Second-line Chemotherapy with Biweekly Paclitaxel after Failure of Fluoropyrimidine-based Treatment in Patients with Advanced or Recurrent Gastric Cancer: a Report from the Gastrointestinal Oncology Group of the Tokyo Cooperative Oncology Group, TCOG GC-0501 Trial

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.

Regulatory role of the transforming growth factor-β signaling pathway in the drug resistance of gastrointestinal cancers

Gastrointestinal (GI) cancer, including esophageal, gastric, and colorectal cancer, is one of the most prevalent types of malignant carcinoma and the leading cause of cancer-related deaths. Despite significant advances in therapeutic strategies for GI cancers in recent decades, drug resistance with various mechanisms remains the prevailing cause of therapy failure in GI cancers. Accumulating evidence has demonstrated that the transforming growth factor (TGF)-β signaling pathway has crucial, complex roles in many cellular functions related to drug resistance. This review summarizes current knowledge regarding the role of the TGF-β signaling pathway in the resistance of GI cancers to conventional chemotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, and traditional medicine. Various processes, including epithelial-mesenchymal transition, cancer stem cell development, tumor microenvironment alteration, and microRNA biogenesis, are proposed as the main mechanisms of TGF-β-mediated drug resistance in GI cancers. Several studies have already indicated the benefit of combining antitumor drugs with agents that suppress the TGF-β signaling pathway, but this approach needs to be verified in additional clinical studies. Moreover, the identification of potential biological markers that can be used to predict the response to TGF-β signaling pathway inhibitors during anticancer treatments will have important clinical implications in the future.

Comparison of Efficacy and Peripheral Neuropathy of Solvent-based Paclitaxel with Paclitaxel Poliglumex and NK105: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis

Background and Introduction: Peripheral neuropathy is one of the most common dose-limiting side effects of solvent-based paclitaxel. Paclitaxel poliglumex (PPX) and NK105 were developed to overcome the paclitaxel induced peripheral neuropathy. However, the incidence of peripheral neuropathy induced by PPX and NK105 was reported higher than solvent-based paclitaxel, but evidence remains inconsistent.

METHODS

The article was reported in accordance with PRISMA Guidelines (Registration number: CRD42021245313). We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the incidence and severity of peripheral neuropathy between solvent-based paclitaxel, PPX and NK105 mono-chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Results revealed that no significant difference exists between the incidence of all grade peripheral neuropathy among the solvent-based paclitaxel, PPX and NK105 treated groups. While, the incidence of high grade peripheral neuropathy induced by NK105 was lower than two other groups. Moreover, the overall survival was not improved in PPX compared with other groups. However, NK105 demonstrated significant longer overall survival in patients with cancer.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence suggests more attention should be paid to the paclitaxel poliglumex re-formulation.

Inhibiting casein kinase 2 overcomes paclitaxel resistance in gastric cancer

PURPOSE

Casein kinase (CK) 2 activation has been implicated in the proliferation of various tumor types and resistance to chemotherapy. We investigated the mechanistic basis for the association between CK2 activation and paclitaxel resistance in a gastric cancer (GC).

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

CK2 expression was evaluated in 59 advanced GC patients treated with paclitaxel as the second-line therapy. The efficacy of a CK2 inhibitor, CX-4945, and paclitaxel was evaluated in GC cell lines and a xenograft model.

RESULTS

Patients with high CK2 expression (29/59, 39%) showed lower disease control rates (47.7% vs. 72.3%, p = 0.017) and shorter progression-free survival (2.8 vs. 4.8 months, p = 0.009) than patients with low CK2 expression. CK2 protein expression was associated with sensitivity to paclitaxel in 49 GC cell lines. Combination therapy with CX-4945 and paclitaxel exerted synergistic antiproliferative effects and inhibited the downregulation of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/AKT signaling in SNU-1 cells. In the SNU-1 xenograft model, the combination treatment was significantly superior to either single agent, suppressing tumor growth without notable toxicities.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrated that CK2 activation was related to paclitaxel resistance and that CX-4945 in combination with paclitaxel could be used as a potential treatment for paclitaxel resistance in GC.

