Comparison of Therapeutic Efficacy between Gastrectomy with Transarterial Chemoembolization Plus Systemic Chemotherapy and Systemic Chemotherapy Alone in Gastric Cancer with Synchronous Liver Metastasis

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.

Development and validation of nomogram models for predicting overall survival and cancer-specific survival in gastric cancer patients with liver metastases: a cohort study based on the SEER database

OBJECTIVE

To establish nomogram models for predicting the overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) of gastric cancer liver metastasis (GCLM) patients.

METHODS

Data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database for 5,451 GCLM patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2015 were analyzed. The cohort was divided into a training set (3,815 cases) and an internal validation set (1,636 cases). External validation included 193 patients from the Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University and 171 patients from the People's Hospital of Shijiazhuang City, spanning 2016-2018. Multivariable Cox regression analysis identified eight independent prognostic factors for OS and CSS in GCLM patients, including age, histological type, grade, tumor size, surgery, chemotherapy, bone metastasis, and lung metastasis. Two nomogram models were developed based on these factors and evaluated using time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, calibration curves, and decision curve analysis.

RESULTS

Internal validation showed that the nomogram models outperformed the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging system in predicting 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year OS and CSS in GCLM patients (1-year OS: 0.801 vs. 0.593, P < 0.001; 1-year CSS: 0.807 vs. 0.598, P < 0.001; 2-year OS: 0.803 vs. 0.630, P < 0.001; 2-year CSS: 0.802 vs. 0.633, P < 0.001; 3-year OS: 0.824 vs. 0.691, P < 0.001; 3-year CSS: 0.839 vs. 0.692, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This study developed and validated nomogram models using SEER database data to predict OS and CSS in GCLM patients. These models offer improved prognostic accuracy over traditional staging systems, aiding in clinical decision-making.

Assessment of Irinotecan Loading and Releasing Profiles of a Novel Drug-Eluting Microsphere (CalliSpheres) In Vitro

Background: This study investigated irinotecan loading efficiency and release profiles of CalliSpheres in vitro. Materials and Methods: CalliSpheres with size of 50-150, 100-300, and 300-500 μm and irinotecan at different amounts (20, 40, 80, and 100 mg) and concentrations (5 and 10 mg/mL) were prepared for experiments. Dynamic light scattering and Agilent 1260 high-performance liquid chromatography system were used to quantify bead diameters and the efficiency of irinotecan loading and releasing properties, respectively. Results: The diameters of CalliSpheres with all sizes were reduced after being loaded with irinotecan compared with unloaded ones with shrinkage rate ranging from 8.5% to 16.2%. Above 80% irinotecan was incorporated with CalliSpheres with all sizes when being loaded with irinotecan 20, 40, and 80 mg, while loading efficiencies were 70%-80% when being loaded with irinotecan 100 mg. Besides, elevated loading efficiency was observed at a higher concentration of irinotecan solutions (10 mg/mL) compared with a lower concentration (5 mg/mL) for CalliSpheres with all sizes. As to release profiles, irinotecan was released from CalliSpheres very quickly, and irinotecan release rate was elevated in CalliSpheres with smaller size than CalliSpheres with larger size within the first 12 h, whereas it was similar among CalliSpheres with different sizes at 24 and 48 h with maximum release rate ∼100%. In addition, fetal bovine serum seemed to have an effect on the accelerating irinotecan release. Conclusion: CalliSpheres exhibits good physical characteristics, satisfied irinotecan loading efficiency, and acceptable releasing profiles.

Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2022: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in Korea and the world. Since 2004, this is the 4th gastric cancer guideline published in Korea which is the revised version of previous evidence-based approach in 2018. Current guideline is a collaborative work of the interdisciplinary working group including experts in the field of gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology and guideline development methodology. Total of 33 key questions were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group and 40 statements were developed according to the systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and KoreaMed database. The level of evidence and the grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation proposition. Evidence level, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability was considered as the significant factors for recommendation. The working group reviewed recommendations and discussed for consensus. In the earlier part, general consideration discusses screening, diagnosis and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. Flowchart is depicted with statements which is supported by meta-analysis and references. Since clinical trial and systematic review was not suitable for postoperative oncologic and nutritional follow-up, working group agreed to conduct a nationwide survey investigating the clinical practice of all tertiary or general hospitals in Korea. The purpose of this survey was to provide baseline information on follow up. Herein we present a multidisciplinary-evidence based gastric cancer guideline.

