Docetaxel and oxaliplatin combination in second-line treatment of patients with advanced gastric cancer

Off-Label Use of Antineoplastic Drugs to Treat Malignancies: Evidence From China Based on a Nationwide Medical Insurance Data Analysis

Purpose: Cancer is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Off-label (OL) use of antineoplastic drugs to treat malignancies is prevalent. In this study, we quantified and characterized OL use of antineoplastic drugs to treat malignancies in China. Methods: This was a retrospective study using nationwide data collected from 2008 to 2010. Use of antineoplastic drugs was considered OL if they were used for indications not reflected in the package insert published by the National Medical Products Administration at the time of prescription. Descriptive analysis and Spearman rank correlation were used to evaluate the frequency and pattern of OL drug use. Results: In total, 51,382 patients with malignancies, 24 categories of antineoplastic drugs, and 77 types of malignancies treated with OL drugs were included in this study. Twenty commonly used antineoplastic drugs (ICD encoded as L01) were used OL in 10-61% of cases, and four commonly used endocrine therapy antineoplastic drugs (ICD encoded as L02) were used OL in 10-19% of cases. There was a significant negative correlation between the disease constituent ratio and the average OL use rate of antineoplastic drugs for various malignancies. In contrast, there was a significant positive correlation between the average OL use rate of antineoplastic drugs and the number of malignancies treated with OL drugs. Conclusion: This study provided information regarding OL use of antineoplastic drugs for treatment of malignancies, and showed that OL use was prevalent. In addition, uncommon malignancies were more likely to be treated with OL antineoplastic drugs. Furthermore, more commonly used antineoplastic drugs were more likely to be used OL.

CRS + HIPEC combined with IP + IV chemotherapy for gastric signet-ring cell carcinoma: Case report of long-term survival

RATIONALE

Signet ring cell carcinoma of the stomach is prone to relapse and metastasis after traditional surgical treatment, and the prognosis is also poor. We improved the concept of treatment and conducted cytoreductive surgery (CRS) plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) combined with intraperitoneal (IP) and intravenous (IV) chemotherapy for a gastric signet-cell carcinoma patient.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 65-year-old male patient with complaint of intermittent hematemesis for over 10 days was referred to our hospital for treatment. The patient developed hematemesis of 800 mL without obvious causes on May 27, 2015, accompanied by dizziness and amaurosis fugax. After the bleeding was stopped with medicinal treatment, diagnostic gastroscopy revealed an ulcer at the less curvature of the stomach, with biopsy pathology diagnosis as severe atypical hyperplasia, which was confirmed to be poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma by a second biopsy. In past medical history, the patient had 5 coronary stents implanted because of coronary atherosclerotic heart disease 3 years ago.

DIAGNOSIS

Gastric cancer (cT4NxMx) according to the patient's history and biopsy pathology.

INTERVENTIONS

the patient was treated surgery-based multidisciplinary treatments integrating CRS + HIPEC and IP + IV adjuvant chemotherapy. The CRS was curative distal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy, and HIPEC was cisplatin 120 mg plus mitomycin C 30 mg at 43 °C, for 60 minutes. Final pathological diagnosis of after surgery was: poorly differentiate adenocarcinoma with signet-ring cells, with invasion beyond the serosal layer and into the duodenum, 10/23 lymph nodes positive, nerve invasion, vascular tumor thrombi, Borrmann type IV, Lauren type diffuse. TNM stage was pT4aN3M0, IIIC. After operation, the patient received 6 courses of IV chemotherapy with oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil/Tegafur Gimeracil Oteracil Potassium capsules, and IP chemotherapy with docetaxel and carboplatin.

OUTCOMES

Regular follow-up till July 20, 2020, revealed that the patient has a disease-free survival of over 61+ months.

LESSONS

CRS + HIPEC combined with IP + IV chemotherapy achieved long-term disease-free survival for this patient with gastric signet-ring cell carcinoma and deserve further study. This new treatment modality deserves appropriate consideration in routine clinical practice for patients with advanced gastric cancer.