Does nab-paclitaxel have a higher incidence of peripheral neuropathy than solvent-based paclitaxel? Evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis

Paclitaxel-induced peripheral neuropathy is a common reason for dose reduction or early cessation of therapy. Nab-paclitaxel was developed to provide additional clinical benefits and overcome the safety drawbacks of solvent-based paclitaxel. However, the incidence of peripheral neuropathy induced by nab-paclitaxel was reported higher than solvent-based paclitaxel but evidence remains inconsistent. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare the incidence and severity of peripheral neuropathy between nab-paclitaxel and solvent-based paclitaxel mono-chemotherapy. In total, 24 articles were included in this meta-analysis. Results revealed the incidence of peripheral neuropathy induced by nab-paclitaxel was higher than solvent-based paclitaxel. The dosage and assessment method could influence the comparison of the incidence and severity of peripheral neuropathy between nab-paclitaxel and solvent-based paclitaxel. Current evidence suggests the incidence of peripheral neuropathy induced by nab-paclitaxel was higher than solvent-based paclitaxel among cancer patients received mono-chemotherapy. When received nab-paclitaxel, more attention should be paid to peripheral neuropathy.

Cost-effectiveness and safety of ramucirumab plus paclitaxel chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced and recurrent gastric cancer

Introduction Weekly paclitaxel (PTX), irinotecan (CPT-11) and ramucirumab plus paclitaxel (Ram + PTX) are currently recommended as the standard second-line or later chemotherapies for advanced and recurrent gastric cancer. This study aims to compare the cost-effectiveness of using Ram + PTX vs. PTX or CPT-11. Furthermore, we investigated the safety and treatment continuity of Ram + PTX in Japan. Methods Expected costs were calculated based on data from patients with advanced and recurrent gastric cancer who were treated with PTX, CPT-11 and Ram + PTX. A literature review was performed to obtain clinical information so that the probability of the efficacy of each chemotherapy could be calculated. The cost-effectiveness ratio of each chemotherapy agent was calculated by dividing the expected cost by the median survival time (MST). Results The cost-effectiveness ratio per month was JPY 85,395.8/MST for the PTX regimen, JPY 132,735.4/MST for the CPT-11 regimen and JPY 657,175.4/MST for the Ram + PTX regimen (p < 0.001). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per month of the Ram + PTX regimen to the PTX regimen was JPY 2,780,432.4/MST. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the Ram + PTX regimen to the CPT-11 regimen was JPY 2,185,179.0/MST. With regard to the reasons for discontinuation of treatment, the Ram + PTX regimen had only one case of being discontinued owing to adverse events, and had a profile similar to that of the PTX and CPT-11 regimens. Conclusion These findings show that the Ram + PTX regimen is less cost-effective compared to both the PTX and CPT-11 regimen, but the Ram + PTX regimen is a well-tolerated regimen with sufficient efficacy.

A Phase III Study to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of Paclitaxel Versus Irinotecan in Patients with Metastatic or Recurrent Gastric Cancer Who Failed in First-line Therapy (KCSG ST10-01)

Lessons Learned.

Irinotecan could not be proven noninferior to paclitaxel as a second‐line treatment for patients with metastatic or recurrent gastric cancer.

The failure to demonstrate noninferiority may have been a result of insufficient patient enrollment.

Both agents were tolerable but showed different toxicity profiles.

Background.

This phase III study compared the efficacy and safety of paclitaxel versus irinotecan in patients with metastatic or recurrent gastric cancer (MRGC) who had experienced disease progression following first‐line chemotherapy.

Methods.

Patients were randomized to receive either paclitaxel (70 mg/m²; days 1, 8, 15, every 4 weeks) or irinotecan (150 mg/m² every other week). The primary endpoint was progression‐free survival (PFS).

Results.

