Salvage systemic therapy for advanced gastric and oesophago-gastric junction adenocarcinoma

TRIFLURIDINE/TIPIRACIL (FTD/TPI) with or without bevacizumab in previously treated patients with esophago-gastric adenocarcinoma, a randomised phase III trial

Background

Trifluridine-tipiracil has shown a survival benefit compared with placebo in patients with chemorefractory metastatic esophago-gastric adenocarcinoma. We aimed to compare the efficacy of trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab vs trifluridine-tipiracil monotherapy in pre-treated patients with metastatic esophago-gastric adenocarcinoma.

Methods

This investigator-initiated, open-label, randomized trial enrolled patients with metastatic esophago-gastric adenocarcinoma. The main inclusion criteria were patients with pre-treated metastatic esophago-gastric adenocarcinoma, and WHO performance status 0 or 1. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral trifluridine-tipiracil (35 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-5 and 8-12 every 28 days) alone or combined with bevacizumab (5 mg/kg on days 1 and 15) until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient decision to withdraw. Randomisation was stratified by sex and treatment line. The primary endpoint was investigator-evaluated progression-free survival. All analyses were based on intention to treat. This trial is registered with EudraCT, 2018-004845-18.

Findings

From Oct 1, 2019, to Sept 30, 2021, 103 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to trifluridine-tipiracil (n = 53) or trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab (n = 50). The clinical cut-off date was March 1st, 2023, after a median follow-up of 36.6 months. Median progression-free survival was 3.1 months (95% CI 2.0-4.3) in the trifluridine-tipiracil group vs 3.9 months (3.0-6.3) in the trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab group (hazard ratio 0.68, 95% CI 0.46-1.02; p = 0.058). The most frequent grade 3 or worse adverse event was neutropenia, observed in 26 (49%) patients in the trifluridine-tipiracil group vs 23 patients (46%) in the trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab group. At least one hospitalization was observed in 21 patients (40%) in the trifluridine-tipiracil group and 22 patients (44%) in the trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab group. No deaths were deemed treatment related.

Interpretation

In patients with pre-treated metastatic esophago-gastric cancer, trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab, compared to trifluridine-tipiracil monotherapy, did not significantly prolong progression-free survival. The combination of trifluridine-tipiracil with bevacizumab was well tolerated without increase in severe neutropenia and no new safety signals.

Funding

Servier, Roche.

Targeting HER2 in Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma: Molecular Features and Updates in Clinical Practice

Gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (GEA) is one of the principal causes of death related to cancer globally. Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) is a tyrosine kinase receptor which is found to be overexpressed or amplified in approximately 20% of GEA cases. In GEA, the identification of HER2-positive status is crucial to activate a specific anti-HER2 targeted therapy. The landmark ToGA trial demonstrated the superiority of adding trastuzumab to platinum-based chemotherapy, becoming the first-line standard of treatment. However, unlike breast cancer, the efficacy of other anti-HER2 drugs, such as lapatinib, pertuzumab, and T-DM1, has failed to improve outcomes in advanced and locally advanced resectable GEA. Recently, the combination of trastuzumab with pembrolizumab, along with chemotherapy, and the development of trastuzumab deruxtecan, with its specific bystander activity, demonstrated improved outcomes, renewing attention in the treatment of this disease. This review will summarise historical and emerging therapies for the treatment of HER2-positive GEA, with a section dedicated to the HER2 molecular pathway and the use of novel blood biomarkers, such as circulating tumour DNA and circulating tumour cells, which may be helpful in the future to guide treatment decisions.

Optimizing the Continuum of Care in Gastric Cancer

Gastric cancer (GC) still ranks as the fifth most common malignancy and the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Despite the recent progress in the therapeutic algorithm of the advanced disease with the advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and next-generation HER2-directed therapies, survival rates remain poor, with a median survival hardly exceeding 12 months. Furthermore, only 40% of patients remain eligible for second- and later-line treatments due to the aggressiveness of the disease and the rapid deterioration of performance status (PS). Thus, current research is focusing either on the identification of novel treatment options or the development of personalized strategies to optimize the continuum of care and ultimately improve patients' outcome. In this article, we provide an overview of the current treatment landscape for advanced GC with a particular emphasis on later-line treatments and outline novel perspectives on the horizon.