Efficacy and Safety of Xiao Ai Ping Injection Combined with Chemotherapy in Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Xiao Ai Ping injection (XAPI), extracted from the Chinese herbal medicine Marsdenia tenacissima, is widely used in the adjuvant treatment of tumors in China. The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of XAPI combined with chemotherapy for treating patients with advanced gastric cancer. Seven databases were searched for relevant studies published up to October 1, 2018, and Review Manager 5.3 software and Stata 12.0 software were used for meta-analysis. Fourteen studies, representing 1097 enrolled patients, were included in our analysis. Compared with chemotherapy alone, combination treatment with XAPI and the XELOX regimen (capecitabine plus oxaliplatin) was found to improve the objective response rate (ORR) [RR=1.36; 95%CI (1.10, 1.70); P=0.006], disease control rate (DCR) [RR=1.15; 95% CI (1.04, 1.28); P=0.010], and Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) improvement rate [RR=1.51; 95%CI (1.14, 2.00); P=0.004] and to reduce the incidence of leukopenia [RR=0.68; 95%CI (0.55,0.84); P=0.0005], liver damage [RR=0.59; 95% CI (0.37, 0.92); P=0.02], renal impairment [RR=0.39; 95% CI (0.18, 0.85); P=0.02], and hand-foot syndrome [RR=0.56; 95%CI (0.35,0.90); P=0.02]. However, median progression-free survival (PFS), 1-year survival rate, and median overall survival (OS) were not extended by XAPI plus XELOX. Combination treatment with XAPI and the SOX regimen (tegafur plus oxaliplatin) did not improve ORR or DCR, but it did enhance the KPS improvement rate [RR=1.73; 95%CI (1.23,2.43); P=0.002] and reduce the incidence of nausea and vomiting [RR=0.66; 95% CI (0.50, 0.88); P=0.004]. XAPI in combination with the FOLFOX regimen (fluorouracil/calcium folinate/oxaliplatin) enhanced only the KPS improvement rate [RR=1.68; 95%CI (1.18,2.39); P=0.004] and had no significant effect on ORR or DCR or the incidence of adverse events. A single study reported that XAPI combined with the CPT-11 regimen (irinotecan) was superior to chemotherapy alone with respect to DCR and also reduced the incidence of leukopenia, liver damage, and hand-foot syndrome during chemotherapy, while prolonging PFS. Finally, one study reported that XAPI combined with the TP regimen (palitaxel plus cisplatin) improved ORR and KPS improvement rate to a greater extent than TP alone. Although the present review has some limitations, the findings suggest that XAPI combined with chemotherapy may represent a beneficial treatment strategy, particularly the combination of XAPI and XELOX.

Third-line chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGOUND

Little information regarding to the survival advantage of third-line chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer patients is available. The current study is designed to systematically review and perform meta-analysis on the effect of third-line chemotherapy on progressive or recurrent gastric cancer treatment.

METHODS

After thorough searching of online databases, total 20 articles were included into qualitative systematic review and 6 of them were used to conduct qualitative meta-analysis.

RESULTS

It was found that the third-line chemotherapy was superior to placebo or best supportive care in terms of prolonging median oval survival (OS) length and progress free survival (PFS) length (Hedges's g for OS = -0.315 ± 0.077, P < .001; and for PFS = -0.382 ± 0.098, P < .001). In addition, the third-line chemotherapy was favored (Hedges's g = 0.848, P < .001) in terms of overall survival rate (Hazard ratio = 0.679, 95% confidence interval: 0.565-0.816, P < .001) or tumor free survival rate (Hazard ratio = 0.561, 95% confidence interval: 0.444-0.709, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

The third-line chemotherapy is superior to the best supportive care in advanced gastric cancer patients who had been pretreated with first-line and second-line chemotherapy.

Second-line treatment of metastatic gastric cancer: Current options and future directions

Gastric cancer remains one among the leading causes of cancer-related deaths, regardless of its decreasing incidence and newly available treatment options. Most patients present at an advanced stage and are treated with upfront systemic chemotherapy. Those patients receiving first-line therapy may initially respond to treatment, but many of them relapse over time. In such condition, second-line treatment for disease progression remains the only available option. Although there exists no standard approach in the second-line setting, several phase III trials have shown modest survival benefit in patients receiving irinotecan, taxane and ramucirumab over the best supportive care or active agents. This review analyzes the currently available treatment regimens and future directions of research in the second-line setting for metastatic gastric cancer with the best available evidence. Additionally, the prognostic factors that influence patient survival in those receiving second-line therapy are discussed.

