Irinotecan combined with 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin third-line chemotherapy after failure of fluoropyrimidine, platinum, and taxane in gastric cancer: treatment outcomes and a prognostic model to predict survival

Real-world outcomes of third-line immune checkpoint inhibitors versus irinotecan-based chemotherapy in patients with advanced gastric cancer: a Korean, multicenter study (KCSG ST22-06)

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) or irinotecan-based chemotherapy is frequently used after failure of second-line paclitaxel plus ramucirumab treatment for patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic advanced gastric cancer (AGC). This study aimed to compare the efficacy between ICI and irinotecan-based chemotherapy as third-line treatment in patients with AGC.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients with AGC, whose third-line treatment started between July 2019 and June 2021 at 17 institutions in Korea. The ICI group included patients who received nivolumab or pembrolizumab, and the irinotecan-based chemotherapy group included patients who received irinotecan or FOLFIRI (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin and irinotecan).

RESULTS

A total of 363 patients [n = 129 (ICI) and n = 234 (irinotecan-based chemotherapy)] were analyzed. The median progression-free survival was 2.3 and 2.9 months in ICI and irinotecan-based chemotherapy groups, respectively (p = 0.802). The median overall survival (OS) was 5.5 and 6.0 months in ICI and irinotecan-based chemotherapy groups, respectively (p = 0.786). For all patients included in this study, multivariable analysis showed that weight loss, peritoneal metastasis, low serum sodium or albumin, and short duration of second-line treatment were associated with inferior OS (p < 0.05). ICI showed significantly longer OS than irinotecan-based chemotherapy in patients without peritoneal metastasis. Whereas ICI showed significantly shorter OS in patients without PD-L1 expression than irinotecan-based chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant difference in survival outcome was observed between ICI and irinotecan-based chemotherapy as third-line treatment for AGC patients. ICI might be preferred for patients without peritoneal metastasis and irinotecan-based chemotherapy for patients with tumors without PD-L1 expression.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered in the Clinical Trial Registry of Korea ( https://cris.nih.go.kr : KCT 0007732).

HTA and Gastric Cancer: Evaluating Alternatives in Third- and Fourth-Line Patients

Metastatic gastric cancer (mGC) represents an economic and societal burden worldwide. The present study has two aims. Firstly, it evaluates the benefits and the added value of the introduction of trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) in the Italian clinical practice, defining the comparative efficacy and safety profiles with respect to the other available treatment options (represented by the best supportive care (BSC) and FOLFIRI (5-FU, irinotecan, and leucovorin) regimens). Secondly, it assesses the potential economic and organizational advantages for hospitals and patients, focusing on third- and fourth-line treatments. For the achievement of the above objective, a health technology assessment study was conducted in 2021, assuming the NHS perspective within a 3-month time horizon. The literature reported a better efficacy of FTD/TPI with respect to both BSC and FOLFIRI regimens. From an economic perspective, despite the additional economic resources that would be required, the investment could positively impact the overall survival rate for the patients treated with the FTD/TPI strategy. However, the innovative molecule would lead to a decrease in hospital accesses devoted to chemotherapy infusion, ranging from a minimum of 34% to a maximum of 44%, strictly dependent on FTD/TPI penetration rate, with a consequent opportunity to take on a greater number of oncological patients requiring drug administration for the treatment of any other cancer diseases. According to experts' opinions, lower perceptions of FTD/TPI emerged concerning equity aspects, whereas it would improve both individuals' and caregivers' quality of life. In conclusion, the results have demonstrated the strategic relevance related to the introduction of FTD/TPI regarding the coverage of an important unmet medical need of patients with metastatic gastric cancer who were refractory to at least two prior therapies, with important advantages for patients and hospitals, thus optimizing the clinical pathway of such frail patients.

Third- and Late Line Treatments of Metastatic Gastric Cancer: Still More to Be Done

In recent years, advances of anticancer and supportive therapies have determined a gradual improvement in survival rates and patients’ general conditions in metastatic gastric cancer (mGC), allowing them to receive further treatments. The choice of treatment is driven by performance status, age, stage of disease, number of metastatic sites and time from the first to third line of treatment. Targets such as microsatellite instability, PD-L1 expression, and HER2 overexpression or amplification may be addressed to personalise treatment and prolong survival. Despite a growing number of third line options that have provided clinicians with greater opportunities to customise treatments, up to date few agents have been demonstrated as effective after two standard lines for mGC; for these reasons, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and targeted therapy were all widely investigated in both phase II and phase III studies. Overall, TAS-102, apatinib, regorafenib, nilotinib, trastuzumab, and pembrolizumab were demonstrated to be valid options in the third line scenario for mGC patient refractory to at least two lines of therapy. A multimodal approach based on chemotherapy, immunotherapy, targeted agents, a personalised nutritional programme as well as the research of new predictive biomarkers may pave the way to new strategies to identify the best treatment for each patient.

