frequently. Quality of life often improved in the arm with an additional agent.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

People who receive more chemotherapeutic or targeted therapeutic agents have an increased overall survival compared to people who receive less. These agents, administered as both first-line or second-line treatments, also led to better overall survival than best supportive care. With the exception of ramucirumab, it remains unclear which other individual agents cause the survival benefit. Although treatment-associated toxicities of grade 3 or more occurred more frequently in arms with an additional chemotherapy or targeted therapy agent, there is no evidence that palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy decrease quality of life. Based on this meta-analysis, palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy can be considered standard care for esophageal and gastroesophageal junction carcinoma.

Meta-analysis for the efficacy of S-1-based regimens as the first-line treatment in Asian chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

AIM

We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety for S-1-based regimens as the first-line treatment in Asian chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PATIENTS & METHODS

Eligible randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included, of which data were extracted by inclusion criteria and exclusion one. Odds ratio and hazard ratio (HR) of outcomes including objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and adverse effects (AEs) were explored for the final analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-one RCTs including 3263 patients were fit into the analysis. Pooled HR for PFS was 1.01 (95% CI: 0.92-1.10; p = 0.88), the pooled HR for OS was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.85-1.06; p = 0.33) and the pooled odds ratio for ORR was 0.74 (95% CI: 0.61-0.90; p = 0.003). S-1-based regimens showed milder AEs in high-grade nausea/vomit, anorexia, leukopenia, neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The present study has revealed that S-1-based regimens are accompanied by the similar efficacy and slighter AEs compared with standard regimens as the first-line treatment in Asian chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer is the fifth most common cancer worldwide. In "Western" countries, most people are either diagnosed at an advanced stage, or develop a relapse after surgery with curative intent. In people with advanced disease, significant benefits from targeted therapies are currently limited to HER-2 positive disease treated with trastuzumab, in combination with chemotherapy, in first-line. In second-line, ramucirumab, alone or in combination with paclitaxel, demonstrated significant survival benefits. Thus, systemic chemotherapy remains the mainstay of treatment for advanced gastric cancer. Uncertainty remains regarding the choice of the regimen.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of chemotherapy versus best supportive care (BSC), combination versus single-agent chemotherapy and different chemotherapy combinations in advanced gastric cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and Embase up to June 2016, reference lists of studies, and contacted pharmaceutical companies and experts to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered only RCTs on systemic, intravenous or oral chemotherapy versus BSC, combination versus single-agent chemotherapy and different chemotherapy regimens in advanced gastric cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified studies and extracted data. A third investigator was consulted in case of disagreements. We contacted study authors to obtain missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 64 RCTs, of which 60 RCTs (11,698 participants) provided data for the meta-analysis of overall survival. We found chemotherapy extends overall survival (OS) by approximately 6.7 months more than BSC (hazard ratio (HR) 0.3, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.24 to 0.55, 184 participants, three studies, moderate-quality evidence). Combination chemotherapy extends OS slightly (by an additional month) versus single-agent chemotherapy (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.89, 4447 participants, 23 studies, moderate-quality evidence), which is partly counterbalanced by increased toxicity. The benefit of epirubicin in three-drug combinations, in which cisplatin is replaced by oxaliplatin and 5-FU is replaced by capecitabine is unknown.Irinotecan extends OS slightly (by an additional 1.6 months) versus non-irinotecan-containing regimens (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.95, 2135 participants, 10 studies, high-quality evidence).Docetaxel extends OS slightly (just over one month) compared to non-docetaxel-containing regimens (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.95, 2001 participants, eight studies, high-quality evidence). However, due to subgroup analyses, we are uncertain whether docetaxel-containing combinations (docetaxel added to a single-agent or two-drug combination) extends OS due to moderate-quality evidence (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.91, 1466 participants, four studies, moderate-quality evidence). When another chemotherapy was replaced by docetaxel, there is probably little or no difference in OS (HR 1.05; 0.87 to 1.27, 479 participants, three studies, moderate-quality evidence). We found there is probably little or no difference in OS when comparing capecitabine versus 5-FU-containing regimens (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.11, 732 participants, five studies, moderate-quality evidence) .Oxaliplatin may extend (by less than one month) OS versus cisplatin-containing regimens (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.98, 1105 participants, five studies, low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether taxane-platinum combinations with (versus without) fluoropyrimidines extend OS due to very low-quality evidence (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.06, 482 participants, three studies, very low-quality evidence). S-1 regimens improve OS slightly (by less than an additional month) versus 5-FU-containing regimens (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.00, 1793 participants, four studies, high-quality evidence), however since S-1 is used in different doses and schedules between Asian and non-Asian population, the applicability of this finding to individual populations is uncertain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Chemotherapy improves survival (by an additional 6.7 months) in comparison to BSC, and combination chemotherapy improves survival (by an additional month) compared to single-agent 5-FU. Testing all patients for HER-2 status may help to identify patients with HER-2-positive tumours, for whom, in the absence of contraindications, trastuzumab in combination with capecitabine or 5-FU in combination with cisplatin has been shown to be beneficial. For HER-2 negative people, all different two-and three-drug combinations including irinotecan, docetaxel, oxaliplatin or oral 5-FU prodrugs are valid treatment options for advanced gastric cancer, and consideration of the side effects of each regimen is essential in the treatment decision. Irinotecan-containing combinations and docetaxel-containing combinations (in which docetaxel was added to a single-agent or two-drug (platinum/5-FUcombination) show significant survival benefits in the comparisons studied above. Furthermore, docetaxel-containing three-drug regimens have increased response rates, but the advantages of the docetaxel-containing three-drug combinations (DCF, FLO-T) are counterbalanced by increased toxicity. Additionally, oxaliplatin-containing regimens demonstrated a benefit in OS as compared to the same regimen containing cisplatin, and there is a modest survival improvement of S-1 compared to 5-FU-containing regimens.Whether the survival benefit for three-drug combinations including cisplatin, 5-FU, and epirubicin as compared to the same regimen without epirubicin is still valid when second-line therapy is routinely administered and when cisplatin is replaced by oxaliplatin and 5-FU by capecitabine is questionable. Furthermore, the magnitude of the observed survival benefits for the three-drug regimens is not large enough to be clinically meaningful as defined recently by the American Society for Clinical Oncology (Ellis 2014). In contrast to the comparisons in which a survival benefit was observed by adding a third drug to a two-drug regimen at the cost of increased toxicity, the comparison of regimens in which another chemotherapy was replaced by irinotecan was associated with a survival benefit (of borderline statistical significance), but without increased toxicity. For this reason irinotecan/5-FU-containing combinations are an attractive option for first-line treatment. Although they need to be interpreted with caution, subgroup analyses of one study suggest that elderly people have a greater benefit form oxaliplatin, as compared to cisplatin-based regimens, and that people with locally advanced disease or younger than 65 years might benefit more from a three-drug regimen including 5-FU, docetaxel, and oxaliplatin as compared to a two-drug combination of 5-FU and oxaliplatin, a hypothesis that needs further confirmation. For people with good performance status, the benefit of second-line chemotherapy has been established in several RCTs.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Phase II and UGT1A1 Polymorphism Study of Two Different Irinotecan Dosages Combined with Cisplatin as First-Line Therapy for Advanced Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