Docetaxel and its potential in the treatment of refractory esophagogastric adenocarcinoma

Adenocarcinomas of the esophagus and stomach are a major cause of cancer-related morbidity and mortality worldwide. For patients with advanced disease, first-line chemotherapy with platinum-fluoropyrimidine combinations prolongs survival, but inevitably the disease progresses with a median progression-free survival of approximately 6 months. At the time of progression, approximately 40-50% of patients remain fit and eligible for second-line treatment. Docetaxel has been extensively studied in this chemorefractory setting, mostly in small single arm studies, either as a single agent or in combination with platinum agents, fluoropyrimidines or anthracyclines. However, two randomized controlled trials published since 2012 have convincingly shown that treatment with docetaxel modestly prolongs survival compared with best supportive care alone. Moreover, treatment with docetaxel is associated with relief from cancer-related constitutional and gastrointestinal symptoms with manageable, predominantly haematological, toxicity. Therefore, it represents a valuable treatment option for patients with relapsed esophagogastric cancer. Nevertheless, in view of the short survival time for the majority of these patients, further research is necessary to identify, on the one hand, combinations with targeted agents that will further improve outcomes and, on the other, biomarkers that will allow selection of those patients most likely to benefit.

In situ gel-forming dual drug delivery system for synergistic combination therapy of colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis

A novel local drug delivery system composed of docetaxel loaded micelles and an oxaliplatin loaded hydrogel was fabricated and proved to be potentially useful in the treatment of colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis.

Pemetrexed for previously treated patients with metastatic gastric cancer: a prospective phase II study

Background:

Gastric cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer-related death worldwide. There were debates on the value of the second-line and beyond chemotherapy by the time we designed this trial. So we designed this phase II trial to assess the efficacy and safety of pemetrexed in patients with pretreated metastatic gastric cancer.

Methods:

Thirty-four patients with pretreated metastatic gastric cancer were enroled in the study. Patients received pemetrexed 500 mg m⁻² every 21 days until the presence of progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity.

Results:

A total of 34 patients were enroled in the study; 34 were eligible for toxicity and 30 for response. The response rate was 13.3%, 13.3% patients achieved a partial response, 50.0% achieved stable disease and 36.7% had a PD as the best response. The median overall survival time and median progression-free survival time was 6.4 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.8–9.5 months) and 2.2 months (95% CI 2.0–5.5 months), respectively. Most haematologic and non-haematologic toxicity were grade 1/2. Grade 3/4 toxicity included fatigue, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, weight loss, anorexia and transaminase elevation.

Conclusions:

The monochemotherapy of pemetrexed is active and well tolerated when used in previously treated patients with metastatic gastric cancer.

Randomised phase II trial of docetaxel and sunitinib in patients with metastatic gastric cancer who were previously treated with fluoropyrimidine and platinum

BACKGROUND

Docetaxel is widely used as a chemotherapeutic agent for gastric cancer treatment. A combined regimen with sunitinib demonstrated a synergistic antitumour effect in a preclinical model. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this combination in patients with unresectable or metastatic advanced gastric cancer following failure of treatment with a fluoropyrimidine and platinum combination.

METHODS

This open-label, phase II, randomised trial enrolled patients with unresectable or metastatic gastric cancer. Patients were assigned to either a docetaxel monotherapy arm (D only arm: 60 mg m(-2), every 3 weeks) or a combination arm (DS arm: docetaxel+sunitinib 37.5 mg every day). The primary end point of the study was time to progression and the secondary end points were overall response rate, disease control rate, overall survival, and toxicity profile. A pharmacokinetic study was also performed.

RESULTS

A total of 107 patients were entered into the study. The TTP was not significantly prolonged in the DS arm when compared with the D only arm (DS vs D only arm: 3.9 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.9-4.9) vs 2.6 months (95% CI 1.8-3.5) (P=0.206). The hazard ratio for TTP was 0.77 (95% CI 0.52-1.16). However, the objective response rate was significantly higher in the DS arm (41.1% vs 14.3%, P=0.002). Patients in the DS arm experienced stomatitis, diarrhoea, and hand-foot syndrome more frequently.

CONCLUSION

The addition of sunitinib to docetaxel did not significantly prolong TTP, although it significantly increased response.