This study was stopped early due to low accrual rate. A total of 112 patients were enrolled; 54 were allocated to paclitaxel and 58 to irinotecan. Median PFS for the paclitaxel and irinotecan groups was 3.5 and 2.1 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86–1.88; p = .234). Noninferiority of irinotecan to paclitaxel was not proved because the upper boundary of the 95% CI (1.88) exceeded the predefined upper margin of noninferiority (1.32). Median overall survival (OS) was 8.6 months in the paclitaxel group and 7.0 months in the irinotecan group (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.91–2.11; p = .126). Among toxicities greater than or equal to grade 3, neutropenia (11.5%) was the most common, followed by peripheral neuropathy (7.7%) in the paclitaxel group, and neutropenia (34.5%) followed by nausea, vomiting, and anemia (8.6%, respectively) in the irinotecan group.

Conclusion.

Although paclitaxel showed numerically longer PFS and OS compared with irinotecan, this was statistically insignificant. Both irinotecan and paclitaxel are valid second‐line treatment options in MRGC.

Different long-term oncologic outcomes after radical surgical resection for neuroendocrine carcinoma and adenocarcinoma of the stomach

PURPOSE

To explore differences in long-term outcomes between gastric neuroendocrine carcinoma (GNEC) and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC).

METHODS

One hundred GNEC patients and 3089 GAC patients were enrolled. Differences in long-term outcomes between the groups were analyzed by 1:2 propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences between the groups were noted in terms of gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, tumor size, T stage, N stage, TNM stage and surgical approach. However, differences were not significant after matching. The 3-year and 5-year overall survival rates for the GNEC group were reduced compared with those for the GAC group, though disease-free survival rates and mean recurrence times were similar. Notably, the mean post-recurrence survival of the GNEC group was significantly worse than that of the GAC group (5.2 vs. 14.8 months, p<0.001). A strong negative correlation was found between a high Ki-67 labeling index and overall survival time. Cox regression analysis indicated the Ki-67 labeling index to be an independent factor influencing patient post-recurrence survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The long-term oncologic outcome of GNEC was worse than that of GAC, which may be relative to its reduced post-recurrence survival. A high Ki-67 labeling index was an independent factor influencing patient post-recurrence survival.

Chemoradiotherapy for patients with recurrent lymph-node metastasis or local recurrence of gastric cancer after curative gastrectomy

OBJECTIVES

Whether chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is clinically beneficial for the management of postoperative recurrence of advanced gastric cancer remains unclear. We retrospectively studied treatment outcomes in patients who had unresectable localized recurrence after surgery for advanced gastric cancer and evaluated the safety and efficacy of CRT.

METHODS

The study group comprised 21 patients who received concurrent CRT for unresectable localized recurrence after undergoing R0 resection for stage II/III advanced gastric cancer. Localized recurrence was defined as a few or limited recurrent lesions.

RESULTS

The recurrence pattern was anastomotic recurrence in 7 patients, abdominal lymph-node recurrence in 12, and anastomotic recurrence plus abdominal lymph-node recurrence in 2. The median total dose of radiotherapy was 48.6 Gy (range 39.6-56.0), and the CRT completion rate was 100 % (21 of 21 patients). CRT-related grade 3 or higher toxicity comprised neutropenia in 33.3 % of patients and anorexia in 9.5 %. The response rate was 61.9 % (complete response 38.1 %, partial response 23.8 %). The median overall survival was 35.0 months.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that CRT may become one treatment strategy for the management of unresectable localized recurrence after curative resection of advanced gastric cancer.

A phase II study of biweekly S-1 and paclitaxel (SPA) as first-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic or advanced gastric cancer

PURPOSE

Paclitaxel and S-1 are both effective antitumor chemotherapeutic agents for advanced gastric cancer. However, the continuous administration of S-1 for 3 weeks or more can result in unacceptable toxicities, particularly hematological toxicities. Therefore, an alternative treatment schedule (1-week administration followed by 1-week rest) is warrant for testing in order to allow continuation of the therapy. We evaluate the efficacy and safety of biweekly S-1 and paclitaxel (SPA) as first-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic or advanced gastric cancer.

