Third-line systemic treatment versus best supportive care for advanced/metastatic gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Immunotherapy or Targeted Therapy Versus Best Supportive Care for Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials

PURPOSE

To assess the efficacy and safety of non-chemotherapy anticancer drugs (immunotherapy or targeted therapy) compared to best supportive care (BSC) or placebo for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer (GC).

METHODS

Systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) searching (May 2022) MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Epistemonikos, ClinicalTrials.gov, and PROSPERO. Certainty of evidence was evaluated following GRADE.

RESULTS

Six RCTs included. Targeted therapies likely result in a slight increase in overall survival (OS) (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75, 0.93; moderate certainty) and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.43, 0.62; moderate certainty). Toxicity had a slightly increased risk (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.95, 1.48; low certainty). Immunotherapy also showed a likely improvement in PFS (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.49, 0.73; moderate certainty), while toxicity showed a likely higher risk (RR 2.72, 95% CI 1.24, 5.94; moderate certainty). However, benefits in survival translated to time gains of slightly over a month for OS and less than a month for PFS. No data were reported on performance status (PS), hospital admissions, or quality of life (QoL).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests some survival benefits with low toxicity from these treatments, but gains are marginal. Uncertainties persist regarding their impact on QoL and outcomes for patients with poor PS. Caution is advised in treatment selection for advanced GC patients, who should actively participate in decision-making. Future research should include diverse patient populations and assess patient-centered outcomes with consistent comparator groups for BSC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study protocol was registered in OSF ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/7CHX6 ) on 2022-04-01.

Immunotherapy combined with apatinib in the treatment of advanced or metastatic gastric/gastroesophageal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Immunotherapy or apatinib alone has been used as third-line adjuvant therapy for advanced or metastatic gastric/gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) tumors, but the efficacy of combining them with each other for the treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic G/GEJ is unknown; therefore, we further evaluated the efficacy and safety of immunotherapy combined with apatinib in patients with advanced or metastatic G/GEJ.

METHODS

The main search was conducted on published databases: Embase, Cochrane library, PubMed.The search was conducted from the establishment of the database to December 2023.Clinical trials with patients with advanced or metastatic G/GEJ and immunotherapy combined with apatinib as the study variable were collected. Review Manager 5.4 software as well as stata 15.0 software were used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 651 patients from 19 articles were included in this meta-analysis. In the included studies, immunotherapy combined with apatinib had a complete response (CR) of 0.03 (95% CI: 0.00 -0.06), partial response (PR) of 0.34 (95% CI: 0.19-0.49), stable disease (SD) of 0.43 (95% CI: 0.32-0.55), objective response rate (ORR) was 0.36 (95% CI: 0.23-0.48), disease control rate (DCR) was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.74-0.86), and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.29 (95% CI: 4.05-4.52), median Overall survival (OS) was 8.79 (95% CI: 7.92-9.66), and the incidence of grade ≥ 3 TRAEs was 0.34 (95% CI: 0:19-0.49). PR, ORR, DCR, median PFS and median OS were significantly higher in the immunotherapy and apatinib combination chemotherapy group (IAC) than in the immunotherapy combination apatinib group (IA). And the difference was not significant in the incidence of SD and grade ≥ 3 TRAEs.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis shows that immunotherapy combined with apatinib is safe and effective in the treatment of advanced or metastatic G/GEJ, where IAC can be a recommended adjuvant treatment option for patients with advanced or metastatic G/GEJ. However, more large multicenter randomized studies are urgently needed to reveal the long-term outcomes of immunotherapy combined with apatinib treatment.

Comparative analysis of systemic oncological treatments and best supportive care for advanced gastresophageal cancer: A comprehensive scoping review and evidence map

OBJECTIVE

To identify, describe, and organize the available evidence regarding systemic oncological treatments compared to best supportive care (BSC) for advanced gastresophageal cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a thorough search across MEDLINE (PubMed), EMbase (Ovid), The Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, PROSPERO, and Clinicaltrials.gov. Our inclusion criteria encompassed systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental and observational studies involving patients with advanced esophageal or gastric cancer receiving chemotherapy, immunotherapy or biological/targeted therapy compared to BSC. The outcomes included survival, quality of life, functional status, toxicity, and quality of end-of-life care.

