A randomized phase II study of combination therapy with S-1, oral leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (SOL) and mFOLFOX6 in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer

A phase 1 study of biweekly nab-paclitaxel/oxaliplatin/S-1/LV for advanced upper gastrointestinal cancers: TCOG T1216 study

BACKGROUND

Oxaliplatin- and fluoropyrimidine-based triplet regimens have demonstrated feasibility and efficacy in the treatment of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancers. Herein, we evaluate the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of biweekly nab-paclitaxel plus oxaliplatin and S-1/leucovorin (SOLAR) in chemonaïve UGI cancers.

METHODS

A 3 + 3 phase 1 study was conducted to determine the maximal tolerated dose (MTD) of oxaliplatin in SOLAR (nab-paclitaxel [150 mg/m2 in D1], oxaliplatin [60, 75, or 85 mg/m2 in D1], and oral S-1/leucovorin [35 mg/m2 and 30 mg bid from D1 to D7]). The secondary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety.

RESULTS

Thirteen and 6 accruals were in the dose-escalation and MTD expansion cohorts, respectively. One of 6 patients at level III experienced dose-limiting toxicity (grade 3 diarrhea), which revealed that the MTD of oxaliplatin was 85 mg/m2. After a mean of 15.9 cycles of treatment, the most common treatment-related grade 3/4 toxicities were neutropenia (57.9%) and diarrhea (21.1%). The ORR was 63.2%. The median PFS and OS were 12.5 and 24.7 months, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The current study revealed the MTD of oxaliplatin and demonstrated the preliminary efficacy of SOLAR in UGI cancers, which deserves further investigation.

CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT03162510.

Systematic review and non-inferiority meta-analysis of randomised phase II/III trials on S-1-based therapy versus 5-fluorouracil- or capecitabine-based therapy in the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

S-1 is an oral fluoropyrimidine that is increasingly used in Western countries for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We conducted a non-inferiority meta-analysis on the efficacy of S-1-based therapy versus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)- or capecitabine-based therapy in the treatment of patients with mCRC.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Opengrey were searched for randomised clinical trials until May 2021. Data were extracted for progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and adverse events. Pooled effect estimates, stratified by treatment line, with corresponding 99% confidence intervals (CI) were presented. For PFS, a pre-defined non-inferiority margin (ΔNI) of 1.25 was selected.

RESULTS

Ten studies (n = 2117) were included, of which six studies reported PFS and OS data and 10 studies reported ORR data. S-1-based therapy was shown to be non-inferior to 5-FU/capecitabine-based therapy in terms of PFS (HRtotal 0.95, 99% CI 0.83-1.08) with its CI upper limit well below ΔNI, and at least as efficacious in terms of OS (HRtotal 0.93, 99% CI 0.81-1.07), and ORR (RRtotal 1.06, 99% CI 0.90-1.24).

CONCLUSIONS

S-1-based therapy is non-inferior to 5-FU/capecitabine-based therapy in the treatment of mCRC regarding PFS and at least as efficacious as 5-FU/capecitabine-based therapy in terms of ORR and OS. These data support the use of S-1 in mCRC patients who are intolerant to 5-FU/capecitabine-based treatment.

Magnitude of advantage in tumor response contributes to a better correlation between treatment effects on overall survival and progression-free survival: a literature-based meta-analysis of clinical trials in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Although it is suggested that the endpoints originated from the concept of tumor shrinkage dynamics, such as early tumor shrinkage and depth of response, are strongly associated with overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), they are yet to be validated as a single surrogate endpoint of OS by themselves. This study aimed to investigate the impact of advantage in tumor response on the correlation between treatment effects on progression-free survival (PFS) and OS in mCRC patients.

METHODS

Based on an electronic search, we identified randomized controlled trials of first-line therapy for mCRC. The impact of advantage in objective response rate (ORR) on the correlation between treatment effects on PFS and OS was evaluated based on Spearman correlation coefficients (r_s).

RESULTS

Forty-seven trials with a total of 24,018 patients were identified. The hazard ratio for PFS showed a relatively higher correlation with that for OS (r_s = 0.63) when the trials were limited to those that demonstrated a larger difference in ORR, compared to the case for trials that demonstrated a smaller difference (r_s = 0.32). This tendency was also observed in the subgroup analysis stratified by the types of treatment agents (targeted or non-targeted).