What is the value of third-line chemotherapy in advanced gastroesophageal cancer? A 5-year retrospective analysis at a single center

AIM

The survival benefit of using a non-cross resistant second-line chemotherapy in the third-line setting in metastatic gastroesophageal cancer is unproven. We evaluated the utility of third-line chemotherapy in patients treated at a single institution.

METHODS

Between 2010 and 2014, efficacy and toxicity data of patients who received three or more lines of systemic therapies for metastatic gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma at the National Cancer Centre Singapore was retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Thirty-two (6%) patients received three or more lines of chemotherapy. The median age and ECOG performance status were 59 years (36-82) and 1 (0-2), respectively. Majority of patients (88%) had tumor located in the stomach and 13 patients (41%) had diffuse histology or poorly cohesive or signet ring cells. Four (12%) patients had HER2-positive disease. Prior therapy was platinum (100%), fluoropyrimidine (97%), taxane (63%), irinotecan (28%), anthracycline (13%) and ramucirumab (3%). Third-line therapy consisted of 24 (75%) monotherapy, 6 (19%) doublet, 1 (3%) triplet chemotherapy and 1 (3%) clinical trial. Monotherapy irinotecan (44%) was most common, followed by docetaxel (19%) and paclitaxel (9%). Of 22 patients evaluable for response, there was 1 (5%) partial response, 9 (41%) stable disease. Median overall survival was 18.3 weeks (4.3-65.1). Of 30 patients evaluable for toxicities, 17 (57%) experienced at least one grade 3 or 4 toxicities.

CONCLUSION

The benefit of using non-cross resistant second-line regimens as third-line chemotherapy was small with moderate toxicity. Newer agents such as nivolumab or TAS-102 or clinical trial may be preferred.

Novel Agents in Heavily Pretreated Metastatic Gastric Cancer: More Shadows Than Lights

Metastatic gastric cancer is still a disease with a poor prognosis. Recently, different novel agents (e.g., apatinib, nivolumab, TAS-102) have demonstrated a survival advantage compared with placebo for patients with heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer. Although the possible availability of active agents may be a desirable option in a very poor therapeutic scenario, clinical data from the recent studies with these drugs raise yet controversial issues. The purpose of this review is to briefly summarize the results of these novel drugs focusing on the limitations that bring some shadows on their positive therapeutic results.

Third-line systemic treatment in advanced/metastatic gastric cancer: a comprehensive review

The management of advanced gastric cancer has improved over the past decade. There is more evidence to support the efficacy of systemic treatment in refractory gastric cancer beyond second-line treatment. Important randomized controlled trials of chemotherapies, targeted agents and immunotherapies have been reported. With the development of these novel therapies, clinicians can better individualize treatment for patients beyond progression on second-line therapy. However, there is no guideline on third-line therapy available for clinicians. This review discussed the efficacy and safety data from the pivotal trials of the agents proven to be effective in third-line settings, including the quality of study design, level of evidence and subgroup analysis, and how the data can help to guide clinicians on selecting the most appropriate third-line therapy for their patients.

The influence of prior ramucirumab treatment on the clinical activity of FOLFIRI as third-line therapy in patients with metastatic gastric Cancer

Purpose Few data described the activity of chemotherapy after ramucirumab plus paclitaxel progression in metastatic gastric cancer patients. The aim of this phase II study is to assess the efficacy and safety of the FOLFIRI regimen as a third-line of treatment. Methods The study enrolled patients with histologically proven metastatic gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction carcinoma whose disease had progressed after ramucirumab-based second line of treatment. Treatment consisted of biweekly irinotecan 150 mg/m2 as a 1-h infusion on day 1, folinic acid 100 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1-2, and 5-fluorouracil as a 400 mg/m2 bolus and then 600 mg/m2 continuous infusion over 22 h on days 1-2. Primary end-point was tumor response rate (confirmed complete and partial response). Results Twenty-six patients were enrolled. Overall response rate and disease control rate were 11.5% and 38.5%. The median progression free survival (PFS) was 52 days (95% CI:42-74), and the median overall survival was 117 days (95% CI: 94-154). no unexpected adverse events have been observed. A longer PFS and OS were observed in patients who had achieved PFS ≥ 3 months during prior ramucirumab treatment. Conclusions Our findings suggest a poor efficacy of the FOLFIRI regimen in metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer patients whose disease progressed during a ramucirumab-based second line of treatment. However, FOLFIRI could be an option for patients who responded to prior ramucirumab.