Identifying Optimal Surgical Intervention-Based Chemotherapy for Gastric Cancer Patients With Liver Metastases

BACKGROUND

This study aimed at evaluating the effects of surgical treatments-based chemotherapy in the treatment of gastric cancer with liver metastases (GCLM). It has not been established whether Liver-directed treatment (LDT) options such as hepatectomy and gastrectomy plus chemotherapy (HGCT), radiofrequency ablation and gastrectomy plus chemotherapy (RFAG), transarterial chemoembolization and gastrectomy plus chemotherapy (TACEG), gastrectomy plus chemotherapy (GCT) enhance the survival of GCLM patients.

METHODS

We performed systematic literature searches in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library from inception to September 2021. We created a network plot to comprehensively analyze the direct and indirect evidence, based on a frequentist method. A contribution plot was used to determine inconsistencies, a forest plot was used to evaluate therapeutic effects, the publication bias was controlled by funnel plot, while the value of surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) was calculated to estimate rank probability.

RESULTS

A total of 23 retrospective studies were identified, involving 5472 GCLM patients. For OS and 1-, 2-, 3-year survival rate of all trials, meta-analysis of the direct comparisons showed significant better for HGCT treatments compared with GCT or PCT. In the comparison of the 5 treatments for 1-, 2-, 3-year survival rate, HGCT and RFAG were found to be more effective than GCT and PCT, respectively. By OS and 2-, 3-year survival rate analysis, RFAG was identified as the best option, followed by HGCT, TACEG, GCT and PCT. By 1-year survival rate analysis, HGCT and RFAG were identified as the most effective options.

CONCLUSION

HGCT and RFAG has remarkable survival benefits for GCLM patients when compared to TACEG, GCT and PCT. HGCT was found to exhibit superior therapeutic effects for GCLM patients for 1-year survival rate while RFAG was found to be a prospective therapeutic alternative for OS and 2-, 3-year survival rate.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

identifier [10.37766/inplasy2020.12.0009].

Effect of Fuzheng Qingdu Therapy for Metastatic Gastric Cancer is Associated With Improved Survival: A Multicenter Propensity-Matched Study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the therapeutic effect of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), specifically Fuzheng Qingdu (FZQD) therapy, on the survival time of metastatic GC patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Databases of medical records of 6 hospitals showed that 432 patients with stage IV GC were enrolled from March 1, 2012 to October 31, 2020. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to reduce the bias caused by confounding factors in the comparison between the TCM and the non-TCM users. We used a Cox multivariate regression model to compare the hazard ratio (HR) value for mortality risk, and Kaplan-Meier survival curve for the survival time of GC patients.

RESULTS

The same number of subjects from the non-TCM group were matched with 122 TCM-treated patients after PSM to evaluate their overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Median time of OS of TCM and non-TCM users were 16.53 and 9.10 months, respectively. TCM and non-TCM groups demonstrated a 1-year survival rate of 68.5% and 34.5%, 2-year survival rate of 28.6% and 3.5%, and 3-year survival rate of 17.8% and 0.0%, respectively. A statistical difference exists in OS between the 2 groups (χ² = 33.39 and P < .0001). The PFS of TCM users was also longer than that of non-TCM users (χ² = 4.95 and P = 0.026). Notably, Chinese herbal decoction, Shenmai and compound Kushen injections were commonly used for FZQD therapy.

CONCLUSION

This propensity-matched study showed that FZQD therapy could improve the survival of metastatic GC patients.

The Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO): Clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of gastric cancer, 2021

There exist differences in the epidemiological characteristics, clinicopathological features, tumor biological characteristics, treatment patterns, and drug selections between gastric cancer patients from the Eastern and Western countries. The Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO) has organized a panel of senior experts specializing in all sub-specialties of gastric cancer to compile a clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of gastric cancer since 2016 and renews it annually. Taking into account regional differences, giving full consideration to the accessibility of diagnosis and treatment resources, these experts have conducted expert consensus judgment on relevant evidence and made various grades of recommendations for the clinical diagnosis and treatment of gastric cancer to reflect the value of cancer treatment and meeting health economic indexes in China. The 2021 CSCO Clinical Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer covers the diagnosis, treatment, follow-up, and screening of gastric cancer. Based on the 2020 version of the CSCO Chinese Gastric Cancer guidelines, this updated guideline integrates the results of major clinical studies from China and overseas for the past year, focused on the inclusion of research data from the Chinese population for more personalized and clinically relevant recommendations. For the comprehensive treatment of non-metastatic gastric cancer, attentions were paid to neoadjuvant treatment. The value of perioperative chemotherapy is gradually becoming clearer and its recommendation level has been updated. For the comprehensive treatment of metastatic gastric cancer, recommendations for immunotherapy were included, and immune checkpoint inhibitors from third-line to the first-line of treatment for different patient groups with detailed notes are provided.

Multimodality Treatment in Metastatic Gastric Cancer: From Past to Next Future

Gastric cancer (GC) still remains an incurable disease in almost two-thirds of the cases. However, a deeper knowledge of its biology in the last few years has revealed potential biomarkers suitable for tailored treatment with targeted agents. This aspect, together with the improvement in early supportive care and a wiser use of the available cytotoxic drugs across multiple lines of treatment, has resulted in incremental and progressive survival benefits. Furthermore, slowly but surely, targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors are revising the therapeutic scenario even in metastatic GC and especially in particular subgroups. Moreover, important study results regarding the possible role of an integrated approach combining systemic, surgical, and locoregional treatment in carefully selected oligometastatic GC patients are awaited. This review summarizes the state-of-the-art and the major ongoing trials involving a multimodal treatment of metastatic GC.

Surgical management of metastatic gastric cancer: moving beyond the guidelines

Despite decreasing incidence, gastric cancer remains a major health problem worldwide and is associated with poor survival. The poor survival is mainly attributed to delayed presentation which may cause local or systemic metastases. The standard of care for patients with metastatic gastric cancer (MGC) is palliative chemotherapy with best supportive care. Although the survival has improved owing to advances in chemotherapeutic agents, it is still unsatisfactory, and some perspective changes are needed in the management of MGC to improve the outcomes. Therefore, various alternative treatment strategies for MGC have formed the most important research topics. Liver-directed treatment (LDT) options such as liver resection, radiofrequency ablation (RFA), microwave ablation (MWA), and hepatic artery infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) have been studied in the management of liver metastasis from gastric cancer (LMGC). Intraperitoneal chemotherapy (IPC) in addition to cytoreductive surgery (CRS) aiming to remove all macroscopic tumor focus resulting from peritoneal dissemination is the treatment option for peritoneal metastasis, while para-aortic lymph node dissection is the treatment option for para-aortic lymph node metastasis which is considered to be M1 disease. Conversion surgery is a novel concept aiming at R0 resection for originally unresectable or marginally resectable tumors after a remarkably good response to the chemotherapy. Large amounts of data in the literature have demonstrated the benefits of individualized approaches such as the combination of systemic and local treatment options in selected patient groups. In this review, we aimed to explore the current and future treatment options by reviewing the literature on this controversial topic.