CONCLUSIONS

The magnitude of advantage in tumor response was suggested to contribute to a better prediction of OS benefit based on PFS in patients with mCRC. The accuracy of OS estimation in mCRC is expected to be improved by considering the degree of tumor shrinkage in conjunction with PFS.

Meta-analysis of safety and efficacy of S-1-based regimens in treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

In recent years, some studies have found that oral S-1-based regimens are more effective than intravenous FOLFOX4/FOLFIRI regimen in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

AIM

To systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of S-1-based regimens in the treatment of patients with refractory mCRC by meta-analysis, and to provide evidence-based medicine-related evidence.

METHODS

Controlled trials evaluating S-1-based regimens for the treatment of mCRC from January 2009 to January 2019 were retrieved from VIP database, Wanfang Data, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, CNKI database, The Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase. Meta-analysis of the included studies was conducted with Revman 5.3 software and estimated by odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

The results of meta-analysis showed that the 3-year overall survival rate and 3-year recurrence-free survival rate were significantly higher in the study group (OR = 0.65, 95%CI: 0.47-0.89, P = 0.008; OR = 1.45, 95%CI: 1.03-2.06, P = 0.04). The study group had less adverse events than the control group (OR = 0.68, 95%CI: 0.53-0.87, P = 0.002). The incidence of bone marrow suppression, alopecia, nausea and vomiting, and skin reactions in the study group was significantly lower than that in the control group (P < 0.05)

CONCLUSION

S-1-based regimens have better efficacy and adverse event profile in the treatment of refractory mCRC than FOLFOX4/FOLFIRI regimen.

A multicenter, phase I/II trial of biweekly S-1, leucovorin, oxaliplatin and gemcitabine in metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma-TCOG T1211 study

BACKGROUND

This phase I/II study evaluated the feasibility and efficacy of S-1, leucovorin, oxaliplatin and gemcitabine (SLOG), a triplet regimen, for treating patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHODS

Patients with chemo-naive, metastatic PDAC were eligible to receive fixed-rate infusion (10 mg/m²/min) of gemcitabine of 800 mg/m² followed by oxaliplatin of 85 mg/m² on day 1 plus oral S-1 and leucovorin (20 mg/m²) twice daily from days 1 to 7 in a 2-week cycle. The dose of S-1 would be escalated from 20, 30, 35 to 40 mg/m2 in a 3 + 3 designed phase I part to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) for phase II study, in which the primary end-point was objective response rate (ORR). The recommended dose of S-1 was from phase I. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01415713.

RESULTS

Seventy-three patients were enrolled. In the phase I study (n = 19), the MTD of S-1 was 35 mg/m² twice daily. Of 54 patients in phase II, the ORR was 40.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 28%-55%). The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 7.6 (95% CI, 5.6-11.0) and 11.4 (95% CI, 8.1-16.3) months, respectively. The most common grade III/IV adverse event was neutropenia (40.7%). Twenty-four percent of patients had SLOG treatment for more than 1 year. The mean relative dose intensities of gemcitabine, oxaliplatin, and S-1 were 92%, 92% and 89%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Biweekly SLOG is a feasible regimen with promising activity and safety profiles. A randomised study comparing SLOG versus modified folinic acid, fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) in advanced PDAC is ongoing (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03443492).

Efficacy and safety assessment of S-1-based regimens comparing to intravenous fluorouracil-based ones in Asian patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma: A system review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We performed the present systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety for S-1-based regimens comparing to intravenous fluorouracil-based ones in Asian patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma (mCRC).

METHODS

Eligible prospective and controlled randomized clinical trials (RCT) were included, of which data were extracted by inclusion criteria and exclusion ones. Odds ratio (OR) and Hazard ratio (HR) of outcomes including objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progressive-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs) were explored for the final analysis between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