Concurrent apatinib and docetaxel vs apatinib monotherapy as third- or subsequent-line therapy for advanced gastric adenocarcinoma: a retrospective study

Purpose

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of concurrent apatinib and docetaxel therapy vs apatinib monotherapy as third- or subsequent-line treatment for advanced gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC).

Methods

Patients, who had received apatinib with or without docetaxel as third or more line therapy for advanced GAC, were retrospectively reviewed. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to minimize the potential confounding bias. Kaplan–Meier curve and log-rank test were used to analyze the survival. Prognostic factors were estimated by Cox regression. Adverse events (AEs) were evaluated using CTCAE 4.0.

Results

Thirty-four patients received concurrent therapy, whereas 31 received monotherapy. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in monotherapy and con-therapy groups were 2.5 and 4 months (P=0.002), 3.3 and 6 months (P=0.004), respectively. After PSM, the median PFS and OS in the con-therapy group were also superior to the monotherapy group (P=0.004 and P=0.017). Cox regression suggested that Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS; HR =2.437, 95% CI: 1.349–4.404, P=0.003), CA199 (HR =1.001, 95% CI: 1.000–1.002, P=0.016), and treatment options (HR =0.388, 95% CI: 0.222–0.679, P=0.001) had significant effects on OS. Grade 3/4 toxicities in the monotherapy and con-therapy groups were as follows: leukopenia (0% vs 8.8%), neutropenia (3.2% vs 2.9%), anemia (9.8% vs 8.8%), thrombocytopenia (6.4% vs 2.9%), proteinuria (3.2% vs 2.9%), aminotransferase (0% vs 11.8%), hyperbilirubinemia (9.8% vs 5.9%), hypertension (9.8% vs5.9%), hand–foot syndrome (3.2% vs 8.8%), nausea and vomiting (0% vs 11.8%), diarrhea (0% vs 5.9%), and fatigue (6.5% vs 2.9%).

Conclusion

Patients with advanced GAC benefit more from concurrent apatinib and docetaxel therapy than apatinib monotherapy.

Efficacy and toxicity of apatinib combined with or without chemotherapy for patients with advanced or metastatic chemotherapy-refractory gastric adenocarcinoma: A prospective clinical study

Apatinib (Jiangsu HengRui Medicine Co. Ltd), a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR-2) tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has been proven to be safe and to significantly prolong survival in advanced chemotherapy-refractory gastric cancer. This study aimed to assess and compare the efficacy and safety of apatinib combined with chemotherapy with that of chemotherapy alone as second- or higher-line treatment in patients with advanced and metastatic gastric or those with metastatic gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (mGC).Patients with chemotherapy-refractory mGC at Jiangsu Cancer Hospital & Research Institute were prospectively enrolled and assigned into 2 groups at a 2:1 ratio. The first group (combination group) comprised patients with combination treatment (apatinib + chemotherapy), while the second group comprised patients treated with chemotherapy alone (chemotherapy group). The dose of apatinib was 500 mg/d, and the chemotherapy regimens were based on fluoropyrimidine, platinum, and paclitaxel or irinotecan. The primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS).Between November 2014 and December 2016, 175 patients were enrolled. PFS was significantly improved in the combination group compared with that in the chemotherapy group (8.5 months [95% confidence interval [CI], 6.45-10.54] vs 7.0 months [95% CI, 5.12-8.88] P = .021; hazard ratio (HR): 0.645 [95% CI: 0.429-0.969] P = .035). The disease control rate (DCR) was also higher in the combination group than that in the chemotherapy group (58.4% vs 41.9%, P = .041). Moreover, the incidence of Grade 3 to 4 hand-foot syndrome, proteinuria, and hypertension was significantly different between the 2 groups. Combined therapy (P = .040) and metastatic sites <2 (P = .008) were the independent prognostic factors for disease progression.Compared with chemotherapy alone, the addition of apatinib to chemotherapy could better improve PFS and DCR with an acceptable safety profile for mGC refractory to 1 or more line of prior chemotherapy.

Salvage chemotherapy with the combination of oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and 5-fluorouracil in advanced gastric cancer refractory or intolerant to fluoropyrimidines, platinum, taxanes, and irinotecan

BACKGROUND

Although nivolumab showed survival benefit in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) progressing after standard chemotherapy, there is a lack of data regarding oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in this clinical setting.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated the efficacy and safety of oxaliplatin with l-leucovorin and bolus/continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil as salvage treatment in patients with AGC refractory or intolerant to fluoropyrimidines, cisplatin, taxanes, and irinotecan.