METHODS

Patients with previously untreated advanced or relapsed gastric cancer who had measurable lesion(s) were enrolled. Paclitaxel was administered intravenously at a dose of 120 mg/m(2) on day 1 and oral S-1 was given twice daily (BSA < 1.25 m(2), 80 mg/day; 1.25 ≤ BSA < 1.50 m(2), 100 mg/day; 1.50 m(2) ≤ BSA, 120 mg/day) on days 1-7 followed by a drug-free interval of 1 week every 14-day cycle.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients (M/F = 33/11) were enrolled. A total of 277 chemotherapy cycles were administered, with a median of six cycles per patient (range 1-12), and 19 (43.2 %) patients received up to seven cycles. The assessed overall response rate was 38.6 with 38.6 % partial response in 17 patients, 45.4 % stable disease in 20 patients, and 13.6 % progressive disease in six patients. Thirty-four patients (77.3 %) received second-line chemotherapy. The estimated median progression-free survival and median overall survival times were, respectively, 5.2 months (95 % CI 4.08-6.39 months) and 12.2 months (95 % CI 8.81-15.60 months). The major hematological toxicities were included grade 3 leucocytopenia in two patients (4.5 %), grade 3 neutropenia in 14 patients (40.9 %), and grade 4 neutropenia in four patients (9.0 %). Two patients (4.5 %) suffered grade 1 febrile neutropenia. All grade of the non-hematological toxicities, such as nausea, vomiting, alopecia, and diarrhea, held the proportion of 54.5 % (grade 3/4, 4.5 %), 31.8, 95.4, and 18.1 % (grade 3/4, 2.2 %), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Biweekly S-1 and paclitaxel (SPA regimen) combination therapy had promising activity with acceptable adverse toxicities. SPA regimen was easily implemented, and more patients received second-line chemotherapy. It deserved to conduct a well-designed randomized phase III study to compare this regimen with S-1-based combination treatment.

Phase II trial of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel as second-line chemotherapy for unresectable or recurrent gastric cancer

This multicenter phase II study first investigated the efficacy and safety of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) when given every 3 weeks to patients with unresectable or recurrent gastric cancer who had received a prior round of fluoropyrimidine-containing chemotherapy. Patients with unresectable or recurrent gastric cancer who experienced progression despite fluoropyrimidine-containing treatment were studied. Nab-paclitaxel was given i.v. at 260 mg/m(2) on day 1 of each 21-day cycle without anti-allergic premedication until disease progression or study discontinuation. The primary endpoint was the overall response rate. The secondary endpoints were the disease control rate, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. From April 2008 to July 2010, 56 patients were enrolled, 55 patients received the study treatment, and 54 patients were evaluable for responses. According to an independent review committee, the overall response rate was 27.8% (15/54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 16.5-41.6) and the disease control rate was 59.3% (32/54; 95% CI, 45.0-72.4). One patient had a complete response. The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 2.9 months (95% CI, 2.4-3.6) and 9.2 months (95% CI, 6.9-11.4), respectively. The most common grade 3/4 toxicities were neutropenia (49.1%), leucopenia (20.0%), lymphopenia (10.9%), and peripheral sensory neuropathy (23.6%). There were no treatment-related deaths. Nab-paclitaxel, given every 3 weeks, showed promising activity against previously treated unresectable or recurrent gastric cancers, with well-tolerated toxicities. (Trial registration, ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00661167).

Safety and continuity of second- and third-line therapy with paclitaxel or irinotecan for advanced and recurrent gastric cancer