Cryotherapy for liver metastases

BACKGROUND

The liver is affected by two of the most common groups of malignant tumours: primary liver tumours and liver metastases from colorectal carcinoma. Liver metastases are significantly more common than primary liver cancer and long-term survival rates reported for patients after radical surgical treatment is approximately 50%. However, R0 resection (resection for cure) is not feasible in the majority of patients. Cryotherapy is performed with the use of an image-guided cryoprobe which delivers liquid nitrogen or argon gas to the tumour tissue. The subsequent process of freezing is associated with formation of ice crystals, which directly damage exposed tissue, including cancer cells.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of cryotherapy compared with no intervention, other ablation methods, or systemic treatments in people with liver metastases.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, and six other databases up to June 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials assessing beneficial and harmful effects of cryotherapy and its comparators for liver metastases, irrespective of the location of the primary tumour.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We extracted information on participant characteristics, interventions, study outcomes, and data on the outcomes important for our review, as well as information on the design and methodology of the trials. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias in each study. One review author performed data extraction and a second review author checked entries.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no randomised clinical trials comparing cryotherapy versus no intervention or versus systemic treatments; however, we identified one randomised clinical trial comparing cryotherapy with conventional surgery. The trial was conducted in Ukraine. The trial included 123 participants with solitary, or multiple unilobar or bilobar liver metastases; 63 participants received cryotherapy and 60 received conventional surgery. There were 36 women and 87 men. The primary sites for the metastases were colon and rectum (66.6%), stomach (7.3%), breast (6.5%), skin (4.9%), ovaries (4.1%), uterus (3.3%), kidney (3.3%), intestines (1.6%), pancreas (1.6%), and unknown (0.8%). The trial was not reported sufficiently enough to assess the risk of bias of the randomisation process, allocation concealment, or presence of blinding. It was also not possible to assess incomplete outcome data and selective outcome reporting bias. The certainty of evidence was low because of risk of bias and imprecision.The participants were followed for up to 10 years (minimum five months). The trial reported that the mortality at 10 years was 81% (51/63) in the cryotherapy group and 92% (55/60) in the conventional surgery group. The calculated by us relative risk (RR) with 95% Confidence Interval (CI) was: RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.02. We judged the evidence as low-certainty evidence. Regarding adverse events and complications, separately and in total, our calculation showed no evidence of a difference in recurrence of the malignancy in the liver: 86% (54/63) of the participants in the cryotherapy group and 95% (57/60) of the participants in the conventional surgery group developed a new malignancy (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.01; low-certainty evidence). The frequency of reported complications was similar between the cryotherapy group and the conventional surgery group, except for postoperative pain. Both insignificant and pronounced pain were reported to be more common in the cryotherapy group while intense pain was reported to be more common in the conventional surgery group. However, the authors did not report whether there was any evidence of a difference. There were no intervention-related mortality or bile leakages.We identified no evidence for health-related quality of life, cancer mortality, or time to progression of liver metastases. The study reported tumour response in terms of the carcinoembryonic antigen level in 69% of participants, and reported results in the form of a graph for 30% of participants. The carcinoembryonic antigen level was lower in the cryotherapy group, and decreased to normal values faster in comparison with the control group (P < 0.05).

FUNDING

the trial did not provide information on funding.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence for the effectiveness of cryotherapy versus conventional surgery in people with liver metastases is of low certainty. We are uncertain about our estimate and cannot determine whether cryotherapy compared with conventional surgery is beneficial or harmful. We found no evidence for the benefits or harms of cryotherapy compared with no intervention, or versus systemic treatments.

Palliative gastrectomy plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for incurable advanced gastric cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Whether palliative gastrectomy combined with chemotherapy can improve the survival of patients with advanced gastric cancer remains controversial. We performed a meta-analysis to clarify whether palliative gastrectomy plus chemotherapy can benefit patients with incurable advanced gastric cancer and to explore the best candidates in this patient population.

METHODS

We searched the literature systematically using electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. And HRs and their 95% CIs were used to express the results for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS

One randomized controlled trial with 175 patients and 12 cohort studies with 2,193 patients were analyzed. The pooled HR for OS (HR=0.43, 95% CI=0.29-0.65, P<0.001), subgroup analysis of stage M1 (HR=0.53, 95% CI=0.40-0.72, P<0.001), peritoneal dissemination (HR=0.46, 95% CI=0.28-0.73, P=0.001), and liver metastasis (HR=0.46, 95% CI=0.33-0.65, P<0.001) all indicated the superiority of palliative gastrectomy plus chemotherapy. However, the pooled HR for PFS (HR=0.61, 95% CI=0.33-1.13, P=0.110) got separate outcome.

CONCLUSION

The results of this meta-analysis indicated that palliative gastrectomy plus chemotherapy can improve OS for incurable advanced gastric cancer. In addition, analyses based on liver metastasis and peritoneal dissemination demonstrated the advantages of palliative gastrectomy plus chemotherapy. However, the PFS of incurable advanced gastric cancer with palliative gastrectomy plus chemotherapy was no better than that under chemotherapy alone.