RESULTS

Overall, 50 patients treated between December 2009 and December 2013 were included in this analysis. The overall response rate (ORR) was 21.2% among 33 patients with measurable disease. The median time to treatment failure (TTF) and overall survival (OS) were 2.4 and 4.2 months. In multivariate analysis, factors associated with OS included poor performance status [hazard ratio (HR) 3.20; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.55-6.60], shorter time from the start of first-line therapy (HR 2.20; 95% CI 1.18-4.12), and higher neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio value (HR 4.87; 95% CI 2.32-10.25). In patients (n = 35) with at most one risk factor, the ORR, median TTF, and OS were 26.1%, 3.6, and 6.7 months, respectively. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (30%), anemia (22%), febrile neutropenia (8%), and peripheral neuropathy (8%). Initial and subsequent dose reduction was performed in 18 (36%) and 23 (46%) patients. There was one treatment-related death caused by septic infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Salvage chemotherapy with the combination of oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and 5-fluorouracil has a potential activity and is tolerable for heavily treated AGC with appropriate dose modification and patient selection.

Third line treatment of advanced oesophagogastric cancer: A critical review of current evidence and evolving trends

There is increasing evidence that treatment beyond second line provides significant survival benefit for selected advanced oesophageal and gastric adenocarcinoma patients, and important randomised controlled trials of both chemotherapy, targeted therapy and immunotherapy have recently been reported in this space. Despite this growing evidence base there are presently no formal guidelines for third line treatment available to clinicians, and as these agents move into routine clinical practice patient selection and rational sequencing of treatment will become an increasingly relevant clinical challenge. This review critically appraises the current evidence base for third line treatment and discusses patient selection, potential predictive biomarkers and future directions for third line treatment in this challenging condition.

Clinical use of trastuzumab combined with different chemotherapy regimens in multi-line treatment of advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive gastric cancer: A case report

It is generally acknowledged that gastric cancer requires comprehensive treatment approaches to be adopted. For patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2)-overexpressing gastric cancer, targeting HER2 with trastuzumab in first-line therapy combined with standard chemotherapy significantly improves the prognosis. However, there is a lack of international guidance for second-line treatment if a patient experiences disease progression. There is also no accepted conclusion regarding the efficiency of cross-line therapy with trastuzumab. The present study reports the case of a 55-year-old male with gastric cancer who underwent radical gastrectomy. Immunohistochemistry indicated that samples were EGFR(+) and HER-2(3+), with Ki-67 (20%). From abdominal computed tomography scanning and contrast-enhanced ultrasound following surgery, hepatic metastasis was identified and the patient was administered microwave thermocoagulation therapy. Since December 2012, the patient received multi-line chemotherapy regimens as follows: i) Oxaliplatin, tegafur/gimeracil/oteracil and trastuzumab; ii) paclitaxel liposome and S-1 plus trastuzumab; iii) apatinib; iv) epirubicin/oxaliplatin/xeloda; and v) irinotecan plus trastuzumab. During the course of therapy, the trastuzumab served an important function in multi-line therapy and the patient benefited from the combined therapy. The application of trastuzumab in the multi-line treatment of a patient with HER2-positive advanced gastric cancer may be worthy of investigation for use in the clinic.

The role of third-line chemotherapy in recurrent or metastatic gastric cancer: A cohort study with propensity score matching analysis

In recurrent or metastatic gastric cancer, second-line chemotherapy is generally recommended in current guidelines. Although third-line therapy is often performed in daily practice in some countries, there are only a few reports about its benefits.A retrospective review was conducted on 682 patients who underwent at least first-line chemotherapy for recurrent (n = 297) or primary metastatic (n = 385) disease. Clinicopathological characteristics and overall survival (OS) were analyzed according to lines of chemotherapy.One hundred sixty-seven patients (24.5%) underwent third- or further-line therapy. Third- or further-line therapy was frequently performed in patients with young age (<70) (P < .0001), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) 0 or 1 (P < .0001), surgical resection before first-line therapy (P = .007), and first-line combination regimen (P = .001). The median OS for all patients after the initiation of first-line therapy was 10 months. The median OS of patients who received third- or further-line therapy was significantly longer than that of patients who received second- or lesser-line therapy (18 vs 8 months, P < .0001). The multivariate analysis revealed that third- or further-line therapy was independently associated with favorable OS (hazard ratio = 0.58, P < .0001). Moreover, patients who received third- or further-line therapy demonstrated better OS both in univariate (P = .002) and multivariate (P < .0001) analysis even after propensity score matching using baseline characteristics. The median OS after the start of third-line chemotherapy was 6 months. In addition, ECOG PS 0 or 1 at the initiation of third-line therapy (P < .0001) and surgical resection (P = .009) were independently associated with longer OS after third-line therapy.The current study suggests that third-line therapy could be recommended for recurrent or metastatic gastric cancer patients with good PS after progression from second-line chemotherapy in clinical practice.

Treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with metastatic gastric cancer receiving third-line chemotherapy: A population-based outcomes study

PURPOSE

There is limited data on third-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic gastric cancer (MGC). This study was conducted to assess third-line treatment patterns, outcomes, and clinical parameters related to survival outcomes in patients with MGC.

METHODS

Using the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA) database, a nationwide population-based outcomes study was conducted. From the HIRA database, patients newly diagnosed in 2010 with MGC were identified (N = 1,871), and of these, 229 patients who had received third-line chemotherapy were finally selected for this study.

RESULTS

Prior to third-line chemotherapy, more than 90% of patients received fluoropyrimidine and platinum, and 43.7% and 40.6% received taxane and irinotecan, respectively. Various third-line chemotherapy regimens containing taxane (docetaxel or paclitaxel), irinotecan, or oxaliplatin were prescribed. The median overall survival (OS) of all patients receiving third-line chemotherapy was 4.4 months. The median time from the start date of first-line chemotherapy to the start date of third-line chemotherapy (TF1T3) was 9.5 months, and a longer TF1T3 was the only factor that was significantly associated with an increased OS. The median OS of patients who had received fluoropyrimidine, platinum, and taxane followed by third-line irinotecan-based therapy was similar to that of patients who had received fluoropyrimidine, platinum, and irinotecan followed by third-line taxane-based therapy (p = 0.894).

CONCLUSION

In patients with MGC receiving third-line chemotherapy, TF1T3 was the only significant factor associated with OS. The sequence of using taxane and irinotecan as subsequent therapy after first-line failure was not shown to impact survival outcome.

5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) as a third-line chemotherapy treatment in metastatic gastric cancer, after failure of fluoropyrimidine, platinum, anthracycline, and taxane

Studies on the effects of third-line chemotherapy (CT) in advanced gastric cancer (GC) patients are still scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the modified 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (mFOLFIRI) regimen as a third-line CT in metastatic GC patients, after failure of fluoropyrimidine, platinum, anthracycline, and taxane. After failure of first- and second-line therapies, 42 patients received third-line FOLFIRI (180 mg/m² irinotecan and 400 mg/m² leucovorin administered concomitantly as a 90-minute intravenous (IV) infusion on day 1, followed by a 400 mg/m² 5-fluorouracil IV bolus then 2600 mg/m² continuous infusion over 46 hours), between January 2009 and December 2015. FOLFIRI was administered for a median of 6 cycles (range 4-12 cycles). Eight patients achieved partial response, while 13 patients showed stable disease, resulting in the overall response rate (ORR) of 19% and disease control rate (DCR) of 50%. The most frequent grade 3-4 hematological and non-hematological toxicities were neutropenia (14.2%) and diarrhea (7.1%). The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from the start of third-line CT were 3.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0-4.5) and 6.8 months (95% CI, 5.6-7.9), respectively. According to the multivariate analysis, two factors were independently predictive of the poor OS: >2 regions of metastasis (relative risk [RR], 2.6; 95% CI, 1.3-5.4) and a high level of carcinoembryonic antigen [CEA] (RR, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.6-7.4). In conclusion, FOLFIRI was well tolerated as third-line CT and showed promising PFS and OS in advanced GC patients, after failure of fluoropyrimidine, platinum, anthracycline, and taxane.

Efficacy and safety for Apatinib treatment in advanced gastric cancer: a real world study

Apatinib has been proved to be effective and safe among patients in gastric cancer in Phase II and III Trials. We aimed to evaluate its efficacy and safety in real world practice, and to explore factors associated with efficacy. Between January 2015 and February 2017, totally 36 patients with advanced gastric adenocarcinoma or adenocarcinoma of gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) were enrolled and followed up retrospectively after failing at least two lines of systemic therapy. The mPFS was 2.65 months (95%CI 1.66–3.54), and mOS was 5.8 months (95%CI 4.77–6.83). Two patients achieved partial response, and nineteen achieved stable disease. The disease control rate (DCR) was 58.3%, and objective response rate (ORR) was 5.6%. Common grade adverse events were hypertension (38.9%), proteinuria (36.1%), and neutropenia (33.3%). And the most common adverse events over grade 3 were hand-foot syndrome (8.3%), anemia (5.6%), and diarrhea (5.6%). No treatment-related death was documented during the drug administration. Exploratory analyses indicated patients treated with antiangiogenic therapy previously were more likely to benefit from apatinib.