In the treatment of advanced or recurrent gastric cancer, the prolongation of survival depends on the use of second-line therapy, with paclitaxel (PTX) or irinotecan (CPT-11) as the key agents. The present study aimed to retrospectively investigate the safety and continuity of weekly PTX and CPT-11 monotherapy as second- or third-line treatment for advanced or recurrent gastric cancer. A total of 62 patients who had received PTX or CPT-11 for gastric cancer at the Ogaki Municipal Hospital (Ogaki, Japan) were retrospectively reviewed. Of the 47 patients who received PTX as second-line therapy, 13 (27.7%) received third-line therapy with CPT-11. Second-line PTX and third-line CPT-11 were discontinued due to progressive disease (PD) in 27 and 7 cases, respectively, and deterioration in the performance status (PS) in 20 and 4 cases, respectively. Only 1 case of discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs) was reported for third-line CPT-11. Furthermore, of the 15 patients who received CPT-11 as second-line treatment, 11 (73.3%) then received PTX as third-line treatment. Second-line CPT-11 and third-line PTX were discontinued due to PD in 9 and 6 cases, respectively, and deterioration in the PS in 4 and 5 cases, respectively, whereas there was only 1 case of discontinuation due to AEs for second-line CPT-11. Severe AEs for PTX and CPT-11 were infrequent; however, the frequency of diarrhea was high when PTX was administered as third-line therapy (63.6%), whereas the frequency of malaise was high when CPT-11 was administered as second- (73.3%) and third-line (76.9%) therapy. In conclusion, severe AEs due to PTX and CPT-11 as second- and third-line treatment for advanced or recurrent gastric cancer are infrequent and patients are generally able to continue treatment. However, the possibility of diarrhea with third-line PTX and malaise with second- and third-line CPT-11 treatment should be considered when planning chemotherapy.

CPT-11 as a second-line treatment for patients with advanced/metastatic gastric cancer who failed S-1 (CCOG0702)

BACKGROUND

In Japan, CPT-11 is often used to treat unresectable gastric cancer in the second-line setting. However, evidence regarding benefit of second-line chemotherapy remains sparse, especially after failing S-1.

METHODS

A phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of weekly administration of CPT-11 at a dose of 100 mg/m(2) after failing a S-1-containing first-line treatment was planned with response rate as a primary end point. UGT1A1*6, *27, and *28 genotyping were performed in all cases, and those found to have either homozygous for *28, homozygous for *6, heterozygous for both *6 and *28, and heterozygous for *27 were rendered ineligible for the phase II trial.

RESULTS

Two patients of homozygous for *28, two patients of homozygous for *6, and one patient of heterozygous for *27 were found among 39 recruited patients. The median number of courses delivered was 3 courses. The overall response rate was 15.4 % and disease control rate was 65.4 %. The median time to treatment failure was 87.5 days and median overall survival was 268 days. Twenty-two (73 %) of 30 valuable patients experienced protocol-specified skip of treatment and 8 (30 %) of patients could continue treatment with dose reduction. ≥G3 neutropenia was found in 30 % and ≥G3 anorexia and diarrhea were found in 23 and 17 %, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Weekly CPT-11 at 100 mg/m(2) showed moderate response among gastric cancer patients who were refractory to S-1, but the disease control rate seemed meaningful. Even after selection of patients by UGT1A1 polymorphism of *6, *27, and *28, severe toxic events could not be prevented completely.

Combination chemotherapy with paclitaxel, cisplatin and fluorouracil for patients with advanced and metastatic gastric or esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma: a multicenter prospective study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of the combination regimen of paclitaxel, cisplatin and 5-FU (PCF) as first-line or second-line therapy in patients with advanced gastric and esophagogastric junction (EGJ) adenocarcinoma in China.

METHODS

The patients were treated with paclitaxel 150 mg/m(2) on d1; fractionated cisplatin 15 mg/m(2) and continuous infusion 5-FU 600 mg/(m(2)·d) intravenously on d1-d5 of a 21-d cycle until disease progression or unacceptable toxicities.