A total of 23 eligible prospective, controlled RCTs including 2269 patients were enrolled for the pooled analysis. With the meta-analysis of available data, the results of the present research showed that there was no statistical difference on short-term efficacy including ORR (HR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.71-1.01; P = .07) or DCR (HR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.69-1.11; P = .27), as well as long-term efficacy including PFS (HR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.90-1.11; P = .98) or OS (HR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.82-1.10; P = .50). In addition, the incidences of AEs including leucopenia, neutropenia, and vomiting were statistically lower in S-1-based regimens comparing to intravenous fluorouracil-based ones, regardless of all grade or high grade (all P <.05). However, there were no significant differences detected among other AEs including anemia, thrombocytopenia, increased alanine aminotransferase concentration, stomatitis, anorexia, diarrhea, hand-foot syndrome (HFS), or sensory neuropathy among the 2 groups (all P >.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The present meta-analysis revealed that S-1-based regimens might be associated with comparable efficacy, as well as lower risk of leucopenia, neutropenia, and vomiting at all/high grade comparing to intravenous fluorouracil-based ones in Asian patients with mCRC.

Oral fluoropyrimidine versus intravenous 5-fluorouracil for the treatment of advanced gastric and colorectal cancer: Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

5-Fluorouracil (5-Fu) is one of the most commonly prescribed antineoplastic agents against gastric and colorectal cancers. Continuous infusion would be the optimal way of its administration, however, may usually cause thrombosis, infection, and prolonged hospital stay. Oral fluoropyrimidines would be an attractive alternative, but their efficiency and toxicities for the treatment of gastric and colorectal cancer are still obscure as compared with infusion 5-Fu.

METHODS

Literature retrieval, trials selection and assessment, data collection, and statistic analysis were performed according to the Cochrane Handbook. The outcome measures were tumor response rate, progression-free survival, overall survival, and adverse effects.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine randomized controlled trials, comprising totally 15 154 patients, were included. Meta-analysis showed similar overall outcome in terms of response rate (1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-1.12), progression-free survival (hazard ratio 1.00; 95%CI, 0.94-1.06), and overall survival (hazard ratio 0.96; 95%CI, 0.92-1.01) between oral fluoropyrimidine-based and intravenous 5-Fu-based regimens in gastric and colorectal cancer patients. The risk of grade 3/4 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and stomatitis was more prominent in intravenous 5-Fu-based regimens; while more frequent grade 3/4 hand-foot syndrome, diarrhea, and anorexia were detected in oral fluoropyrimidine-based regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral-fluoropyrimidines showed equivalent response and similar survival outcomes, but different toxicity profiles, as compared with intravenous 5-Fu. Thus, it would be a more convenient and adjustable alternative in treatment of advanced gastric and colorectal cancer.

Network meta-analysis of the efficacy of first-line chemotherapy regimens in patients with advanced colorectal cancer

This network meta-analysis compared the short-term and long-term efficacies of first-line chemotherapy regimens in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). The 10 regimens included folinic acid + 5-fluorouracil + oxaliplatin (FOLFOX), folinic acid + 5-fluorouracil + irinotecan (FOLFIRI), folinic acid + 5-fluorouracil + gemcitabine (FFG), folinic acid + 5-fluorouracil + trimetrexate (FFT), folinic acid + 5-fluorouracil (FF), irinotecan + oxaliplatin (IROX), raltitrexed + oxaliplatin (TOMOX), folinic acid + tegafur-uracil (FTU), raltitrexed, and capecitabine. Electronic searches were performed in the Cochrane Library, PubMed and Embase databases from inception to June 2017. Network meta-analysis combined direct and indirect evidence to obtain odds ratios (ORs) and surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) of different chemotherapy regimens for advanced CRC. Fourteen randomized controlled trails (RCTs) covering 4,383 patients with advanced CRC were included. The results revealed that FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, IROX, and TOMOX all showed higher overall response rates (ORRs) than FF or raltitrexed. Compared with raltitrexed, the aforementioned four regimens also had higher 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates. In addition, FOLFOX and FOLFIRI exhibited higher disease control rates (DCRs) and 1-year PFS rates than FF or raltitrexed. Cluster analysis revealed that FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, and TOMOX had better short-term and long-term efficacies. These findings suggest FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, and TOMOX are superior to other regimens for advanced CRC. These three regimens are therefore recommended for clinical treatment of advanced CRC.

