Current status of integrating oncology and palliative care in Japan: a nationwide survey

BACKGROUND

Palliative care (PC) is increasingly recognized as essential for oncology care, and several academic societies strongly recommend integrating oncology and palliative care (IOP) in daily practice. Similarly, the Japanese government encouraged the implementation of IOP through the Cancer Control Act of 2007; however, its detailed progress remains unclear. Therefore, this cross-sectional nationwide survey was conducted to investigate the current status and hospital executive physicians' perception of IOP.

METHODS

The questionnaire was developed based on IOP indicators with international consensus. It was distributed to executive physicians at all government-designated cancer hospitals (DCHs, n = 399) and matched non-DCHs (n = 478) in November 2017 and the results were compared.

RESULTS

In total, 269 (67.4%) DCHs and 259 (54.2%) non-DCHs responded. The number of PC resources in DCHs was significantly higher than those in non-DCHs (e.g., full-time PC physicians and nurses, 52.8% vs. 14.0%, p < 0.001; availability of outpatient PC service ≥3 days per week, 47.6% vs. 20.7%, p < 0.001). Routine symptom screening was more frequently performed in DCHs than in non-DCHs (65.1% vs. 34.7%, p < 0.001). Automatic trigger for PC referral availability was limited (e.g., referral using time trigger, 14.9% vs. 15.3%, p = 0.700). Education and research opportunities were seriously limited in both types of hospitals. Most executive physicians regarded IOP as beneficial for their patients (95.9% vs. 94.7%, p = 0.163) and were willing to facilitate an early referral to PC services (54.7% vs. 60.0%, p < 0.569); however, the majority faced challenges to increase the number of full-time PC staff, and < 30% were planning to increase the staff members.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey highlighted a considerable number of IOP indicators met, particularly in DCHs probably due to the government policy. Further efforts are needed to address the serious research/educational gaps.

Pan-Asian adapted ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic oesophageal cancer: a JSMO-ESMO initiative endorsed by CSCO, KSMO, MOS, SSO and TOS

The most recent version of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of oesophageal cancer was published in 2016, and covered the management and treatment of local/locoregional disease, limited disease, locally advanced disease and the management of advanced/metastatic disease. At the ESMO Asia Meeting in November 2017 it was decided by both ESMO and the Japanese Society of Medical Oncology (JSMO) to convene a special guidelines meeting immediately after the JSMO Annual Meeting in 2018. The aim was to adapt the ESMO 2016 guidelines to take into account the ethnic differences associated with the treatment of metastatic oesophageal cancer in Asian patients. These guidelines represent the consensus opinions reached by experts in the treatment of patients with metastatic oesophageal cancer representing the oncological societies of Japan (JSMO), China (CSCO), Korea (KSMO), Malaysia (MOS), Singapore (SSO) and Taiwan (TOS). The voting was based on scientific evidence, and was independent of both the current treatment practices and the drug availability and reimbursement situations in the individual participating Asian countries.

Pan-Asian adapted ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic gastric cancer: a JSMO-ESMO initiative endorsed by CSCO, KSMO, MOS, SSO and TOS

The most recent version of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of gastric cancer (GC) was published in 2016, and covered the management and treatment of local, locoregional, locally advanced and metastatic disease. At the ESMO Asia Meeting in November 2017 it was decided by both ESMO and The Japanese Society of Medical Oncology (JSMO) to convene a special guidelines meeting immediately after the JSMO Annual Meeting in 2018. The aim was to adapt the ESMO 2016 guidelines to take into account the ethnic differences associated with the treatment of metastatic GC in Asian patients. These guidelines represent the consensus opinions reached by experts in the treatment of patients with metastatic GC representing the oncological societies of Japan (JSMO), China (CSCO), Korea (KSMO), Malaysia (MOS), Singapore (SSO) and Taiwan (TOS). The voting was based on scientific evidence and was independent of both the current treatment practices and the drug availability and reimbursement situations in the individual participating Asian countries.

Phase I study of cediranib in combination with cisplatin plus fluoropyrimidine (S-1 or capecitabine) in Japanese patients (pts) with untreated advanced gastric cancer (AGC)

111

Background: Cediranib (AZD2171) is an oral, highly potent inhibitor of VEGF signalling with activity versus all three VEGFRs and c-Kit. Combination therapy with cisplatin + oral fluoropyrimidine is commonly used as first-line treatment for AGC. This phase I study assessed cediranib in combination with cisplatin/S-1 or cisplatin/capecitabine in Japanese pts with previously untreated AGC.

