Efficacy and safety of first-line systemic chemotherapy with epirubicin, cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil and docetaxel, cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil regimens in locally advanced inoperable or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: A prospective phase II study from South India

Treatment Outcome and Safety of the TCX Regimen for Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Prospective Cohort Study

Objective

To evaluate the outcome and safety of the paclitaxel, carboplatin, and capecitabine (TCX) regimen in patients with advanced gastric cancer.

Methods

Advanced gastric cancer patients received the TCX regimen for up to six cycles, which were 3 weeks apart. Paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) was given over a 3-hour infusion, followed by carboplatin in a 1-hour infusion on day 1. Capecitabine (850 mg/m2) was given orally twice daily from day 1 to day 14. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

Results

Among 83 patients at stage IVa and IVb, the median PFS was 9.3 months; 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year PFS were 74.6%, 32.5%, and 14.4%, respectively. The median OS was 17.0 months; 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year OS were 97.5%, 68.7%, and 21.7%, respectively. In the multivariable Cox regression model, higher CEA was associated with poor OS. Common adverse events included hand-food syndrome (77.9%), peripheral neuropathy (63.2%), fatigue (68.7%), and nausea (54.2%).

Conclusion

The TCX regimen provided good survival and a better safety profile. More clinical trials are needed to confirm its treatment efficacy and safety, especially in comparison with other triplet regimens.

Phase 2 randomized controlled trial of intravenous or intraperitoneal paclitaxel plus mFOLFOX6 vs. mFOLFOX6 as first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer

Objective

We conducted a phase 2 trial to compare the safety and efficacy of intravenous paclitaxel or intraperitoneal paclitaxel plus mFOLFOX6 vs. mFOLFOX6 in untreated advanced gastric cancer.

Methods

Participants with untreated advanced gastric cancer were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to: intravenous paclitaxel 135 mg/m² or intraperitoneal paclitaxel 80 mg/m² plus mFOLFOX6 omitting bolus fluorouracil; or mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m², leucovorin 400 mg/m², fluorouracil 400 mg/m² bolus, fluorouracil 2,400 mg/m² 46-h continuous infusion). Treatment was every 14 days for up to 9 cycles followed by S-1 maintenance. The primary outcome was progression-free survival.

Results

Of 90 enrolled participants, 30 in the intravenous paclitaxel group, 29 in the intraperitoneal paclitaxel group, and 30 in the mFOLFOX6 group were included in the analyses. The median progression-free survival was 6.52, 5.83, and 4.55 months, respectively, for the intravenous paclitaxel group, intraperitoneal paclitaxel group, and mFOLFOX6 group. The hazard ratios were 0.56 (95% CI: 0.33–0.94; p = 0.026) and 0.56 (95% CI: 0.33–0.96; p = 0.037), respectively, for the intravenous paclitaxel group and the intraperitoneal paclitaxel group vs. the mFOLFOX6 group. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events for the intravenous paclitaxel group, intraperitoneal paclitaxel group, and mFOLFOX6 group, respectively, were neutropenia (30.0%, 34.5%, 33.3%), diarrhea (13.3%, 20.7%, 13.3%), and leukopenia (10.0%, 13.8%, 10.0%). No treatment-related death occurred.

Conclusion

The findings of this phase 2 trial suggest that adding intravenous paclitaxel or intraperitoneal paclitaxel to mFOLFOX6 for untreated advanced gastric cancer improved progression-free survival with manageable adverse events.

Docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil compared with epirubicin, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil regimen for advanced gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As the first-line regimens for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer, both docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (DCF) and epirubicin, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (ECF) regimens are commonly used in clinical practice, but there is still controversy about which is better.

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of DCF and ECF regimens by conducting this meta-analysis.

METHODS

Computer searches in PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, Science Direct, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library and Scopus were performed to find the clinical studies of all comparisons between DCF and ECF regimens. We used progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and adverse effects (AEs) as endpoints for analysis.

RESULTS

Our meta-analysis included seven qualified studies involving a total of 598 patients. The pooled hazard ratios between the DCF and ECF groups were comparable in PFS (95%CI: 0.58-1.46, P = 0.73), OS (95%CI: 0.65-1.10, P = 0.21), and total AEs (95%CI: 0.93-1.29, P = 0.30). The DCF group was significantly better than the ECF group in terms of ORR (95%CI: 1.13-1.75, P = 0.002) and DCR (95%CI: 1.03-1.41, P = 0.02). However, the incidence rate of grade 3-4 AEs was also greater in the DCF group than in the ECF group (95%CI: 1.16-1.88, P = 0.002), especially for neutropenia and febrile neutropenia.

CONCLUSION

With better ORR and DCR values, the DCF regimen seems to be more suitable for advanced gastric cancer than the ECF regimen. However, the higher rate of AEs in the DCF group still needs to be noticed.