Minimally invasive surgery as a treatment option for gastric cancer with liver metastasis: a comparison with open surgery

BACKGROUND

As minimally invasive techniques advances, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has emerged as an alternative modality for advanced gastric cancer. In this study, we compared the short- and long-term surgical outcomes of MIS and conventional open surgery for gastric cancer liver metastasis (GCLM) in terms of safety, feasibility, and efficacy.

METHODS

This retrospective study used data from a prospective database at the Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital. From January 2006 to June 2016, 53 gastric cancer patients with synchronous liver metastasis accepted radical gastrectomy combined with either or both hepatectomy and radiofrequency ablation for liver metastases. The 53 patients enrolled in the study were divided into two groups: a conventional open surgery group (n = 42) and an MIS group (n = 11). Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to overcome possible bias.

RESULTS

With PSM performed at a 1:3 ratio, 11 patients who received MIS were compared with 33 open surgery cases. Mean operation time was significantly longer for the MIS group compared with the open surgery group (301 vs. 236 min, P = 0.032), while the open surgery group had a larger estimated blood loss than the MIS group (421 vs. 196 ml, P = 0.019). Time to first flatus and postoperative complications, including Clavien-Dindo classification, were similar in the two groups. However, patients undergoing MIS had a significantly shorter time to first sips of water (P = 0.020) and soft diet (P = 0.020) compared with open surgery counterparts. Long-term outcomes were comparable between groups (P = 0.090) after adjustment by PSM analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

MIS achieved superior short-term outcomes and comparable long-term outcomes compared with open surgery in GCLM patients. For experienced surgeons, both laparoscopic and robotic methods of MIS are reasonable approaches for the management of highly selected GCLM patients.

Efficacy and safety of SOX chemotherapy with or without surgery in AFP-producing advanced gastric cancer

The present study investigated the clinical efficacy of S-1 plus oxaliplatin (SOX) regimen, with or without surgery in α-fetoprotein-producing gastric cancer (APGC) with liver metastasis. A total of 24 patients with APGC treated at the Liaocheng People's Hospital between January 2011 and December 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical efficacy and patient safety were compared between the two groups. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the SOX group were 6.5 [95% confidence interval (CI), 4.6–8.4] and 13.5 (95% CI, 8.1–18.9) months, respectively. The corresponding indicators in the SOX and surgery group were 7.0 (95% CI, 5.7–8.3) and 14 (95% CI, 11.0–17.1) months, respectively. There was no significant difference in PFS and OS between the two groups (P=0.703 and 0.710, respectively). The adverse effects of leucopenia, neutropenia, anemia and diarrhea occurred in ~10% of patients in the SOX group and in 14.3% (2/14), 7.14% (1/14), 14.3% (2/14) and 7.14% (1/14), respectively, in the surgery group. No significant difference was identified between groups in terms of overall incidence of adverse effects (P=0.17). However, severe adverse events, including gastroplegia, pancreatic fistula, pulmonary infection and refractory ascites, occurred only in the SOX plus surgery group [incidence rate for severe adverse events, 7.14% (1/14); P<0.001 between groups]. In conclusion, SOX chemotherapy is safe and effective in patients with APGC and liver metastasis. However, the addition of surgery to SOX chemotherapy may not improve the disease control rate and may increase the adverse effects.

Conversion therapy for unresectable gastric cancer

Unresectable gastric cancer cases are often diagnosed at a far advanced stage, which are hard to resect radically and suffer a poor prognosis. Therefore, palliative chemotherapy is recommended as the main treatment by the current clinical guidelines for gastric cancer. Fortunately, in recent years some clinical studies revealed that after treatment with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, targeted therapy, interventional therapy, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and so on, and multidisciplinary assessment, many unresectable gastric cancer cases could be converted into resectable cases, which consequently prolongs their survival time and improves their quality of life significantly. In the present review, we summarize the status and progress of treatment for unresectable gastric cancer, as well as the strategy and case selection for conversion therapy.