Deficient Mismatch Repair Proteins in Gastric Mixed Neuroendocrine Non-Neuroendocrine Neoplasm: A Rare Case Report

Mixed neuroendocrine non-neuroendocrine neoplasm (MiNEN) is a rare type of gastric carcinoma with controversial diagnosis and treatment. Recent data implies that deficiency mismatch repair proteins inducing microsatellite instability are considered one of the potential drivers of this disease. Hence, we report a stomach MiNEN with MMR protein loss. An admitted 60-year-old woman complained of epigastric pain. The pathological analysis of the gastro-endoscopic biopsy specimen revealed gastric adenocarcinoma. The radiological staging was cT3N1M0; therefore, she received D2 distal gastrectomy. Suspecting neuroendocrine component admix with adenocarcinoma part on the resected specimen microscopy, applying biomarkers including AE 1/3, synaptophysin, and chromogranin A to confirm the diagnosis of MiNEN. The neuroendocrine part was classified as neuroendocrine tumor grade 2 with Ki 67 at 16.5%. To further understand the molecular characterization of this disease, we evaluated mismatch protein expression by staining MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2 antibodies. Interestingly, both components lost MLH1 and PMS2 proteins. Her radical surgery followed oxaliplatin/capecitabine adjuvant chemotherapy. The patient is still well after eight cycles of chemotherapy. dMMR gastric MiNENs and dMMR gastric cancer share many clinical and genetic characteristics. Further studies are necessary to survey the role of dMMR in the prognosis and treatment of this entity.

Clinicopathological Features and Treatment Outcome of Patients with Gastric Cancer in Lagos: Is the Outlook Getting Better?

Background

Gastric cancer (GC) is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in Nigeria. Significant advances in the management of GC in South-West Nigeria occurred in the last three decades.

Patients and Methods

This was a retrospective comparative study of patients with GC that presented at our tertiary hospital in the last three decades. Information on clinicopathological features and treatment outcome were analysed. Data of two consecutive periods; 1991-2004 (Group I) and 2005-2018 (Group II) were compared.

Results

Ninety-one patients were studied; Group I (47 patients), Group II (44 patients). The mean age was 56.4 ± 12.7 years and male-to-female ratio was 1.8 to 1.0. The predominant symptoms were epigastric pain in 81(89.0%) (43 vs. 38) and weight loss in 63(69.2%) (32 vs. 31), whereas the signs were epigastric tenderness in 44(46.1%) (24 vs. 20) and epigastric mass in 42(46.1%) (26 vs. 16). The overall mean duration of symptom was 12.3 ± 16.9 months. Barium meal diagnosed GC in 29(61.7%) patients in Group I vs. 4(9.1%) patients in Group II. Conversely, endoscopy diagnosed GC in 23(48.9%) patients in Group I vs. 37(84.1%) patients in Group II. Operations undertaken included palliative subtotal gastrectomy 26(28.6%), potentially curative subtotal gastrectomy 15(16.5%) and non-resectional surgeries in 27(29.7%) patients. The overall incidence of major post-operative complications was 33%. Thirty-nine (42.8%) of the studied patients were lost to follow up. The median postoperative survival for Groups I and II patients was 22 weeks and 58 weeks, P = 0.012, respectively.

Conclusion

The outcome of management of patients with GC at our tertiary hospital has improved modestly in the past three decades. Patients are still presenting late with very advanced disease.

The Roles of Non-Coding RNAs in Radiotherapy of Gastrointestinal Carcinoma

Radiotherapy (RT), or radiation therapy, has been widely used in clinical practice for the treatment of local advanced gastrointestinal carcinoma. RT causes DNA double-strand breaks leading to cell cytotoxicity and indirectly damages tumor cells by activating downstream genes. Non-coding RNA (including microRNAs, long non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs), and circular RNAs) is a type of RNA that does not encode a protein. As the field of ncRNAs increasingly expands, new complex roles have gradually emerged for ncRNAs in RT. It has been shown that ncRNAs can act as radiosensitivity regulators in gastrointestinal carcinoma by affecting DNA damage repair, cell cycle arrest, irradiation-induced apoptosis, cell autophagy, stemness, EMT, and cell pyroptosis. Here, we review the complex roles of ncRNAs in RT and gastrointestinal carcinoma. We also discuss the potential clinical significance and predictive value of ncRNAs in response to RT for guiding the individualized treatment of patients. This review can serve as a guide for the application of ncRNAs as radiosensitivity enhancers, radioresistance inducers, and predictors of response in RT of gastrointestinal carcinoma.