RESULTS

Seventy-five patients have been enrolled, among which, 41 received PCF regimen as the first-line therapy (group A) and 34 received the regimen as the second-line therapy (group B) with the median age of 59 years old and Karnofsky performance status (KPS) score ≥80. Toxicities were analyzed in all 75 patients. Seventy-one patients were evaluable for efficacy. The median overall survival (mOS) was 12.0 months (95% CI: 7.9-16.2 months) in group A and 7.3 months (95% CI: 4.3-10.3 months) in group B, respectively. The median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 5.7 months (95% CI: 4.1-7.2 months) and 5.0 months (95% CI: 3.1-6.9 months), respectively. The response rate (CR+PR) was 40% (16/40; 95% CI: 24.9-56.7%) in group A and 22.6% (7/31; 95% CI: 9.6-41.1%) in group B. Major grade 3 or 4 adverse events include neutropenia (41.3%), febrile neutropenia (9.3%), nausea/anorexia (10.7%), and vomiting (5.3%). There was no treatment-related death.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination chemotherapy with PCF is active and tolerable as first-line and second-line therapy in Chinese patients with advanced gastric and EGJ adenocarcinoma. The response and survival of PCF are same as those of DCF, but the tolerance is much better.

Second-line chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer in Korea

Stomach cancer is still one of the most prevalent malignancies and is the main cause of cancer deaths worldwide. The outcome for patients with metastasis, as well as for those with tumor recurrence, is dismal, with median survival time not greater than a year. Patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic lesions have been treated with systemic chemotherapy, and several randomized studies have demonstrated the benefit of chemotherapy compared with best supportive care. Recently, randomized phase III trials have presented a benefit of second-line chemotherapy compared with supportive care alone. However, it is not known at present which drug is the most effective in this setting. In Korea, the practice of offering second-line treatment to patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) is common, and many prospective clinical trials investigating clinical outcomes of second-line chemotherapy have been reported. Therefore, to define the potential role of second-line chemotherapy and to help to select an effective regimen, we review the published Korean prospective data concerning the use of chemotherapy in the second-line setting for the treatment of AGC. No phase III trials but 20 phase II trials were identified. The benefit of second-line chemotherapy in AGC has indirect evidence considering prolongation of progression-free survival (PFS) and improvement of the response rate. Taxanes, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin have been studied much and might be promising drugs considering cross-resistance to a 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin combination (FP). A large, prospective, multicenter, randomized phase III study is warranted to select the most effective second-line chemotherapeutic agents.

A phase II trial of ixabepilone in Asian patients with advanced gastric cancer previously treated with fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy

PURPOSE

The highest rates of gastric cancer occur in Eastern Asia. Fluoropyrimidine-based therapy is used initially in unresectable and metastatic disease, but no single standard of care exists following disease progression. Ixabepilone, an epothilone B analog, is a non-taxane microtubule-stabilizing agent with clinical activity across multiple tumor types approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for treatment of metastatic breast cancer.

METHODS

Asian patients with unresectable or metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma who had failed fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy received ixabepilone 40 mg/m(2) by 3-h intravenous infusion every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR).

RESULTS

Fifty-two patients were treated (65.4 % men; median age: 56.5 years). The ORR was 15.4 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 6.9-28.1); 8 patients achieved partial responses for a median duration of 3.1 months (95 % CI 2.6-4.1 months) and 26 patients (50.0 %) had stable disease. Median progression-free survival was 2.8 months (95 % CI 2.1-3.5 months). The most common grade 3 non-hematological toxicities were fatigue (9.6 %), decreased appetite (7.7 %), sensory neuropathy (5.8 %), and diarrhea (5.8 %). Grade 3/4 neutropenia occurred in 46.2 % of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Ixabepilone is active in Asian patients with advanced gastric cancer and shows a toxicity profile similar to those previously reported in other tumor types.

Survival analysis of stage IV metastatic gastric cancer patients treated with HangAm-Plus

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of HangAm-Plus (HAP) on stage IV metastatic gastric cancer by analyzing the treated patients' overall survival outcome.

METHODS

Following the study eligibility, overall survival and one year survival rate of 44 stage IV metastatic gastric cancer patients who visited East-West Cancer Center (EWCC) were analyzed. The study consisted of two arms: HAP treatment only (n=18) and combined treatment of concurrent conventional chemotherapy and HAP (n=26). Patient characteristics by gender, age, surgical intervention, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score, treatment duration (< 4 weeks or [Symbol: see text]4 weeks), and lines of the chemotherapy received were assessed. Treatment related side effects were also assessed.

