Adjuvant chemotherapy with S-1 plus oxaliplatin improves survival of patients with gastric cancer after D2 gastrectomy: A multicenter propensity score-matched study

Efficacy and Safety of Additional S-1 Chemotherapy to S-1 Plus Oxaliplatin Regimen Chemotherapy for Stage III Gastric Carcinoma after Radical Resection

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy and safety of additional S-1 chemotherapy to S-1 plus oxaliplatin (SOX) regimen chemotherapy for Stage III gastric carcinoma (GC) after radical resection.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 161 patients who were pathologically diagnosed as Stage III GC after D2 gastrectomy and received SOX regimen adjuvant chemotherapy between January 2012 and April 2016 were included in this retrospective study. SOX regimen postoperative chemotherapy was composed of Oxaliplatin and S-1, administrated every 3 weeks for 8 scheduled courses. After SOX chemotherapy, 76 patients preferred additional chemotherapy with S-1 (the ACT group), while additional S-1 chemotherapy was not given to the other 85 patients (control group). The ACT with S-1 was administrated every 3 weeks for 8 scheduled courses. Treatment was terminated in case of life-threatening adverse events or tumor progression, or patients' demand for termination. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events were analyzed.

RESULTS

ACT group obtained markedly improved 3-year PFS [p = 0.04; hazard ratio (HR) for disease progression, 0.58; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.34-0.98] and OS than the control group (p = 0.0469; HR for death, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.32-0.99). No chemotherapy-related mortality occurred. Patients of the ACT group suffered more common and severer hand-foot syndrome (HFS) (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Additional S-1 chemotherapy may be helpful for improving the disease progression and survival for patients with Stage III GC after radical resection with an acceptable safety profile.

Comparison of S-1-based vs. capecitabine-based adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

S-1-based and capecitabine-based adjuvant treatments are proved efficacious for patients with gastric cancer, but conventional meta-analyses of the direct comparisons between two alternative adjuvant regimens to resection of GC have not been attempted.

AIM

The aim of this review was to compare the disease-free survival, overall survival and adverse events in patients receiving the S-1- and capecitabine-based adjuvant chemotherapies for treatment of gastric cancer (GC) patients undergoing resection.

METHODS

A search of the academic literature was performed in PUBMED, SCOPUS, CENTRAL and EMBASE databases along with manual search in relevant journals for studies in English, to identify comparative studies comparing the effect of S-1-based chemotherapy and capecitabine-based adjuvant chemotherapy (AC), used in combination with surgical resection for treatment of gastric cancer. Both qualitative and quantitative analyses was carried out for all the included studies. The hazard ratios (HR) of disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were pooled using generic inverse variance method. The included studies were assessed for risk of bias using ROBINS-E (risk of bias in non-randomized studies of exposures) tool.

RESULTS

Seven retrospective cohort studies, two prospective cohort studies and one randomized clinical trial were included. Both S-1- and capecitabine-based adjuvant chemotherapy for treatment of stage 2 or 3 gastric cancer had similar effects on the 3-year and 5-year DFS rates, overall survival and adverse events in the included studies. There was no difference in the adjusted hazard ratios (HR) of OS and DFS (0.86 95% CI (0.68, 1.09); p = 0.21 and 0.96 95% CI (0.75, 1.24), respectively). Oral mucositis was increasingly associated with S-1-based AC, while incidences of adverse events such as neutropenia, anaemia and thrombocytopenia were similar to those of capecitabine-based regimen. The quality of the included studies was found to be low to moderate.

CONCLUSION

S-1- and capecitabine-based adjuvant chemotherapies can be used interchangeably as an adjuvant chemotherapeutic regimen postradical gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection.

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

Introduction

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Discussion

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

Comparison of S-1 plus oxaliplatin (SOX) and capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) as adjuvant chemotherapies for stage II and III gastric cancer after D2 resection: A single-center retrospective study

Background

Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) as adjuvant therapy for gastric cancer (GC) reduces cancer recurrence and improves survival. S‐1 plus oxaliplatin (SOX) is well‐tolerated and effective against advanced GC, and also be used widely in adjuvant treatment. However, data comparing SOX and XELOX as adjuvant treatments are lacking.

Method

Data on treatment modalities, adverse events, recurrence and metastasis were collected from 180 patients with stage II and III GC, who received SOX or XELOX after D2 gastrectomy between January 2012 and December 2015, and analyzed retrospectively. The primary endpoint was 3‐year disease‐free survival (DFS) rate.

Results

Median follow was 52.9 months; 3‐year DFS rate and overall survival (OS) rate were 75.2% and 67.6% (P = 0.359) and 81.2% and 83.3% (P = 0.77) in the SOX and XELOX groups, respectively. There was no significant difference in peritoneal metastasis rates in the SOX and XELOX groups (8.6% vs 15%, respectively; P = 0.232). Compound recurrent disease was associated with significantly shorter OS. Multivariate analysis identified metastatic lymph node ratio (LNR) as an independent prognostic factor for OS (P = 0.036; hazard ratio = 2.875; 95% confidence interval, 1.069–7.729); the LNR ≥17% group had inferior 3‐year OS rate to the LNR <17% group (P = 0.001). The incidence of grades 3 and 4 adverse events was similar in both groups; however, grade ≥2 hand–foot syndrome was significantly less frequent in the SOX group (P = 0.01).

Conclusion

SOX has similar survival benefits to XELOX and is well‐tolerated in Chinese patients with GC following D2 gastrectomy.

Concordance Between Watson for Oncology and a Multidisciplinary Clinical Decision-Making Team for Gastric Cancer and the Prognostic Implications: Retrospective Study

Background

With the increasing number of cancer treatments, the emergence of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) provides patients with personalized treatment options. In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has developed rapidly in the medical field. There has been a gradual tendency to replace traditional diagnosis and treatment with AI. IBM Watson for Oncology (WFO) has been proven to be useful for decision-making in breast cancer and lung cancer, but to date, research on gastric cancer is limited.

Objective

This study compared the concordance of WFO with MDT and investigated the impact on patient prognosis.

Methods

This study retrospectively analyzed eligible patients (N=235) with gastric cancer who were evaluated by an MDT, received corresponding recommended treatment, and underwent follow-up. Thereafter, physicians inputted the information of all patients into WFO manually, and the results were compared with the treatment programs recommended by the MDT. If the MDT treatment program was classified as “recommended” or “considered” by WFO, we considered the results concordant. All patients were divided into a concordant group and a nonconcordant group according to whether the WFO and MDT treatment programs were concordant. The prognoses of the two groups were analyzed.

Results

The overall concordance of WFO and the MDT was 54.5% (128/235) in this study. The subgroup analysis found that concordance was less likely in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive tumors than in patients with HER2-negative tumors (P=.02). Age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, differentiation type, and clinical stage were not found to affect concordance. Among all patients, the survival time was significantly better in concordant patients than in nonconcordant patients (P<.001). Multivariate analysis revealed that concordance was an independent prognostic factor of overall survival in patients with gastric cancer (hazard ratio 0.312 [95% CI 0.187-0.521]).

Conclusions

The treatment recommendations made by WFO and the MDT were mostly concordant in gastric cancer patients. If the WFO options are updated to include local treatment programs, the concordance will greatly improve. The HER2 status of patients with gastric cancer had a strong effect on the likelihood of concordance. Generally, survival was better in concordant patients than in nonconcordant patients.