How to Put It Plainly? Findings From Two Randomized Controlled Studies on Writing Plain Language Summaries for Psychological Meta-Analyses

Plain language summaries (PLS) aim to communicate research findings to laypersons in an easily understandable manner. Despite the societal relevance of making psychological research findings available to the public, our empirical knowledge on how to write PLS of psychology studies is still scarce. In this article, we present two experimental studies investigating six characteristics of PLS for psychological meta-analyses. We specifically focused on approaches for (1) handling technical terms, (2) communicating the quality of evidence by explaining the methodological approach of meta-analyses, (3) explaining how synthesized studies operationalized their research questions, (4) handling statistical terms, (5) structuring PLS, and (6) explaining complex meta-analytic designs. To develop empirically validated guidelines on writing PLS, two randomized controlled studies including large samples stratified for education status, age, and gender (N Study1=2,288 and N Study2=2,211) were conducted. Eight PLS of meta-analyses from different areas of psychology were investigated as study materials. Main outcome variables were user experience (i.e., perceived accessibility, perceived understanding, and perceived empowerment) and knowledge acquisition, as well as understanding and knowledge of the quality of evidence. Overall, our hypotheses were partially confirmed, with our results underlining, among other things, the importance of explaining or replacing content-related technical terms (i.e., theoretical concepts) and indicating the detrimental effects of providing too many details on statistical concepts on user experience. Drawing on these and further findings, we derive five empirically well-founded rules on the lay-friendly communication of meta-analytic research findings in psychology. Implications for PLS authors and future research on PLS are discussed.

Bibliometric Evaluation of Publications (2000-2020) on the Prognosis of Gastric Cancer

Background: Gastric cancer remains a global malignancy. The role of bibliometric analysis is increasingly valued. It is feasible and necessary to perform a bibliometric analysis to regurgitate studies in the prognosis of gastric cancer. Materials and methods: Web of Science was selected for the dataset resource. Articles published between 2000 and 2020 within the database of Web of Science Core Collection were included with predefined search terms. CiteSpace version 5.7.R1 and R software program version 4.0.3 were used for bibliometric analysis with parameters extrapolated from included studies. Results: A total of 1721 articles were included from 2000 to 2020 with remarkably increasing trends. China (n=1183), Japan (n=218), and South Korea (n=119) showed the most publications. SUN YAT SEN University, FUDAN University, and NANJING MED University were the top institutions with most publications. Keywords with strongest citation bursts between 2000 and 2020 were characterized. Particularly, “statistics”, “resistance”, “mortality”, “lncrna”, “diagnosis”, “outcome”, “migration”, “promote,” and “regulatory t cell” were the latest rising keywords since 2017, indicating possible study trends ahead. Several articles showed strongest citation bursts, including Jemal A. CA-CANCER J CLIN, Van Cutsem E. LANCET, and Japanese Gastric Cancer Association GASTRIC CANCER. Conclusion: This bibliometric analysis provides a thought-provoking, insightful result concerning the trajectory of research development in prognosis of gastric cancer with a future perspective.