Randomised phase II trial of docetaxel and sunitinib in patients with metastatic gastric cancer who were previously treated with fluoropyrimidine and platinum

BACKGROUND

Docetaxel is widely used as a chemotherapeutic agent for gastric cancer treatment. A combined regimen with sunitinib demonstrated a synergistic antitumour effect in a preclinical model. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this combination in patients with unresectable or metastatic advanced gastric cancer following failure of treatment with a fluoropyrimidine and platinum combination.

METHODS

This open-label, phase II, randomised trial enrolled patients with unresectable or metastatic gastric cancer. Patients were assigned to either a docetaxel monotherapy arm (D only arm: 60 mg m(-2), every 3 weeks) or a combination arm (DS arm: docetaxel+sunitinib 37.5 mg every day). The primary end point of the study was time to progression and the secondary end points were overall response rate, disease control rate, overall survival, and toxicity profile. A pharmacokinetic study was also performed.

RESULTS

A total of 107 patients were entered into the study. The TTP was not significantly prolonged in the DS arm when compared with the D only arm (DS vs D only arm: 3.9 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.9-4.9) vs 2.6 months (95% CI 1.8-3.5) (P=0.206). The hazard ratio for TTP was 0.77 (95% CI 0.52-1.16). However, the objective response rate was significantly higher in the DS arm (41.1% vs 14.3%, P=0.002). Patients in the DS arm experienced stomatitis, diarrhoea, and hand-foot syndrome more frequently.

CONCLUSION

The addition of sunitinib to docetaxel did not significantly prolong TTP, although it significantly increased response.

A multiple-center phase II study of weekly docetaxel and oxaliplatin as first-line treatment in patients with advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Docetaxel and oxaliplatin are active agents for advanced gastric cancer (GC). The combination of these two drugs in a triweekly schedule is an active and attractive regimen for gastric cancer but with significant hematological toxicities. A multicenter phase II study was designed to establish an active regimen with good tolerability by using a weekly docetaxel-oxaliplatin (DO) combination in GC patients.

METHODS

Eligible patients had histologically confirmed stage IV gastric cancer without previous palliative chemotherapy; age ≥18 years; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≤2; at least one measurable lesion; and adequate hematological, renal, and liver functions. All patients received premedications with dexamethasone and 5-HT3 antagonist before the chemotherapy. Docetaxel (Taxotere®; Sanofi-Aventis) 30 mg/m(2) followed by oxaliplatin (Eloxatin®; Sanofi-Aventis) 65 mg/m(2) were administered on days 1 and 8 of each 21-day cycle. Treatment continued until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. Toxicities were graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria (NCI-CTC) version 3.0. Tumor responses were evaluated every 2 cycles by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Guidelines.

RESULTS

From May 2007 to December 2008, a total of 47 patients were enrolled. There were 8 females and 39 males with a median age of 57 years (range 26-76). Forty-three patients were evaluable for response. Two patients obtained a complete response (4.7%) and 12 patients had a partial response (27.9%), with an overall response rate of 32.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 19.1-48.5); 20 patients experienced stable disease (46.5%), and the disease progressed in 9 patients (20.9%). Median time to disease progression was 4.2 months and median overall survival was 8.3 months. All 47 patients were assessable for toxicity. Major grade 3/4 hematological toxicities were anemia (5 patients, 10.6%), neutropenia (2 patients, 4.3%), and leukopenia (1 patient, 2.1%). The most common grade 3/4 non-hematological toxicities were fatigue (3 patients, 6.4%) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) elevation in 3 patients (6.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of weekly DO demonstrated a well-tolerated profile with moderate activity in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer. Further studies of the combination together with a fluoropyrimidine are warranted.

A phase II study of biweekly mitomycin C and irinotecan combination therapy in patients with fluoropyrimidine-resistant advanced gastric cancer: a report from the Gastrointestinal Oncology Group of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG0109-DI Trial)

BACKGROUND

Preclinical studies have shown that mitomycin C (MMC) acts synergistically with irinotecan (CPT-11). In this phase II study, we evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of MMC/CPT-11 therapy as second-line chemotherapy for patients with fluoropyrimidine-resistant advanced gastric cancer.

METHODS

Eligible patients had evidence of tumor progression despite prior treatment with fluoropyrimidine-based regimens or had relapsed within 6 months after completion of therapy with adjuvant fluoropyrimidines. Treatment consisted of MMC (5 mg/m(2)) and CPT-11 (150 mg/m(2)) administered i.v. every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was the response rate (RR). Our hypothesis was that this combination therapy was efficacious when the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the RR exceeded 20% of the threshold RR.

