Second-line irinotecan after cisplatin, fluoropyrimidin and docetaxel for chemotherapy of metastatic gastric cancer

Clinical efficacy and safety of paclitaxel liposomes as first-line chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer

Aim: To compare the performance of first-line paclitaxel liposome + oxaliplatin and SOX (tegafur/gimeracil/oteracil + oxaliplatin) in advanced gastric cancer patients. Materials & methods: Stage IIb-IV gastric cancer patients underwent either first-line paclitaxel liposome + oxaliplatin (n = 52) or SOX (n = 69) between 2010-2013, and followed up until 2015 or death. Results: Both groups had similar objective response rate (p = 0.48) and disease control rate (p = 0.992) after two chemotherapy cycles, median progression-free survival (p = 0.495) and median overall survival (p = 0.208). Liposome group had significantly lower rate of grade I-II platelet decline and liver function damage (p = 0.04 and 0.019). Multivariate COX regression identified pre-treatment neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as an independent prognostic factor. Conclusion: First-line paclitaxel liposome + oxaliplatin has comparable efficacy, but causes reduced adverse reactions in advanced gastric cancer as compared with SOX.

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.

Biomarker-Driven Therapy in Metastatic Gastric and Esophageal Cancer: Real-Life Clinical Experience

BACKGROUND

Precision treatment of cancer uses biomarker-driven therapy to individualize and optimize patient care.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate real-life clinical experience with biomarker-driven therapy in metastatic gastric and esophageal cancer in Israel.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This multicenter retrospective cohort study included patients with metastatic gastric or esophageal cancer who were treated in the participating institutions and underwent biomarker-driven therapy. Treatment was considered to have a benefit if the ratio between the longest progression-free survival (PFS) post biomarker-driven therapy and the last PFS before the biomarker-driven therapy was ≥1.3. The null hypothesis was that ≤15% of patients gain such benefit.

RESULTS

The analysis included 46 patients (61% men; median age, 58 years; 57% with poorly-differentiated tumors). At least one actionable (i.e., predictive of response to a specific therapy) biomarker was identified for each patient. Immunohistochemistry was performed on all samples and identified 1-8 (median: 3) biomarkers per patient (most commonly: low TS, high TOPO1, high TOP2A). Twenty-eight patients received therapy after the biomarker analysis (1-4 lines). In the 1st line after biomarker analysis, five patients (18%) achieved a partial response and five (18%) stable disease; the median (range) PFS was 129 (12-1155) days. Twenty-four patients were evaluable for PFS ratio analysis; in seven (29.2%), the ratio was ≥1.3. In a one-sided exact binomial test vs. the null hypothesis, p = 0.019; therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrated that implementing biomarker-driven analysis is feasible and could provide clinical benefit for a considerable proportion (~30%) of patients with metastatic gastric or esophageal cancer.

Efficacy and safety of docetaxel or epirubicin, combined with cisplatin and fluorouracil (DCF and ECF), regimens as first line chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer: a retrospective analysis from Turkey

OBJECTIVES

Advanced gastric cancer (AGC) patients have a poor prognosis. The best benefit of chemotherapy is usually achieved by first line setting. Very few studies have compared combination regimens. This study was designed to compare two combination regimens.

METHODS

Patients with advanced gastric cancer receiving first line chemotherapy were retrospectively collected, and divided into two groups, receiving DCF (docetaxel, cisplatin and fluorouracil) or ECF (epirubicin, cisplatin and fluorouracil) regimens. Data were collected for the retrospective analysis in a single center.

RESULTS

Eighty-six patients were eligible for analysis. Median overall survival (OS) was 10.0 months in the ECF group and 11.0 months in the DCF group (p=0.31). Median progression free survival (PFS) for ECF and DCF was equal at 6.0 months. Second line chemotherapy were administered in more than one third of patients. Both regimens had similar toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study investigating the outcomes of gastric cancer chemotherapy in this region. ECF and DCF regimens have similar efficacy and a similar tolerability profile for first line treatment of advanced gastric cancer. The decision of the first line chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer could be improved with patient selection according to clinical parameters and molecular markers.

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.

Clinical comparison between paclitaxel liposome (Lipusu®) and paclitaxel for treatment of patients with metastatic gastric cancer

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of paclitaxel liposome (Lipusu®) with paclitaxel in combination with tegafur and oxaliplatin in treating patients with advanced gastric cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with advanced gastric cancer receiving chemotherapy were retrospectively collected, and divided into two groups. Patients in group A received paclitaxel liposomes at a dose of 135 mg/m2 on day 1 of each cycle, and patients in group B were given paclitaxel at the same dose with the same timing. All patients received tegafur at a dose of 500 mg mg/m2 on days 1-5, and oxaliplatin at a dose of 80-100 mg/m2 on day 1 for 2 cycles (each cycle was 21 d in total).

RESULTS

Fifty-eight patients could be evaluated for efficacy. The overall response rate was 47% in group A (14/30), and 46% in group B (13/28). Disease control rate was 73% in group A (22/30), and 71% in group B (20/28) (P>0.05). No significant differences were detected in hematologic and neurologic toxicities between the two groups (P>0.05). However, nausea, vomiting and hypersensitive reactions were significantly lower in group A than in group B (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Paclitaxel liposomes are as effective as paclitaxel when combined with tegafur and oxaliplation in treating patients with advanced gastric cancer, but adverse reactions with paclitaxel liposomes are less common.