RESULTS

We included and mapped 72 studies, comprising SRs, experimental and observational designs, 12 on esophageal cancer, 51 on gastric cancer, and 10 both locations. Most compared schemes including chemotherapy (47 studies), but did not report therapeutic lines. Moreover, BSC as a control arm was poorly defined, including integral support and placebo. Data favor the use of systemic oncological treatments in survival outcomes and BSC in toxicity. Data for outcomes including quality of life, functional status, and quality of end-of-life care were limited. We found sundry evidence gaps specifically in assessing new treatments such as immunotherapy and important outcomes such as functional status, symptoms control, hospital admissions, and the quality of end-life care for all the treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

There are important evidence gaps regarding new for patients with advanced gastresophageal cancer and the effect of systemic oncological treatments on important patient-centered outcomes beyond survival. Future research should clearly describe the population included, specifying previous treatments and considering therapeutic, and consider all patient-centered outcomes. Otherwise, it will be complex to apply research results into practice.

Trifluridine/Tipiracil in the Real-World Management of Metastatic Gastric and Gastroesophageal Junction Cancers in Canada

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer mortality remains among the highest of all cancers. Trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) represents Canada's first standard-of-care, third-line, systemic therapy for metastatic gastric/gastroesophageal cancer. We characterized real-world treatment patterns in patients enrolled to receive FTD/TPI through Taiho Pharma Canada's Patient Support Program.

METHODS

Demographic and clinical information were collected from November 2019 to November 2021 for adult patients with refractory metastatic gastric/gastroesophageal cancer throughout Canada. We examined all variables using descriptive statistics and performed survival and association analyses.

RESULTS

162 patients enrolled to receive FTD/TPI with a median age of 65 years, 12 of whom had HER2 positive disease. Among 123 patients who started FTD/TPI, median follow-up was 3.1 months and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.5 months (95% CI 3.2-4.0). Among 121 patients who discontinued FTD/TPI, median treatment duration was 2.39 cycles (IQR 1.14-3.86). A total of 52% discontinued treatment due to disease progression, and 27% had a dose reduction or delay. On multivariable logistic regression, prior FOLFIRI was a statistically significant predictor of treatment modification.

CONCLUSIONS

Through the Patient Support Program, FTD/TPI is an actively utilized treatment option in heavily pretreated metastatic gastric/gastroesophageal cancer, despite its recent introduction. With longer-than-expected treatment duration and PFS, FTD/TPI likely addresses an important unmet need for effective and tolerable therapies in this setting.

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.

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Third-Line Treatments for Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review With Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

Background

Although various third-line treatments of advanced gastric cancer (AGC) significantly improved the overall survival, the optimal regimen has not been determined by now. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of multiple third-line treatments of AGC via integrated analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) to provide valuable evidence for the optimal third-line systemic therapy for AGC.

Methods

By searching the databases of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from Jan 01, 2005 to Dec 31, 2020, we included phase II/III randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of the third-line treatments for AGC to perform NMA. The main outcomes for NMA were median overall survival (mOS), median progression-free survival (mPFS), disease control rate (DCR) and adverse events (AEs). We also included phase IB/II non-RCTs and II/III RCTs of the third-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for integrated analysis for pooled mOS (POS), pooled mPFS (PPFS) and other outcomes.

Results

Eight phase II/III RCTs and 2 ICIs-related phase IB/II non-RCTs were included for analysis, involving 9 treatment regimens and 3012 AGC patients. In terms of mOS, apatinib (hazard ratio [HR] 0.61, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.48-0.78) and nivolumab (HR 0.62, 95% CrI 0.51-0.76) were the most effective treatments compared with placebo. Apatinib also significantly improved mPFS versus placebo (HR 0.38, 95% CrI 0.29-0.49). Nivolumab ranked first among all regimens for 1-year OS rate and achieved the best OS in patients with HER-2 positive tumor, patients with gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer and patients without gastrectomy history. TAS-102 (OR 7.46, 95% CrI 4.61-12.51) was the most toxic treatment in terms of AEs of grade 3 and higher (≥3 AEs). Pembrolizumab was more likely to cause immune related adverse event. Finally, the POS, pooled 1-year OS rate, pooled ORR and PPFS of AGC patients treated with third-line ICIs were 5.1 months, 25%, 10% and 1.71 months respectively.