Outcomes of Advanced Gastric Cancer Patients Treated with at Least Three Lines of Systemic Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Second-line therapy has consistently demonstrated survival benefit if compared with best supportive care; however, there is limited evidence whether further lines of treatment may improve the prognosis of advanced gastric cancer (AGC) patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Starting from a real-world cohort of 868 AGC patients, we retrospectively analyzed baseline parameters, tumor characteristics, and treatment data of those treated with at least three lines. Categorical features were described through cross-tables and chi-square test. We explored the impact of treatment intensity and progression-free survival (PFS) experienced in previous lines on PFS and overall survival in third-line by uni- and multivariate Cox regression models and described by Kaplan-Meier estimator plot with log-rank test.

RESULTS

Overall, 300 patients were included in the analysis. The most common site of primary tumor was gastric body; 45.3% of cancers had an intestinal histotype, 14% were human epidermal growth receptor 2 positive. In third-line, 45.7% of patients received a single-agent chemotherapy, 49.7% a combination regimen. Patients who had experienced a first-line PFS ≥6.9 months had a better prognosis compared with those who had achieved a shorter one. Consistently, a second-line PFS ≥3.5 months positively influenced the prognosis. Patients receiving a third-line combination regimen had better outcomes compared with those treated with a single-agent chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Our real-world study confirms that selected AGC patients may receive third-line treatment. Longer PFS in previous lines or a more intense third-line treatment positively influenced prognosis. Further efforts are warranted to define the best therapeutic sequences, and to identify the optimal candidate for treatment beyond second-line.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The benefit of third-line treatment to advanced gastric cancer patients is controversial. This study depicts a real scenario of the clinical practice in Italy, confirming that a non-negligible proportion of patients receive a third-line therapy. Longer progression-free survival in previous treatment lines or higher third-line treatment intensity positively influenced prognosis. Including a large number of real-world patients, this study provides information on third-line treatment from the daily clinical practice; moreover, its results help in defining the best therapeutic sequence and offer some hints to select the optimal candidate for treatment beyond second-line.

Irinotecan monotherapy as third-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer refractory to fluoropyrimidines, platinum, and taxanes

BACKGROUND

Because standard chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer consists of oral fluoropyrimidines plus platinum as first-line therapy, with paclitaxel plus ramucirumab as the second line, irinotecan is usually positioned as third-line chemotherapy in clinical practice in Japan.

METHODS

A retrospective evaluation was conducted to determine the efficacy and safety of irinotecan as third-line chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer in patients refractory or intolerant to fluoropyrimidines, platinum, and taxanes.

RESULTS

Between February 2008 and December 2013, 52 patients received third-line irinotecan monotherapy. Among the 32 patients with measurable lesions, 1 patient achieved a confirmed partial response and 6 patients had stable disease. The overall response rate was 3% and the disease control rate was 22%. Median progression-free survival was 2.3 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.8-2.8] and median overall survival was 4.0 months (95% CI, 2.6-5.3). The most common adverse events of grade 3 severity or higher were neutropenia (27%), febrile neutropenia (12%), anorexia (12%), and diarrhea (6%). Although no treatment-related deaths occurred, 2 patients (4%) died of disease progression within 30 days after the last administration of irinotecan.

CONCLUSION

Irinotecan monotherapy appears to be tolerated but was shown to have modest activity as third-line chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer.

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.

Therapeutic effect of apatinib on overall survival is mediated by prolonged progression-free survival in advanced gastric cancer patients

Apatinib is reported to significantly improve the overall survival (OS) of patients with advanced gastric cancer who have previously failed second-line chemotherapy. However, it is not well understood whether apatinib acts by improving progression or by prolonging post-progression survival. Here, based on phase III clinical trial data, the mediating effect of apatinib on patient overall survival was systematically quantified, through progression-free survival (PFS), post-progression survival (PPS), and the disease control rate (DCR). PFS was the primary mediator of the association between apatinib treatment and OS, with an indirect-effect mean survival time ratio of 1.63 (95%CI 1.35-1.97), which mediated 93.5% of the treatment effect. The DCR was also a significant mediator among secondary efficacy endpoints, and had an indirect-effect mean survival time ratio of 1.47 (95%CI 1.20-1.79, 50.9% mediated). Both primary and other targets of the DCR had similar results. The results indicated that apatinib treatment prolongs progression-free survival rather than post-progression survival, and in turn, leads to improved overall survival. Additionally, our study highlights the value of mediation analysis in clinical trials in providing additional information to build upon traditional primary analysis.

