S-1 Based Doublet as an Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Curatively Resected Stage III Gastric Cancer: Results from the Randomized Phase III POST Trial

Efficacy and safety of docetaxel plus S-1-based therapy in gastric cancer: a quantitative evidence synthesis of randomized controlled trials

Objective: To systematically evaluate the safety and efficacy of docetaxel plus S-1-based therapy in gastric cancer treatment. Methods: PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials on docetaxel plus S-1-based therapy in the treatment of gastric cancer from the establishment of the database to 1 September 2022. Relevant studies were included per pre-defined eligibility criteria, and two researchers independently screened and assessed the included literature using Review Manager v5. Outcome measures and statistics related with efficacy and safety profiles were extracted from the included studies, and Stata v15.1 was used for pooled analysis. Results: Objective response rate (odds ratio = 2.34, 95% CI = [1.32, 4.13], p = 0.003), relapse-free survival (HR = 0.68, 95% CI = [0.58, 0.79], p < 0.001), progression-free survival (HR = 0.81, 95% CI = [0.68, 0.96], p = 0.016), and overall survival (HR = 0.86, 95% CI = [0.79, 0.95], p = 0.002) of docetaxel plus S-1-based therapy (DS-based therapy) in gastric cancer treatment were better than those of the non-DS-based therapy. However, DS-based therapy was associated with increased risk of certain adverse drug effects, such as alopecia, leukopenia, and oral mucositis. Further studies are warranted to validate the efficacy superiority of DS-based versus non-DS-based regimens as per our trial sequential analysis findings. Conclusion: DS-based therapy significantly improves patients' clinical outcomes in gastric cancer, albeit at the cost of increased toxicity. Further RCTs are needed to confirm the efficacy superiority of DS-based regimens.

A novel method of bedside hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy as adjuvant therapy for stage-III gastric cancer

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy and safety of a novel method of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) as adjuvant therapy for stage-III gastric cancer.

METHODS

Patients with stage-III gastric cancer who underwent D2 radical gastrectomy were randomly assigned to the HIPEC or control group four weeks after surgery. The HIPEC group was treated with cisplatin (60 mg/m²) administered with a HIPEC device on days 1 and 3 (30 mg/m² each time), along with oral S-1, 40-60 mg, twice daily, for 14 days. The control group was treated with cisplatin (60 mg/m²) administered intravenously plus oral S-1 (40-60 mg, 2/d for 14 days). The primary outcome of the study was disease-free survival (DFS).

RESULTS

Total 114 patients were included in the study, with 57 patients in each group. The median DFS was 29.0 months in the HIPEC group, which was significantly longer than that in the control group (15.0 months, p = 0.006). The two-year DFS rate in the HIPEC group was higher than that in the control group (50.4% vs. 25.5%). Median OS was 42.0 month in the HIPEC group and 31.0 month in the control (p = 0.042). Peritoneal metastasis occurred in six patients in the HIPEC group (10.5%) and 12 patients in the control (21.1%, p = 0.198). No significant difference in the incidence of adverse event except for thrombocytopenia.

CONCLUSION

HIPEC with cisplatin plus oral S-1 is a safe and effective adjuvant therapy for patients with advanced gastric cancer following D2 radical gastrectomy. Trial registration: This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with the identifier (NCT number): NCT02396498.

Surgery alone, adjuvant tegafur/gimeracil/octeracil (S-1), or platinum-based chemotherapies for resectable gastric cancer: real-world experience and a propensity score matching analysis

Background

Adjuvant chemotherapy has changed the paradigm in resectable gastric cancer. S-1 is an oral chemotherapeutic with promising efficacy in Asia. However, comparisons with close observation or platinum-based doublets post D2 gastrectomy have been less reported, notably on real-world experiences.

Methods

We retrospectively evaluated patients with D2-dissected stage IB-III gastric cancer who received S-1 (S-1, n = 67), platinum-based doublets (P, n = 145) and surgery with close observation (OBS, n = 221) from Jan 2008 to Oct 2018. A propensity score matching was used to compare for recurrence-free (RFS) and overall survivals (OS) in patients who had a locally-advanced disease (T3–4 or lymph node-positive). Adverse reactions, dosage, and associated factors for S-1 are also discussed.