We investigated the efficacy and safety of biweekly irinotecan and cisplatin (IP) as first-line treatment in advanced gastric cancer patients.

METHODS

Irinotecan 125 mg/m2 on day 1 and cisplatin 60 mg/m2 on day 2 were administrated every 14 days. UGT1A1*28/*6 and toxicities were analyzed.

RESULTS

Forty-one eligible patients were enrolled. Fifteen patients, who were defined as the high-dose group, received starting doses of irinotecan 125 mg/m2. Twenty-six patients, who were defined as the low-dose group, received starting doses of irinotecan 80 mg/m2 and cisplatin 50 mg/m2. The response rate was 53.3% in the irinotecan high-dose group and 53.8% in the irinotecan low-dose group. The most common grade 3/4 toxicity was neutropenia (68.3%). No significant difference in grade 3/4 neutropenia was found between patients with the wild-type genotype and those with variant genotypes for UGT1A1*28 or UGT1A1*6.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of biweekly irinotecan 80 mg/m2 and cisplatin 50 mg/m2 was active and tolerable. The role of the UGT1A1 genotype in clinical toxicity of an IP regimen requires further investigation.

A feasibility study of outpatient chemotherapy with S-1 + cisplatin in patients with advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Regimens of standard-dose cisplatin have usually been administered as inpatient chemotherapy in Japan. This prospective study evaluated the feasibility of outpatient chemotherapy with standard-dose cisplatin in Japanese patients with advanced gastric cancer.

METHODS

Advanced gastric cancer patients received an S-1 + cisplatin regimen (S-1: 80-120 mg days 1-21; cisplatin: 60 mg/m(2) day 8, every 4-5 weeks), either as outpatient chemotherapy with oral hydration on days 9-10, or as inpatient chemotherapy with intravenous hydration on days 9-10, based on the results of an oral hydration test during days 1-7 of the first cycle. The primary endpoint was the completion rate of two cycles in the outpatient group.