RESULTS

The median survival of combined group was longer (10.0 months) than that of HAP group (5.1 months). One-year survival rate of combined treatment group and HAP group was 38.5%±9.5% and 33.3%±11.1%, respectively (P>0.05). One-year survival rate of those received more and less than 4-week treatment was 57.1%±18.7% and 8.3%±8.0%, respectively (P=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The study supports the safety and potential efficacy of HAP treatment in prevention of chemo-related side effects for stage IV metastatic gastric cancer treated with conventional chemotherapy. Further studies are needed to investigate and confirm the results before applying the treatment in clinical settings.

Irinotecan plus mitomycin C as second-line chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer resistant to fluoropyrimidine and Cisplatin: a retrospective study

Background. S-1 plus cisplatin has been established to be standard first-line chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer in Japan. The optimal second-line treatment refractory to S-1 plus cisplatin remains unclear. Methods. We retrospectively studied the efficacy, toxicity, and survival of irinotecan plus mitomycin C in patients with advanced gastric cancer refractory to a fluoropyrimidine plus cisplatin. Results. Twenty-four patients were studied. Prior chemotherapy was S-1 plus cisplatin in 15 patients, S-1 plus cisplatin and docetaxel in 8, and 5-fluorouracil plus cisplatin with radiotherapy in 1. The overall response rate was 17.4%. The median overall survival was 8.6 months, and the median progression-free survival was 3.6 months. Grade 3 or 4 toxicities included leukopenia (33%), neutropenia (50%), anemia (33%), thrombocytopenia (4%), anorexia (13%), diarrhea (4%), and febrile neutropenia (13%). Conclusion. A combination of irinotecan and mitomycin C is potentially effective in patients with advanced gastric cancer refractory to a fluoropyrimidine plus cisplatin.

What is the reference cytotoxic regimen for advanced gastric cancer: standard versus optimal therapy?

Advanced gastric cancer is an aggressive disease, with continued poor clinical outcomes. In the past two decades, many clinical trials have been conducted, testing chemotherapy agents in different combinations. However, many of these trials have employed aggressive regimens, which may be not suitable for some patients with advanced disease and poor performance status seen in clinical settings. In addition, geographic and ethnic differences in disease pathogenesis/biology, treatment strategies and drug metabolism make universal application of these trial results difficult. Here, we summarize the extant data on chemotherapy agents in gastric cancer, and try to deduce the best combination(s) that may be utilized in this disease, or that may be suitable for particular subgroup patient populations. Importantly, we discuss future directions - how we need to move away from testing various cytotoxic agent permutations and combinations, towards smarter trials that employ targeted therapies.

Second-line chemotherapy for gastric cancer: a new issue lies ahead in global trials

Chemotherapy for gastric cancer has been advancing fairly well. It has been indicated that not only advances in first-line chemotherapy but also those in second-line chemotherapy have contributed to the prolongation of overall survival. The Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie (AIO) study supports the idea that second-line chemotherapy is appropriate in patients with a good general condition. Also, the Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG) integral analysis suggests that advances have been made in second-line chemotherapy. However, most recently reported studies of second-line chemotherapy have been conducted as small-scale phase II or retrospective trials. No randomized control trial to establish standard treatment has been reported. Which regimen is the most appropriate as second-line therapy must be investigated in the future. Currently, molecularly targeted agents for gastric cancer are being developed and tested in global trials. As a new issue in global trials, second-line chemotherapy has been emphasized. In recent global trials, subset analysis showed regional differences in overall survival. This was possibly associated with the regional differences in second-line chemotherapy. When developing new molecularly targeted agents for first-line chemotherapy, we cannot ignore the result that the proportion of patients in whom treatment was switched to second-line chemotherapy was high in Asia. In planning a global trial, this new issue should be sufficiently discussed.

A phase I study of bi-weekly docetaxel for recurrent or advanced gastric cancer patients whose disease progressed by prior chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

Although docetaxel is active against gastric cancer, Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia occurs in the majority of patients in Japan when administered at 60 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks. To determine a more convenient and tolerable schedule than the tri-weekly schedule, we conducted a dose-escalation study of bi-weekly docetaxel. In this study, we investigated the maximum-tolerated dose and recommended dose.