Phase II study of S-1 plus leucovorin in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: Regimen of 1 week on, 1 week off

A phase II study of S‐1 plus leucovorin (LV) given in a 4‐week schedule (2 weeks’ administration followed by 2 weeks’ rest) for patients with untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) showed that the combination was effective, but grade 3 toxicities (diarrhea, stomatitis and anorexia) occurred at a relatively high rate. In this phase II study, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of a 2‐week schedule of S‐1 plus LV. Patients with mCRC received oral S‐1 (40–60 mg) and LV (25 mg) twice daily for 1 week, followed by 1 week's rest. Treatment was repeated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was response rate. The pharmacokinetics of S‐1 and LV in Chinese patients were evaluated on day 1 of the first cycle. Seventy‐three patients were enrolled in Japan and China. Of 71 eligible patients, the response rate was 53.5%, and the disease control rate was 83.1%. Median progression‐free survival and median overall survival were 6.5 and 24.3 months, respectively. The incidences of grade 3 toxicities were diarrhea 8.3%, stomatitis 8.3%, anorexia 2.8% and neutropenia 9.7%. There were no treatment‐related deaths. The pharmacokinetics profiles of S‐1 plus LV in Chinese patients were similar to those in Japanese patients. This 2‐week schedule of S‐1 plus LV showed good efficacy and better tolerability than the 4‐week schedule. This therapy will be the base regimen for mCRC to be added by other cytotoxic or molecular‐targeted drugs. The optimized treatment schedule for S‐1 plus LV was 1 week on and 1 week off.

Oral versus intravenous fluoropyrimidines for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Patients prefer oral to intravenous (IV) palliative chemotherapy, provided that oral therapy is not less effective. We compared the efficacy and safety of oral and IV fluoropyrimidines for treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of oral and IV fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy in patients treated with curative or palliative intent for CRC.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 5), along with OVID MEDLINE, OVID Embase, and Web of Science databases, in June 2016. We also searched five clinical trials registers, several conference proceedings, and reference lists from study reports and systematic reviews. We contacted pharmaceutical companies to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral and IV fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy in patients treated with curative or palliative intent for CRC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently. We assessed the seven domains in the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and three additional domains: schedules of outcome assessment and/or follow-up; use of intention-to-treat analysis; and baseline comparability of treatment arms.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs (total of 10,918 participants) that examined treatment with curative intent for CRC with neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant chemotherapy. We included 35 RCTs (total of 12,592 participants) that examined treatment with palliative intent for inoperable advanced or metastatic CRC with chemotherapy (31 first-line studies, two second-line studies, and two studies of first- or second-line chemotherapy). All studies included male and female participants, and no studies included participants younger than 18 years of age. Patients treated with curative intent for CRC with neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant chemotherapy • Disease-free survival (DFS): DFS did not differ between participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (hazard ratio (HR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.00; seven studies, 8903 participants; moderate-quality evidence).• Overall survival (OS): OS did not differ between participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.00; seven studies, 8902 participants analysed; high-quality evidence).• Grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs): Participants treated with oral fluoropyrimidines experienced less grade ≥ 3 neutropenia/granulocytopenia (odds ratio (OR) 0.14, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.16; seven studies, 8087 participants; moderate-quality evidence), stomatitis (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.30; five studies, 4212 participants; low-quality evidence), and any grade ≥ 3 AEs (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.90; five studies, 7741 participants; low-quality evidence). There was more grade ≥ 3 hand foot syndrome (OR 4.59, 95% CI 2.97 to 7.10; five studies, 5731 participants; low-quality evidence) in patients treated with oral fluoropyrimidines. There were no differences between participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines in occurrence of grade ≥ 3 diarrhoea (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.25; nine studies, 9551 participants; very low-quality evidence), febrile neutropenia (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.90; four studies, 2925 participants; low-quality evidence), vomiting (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.34; eight studies, 9385 participants; low-quality evidence), nausea (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.51; seven studies, 9233 participants; low-quality evidence), mucositis (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.62; four studies, 2233 participants; very low-quality evidence), and hyperbilirubinaemia (OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.52 to 5.38; three studies, 2757 participants; very low-quality evidence). Patients treated with palliative intent for inoperable advanced or metastatic CRC with chemotherapy • Progression-free survival (PFS): Overall, PFS was inferior in participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.11; 23 studies, 9927 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Whilst PFS was worse in participants treated with oral compared with IV fluoropyrimidines when UFT/Ftorafur or eniluracil with oral 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) was used, PFS did not differ between individuals treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines when capecitabine, doxifluridine, or S-1 was used.• OS: Overall, OS did not differ between participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.05; 29 studies, 12,079 participants; high-quality evidence). OS was inferior in participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines when eniluracil with oral 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) was used.• Time to progression (TTP): TTP was inferior in participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (HR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.14; six studies, 1970 participants; moderate-quality evidence).• Objective response rate (ORR): ORR did not differ between participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.06; 32 studies, 11,115 participants; moderate-quality evidence).• Grade ≥ 3 AEs: Participants treated with oral fluoropyrimidines experienced less grade ≥ 3 neutropenia/granulocytopenia (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.18; 29 studies, 11,794 participants; low-quality evidence), febrile neutropenia (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.36; 19 studies, 9407 participants; moderate-quality evidence), stomatitis (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.33; 21 studies, 8718 participants; low-quality evidence), mucositis (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.24; 12 studies, 4962 participants; low-quality evidence), and any grade ≥ 3 AEs (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.94; 14 studies, 5436 participants; low-quality evidence). There was more grade ≥ 3 diarrhoea (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.50 to 1.84; 30 studies, 11,997 participants; low-quality evidence) and hand foot syndrome (OR 3.92, 95% CI 2.84 to 5.43; 18 studies, 6481 participants; moderate-quality evidence) in the oral fluoropyrimidine arm. There were no differences between oral and IV fluoropyrimidine arms in terms of grade ≥ 3 vomiting (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.40; 23 studies, 9528 participants; low-quality evidence), nausea (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.36; 25 studies, 9796 participants; low-quality evidence), and hyperbilirubinaemia (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.64; nine studies, 2699 participants; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Results of this review should provide confidence that treatment for CRC with most of the oral fluoropyrimidines commonly used in current clinical practice is similarly efficacious to treatment with IV fluoropyrimidines. Treatment with eniluracil with oral 5-FU was associated with inferior PFS and OS among participants treated with palliative intent for CRC, and eniluracil is no longer being developed. Oral and IV fluoropyrimidines have different patterns of side effects; future research may focus on determining the basis for these differences.