RESULTS

A total of 36 patients were enrolled: 32 were allocated to the outpatient group and 4 to the inpatient group. The completion rate of two cycles in the outpatient group was 78% [90% confidence interval (CI): 63-89]. The median of the total number of treatment cycles of S-1 + cisplatin and the median progression-free survival in the outpatient group were 5 (range 1-11) and 10.6 months (95% CI 4.2-16.9), respectively. Although seven patients in the outpatient group discontinued treatment, mainly owing to gastrointestinal toxicity, most of them could continue S-1 + cisplatin by switching to inpatient chemotherapy from the next cycle.

CONCLUSION

Outpatient chemotherapy with S-1 + cisplatin in advanced gastric cancer patients can be safely and effectively administered in Japan with appropriate patient selection and supportive treatment.

Overall survival benefits for irinotecan-containing regimens as first-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer: an updated meta-analysis of ten randomized controlled trials

The standard treatment for patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) is still debated, and the available data on the benefit of irinotecan-containing regimen as first-line treatment for those patients are controversial. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to determine the survival benefits of irinotecan-containing regimens in this setting. A total of 1,837 patients from ten trials were included in the analysis. Our results showed that irinotecan-containing regimens significantly improved overall survival [OS: hazard ratio (HR) 0.86, 95% CI = 0.78-0.94, p = 0.002] and progression-free survival [HR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.69-0.97, p = 0.026); however, the improvement of time to failure (HR = 0.90; 95% CI = 0.77-1.04, p = 0.15), 1-year survival rate [1-year SR: relative risk (RR) 1.10, 95% CI = 0.97-1.24, p = 0.13] and overall response rate (RR = 1.16, 95% CI = 0.91-1.49, p = 0.24] were nonsignificant. Equivalent frequencies of toxicities were found between the two groups excluding more Grade 3 or 4 fatigue (p = 0.001) in irinotecan-containing regimens. This updated meta-analysis provided strong evidence for a survival benefit of irinotecan-containing regimen as first-line treatment for AGC. A clear advantage of irinotecan-containing over nonirinotecan-containing regimen had not been established. These results should help to inform decisions about patient management and design of future trials.

Combination therapy using oral S-1 and targeted agents against human tumor xenografts in nude mice

In this study, combination therapies using the oral fluoropyrimidine tegafur-gimeracil-oteracil (S-1) with several targeted agents or antibodies, were evaluated. First, the effects of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (erlotinib hydrochloride, sorafenib tosilate and sunitinib malate) against human non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), breast cancer and colorectal cancer were evaluated in vivo. The effects of the combination of S-1 and targeted antibodies (bevacizumab and cetuximab) against human colorectal cancers was also evaluated in vivo. S-1 and the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor, erlotinib, showed a significant inhibition of growth in human NSCLC (Lu-99 and PC-9 cell lines). The antitumor activity of the combination of S-1 and erlotinib against Lu-99 and PC-9 cancer cell lines was significantly superior to either monotherapy (P<0.05). Combination therapy using the multi-tyrosine kinase inhibitors, sorafenib or sunitinib, with S-1 against breast cancer (MX-1 cell line) and NSCLC (NCI-H460 cell line) was significantly superior to either monotherapy (P<0.01). The combination of the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor antibody bevacizumab or the anti-EGFR antibody, cetuximab, with S-1 against human colorectal cancer [Col-1, KM20C (bevacizumab) and DLD-1 (cetuximab) cell lines] and a 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-resistant cell line (KM12C/5-FU) was significantly superior to either monotherapy (p<0.01). In particular, the growth of the Col-1 cells was completely inhibited by the combination of S-1 and bevacizumab. No toxic mortalities and no significant difference in the body weight changes of the animals treated with S-1 combined with the targeted agents or with the mono-therapies were observed; therefore, the treatments appeared to be well-tolerated. Our preclinical findings indicate that the combination therapies of S-1 and targeted agents are promising treatment options.

Irinotecan-involved regimens for advanced gastric cancer: a pooled-analysis of clinical trials

AIM

To assess the efficiency and toxicities of irinotecan (CPT-11)-involved regimens in patients with advanced gastric cancer.