Salvage systemic therapy for advanced gastric and oesophago-gastric junction adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Salvage systemic therapy has become the new standard of care in patients with advanced gastric and oesophago-gastric junction (OGJ) adenocarcinoma, following disease progression on first-line fluoropyrimidine and platinum-containing chemotherapy. Pharmacological agents proven to be effective in this setting include both chemotherapy and biological therapy, however, the consensus on the best salvage systemic therapy has not been reached.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of systemic chemotherapy and biological therapy, either alone or in combination, on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with advanced gastric and OGJ adenocarcinoma, whose disease has progressed on, or relapsed after first-line fluoropyrimidine and platinum-containing chemotherapy. Adverse events (AEs), tumour response rate (TRR) and quality of life (QoL) associated with systemic chemotherapy and/or biological therapy were additionally assessed.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, trial registries and proceedings of the major oncology conferences up to October 2020. We additionally handsearched the reference lists of studies. No language restriction was applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing salvage systemic therapy (chemotherapy and/or biological therapy) and either another type of salvage systemic therapy, placebo, best supportive care (BSC) or no treatment in patients with gastric and OGJ adenocarcinoma refractory to first-line fluoropyrimidine and platinum-containing chemotherapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed selection of eligible studies and the primary author extracted study characteristics and outcome data from included studies. We assessed the quality and risk of bias of eligible studies according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We expressed pooled estimates of effect using hazard ratio (HR) calculated using an inverse variance random-effects model for time-to-event data, and risk ratio (RR) calculated using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model for binary data. The certainty of evidence was graded using GRADEpro.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 17 RCTs with 5110 participants for inclusion in this review. Tweenty-nine studies are ongoing and twenty studies are awaiting classification. No studies examined the following comparisons: chemotherapy combined with biological therapy versus placebo, BSC or no treatment, chemotherapy combined with biological therapy versus biological therapy, biological therapy versus biological therapy and chemotherapy combined with biological therapy versus chemotherapy combined with biological therapy. Chemotherapy versus placebo, best supportive care or no treatment Chemotherapy probably improves OS (HR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.83, moderate-certainty evidence) based on two studies involving 547 participants and improves PFS (HR = 0.57, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.69, high-certainty evidence) based on one study involving 507 participants over placebo and BSC. Chemotherapy probably increases serious AEs (SAEs) (RR = 1.38, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.59, moderate-certainty evidence) based on one study involving 503 participants. Biological therapy versus placebo, best supportive care or no treatment Biological therapy improves OS (HR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.73, high-certainty evidence) and probably improves PFS (HR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.57, moderate-certainty evidence) over placebo based on three studies involving 781 participants. There is currently insufficient evidence for increased SAEs from biological therapy (RR = 1.14, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.37, low-certainty evidence) based on two studies involving 638 participants. Chemotherapy versus biological therapy This comparison only considered immunotherapy. There is probably no evidence of a difference for OS (HR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.02, moderate-certainty evidence) between chemotherapy and immunotherapy, and immunotherapy probably reduces PFS (HR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.57, moderate-certainty evidence) based on one study involving 395 participants. SAEs may be less frequent with immunotherapy compared to chemotherapy (RR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.57, low-certainty evidence). Chemotherapy combined with biological therapy versus chemotherapy Addition of biological therapy to chemotherapy probably does not improve OS (HR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.04, moderate-certainty evidence) and we are uncertain whether it improves PFS (HR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.02, very low-certainty evidence) based on seven studies involving 2743 participants. We are similarly uncertain whether combined chemotherapy and biological therapy increases SAEs (RR = 1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.44, very low-certainty evidence) based on four studies involving 1618 participants. Chemotherapy versus chemotherapy There is no evidence of a difference for OS and PFS between irinotecan and paclitaxel (HR = 1.13, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.48, low-certainty evidence for OS; HR = 1.14, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.48, low-certainty evidence for PFS) based on one study involving 219 participants. Similarly, there is no evidence to indicate improved OS and PFS from addition of another chemotherapy to docetaxel (HR = 1.05, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.54, low-certainty evidence for OS; HR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.09, low-certainty evidence for PFS) based on two studies involving 121 participants. Grade ≥ 3 neutropenia occurred commonly with both mono- and poly-chemotherapy except for docetaxel-S1 and EOX chemotherapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Survival outcome of patients with advanced gastric and OGJ adenocarcinoma whose disease progressed on first-line fluoropyrimidine and platinum-containing chemotherapy can be improved by chemotherapy and biological therapy. Biological therapy, in particular, achieves this without clear increase in SAEs or QoL impairment. Whether biological therapy is preferred over chemotherapy is still unclear and there is no evidence of a difference for OS outcome, although immunotherapy may be associated with less SAEs. Addition of biological therapy to chemotherapy and poly-chemotherapy are associated with frequent treatment-related toxicity without clear survival benefit.