Phase II study of oxaliplatin combined with S-1 and leucovorin (SOL) for Chinese patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin are widely used for patients with colorectal cancer. This phase II study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination of S-1, oxaliplatin, and leucovorin (SOL) in the treatment of Chinese patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

METHODS

Eligible patients with untreated mCRC from four hospitals in China received intravenous oxaliplatin (85 mg/m(2)) on day 1, oral S-1 twice daily (80-120 mg per day) on day 1-7, and leucovorin twice daily (50 mg per day) simultaneously with S-1, every 2 weeks.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Forty patients were enrolled in our study. In total, 296 cycles of SOL were administered. The overall response rate was 50.0%. At a median follow-up of 27 months, progression-free survival and overall survival were 7.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.0-10.6 months) and 22.2 months (95% CI 15.1-29.3 months), respectively. The most common grade 3/4 non-hematological adverse events were diarrhea (n = 8, 20.0%), nausea (n = 3, 7.5%), and vomiting (n = 3, 7.5%). The most common grade 3/4 hematological toxicities were thrombocytopenia (n = 3, 7.5%), neutropenia (n = 1, 2.5%), and abnormal alanine transaminase/aspartate transaminase levels (n = 1, 2.5%). There was one treatment-related death.

CONCLUSIONS

The data indicate that the SOL regimen is effective and moderately tolerated in Chinese patients with mCRC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION

ChiCTR-TNRC-100000838.

S-1 plus leucovorin versus S-1 plus leucovorin and oxaliplatin versus S-1 plus cisplatin in patients with advanced gastric cancer: a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND

Although leucovorin enhances the efficacy of fluorouracil, the anti-tumour activity of S-1 and leucovorin and their combination with oxaliplatin for patients with advanced gastric cancer is unknown. We compared the activity and safety of S-1 plus leucovorin, S-1 plus leucovorin and oxaliplatin, and S-1 plus cisplatin as first-line chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer.