Third-Line Chemotherapy with Irinotecan plus 5-Fluorouracil in Caucasian Metastatic Gastric Cancer Patients

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the activity of the combination of 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) as third-line chemotherapy (CT) in metastatic gastric cancer (mGC) patients pretreated with platinum derivatives, fluoropyrimidines, and taxanes.

METHODS

We prospectively collected data of mGC patients treated with third-line FOLFIRI at our institution from 2009 to 2014. Eligible patients should be treated with a fluoropyrimidine-platinum first-line CT and a subsequent taxane-based second-line CT. FOLFIRI consisted of irinotecan 180 mg/m2 and leucovorin 200 mg/m2, followed by 5-fluorouracil 2,800 mg/m2 (administered as 48-hour i.v. continuous infusion from day 1 to 3), with cycles repeated every 2 weeks. Response rate (RR) was evaluated according to RECIST version 1.0, while progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

A total of 33 patients were included. The majority (97%) had good performance status (0-1 according to ECOG), while median PFS after first-line and second-line CT was 5.2 and 4.4 months, respectively. Two patients experienced an objective response (RR: 6%), while 14 patients achieved disease stabilization (disease control rate: 42%). Median PFS and OS from the start of third-line CT were 3.3 and 7.5 months, respectively. Hematological and nonhematological grade 3-4 toxicities were uncommon and included neutropenia (6.1%), diarrhea (9.1%), vomiting (3%), and asthenia (3%). Febrile neutropenia was not reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Third-line CT with FOLFIRI may be an option in heavily pretreated mGC patients with preserved performance status and organ function. This regimen has a favorable safety profile, and signs of activity have been observed after standard first- and second-line CT.

S-1 plus cisplatin versus fluorouracil plus cisplatin in advanced gastric or gastro-esophageal junction adenocarcinoma patients: a pilot study

The safety and efficacy of S-1 plus cisplatin in Chinese advanced gastric cancer patients in first line setting is unknown. In this pilot study, patients with advanced gastric or gastro-esophageal junction adenocarcinoma were enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive S-1 plus cisplatin (CS group) or 5-FU plus cisplatin (CF group). The primary endpoint was time to progression (TTP). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and safety. This study was registered on ClinicalTrials. Gov, number NCT01198392. A total of 236 patients were enrolled. Median TTP was 5.51 months in CS group compared with 4.62 months in CF group [hazard ratio (HR) 1.028, 95% confidential interval (CI) 0.758-1.394, p = 0.859]. Median OS was 10.00 months and 10.46 months in CS and CF groups (HR 1.046, 95%CI 0.709-1.543, p = 0.820), respectively. The most common adverse events in both groups were anemia, leukopenia, neutropenia, nausea, thrombocytopenia, vomiting, anorexia and diarrhea. We find that S-1 plus cisplatin is an effective and tolerable option for advanced gastric or gastro-esophageal junction adenocarcinoma patients in China.

Efficacy and safety of irinotecan monotherapy as third-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer

PURPOSE

Although irinotecan monotherapy is often used in third-line treatment after the failure of taxanes in Japanese clinical practice, its survival benefit is still unclear. The aim of this study is to investigate the efficacy and safety of irinotecan monotherapy as third-line treatment.

METHODS

Clinical data from consecutive patients in whom irinotecan had been initiated as third-line treatment between December 2003 and July 2015 in Shizuoka Cancer Center were retrospectively analyzed. Patients who were refractory or intolerant to fluoropyrimidine with or without platinum in first-line treatment and subsequent therapy with taxanes were included in this study. Irinotecan was administered at 150 mg/m(2) every 2 weeks.

RESULTS

The data of 50 patients who met the inclusion criteria were analyzed. The overall response rate was 18.4 % (7/38) among the patients with measurable disease. The median progression-free survival time was 66 days, and the median survival time was 180 days from the initiation of irinotecan therapy. The major grade 3 or 4 adverse events including neutropenia, fatigue, and anorexia were observed in 12 (24 %), 8 (16 %), and 7 (14 %), respectively. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Thirteen patients (26 %) required a dose reduction to 120 mg/m(2) or less from the initiation of irinotecan.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that irinotecan as third-line treatment has an anti-tumor effect and is feasible with optimal dose modification for advanced gastric cancer.