Results

In a median follow-up time of 51.9 months, adjuvant S-1 monotherapy was associated with an intermediate survival as compared with P and OBS (median RFS/OS: S-1 vs. P, 20.9/35.8 vs. 31.2/50.5 months, HR = 1.76/2.14, p = 0.021/0.008; S-1 vs. OBS, 24.4/40.2 vs. 20.7/27.0 months, HR = 0.62/0.55, p = 0.041/0.024). The survival differences were more prominent in patients with N2–3 diseases. S-1 was well-tolerated with a relative dose intensity of 73.6%, a median duration of 8.3 months and associated with less adverse reactions as compared with P. S-1 monotherapy was selected by physicians based on age, lymph node stage, serum carcinoembryonic antigen and disease stage.

Conclusions

Adjuvant S-1 correlated with intermediate survival outcomes between OBS and P but conferred fewer adverse reactions as compared with P. Patients with a moderate risk of recurrence had comparable survivals when treated with S-1 while platinum-based doublets were favored in advanced cases. The study provides additional information about adjuvant S-1 in patients with selected risk of recurrence.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08487-z.

Multidisciplinary treatment strategy for locally advanced gastric cancer: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary management of patients with locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) remains unstandardized worldwide. We performed a systemic review to summarize the advancements, regional differences, and current recommended multidisciplinary treatment strategies for LAGC.

METHODS

Eligible studies were identified through a comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library databases and Embase. Phase 3 randomized controlled trials which investigated survival of patients with LAGC who underwent gastrectomy with pre-/perioperative, postoperative chemotherapy, or chemoradiotherapy were included.

RESULTS

In total, we identified 11 studies of pre-/perioperative chemotherapy, 38 of postoperative chemotherapy, and 14 of chemoradiotherapy. In Europe and the USA, the current standard of care is perioperative chemotherapy for patients with LAGC using the regimen of 5-FU, folinic acid, oxaliplatin and docetaxel (FLOT). In Eastern Asia, upfront gastrectomy and postoperative chemotherapy is commonly used. The S-1 monotherapy or a regimen of capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CapOx) are used for patients with stage II disease, and the CapOx regimen or the S-1 plus docetaxel regimen are recommended for those with stage III Gastric cancer (GC). The addition of postoperative radiotherapy to peri- or postoperative chemotherapy is currently not recommended. Additionally, clinical trials testing targeted therapy and immunotherapy are increasingly performed worldwide.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent clinical trials showed a survival benefit of peri-over postoperative chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy. As such, this strategy may have a potential as a global standard for patients with LAGC. Outcome of the ongoing clinical trials is expected to establish the global standard of multidisciplinary treatment strategy in patients with LAGC.

5-Fu-Based Doublet Regimen in Patients Receiving Perioperative or Postoperative Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: When to Start and How Long Should the Regimen Last?

Background

The duration and the optimal time to adjuvant chemotherapy (TAC) in locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) have net not been sufficiently demonstrated. Sequential adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus gastrectomy is increasingly utilized, making the question more complicated.

Patients and Methods

Data were collected from patients with LAGC who underwent 5-Fu-based doublet regimens as adjuvant treatment after gastrectomy in a single-center database. TAC and duration (cycles) were used to evaluate survival outcomes.

Results

A total of 816 patients were included. Patients received over six cycles and TAC less than 42 days significantly correlated with better survival (log-rank P_trend<0.001). The analysis of TAC and number cycles were separately applied in perioperative chemotherapy (PEC) and postoperative chemotherapy (POC) group using Cox regression. The number of cycles revealed a statistical significance improving OS rate both in POC (HR=0.904, 95% CI=0.836–0.977, P=0.011) and PEC (HR=0.887, 95% CI=0.798–0.986, P=0.026), while only in POC did the TAC show an increasing trend of risk with borderline significance (OS: HR=1.008, 95% CI=0.999–1.018, P=0.094; PFS: HR=1.009, 95% CI=1.000–1.018, P=0.055). A spline model demonstrates the less improvement in survival after cycles of chemotherapy reaching six.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that TAC is more likely to downregulate the survival benefit in POC rather than PEC, while overall survival is susceptible to cumulative cycles of chemotherapy in both groups. Furthermore, six cycles of chemotherapy tended to reach the maximum survival benefits. Prospective confirmation is required.

Treatment of Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer (LAGC): Back to Lauren's Classification in Pan-Cancer Analysis Era?