METHODS

In this multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial, we recruited chemotherapy-naive patients with unresectable or recurrent gastric cancer with measurable lesions aged 20 years or older from 25 general hospitals and specialist centres in Japan. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) centrally to receive S-1 plus leucovorin (S-1 40-60 mg orally plus oral leucovorin 25 mg twice a day for 1 week, every 2 weeks), S-1 plus leucovorin and oxaliplatin (S-1 plus leucovorin and intravenous oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) on day 1, every 2 weeks), or S-1 plus cisplatin (S-1 40-60 mg orally twice a day for 3 weeks, plus intravenous cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) on day 8, every 5 weeks). Randomisation was done with the minimisation method using performance status (0 vs 1) and tumour stage (stage IV vs recurrent) as stratification factors. The primary endpoint was independently reviewed overall response in the full analysis set. This trial is registered with Japic CTI, number 111635.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 20, 2011, and Dec 17, 2012, we enrolled and randomly assigned 145 patients: 49 patients were assigned to S-1 plus leucovorin, 47 to S-1 plus leucovorin and oxaliplatin, and 49 to S-1 plus cisplatin. An objective response assessed by the independent review committee was achieved in 20 (43% [95% CI 28·3-57·8]) of the 47 patients in the S-1 plus leucovorin group, 31 (66% [50·7-79·1]) of the 47 patients in the S-1 plus leucovorin and oxaliplatin group, and 22 (46% [31·4-60·8]) of the 48 patients in the S-1 plus cisplatin group (Fisher's exact test, p=0·84 for S-1 plus leucovorin vs S-1 plus cisplatin, p=0·063 for S-1 plus leucovorin and oxaliplatin vs S-1 plus cisplatin, and p=0·038 for S-1 plus leucovorin and oxaliplatin vs S-1 plus leucovorin). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (three [6%] of 48 patients in the S-1 plus leucovorin group vs 12 [26%] of 47 patients in the S-1 plus leucovorin and oxaliplatin group vs 17 [35%] of 49 patients in the S-1 plus cisplatin group), decreased appetite (six [13%] vs 14 [30%] vs 12 [24%]), anaemia (five [10%] vs seven [15%] vs 13 [27%]), and hyponatraemia (two [4%] vs two [4%] vs nine [18%]).

INTERPRETATION

S-1 plus leucovorin and oxaliplatin was more active than S-1 plus leucovorin or S-1 plus cisplatin with acceptable toxic effects for patients with advanced gastric cancer. A phase 3 trial comparing S-1 plus leucovorin and oxaliplatin with S-1 plus cisplatin is underway.

FUNDING

Taiho Pharmaceutical.

S-1-based regimens and the risk of oral and gastrointestinal mucosal injury: a meta-analysis with comparison to other fluoropyrimidines

BACKGROUND

We performed a meta-analysis of the risk of oral and gastrointestinal (GI) mucosal injury associated with S-1-based regimens.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Randomized phase II and III trials of patients with solid tumors on S-1; describing events of all-grade and high-grade stomatitis and diarrhea constituted the eligible studies.

RESULTS

After exclusion of ineligible studies, a total of 26 clinical trials were considered eligible for the meta-analysis. The odds ratio (OR) of all-grade and high-grade stomatitis for S-1 vs. non-fluoropyrimidine controls was 4.39 [95% CI: 1.05, 18.37; p = 0.04] and 5.64 [95% CI: 1.46, 21.77; p = 0.01], respectively; while the OR of all-grade and high-grade stomatitis for S-1 vs. infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) control was -1.01 [95% CI: 0.22, 4.63; p = 0.99] and 0.32 [95% CI: 0.20, 0.49; p < 0.00001], respectively. The OR of all-grade and high-grade diarrhea for S-1 vs. non-fluoropyrimidine controls was 2.48 [95% CI: 2.12, 2.90; p < 0.00001] and 1.95 [95% CI: 1.29, 2.96; p = 0.002], respectively; while the OR of all-grade and high-grade diarrhea for S-1 vs. infusional 5-FU control was -1.03 [95% CI: 0.87, 1.22; p = 0.76] and 2.52 [95% CI: 1.80, 3.52; p < 0.00001], respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to non-fluoropyrimidine control, patients treated with S-1-based regimens have an increased risk of all-grade and high-grade stomatitis and diarrhea; while on the other hand, patients treated with infusional 5-FU have a greater risk of high-grade stomatitis and diarrhea compared to patients treated with S-1-based regimens.