METHODS

Randomized phases II and III clinical trials on chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer were searched from MEDLINE, EMbase, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and EBSCO. Relevant abstracts were manually searched. A total of 657 patients were analyzed for their overall response rate (ORR), time to treatment failure (TTF), overall survival (OS) rate, and toxicities. Overall survival rate, reported as hazard ratio (HR) with 95% CI, was used as the primary outcome measure.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials on chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer were detected. The CPT-11-containing combination chemotherapy was not significantly advantageous over the non CPT-11-containing combination chemotherapy for OS rate (HR = 1.12, 95% CI: 0.92-1.36, P = 0.266) and ORR [risk ratio (RR) = 1.23, 95% CI: 0.71-2.14, P = 0.458]. However, the CPT-11-containing combination chemotherapy was significantly advantageous over the non CPT-11-containing combination chemotherapy for TTF (HR = 1.35, 95% CI: 1.12-1.64, P = 0.002). Grade 3/4 haematological toxicity (thrombocytopenia: RR = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.09-0.48; P < 0.001) and gastrointestinal toxicity (diarrhea: RR = 4.09, 95% CI: 2.42-6.93, P < 0.001) were lower in patients with advanced gastric cancer after CPT-11-containing combination chemotherapy than after non CPT-11 -containing combination chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

CPT-11-containing combination chemotherapy is advantageous over non CPT-11 -containing combination chemotherapy for TTF with no significant toxicity. CPT-11-containing combination chemotherapy can be used in treatment of advanced gastric cancer.

Chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer currently ranks second in global cancer mortality. Most patients are either diagnosed at an advanced stage, or develop a relapse after surgery with curative intent. Apart from supportive care and palliative radiation to localized (e.g. bone) metastasis, systemic chemotherapy is the only treatment option available in this situation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of chemotherapy versus best supportive care, combination versus single agent chemotherapy and different combination chemotherapy regimens in advanced gastric cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE up to March 2009, reference lists of studies, and contacted pharmaceutical companies and national and international experts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials on systemic intravenous chemotherapy versus best supportive care, combination versus single agent chemotherapy and different combination chemotherapies in advanced gastric cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data. A third investigator was consulted in case of disagreements. We contacted study authors to obtain missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty five trials, with a total of 5726 patients, have been included in the meta-analysis of overall survival. The comparison of chemotherapy versus best supportive care consistently demonstrated a significant benefit in overall survival in favour of the group receiving chemotherapy (hazard ratios (HR) 0.37; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.24 to 0.55, 184 participants). The comparison of combination versus single-agent chemotherapy provides evidence for a survival benefit in favour of combination chemotherapy (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.90, 1914 participants). The price of this benefit is increased toxicity as a result of combination chemotherapy. When comparing 5-FU/cisplatin-containing combination therapy regimens with versus without anthracyclines (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.95, 501 participants) and 5-FU/anthracycline-containing combinations with versus without cisplatin (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.92, 1147 participants) there was a significant survival benefit for regimens including 5-FU, anthracyclines and cisplatin. Both the comparison of irinotecan versus non-irinotecan (HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.02, 639 participants) and docetaxel versus non-docetaxel containing regimens (HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15, 805 participants) show non-significant overall survival benefits in favour of the irinotecan and docetaxel-containing regimens.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Chemotherapy significantly improves survival in comparison to best supportive care. In addition, combination chemotherapy improves survival compared to single-agent 5-FU. All patients should be tested for their HER-2 status and trastuzumab should be added to a standard fluoropyrimidine/cisplatin regimen in patients with HER-2 positive tumours. Two and three-drug regimens including 5-FU, cisplatin, with or without an anthracycline, as well as irinotecan or docetaxel-containing regimens are reasonable treatment options for HER-2 negative patients.

Alternate-day treatment with S-1 in patients with gastric cancer: a retrospective study of strategies for reducing toxicity

BACKGROUND

In patients with adverse events of S-1, the dose is generally reduced or the treatment cycle is shortened. Whether the therapeutic effectiveness of modified regimens is similar to that of the standard dosage remains unclear.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied patients with gastric cancer who received S-1 on alternate days.

RESULTS

A total of 266 patients received S-1 on alternate days. In 116 patients, S-1 was initially given at the standard dosage but was switched to alternate-day treatment because of toxicity within 28 days on average. The other 150 patients initially received alternate-day treatment because of poor general condition. In the adjuvant chemotherapy group (n = 96), the 3-year survival rate was 88% in patients with stage II, 73% in stage IIIA, and 67% in stage IIIB who underwent D2 lymph-node dissection. In the palliative surgery group (n = 96), the response rate was 13%, with a median survival time (MST) of 624 days. In patients with unresectable/recurrent disease (n = 74), the response rate was 25%, with an MST of 338 days. Among the 116 patients who initially received treatment on consecutive days, 100% had grade 1, 53% had grade 2, and 5.2% had grade 3 adverse events. When S-1 was switched to alternate-day treatment, toxicity decreased in all patients. In the 266 patients who received alternate-day treatment, 8% had grade 1, 6% had grade 2, and 0% had grade 3 adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Alternate-day treatment with S-1 may have milder adverse events without compromising therapeutic effectiveness.