RESULTS

Between April 2002 and July 2003, 45 eligible patients were registered and analyzed. Among the 45 patients, 40 (89%) had previously received chemotherapy for metastasis and 24 (53%) had a performance status (PS) of 0. Thirteen partial responses were obtained among the 45 patients, resulting in an overall RR of 29% (95% CI, 16-42%). The median time to progression was 4.1 months, and the median survival time was 10 months, with a 1-year survival rate of 36%. Grade 4 neutropenia was observed in 29% of the patients, whereas febrile neutropenia occurred in 9%. The incidence rates of grade 3 nausea and diarrhea were 13 and 2%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Although this study did not achieve the per-protocol definition of activity, the progression-free survival and overall survival appeared to be promising, with acceptable tolerability. Thus, MMC/CPT-11 therapy as second-line chemotherapy for fluoropyrimidine-resistant advanced gastric cancer presents a potential treatment option in patients with a good PS.

Second-line chemotherapy for gastric cancer: a new issue lies ahead in global trials

Chemotherapy for gastric cancer has been advancing fairly well. It has been indicated that not only advances in first-line chemotherapy but also those in second-line chemotherapy have contributed to the prolongation of overall survival. The Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie (AIO) study supports the idea that second-line chemotherapy is appropriate in patients with a good general condition. Also, the Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG) integral analysis suggests that advances have been made in second-line chemotherapy. However, most recently reported studies of second-line chemotherapy have been conducted as small-scale phase II or retrospective trials. No randomized control trial to establish standard treatment has been reported. Which regimen is the most appropriate as second-line therapy must be investigated in the future. Currently, molecularly targeted agents for gastric cancer are being developed and tested in global trials. As a new issue in global trials, second-line chemotherapy has been emphasized. In recent global trials, subset analysis showed regional differences in overall survival. This was possibly associated with the regional differences in second-line chemotherapy. When developing new molecularly targeted agents for first-line chemotherapy, we cannot ignore the result that the proportion of patients in whom treatment was switched to second-line chemotherapy was high in Asia. In planning a global trial, this new issue should be sufficiently discussed.

A phase II study of doxifluridine and docetaxel combination chemotherapy for advanced or recurrent gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to establish the efficacy and safety of doxifluridine and docetaxel for patients with advanced or recurrent gastric cancer.

METHODS

The regimen consisted of oral administration of doxifluridine 533 mg/m(2) per day on days 1-14 and an intravenous infusion of docetaxel 50 mg/m(2) on day 8. The primary endpoint was the overall response rate. The secondary endpoints were overall survival, progression-free survival, and toxicities.

RESULTS

Between June 2004 and December 2006, a total of 40 eligible patients were enrolled in this study. Seven of them showed a partial response, with an overall response rate of 17.5%. The response rate was 18.8% in 32 patients with refractory tumors. The median progression-free survival time and the median overall survival time were 2.6 months and 12.7 months, respectively, in all 40 patients; and 2.6 months and 14.0 months, respectively, in the 32 patients with refractory tumors. Grade 3/4 hematological toxicity included neutropenia in 52.5%, leukocytopenia in 17.5%, and febrile neutropenia in 7.5%. Grade 3 or more nonhematological toxicities were infrequent.

CONCLUSION

The combination chemotherapy of doxifluridine and docetaxel was well tolerated and relatively effective when used as a second-line chemotherapy for advanced or recurrent gastric cancer.

Advanced gastric cancer--slow but steady progress

Progress in gastric cancer has been slow, but steady. Historically, patients commonly presented with significant disease related co-morbidity and received treatment of marginal benefit but unfortunately associated with significant toxicity. Today there is no universally accepted reference standard chemotherapy for this disease. However, there is reason for optimism. Meta-analyses of randomized trials have shown a benefit for first-line combination chemotherapy. Current three drug chemotherapy regimens remain toxic, though perhaps less so than previously, and can result in a small but significant survival advantage in carefully chosen patients. Incremental improvements have been observed in both treatment-related toxicity and survival after first-line therapy. More patients are candidates for chemotherapy beyond progression with first-line therapy and response rates with second-line regimens are similar to those seen in other solid tumor malignancies. Although there is no randomized data to support its use second-line treatment should be considered in appropriate patients. Even before the integration of targeted therapies in the treatment of gastric cancer, it was evident that survival for more than 2 years is possible in a subset of patients and large retrospective studies have highlighted clinicopathologic factors associated with improved survival. Presently, with the addition of targeted therapy, especially anti-angiogenic and anti-Her2 therapy, and a better understanding of the biology of the disease, perhaps a sense of optimism should indeed suppress the nihilism commonly associated with this disease.