METHODS

Patients with advanced gastric cancer who had received prior chemotherapy were enrolled between April 2004 and March 2007. This study was designed to evaluate the escalated dose of docetaxel starting at 35 mg/m(2) (Level 1) given every 2 weeks. The dose was escalated in a stepwise fashion to 40 mg/m(2) (Level 2), 45 mg/m(2) (Level 3) and 50 mg/m(2) (Level 4).

RESULTS

Fifteen patients completed at least two cycles of the therapy. Three episodes of Grade 3 neutropenia occurred in all patients and Grade 4 neutropenia was observed at Level 4 in six patients. Grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia and anemia were not observed. Grade 3 aspartate aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase elevation (n= 1) and Grade 3 stomatitis (n = 1) were noted at Level 4. There was no other Grade 3 or 4 non-hematologic toxicity. The definition of dose-limiting toxicities of this docetaxel schedule at Level 4 are Grade 4 neutropenia, Grade 3 aspartate aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase elevation and Grade 3 stomatitis.

CONCLUSIONS

The maximum-tolerated dose of docetaxel when administrated following the bi-weekly schedule was 50 mg/m(2) and the recommended dose was 45 mg/m(2). Bi-weekly administration of docetaxel may provide a better tolerated and efficacious use in gastric cancer.

Phase II study of biweekly docetaxel and S-1 combination chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer

PURPOSE

We evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of biweekly S-1 and docetaxel combination therapy in patients with advanced gastric cancer.

METHODS

Patients with histologically proven, unresectable advanced or recurrent gastric cancer, a performance status (PS) of 0-2 and no prior chemotherapy history were eligible for inclusion (n = 45). Patients received a total of 215 treatment courses (median, 4; range, 2-12) of S-1 oral administration twice daily for 1 week followed by a drug-free interval of 1 week. Docetaxel (40 mg/m(2)) was administered intravenously on days 1 and 15.

RESULTS

We observed 25 partial responses (55.6%) and one complete response (2.2%), resulting in an overall response rate of 57.8%. Twenty-four patients (53.3%) received second-line chemotherapy. Five patients (11.1%) underwent R0 gastrectomy during the course of the study. The median overall survival time was 15.3 months, the median time to progression was 6.9 months, and the median duration of response in 26 patients was 8.0 months. Neutropenia was the most frequently observed (40.4%) haematological toxicity at grades 3 and 4 and leucopenia was the second most common (29.8%). There were no treatment-related deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

S-1 plus docetaxel combination therapy in an outpatient setting provided promising activity with acceptable adverse toxicities.

Advanced gastric cancer--slow but steady progress

Progress in gastric cancer has been slow, but steady. Historically, patients commonly presented with significant disease related co-morbidity and received treatment of marginal benefit but unfortunately associated with significant toxicity. Today there is no universally accepted reference standard chemotherapy for this disease. However, there is reason for optimism. Meta-analyses of randomized trials have shown a benefit for first-line combination chemotherapy. Current three drug chemotherapy regimens remain toxic, though perhaps less so than previously, and can result in a small but significant survival advantage in carefully chosen patients. Incremental improvements have been observed in both treatment-related toxicity and survival after first-line therapy. More patients are candidates for chemotherapy beyond progression with first-line therapy and response rates with second-line regimens are similar to those seen in other solid tumor malignancies. Although there is no randomized data to support its use second-line treatment should be considered in appropriate patients. Even before the integration of targeted therapies in the treatment of gastric cancer, it was evident that survival for more than 2 years is possible in a subset of patients and large retrospective studies have highlighted clinicopathologic factors associated with improved survival. Presently, with the addition of targeted therapy, especially anti-angiogenic and anti-Her2 therapy, and a better understanding of the biology of the disease, perhaps a sense of optimism should indeed suppress the nihilism commonly associated with this disease.