Conclusions

Apatinib and nivolumab are the most effective treatments for the third-line treatment of AGC in contrast to the third-line chemotherapy. For AGC patients with HER-2 positive tumor, patients with GEJ cancer and patients without gastrectomy history, ICIs could be the optimal third-line treatment choice.

High-Throughput Sequencing Reveals the Differential MicroRNA Expression Profiles of Human Gastric Cancer SGC7901 Cell Xenograft Nude Mouse Models Treated with Traditional Chinese Medicine Si Jun Zi Tang Decoction

Objective. The present study aimed to investigate the potential mechanism underlying the antitumor effect of Si Jun Zi Tang (SJZT) decoction on gastric cancer. Methods. Twelve human gastric cancer SGC7901 cell xenograft nude mouse models were established. The mice were randomly divided into the Model group and SJZT group. SJZT exerted significant antitumor effects after 21 days of decoction administration. High-throughput sequencing was used to analyze the microRNA (miRNA) expression profiles of tumor tissues. Bioinformatics analysis was performed to provide further information regarding the differentially expressed miRNAs. Five representative differentially expressed miRNAs and four predicted target genes were further validated using quantitative real-time reverse transcription PCR (qRT-PCR). Results. We identified 33 miRNAs that were differentially expressed in the SJZT group compared with the Model group. Among them, 32 miRNAs were upregulated and 1 miRNA was downregulated. Bioinformatic analysis showed that most of miRNAs acted as tumor suppressors and their target genes participated in multiple signaling pathways, including the PI3K/Akt signaling pathway, microRNAs in cancer, and Wnt signaling pathway. The qRT-PCR result confirmed that miR-223-3p, miR-205-5p, miR-147b-3p, and miR-223-5p were overexpressed and their respective paired target genes FUT9, POU2F1, MUC4, and RAB14 mRNA were obviously downregulated in the SJZT group compared with those in the Model group. Network analysis revealed that miR-223-3p and miR-205-5p shared two targets POU2F1 (encoding POU class 2 homeobox 1) and FUT9 (encoding fucosyltransferase 9), suggesting they have a common role in certain pathways. Conclusion. This study provided novel insights into the anticancer mechanism of SJZT against gastric cancer, which might be partly related to the modulation of miRNA expression and their target pathways in tumors.

Efficacy of systemic oncological treatments in patients with advanced esophageal or gastric cancers at high risk of dying in the middle and short term: an overview of systematic reviews

Background

Esophageal and gastric cancers are a significant public health problem worldwide, with most patients presenting with advanced-stage disease and, consequently, poor prognosis. Systemic oncological treatments (SOT) have been widely used over more conservative approaches, such as supportive care. Nevertheless, its effectiveness in this scenario is not sufficiently clear. This paper provides an overview of systematic reviews that assessed the effectiveness of SOT compared with the best supportive care (BSC) or placebo in patients with advanced esophageal or gastric cancers in an end-of-life context.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, and PROSPERO for eligible systematic reviews (SRs) published from 2008 onwards. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), functional status, and toxicity. Two authors assessed eligibility and extracted data independently. We evaluated the methodological quality of included SRs using the AMSTAR-2 tool and the overlap of primary studies (corrected covered area, CCA). Also, we performed a de novo meta-analysis with data reported for each primary study when it was possible. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

Results

We identified 16 SRs (19 included trials) for inclusion within this overview. Most reviews had a critically low methodological quality, and there was a very high overlap of primary studies. It is uncertain whether SOT improves OS and PFS over more conservative approaches due to the very low certainty of evidence.

Conclusions

The evidence is very uncertain about the effectiveness of SOT for advanced esophageal or gastric cancers. High-quality SRs and further randomized clinical trials that include a thorough assessment of patient-centered outcomes are needed.

Trial registration

Open Science Framework, 10.17605/OSF.IO/7CHX6.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08330-5.