Apatinib for the treatment of gastric cancer

INTRODUCTION

Apatinib, a small-molecule inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2, has demonstrated encouraging anti-cancer activity in gastric cancer within both in vitro and in vivo models.

AREAS COVERED

Apatinib's efficacy, tolerability and safety have been evaluated in one Phase II and one Phase III study in metastatic/advanced gastric cancer. In this review, we focus on the mechanism of action of apatinib, its pharmacokinetic profile and its clinical activity in the treatment of advanced/metastatic gastric cancer. Expert commentary: Unfortunately, as yet, there is no definitive biomarker data for apatinib in gastric cancer.

Metastatic gastric cancer treatment: Second line and beyond

Advanced gastric cancer (aGC), not amenable to curative surgery, is still a burdensome illness tormenting afflicted patients and their healthcare providers. Whereas combination chemotherapy has been shown to improve survival and tumor related symptoms in the frontline setting, second-line therapy (SLT) is subject to much debate in the scientific community, mainly because of the debilitating effects of GC, which would impede the administration of cytotoxic therapy. Recent data has provided sufficient evidence for the safe use of SLT in patients with an adequate performance status. Taxanes, Irinotecan and even some Fluoropyrimidine analogs were found to provide a survival advantage in this subset of patients. Most importantly, quality of life measures were also improved through the use of adequate therapy. Even more pertinent were the findings involving antiangiogenic agents, which would add measurable improvements without significantly jeopardizing the patients’ well-being. Further lines of therapy are cause for much more debate nowadays, but specific targeted agents have shown considerable promise in this context. We herein review noteworthy published data involving the use of additional lines of the therapy after failure of standard frontline therapies in patients with aGC.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Trial of Apatinib in Patients With Chemotherapy-Refractory Advanced or Metastatic Adenocarcinoma of the Stomach or Gastroesophageal Junction

PURPOSE

There is currently no standard treatment strategy for patients with advanced metastatic gastric cancer experiencing progression after two or more lines of chemotherapy. We assessed the efficacy and safety of apatinib, a novel vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma for whom at least two lines of prior chemotherapy had failed.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial. Patients from 32 centers in China with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, for whom two or more prior lines of chemotherapy had failed, were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to oral apatinib 850 mg or placebo once daily. The primary end points were overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS

Between January 2011 and November 2012, 267 patients were enrolled. Median OS was significantly improved in the apatinib group compared with the placebo group (6.5 months; 95% CI, 4.8 to 7.6 v 4.7 months; 95% CI, 3.6 to 5.4; P = .0149; hazard ratio, 0.709; 95% CI, 0.537 to 0.937; P = .0156). Similarly, apatinib significantly prolonged median PFS compared with placebo (2.6 months; 95% CI, 2.0 to 2.9 v 1.8 months; 95% CI, 1.4 to 1.9; P < .001; hazard ratio, 0.444; 95% CI, 0.331 to 0.595; P < .001). The most common grade 3 to 4 nonhematologic adverse events were hand-foot syndrome, proteinuria, and hypertension.

CONCLUSION

These data show that apatinib treatment significantly improved OS and PFS with an acceptable safety profile in patients with advanced gastric cancer refractory to two or more lines of prior chemotherapy.

A Phase I study of cabazitaxel in patients with advanced gastric cancer who have failed prior chemotherapy (GASTANA)

PURPOSE

This Phase I dose-escalation study (GASTANA) evaluated the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and preliminary antitumor activity of cabazitaxel in Asian patients with advanced gastric adenocarcinoma failing two prior chemotherapy regimens.

METHODS

Cabazitaxel safety/tolerability was determined using a standard 3 + 3 dose-escalation design based on dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) in Cycle 1. Three dose levels (DL) were planned: 20, 25 and 15 mg/m(2) (DL 1, DL 2 and DL -1).

RESULTS

Fifteen patients were evaluable for DLTs. At DL 1, no DLTs occurred in three patients. At DL 2, four patients were enrolled (one patient discontinued), with only one DLT observed [Grade 4 febrile neutropenia (FN)]; however, all four patients experienced FN, hence three more patients were enrolled at DL 1 who experienced two DLTs (Grade 4 neutropenia >7 days). In response, DL -1 was opened, with no DLTs observed in six patients. In the total population (n = 16), frequent Grade 3/4 toxicities included neutropenia (63%) and FN (38%), best overall responses included one partial response (6.3%; DL -1) and eight stable disease (50%), and median progression-free survival was 83 days.

CONCLUSIONS

No unexpected safety findings were observed. Significant toxicities included neutropenia and FN, potentially due to patients being heavily pretreated and the accumulated toxicity of prior taxane therapy.