Background: Guidelines recommend a perioperative approach in patients with stage II/III gastric cancer, but in real-life many patients receive immediate surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (aCT). Although histologic subtypes may have different response to CT, no study has explored the influence of histotype on the efficacy of perioperative CT (pCT) or aCT. Materials and methods: The objective of the study was to evaluate the impact of clinicopathological features and histology (intestinal or diffuse) on survival according to strategy (pCT vs. aCT). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) and the secondary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS). Results: Out of 203 patients affected by LAGC, 83 received pCT and 120 aCT. At multivariate, histology and LVI in pCT cohort and positive resection margin in the aCT influenced both OS and EFS. No difference in EFS and OS was observed in relation to strategy. However, in the intestinal-type of pCT cohort survival outcomes were significantly higher compared to the aCT cohort, whereas in the diffuse-type were significantly worse in patients receiving pCT compared to those receiving aCT. Conclusions: Although retrospective and small-sized, this study suggests that the benefit of pCT might be limited to the intestinal-type. This hypothesis needs to be confirmed in prospective series.

COMplot, A Graphical Presentation of Complication Profiles and Adverse Effects for the Curative Treatment of Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: For the curative treatment of gastric cancer, several neoadjuvant, and adjuvant treatment-regimens are available which have shown to improve overall survival. No overview is available regarding toxicity and surgery related outcomes. Our aim was to construct a novel graphical method concerning adverse events (AEs) associated with multimodality treatment and perform a meta-analysis to compare different clinically relevant cytotoxic regimens with each other.

Methods: The PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and ASCO/ESMO databases were searched up to May 2019 for randomized controlled trials investigating curative treatment regimens for gastric cancer. To construct single and bidirectional bar-charts (COMplots), grade 1–2 and grade 3–5 AEs were extracted per cytotoxic regimen. For surgery-related outcomes a pre-specified set of complications was used. Thereafter, treatment-arms comparing the same regimens were combined in a single-arm random-effects meta-analysis and pooled-proportions were calculated with 95% confidence-intervals. Comparative meta-analyses were performed based on clinical relevance and compound similarity.

Results: In total 16 RCTs (n = 4,526 patients) were included investigating pre-operative-therapy and 39 RCTs investigating adjuvant-therapy (n = 13,732 patients). Pre-operative COMplots were created for among others; 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin-oxaliplatin-docetaxel (FLOT), epirubicin-cisplatin-fluoropyrimidine (ECF), cisplatin-fluoropyrimidine (CF), and oxaliplatin-fluoropyrimidine (FOx). Pre-operative FLOT showed a minor increase in grade 1–2 and grade 3–4 AEs compared to pre-operative ECF, CF, and FOx. A pooled analysis of patients who had received pre-operative therapy compared to patients who underwent direct surgery did not reveal any significant difference in surgery related morbidity/mortality. When we compared three commonly used adjuvant regimens; S-1 had the lowest amount of grade 3–4 AEs compared to capecitabine with oxaliplatin (CAPOX) and 5-FU with radiotherapy (5-FU+RT).

Conclusion: COMplot provides a novel tool to visualize and compare treatment related AEs for gastric cancer. Based on our comparisons, pre-operative FLOT had a manageable toxicity profile compared to other pre-operative doublet or triplet regimens. We found no evidence indicating surgical outcomes might be hampered by pre-operative therapy. Adjuvant S-1 had a more favorable toxicity profile compared to CAPOX and 5-FU+RT.

Prognostic and Predictive Factors for the Curative Treatment of Esophageal and Gastric Cancer in Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

An overview of promising prognostic variables and predictive subgroups concerning the curative treatment of esophageal and gastric cancer from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is lacking. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and ASCO/ESMO conferences were searched up to March 2019 for RCTs on the curative treatment of esophageal or gastric cancer with data on prognostic and/or predictive factors for overall survival. Prognostic factors were deemed potentially clinically relevant according to the following criteria; (1) statistically significant (p < 0.05) in a multivariate analysis, (2) reported in at least 250 patients, and (3) p < 0.05, in ≥ 33% of the total number of patients in RCTs reporting this factor. Predictive factors were potentially clinically-relevant if (1) the p-value for interaction between subgroups was <0.20 and (2) the hazard ratio in one of the subgroups was significant (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

For gastric cancer, 39 RCTs were identified (n = 13,530 patients) and, for esophageal cancer, 33 RCTs were identified (n = 8618 patients). In total, we identified 23 potentially clinically relevant prognostic factors for gastric cancer and 16 for esophageal cancer. There were 15 potentially clinically relevant predictive factors for gastric cancer and 10 for esophageal cancer.