Comparative efficacy and tolerability of third-line treatments for advanced gastric cancer: A systematic review with Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The most effective agent for the third-line treatment of advanced/metastatic gastric cancer (AGC) has not yet been determined. The aim of this network meta-analysis is to compare the relative efficacy and tolerability of third-line treatments for AGC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature review of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) using four electronic databases. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and adverse events (AEs) were used as efficacy or tolerability outcomes. A Bayesian network meta-analysis with a random-effects model was used.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs involving 2601 patients and nine treatments were included. The results suggested that 1 mg/kg nivolumab (nivolumab1) + 3 mg/kg ipilimumab (ipilimumab3) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.59, 95% credible interval [Crl] 0.38-0.91) was the most effective treatment, followed by nivolumab (HR 0.63, 95% Crl 0.50-0.79), for prolonging OS. Regorafenib (HR 0.40, 95% Crl 0.28-0.58) was most likely to improve PFS, followed by apatinib (HR 0.45, 95% Crl 0.33-0.60). Nivolumab1 + ipilimumab3 and nivolumab were better at improving ORR, whereas nivolumab1 + ipilimumab3 had the highest toxicity based on the AEs. For benefit-risk ratio, nivolumab, apatinib or regorafenib appeared to be the best options. Chemotherapy or two different dose combinations of nivolumab and ipilimumab were ranked as the next options because of poor tolerability, despite good efficacy.

CONCLUSION

Immunotherapy (nivolumab) or antiangiogenic agents (regorafenib and apatinib) are associated with benefits for benefit-risk ratio as third-line monotherapy. This study might serve as a guideline to aid in the selection of third-line treatments for AGC.

Gastric Cancer Harboring an ERBB3 Mutation Treated with a Pyrotinib-Irinotecan Combo: A Case Study

Gastric cancer is common, especially in East Asian countries, and is associated with high recurrence and mortality rates. Currently, there is no standard third-line treatment for metastatic gastric cancer. In this report, we present the case of a 69-year-old man with advanced gastric cancer, whose tumor was negative for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) according to immunohistochemical analysis. Next-generation sequencing performed on paraffin sections of the postoperative tumor samples indicated the presence of the ERBB3 V104L mutation. The patient received irinotecan plus pyrotinib as a third-line therapy and achieved a progression-free survival of 7.6 months with a high quality of life. Therefore, the combined administration of irinotecan and pyrotinib may improve the clinical condition of patients with gastric cancer harboring an ERBB3 mutation. Moreover, ERBB3 could be a potential therapeutic target for gastric cancer.

PD-1 inhibitor combined with apatinib for advanced gastric or esophagogastric junction cancer: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Nivolumab and pembrolizumab were approved as immune checkpoint inhibitors for third-line treatment of advanced gastric or esophagogastric junction cancer (GC/EGJC) in 2017. However, immunotherapy monotherapy has low efficacy. Apatinib has been proven effective in advanced GC/EGJC. Numerous studies have shown that immunotherapy has a synergistic effect when combined with targeted drug therapy. Based on these facts and to assess the efficacy and safety of programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor and apatinib as combination therapy in patients (pts) with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic GC/EGJC, a retrospective clinical research study was carried out.

METHODS

Pts (n=24) received PD-1 inhibitor and apatinib (250 mg once daily) as second- or third-line therapy in this observational, retrospective study. The primary objectives were efficacy and safety.

RESULTS

At data cut-off (December 31, 2019), 24 pts were enrolled. Of the 19 pts who were evaluable, the objective response rate (ORR) was 26.3% (5/19), the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.0 (95% CI: 1.3 to 4.7) months, and the median overall survival (OS) was not reached. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 3 (15.8%) of the 19 pts. These adverse events (AEs) included pruritus, rash, hand-foot syndrome, and increased aspartate aminotransferase (AST) or alanine aminotransferase (ALT). No treatment-related deaths occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Combination therapy of PD-1 inhibitor and apatinib showed encouraging clinical activity and demonstrated tolerable toxicity in pts with advanced GC/EGJC. Hence, our work provide rationale for the combination of PD-1 inhibitor and apatinib in advanced GC/EGJC.

TAS-102 in gastric cancer: Development and perspectives of a new biochemically modulated fluroropyrimidine drug combination

TAS-102 is a preconstituted drug combination comprising an oral fluoropyrimidine (trifluridine, TFT) and a potent inhibitor of thymidine phosphorylase (tipiracil hydrochloride, TPI). TFT/TPI has recently received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval also for the treatment of gastric cancer after at least two lines of chemotherapy. The approval was based on a large phase 3 trial (TAGS), in which TAS-102 showed a 31 % decrease in the risk of death compared with placebo. Here, we review the pharmacological properties, clinical development and potential future directions of TAS-102 in gastric cancer.