Methods: Eligible pts received cediranib 20 mg/day and either cisplatin 60 mg/m2 iv, day 1 + S-1 40–60 mg bd, days 1–21, q5w (Arm A) or cisplatin 80 mg/m2 iv, day 1 + capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 bd, days 1–14, q3w (Arm B). The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability. Secondary endpoints included assessment of steady-state pharmacokinetics (PK) of cediranib and chemotherapy alone and in combination. Preliminary efficacy was an exploratory objective. Adverse events (AEs) were evaluated according to CTCAE v3.0.

Results: Between Aug–Dec 2009, 14 pts (median age, 60.5 [27–72] years; male, n = 9; PS 0/1, n = 7/7) were recruited to Arm A (n = 6) or Arm B (n = 8). The safety profile in both arms was consistent with that of the individual agents. There were no unexpected toxicities. All pts experienced ≥1 AE. Dose-limiting toxicities were reported in 1 pt in Arm A (decreased appetite) and 1 pt in Arm B (decreased appetite, fatigue, hyponatremia). The most common AEs in Arm A were decreased appetite, fatigue, nausea, diarrhoea, decreased weight and neutropenia (all n = 5; 83%), and decreased appetite, fatigue, nausea (all n = 8; 100%) and constipation (n = 7; 88%) in Arm B. Five (83%) pts in Arm A and 6 (75%) in Arm B experienced grade ≥ 3 AEs. Grade 3 AEs in > 1 pt were neutropenia (n = 3) in Arm A and hypokalaemia (n = 3), neutropenia, hyponatraemia and fatigue (all n = 2) in Arm B. Grade 4 syncope was reported in 1 pt in Arm A; this resolved on the same day it was observed. Preliminary efficacy and PK data will be presented.

Conclusions: Cediranib 20 mg plus cisplatin/S-1 or cisplatin/capecitabine was generally well tolerated and considered suitable for further evaluation in pts with AGC. The safety profile of each regimen was comparable with the individual agents. No new toxicities were identified.

[Table: see text]

Multicenter feasibility study of 5-FU, leucovorin, plus paclitaxel (FLTAX) for peritoneal disseminated gastric cancer with massive ascites or inadequate oral intake

119

Background: Oral fluoropyrimidine plus cisplatin is widely used as a standard treatment for advanced gastric cancer, but patients (pts) with severe peritoneal metastasis often cannot tolerate this regimen. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of fluorouracil (5-FU), leucovorin (LV), plus paclitaxel (PTX) for peritoneal disseminated gastric cancer with massive ascites or inadequate oral intake.

Methods: Peritoneal disseminated gastric cancer with massive ascites or inadequate oral intake were enrolled in Part I (Level 1 (n=6): 5-FU bolus/l- LV div 2hr/PTX div 1hr = 500/250/60, Level 2 (n=6): 600/250/80 mg/m2 (day1, 8, 15, q4w) to determine dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) and recommended dose (RD). In Part II (n=19), primary endpoint was completion rate of 2 cycles to evaluate the feasibility of this regimen at RD level.

Results: One of Level 1 pts had DLT with grade 4 gastrointestinal perforation. Two of Level 2 pts had DLT (grade 3 febrile neutropenia and grade 3 infection with normal neutrophils) and treatment-related death (TRD) was observed in one patient due to pneumonia with grade 4 neutropenia. The RD was determined to be Level 1. Twenty-five patients were enrolled at RD level: first-line/second-line=18/7, performance status 0/1/2=1/19/5. The completion rate of 2 cycles was 92% and objective response rate of ascites was 45%. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was observed in 12% (febrile neutropenia in 8%). Five patients out of 7 second-line patients died within 30 days after last administration of FLTAX (TRD: 1 and disease progression: 4).

Conclusions: RD of FLTAX regimen was 5-FU/l-LV/PTX=500/250/60 mg/m2. This regimen was feasible as the first-line treatment against peritoneal disseminated gastric cancer patients with massive ascites or inadequate oral intake.

[Table: see text]

Prophylactic administration of epinephrine in oxaliplatin-related hypersensitivity reaction

610

Background: Alongside disease progression or neurotoxicity, oxaliplatin-related hypersensitivity reaction is a common reason for treatment discontinuation and remains a critical issue. It is unclear whether prophylactic administration of epinephrine to patients with this severe hypersensitivity reaction is effective and safe.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 839 consecutive colorectal cancer patients treated with oxaliplatin-containing regimens at our hospital between April 2005 and March 2010. The medical records of those patients who had received prophylactic epinephrine (1:1000 solution) were examined. Hypersensitivity reaction was graded according to CTCAE version 3.0.