CONCLUSION

The identified prognostic and predictive factors can be included and analyzed in future RCTs and be of guidance for nomograms. Further validation should be performed in large patient cohorts.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis protocol of adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for resected gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death in the world. The benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy has been demonstrated by published individual patient data meta-analysis and Cochrane systematic review. However, there is no consensus on which is the optimal adjuvant chemotherapy regimens. Present network meta-analysis aims to compare the differences of effect between all available adjuvant chemotherapy regimens in improving overall survival and disease-free survival, and to rate the certainty of evidence from present network meta-analysis.

METHODS

We will conduct this systematic review and network meta-analysis using Bayesian method and according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement. We will search PubMed, EMBASE.com, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Chinese Biological Medical Database (CBM), and ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov/) to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing adjuvant chemotherapy to surgery alone. We will assess the risk of bias of individual RCTs using a modified version of Cochrane tool. We will also use the advance of GRADE to rate the certainty of network meta-analysis. Data analysis will be performed with R-3.4.1 and WinBUGS software.

RESULTS

The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

DISCUSSION

To the best of our knowledge, this systematic review and network meta-analysis will firstly use both direct and indirect evidence to compare the differences of all available adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for resected gastric cancer patients. This is a protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis, so the ethical approval and patient consent are not required.

The Efficacy and Safety of (Neo)Adjuvant Therapy for Gastric Cancer: A Network Meta-analysis

Background: Alternatives in treatment-strategies exist for resectable gastric cancer. Our aims were: (1) to assess the benefit of perioperative, neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment-strategies and (2) to determine the optimal adjuvant regimen for gastric cancer treated with curative intent. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and ASCO/ESMO conferences were searched up to August 2017 for randomized-controlled-trials on the curative treatment of resectable gastric cancer. We performed two network-meta-analyses (NMA). NMA-1 compared perioperative, neoadjuvant and adjuvant strategies only if there was a direct comparison. NMA-2 compared different adjuvant chemo(radio)therapy regimens, after curative resection. Overall-survival (OS) and disease-free-survival (DFS) were analyzed using random-effects NMA on the hazard ratio (HR)-scale and calculated as combined HRs and 95% credible intervals (95% CrIs). Results: NMA-1 consisted of 9 direct comparisons between strategies for OS (14 studies, n = 4187 patients). NMA-2 consisted of 16 direct comparisons between adjuvant chemotherapy/chemoradiotherapy regimens for OS (37 studies, n = 10,761) and 14 for DFS (30 studies, n = 9714 patients). Compared to taxane-based-perioperative-chemotherapy, surgery-alone (HR = 0.58, 95% CrI = 0.38⁻0.91) and perioperative-chemotherapy regimens without a taxane (HR = 0.79, 95% CrI = 0.58⁻1.15) were inferior in OS. After curative-resection, the doublet oxaliplatin-fluoropyrimidine (for one-year) was the most efficacious adjuvant regimen in OS (HR = 0.47, 95% CrI = 0.28⁻0.80). Conclusions: For resectable gastric cancer, (1) taxane-based perioperative-chemotherapy was the most promising treatment strategy; and (2) adjuvant oxaliplatin-fluoropyrimidine was the most promising regimen after curative resection. More research is warranted to confirm or reproach these findings.

Cutting-edge evidence of adjuvant treatments for gastric cancer

In recent decades, adjuvant therapy has secured a firm position in the treatment of gastric cancer by improving patient prognosis. Currently, standard therapy varies between East Asia, Europe and North America due to heterogeneities of the tumor, race, medical environment and/or surgical procedure. Although adjuvant strategies, proved effective in each region and implemented to clinical practice, certain patient populations with advanced gastric cancer show recurrence and a fatal prognosis. The development of a universal adjuvant therapy with a high efficacy and acceptable adverse events or with less toxicity and non-inferiority seems to have become urgent and imperative. Areas covered: In this review, we aimed to summarize the current knowledge regarding adjuvant therapies for gastric cancer, including chemotherapy, chemoradiotherapy and molecular targeted therapy, based on clinical trials and to introduce the pivotal ongoing phase III trials. Expert commentary: The efficacy of adjuvant therapy to prevent recurrence remains insufficient although several trials have shown a significant benefit in patients with localized advanced gastric cancer. The development of more effective and universal multimodal adjuvant therapy is required.