Is there a role for second-line chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer?

Gastric cancer remains one of the most common forms of cancer worldwide. Unfortunately, most patients will present with advanced-stage disease, and will therefore need palliative chemotherapy. Some chemotherapy regimens have been well established as first-line therapy, and have been shown to increase survival; however, almost all patients with metastatic gastric cancer will develop progressive disease after first-line therapy. With the availability of several active chemotherapy drugs, many patients who retain a good performance status after the initial treatment remain good candidates for additional therapy; however, no standard approach for second-line therapy exists. Many small, phase 2 trials have been done and the findings are variable. No data from randomised-controlled trials suggest a benefit of second-line chemotherapy compared with supportive care alone. We review the published data concerning the use of chemotherapy in the second-line setting for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer.

Docetaxel plus oxaliplatin (DOCOX) as a second-line treatment after failure of fluoropyrimidine and platinum in Chinese patients with advanced gastric cancer

The fluoropyrimidine and platinum-based combination chemotherapy is now widely used as first-line therapy for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Unfortunately, about half of all patients do not respond to the current first-line chemotherapy and furthermore, most patients who achieve response to first-line chemotherapy eventually experience disease progression. Although there is a need for effective salvage treatment after the failure of first-line chemotherapy, data on the safety and efficacy of second-line treatment in AGC is limited. The current study evaluated an experimental combination regimen of docetaxel (60 mg/m) as an intravenous infusion of less than 1 h, followed by oxaliplatin (130 mg/m) intravenously for less than 2 h. Both drugs were administered on day 1 of a 21-day cycle, in pretreated Chinese patients with AGC. The trial enrolled 48 patients of whom 46 (95.8%) were assessable for response. The median time to progression was 4.4 months (95% confidence interval (CI): 3.4-5.4 months) and the median overall survival was 7.2 months (95% CI: 6.6-12.1 months). Partial response was confirmed in 11 of 48 cases (22.9%; 95% CI: 10.9-34.9%) and no complete responses were seen. Significant hematologic toxicity was noted with grade 3 and grade 4 neutropenia occurring in 21.7 and 4.3% of patients, respectively, as well as grade 3 thrombocytopenia occurring in 4.3% of patients. Grade 3 febrile neutropenia occurred in 6.5% of the patients. There were no treatment-related deaths during on the study. In summary, docetaxel and oxaliplatin have modest activity with predictable hematologic toxicity when given as salvage therapy for Chinese patients treated earlier for AGC. Given the short duration of response more focus should be given to newer biologic agents and triplet regimens.

Is there an optimal chemotherapy regimen for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer that will provide a platform for the introduction of new biological agents?

Globally, gastric cancer is the second most common cause of cancer-related death. The majority of gastric cancer patients will have at presentation or will ultimately develop overt metastatic disease. Meta-analysis has demonstrated not only that systemic chemotherapy can improve survival in patients with advanced disease but also that the best survival results in earlier randomized studies have been achieved with three-drug regimens containing a fluoropyrimidine, an anthracycline, and cisplatin. Although there has been little progress historically in improving median overall survival times beyond the 9-month plateau achievable with the standard epirubicin-cisplatin-infusional 5-fluoropyrimidine (ECF) combination, the availability of newer cytotoxic anticancer agents has provided some measure of optimism that current outcomes can be improved. A number of new triplet and doublet combinations incorporating docetaxel, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, capecitabine, and S-1 have been explored in randomized trials. Although some combinations, such as epirubicin-oxaliplatin-capecitabine, have been shown to be as effective as (or perhaps more effective than) ECF, and although promising early data have been derived for S-1 in combination with cisplatin, a lack of studies in which direct comparisons have been made currently hinders the identification of the optimal regimen in this setting. One factor that might contribute to the lack of clear progress is the absence of consensus on the utility of second-line cytotoxic treatments. It can therefore be concluded that, although there is no first-line regimen that is clearly the most appropriate platform for the investigation of biological agents, there are a number of combinations that have been shown to be effective and therefore good candidates.