Results: Twelve patients (8 male and 4 female; median age, 66 years) had received prophylactic epinephrine. The hypersensitivity reaction, even though the patients were receiving prophylactic corticosteroid and antihistamine drugs, was grade 0/1/2/3 = 0/0/10/2. The median number of epinephrine doses administered was 6 (range, 1 to 21). The worst grade of hypersensitivity for rechallenge with oxaliplatin under prophylactic administration of epinephrine was grade 0/1/2/3 = 4/3/4/1. Reasons for treatment discontinuation were disease progression in 10 patients and neurotoxicity in one patient. The remaining one patient developed grade 3 hypersensitivity reaction during 4 cycles of treatment under prophylactic administration of epinephrine, but the reaction subsided after additional administration of epinephrine and corticosteroid. Common adverse events with administration of epinephrine were hypertension (4 patients), palpitation (3 patients) and headache, dizziness, fatigue, and bladder pain (1 patient each).

Conclusions: Prophylactic administration of epinephrine may be effective and tolerated in patients with moderate to severe oxaliplatin-related hypersensitivity reaction.

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Predictive factors of outcome and clinical management of adjuvant S-1 chemotherapy for gastric cancer

e15676

Background: Adjuvant S-1 chemotherapy has become a standard treatment for stage II and III gastric cancer, following the Adjuvant Chemotherapy Trial of TS-1 for Gastric Cancer (ACTS-GC). This study was designed to identify factors that can be used for predicting the outcome and clinical management of adjuvant S-1 chemotherapy in patients with stage II and III gastric cancer. Methods: We retrospectively examined 97 consecutive patients with stage II or III gastric cancer who received S-1 chemotherapy after gastrectomy to investigate factors associated with outcome and clinical management. S-1 (80 mg/m2/day) was orally administered twice daily for 28 consecutive days, followed by a 14-day rest period. As a rule, this protocol was continued for one year after gastrectomy. According to toxicity profiles, dose reduction or dose schedule modification was performed. Results: Patients consisted of 63 males and 34 females (median age, 59 years; range, 35–80 years), and those undergoing total gastrectomy/subtotal gastrectomy = 40/57. The median follow-up period after gastrectomy was 43.0 months (range, 5.3–73.4 months). As for adjuvant S-1 chemotherapy, dose reduction and dose schedule modification were conducted in 59% and 40% of the patients, respectively. Of the patients needing dose reduction, 79% underwent reduction within three months of treatment. The most common reason for dose reduction during the treatment period was anorexia (47%), followed by diarrhea (32%), leukopenia (24%) and rash (16%) with overlapping reasons. The duration period of the treatment was at least 3 months in 88%, at least 6 months in 82%, and scheduled 12 months in 73%. Twenty six patients discontinued treatment due to adverse event (20 patients), recurrent disease (2 patients) and other reasons (4 patients). The median duration until treatment discontinuation was 4.0 months. To date, 15 patients have recurrent disease. Significant predictive factors for recurrence were not statistically identified. Conclusions: Most patients (73%) could complete the scheduled treatment duration by dose reduction and dose schedule modification.

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Impacts of excision repair cross-complementing gene 1 (ERCC1), dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase, and epidermal growth factor receptor on the outcomes of patients with advanced gastric cancer

Using laser-captured microdissection and a real-time RT-PCR assay, we quantitatively evaluated mRNA levels of the following biomarkers in paraffin-embedded gastric cancer (GC) specimens obtained by surgical resection or biopsy: excision repair cross-complementing gene 1 (ERCC1), dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), and five other biomarkers related to anticancer drug sensitivity. The study group comprised 140 patients who received first-line chemotherapy for advanced GC. All cancer specimens were obtained before chemotherapy. In patients who received first-line S-1 monotherapy (69 patients), low MTHFR expression correlated with a higher response rate (low: 44.9% vs high: 6.3%; P=0.006). In patients given first-line cisplatin-based regimens (combined with S-1 or irinotecan) (43 patients), low ERCC1 correlated with a higher response rate (low: 55.6% vs high: 18.8%; P=0.008). Multivariate survival analysis of all patients demonstrated that high ERCC1 (hazard ratio (HR): 2.38 (95% CI: 1.55-3.67)), high DPD (HR: 2.04 (1.37-3.02)), low EGFR (HR: 0.34 (0.20-0.56)), and an elevated serum alkaline phosphatase level (HR: 1.00 (1.001-1.002)) were significant predictors of poor survival. Our results suggest that these biomarkers are useful predictors of clinical outcomes in patients with advanced GC.