Recent Developments of Systemic Chemotherapy for Gastric Cancer

Gastric cancer (GC) is a molecularly heterogeneous disease. Its molecular background, epidemiology, and standard of care are quite different between Eastern and Western countries. Many efforts have been made in developing more effective surgeries and adjuvant chemotherapies for resectable GC in each region. Recently, an intensive combination of cytotoxic agents has been established as a new standard of adjuvant treatment. Meanwhile, palliative chemotherapy is a uniform standard treatment for unresectable GC worldwide. Recently, one of the most remarkable advances in therapy for unresectable GC has been the approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). The use of ICIs as frontline treatment is currently being investigated. In addition, novel combinations of ICIs and targeted drugs are being evaluated in clinical trials. Despite these advances, the complex biology of GC has resulted in the failure of targeted therapies, with the exceptions of HER2-targeted trastuzumab and VEGFR2-targeted ramucirumab. GC harbors many redundant oncogenic pathways, and small subsets of tumors are driven by different specific pathways. Therefore, a combination strategy simultaneously inhibiting several pathways and/or stricter patient selection for better response to targeted drugs are needed to improve clinical outcomes in this field.

Impact of Prior Ramucirumab Use on Treatment Outcomes of Checkpoint Inhibitors in Advanced Gastric Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

A taxane plus ramucirumab as second-line therapy followed by a checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) in third line has become a standard treatment strategy for advanced gastric cancer.

OBJECTIVE

Herein, we investigated the impact of prior ramucirumab use on the efficacy of third-line immunotherapy and performed an exploratory analysis to identify potential biomarkers for the success of immunotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed patients receiving CPI as a third-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer between January 2015 and March 2019. Clinicopathologic data, including patient characteristics, histopathologic reports, and treatment types and outcomes, were reviewed.

RESULTS

Of the 74 patients included in this study, 45 (61%) received nivolumab and 29 (39%) received pembrolizumab as a third-line CPI. For second-line therapy, 41 patients (55%) were treated with ramucirumab plus a taxane, and 33 (45%) received a chemotherapy regimen without ramucirumab. The disease control rates of CPIs were not statistically different according to prior use of ramucirumab. The overall survival (OS) with CPI was higher in patients receiving second-line therapy without ramucirumab compared with those receiving ramucirumab and taxane (5.6 vs 4.8 months, HR 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-0.96; p = 0.03); however, this was not significant in a multivariate analysis. Patients achieving a response to second-line ramucirumab and a taxane showed greater benefit from subsequent CPI treatment compared with those not achieving a response (median OS 9.9 vs 2.3 months, HR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07-0.54; p < 0.001) as found in an exploratory analysis. Multivariate analysis also showed that prior response to ramucirumab and a taxane was an independent prognostic factor of OS with third-line CPI.

CONCLUSIONS

Response to ramucirumab and a taxane as a second-line treatment is an important prognostic marker for OS with subsequent third-line CPI. This data might provide useful information when applying CPIs as third-line therapies in advanced gastric cancer patients.

Third- and later-line treatment in advanced or metastatic gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of third-line (TLT) and salvage treatment (ST) in advanced or metastatic gastric cancer. Materials & methods: Eligible studies included randomized clinical trials assessing TLT and ST versus placebo or best supportive care. Outcomes of interest included: overall survival, objective response rate and disease control rate in TLT; progression-free survival in ST; grade 3-4 adverse events in ST. Results: The use of TLT and ST was superior to placebo or best supportive care in terms of prolonging overall survival and progression-free survival. Hematological toxicities were more frequent in ST. Conclusion: TLT and ST are considerable and tolerable treatment options for patients with advanced or metastatic gastric cancer. Given the substantial heterogeneities affecting the efficacy analyses, these results have to be interpreted cautiously.

Systemic therapy for previously treated advanced gastric cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Although paclitaxel plus ramucirumab has been recommended as the preferred second-line strategy, other regimens also display potentially comparable efficacies. Record retrieval was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, ASCO and ESMO meeting libraries. Randomized controlled trials featuring comparisons between different systemic treatments among previously treated patients with advanced gastric cancer were eligible for our systematic review. Network calculation were based on random-effects model and the relative ranking of each regimen was numerically indicated by P-score (CRD42018104672). Concerning second-line regimens, "paclitaxel plus olaparib" and "paclitaxel plus ramucirumab" dominated the overall survival ranking while "paclitaxel plus ramucirumab" additionally topped the hierarchy for progression-free survival. Among refractory or third-line only cases, apatinib reigned the hierarchy by significantly and insignificantly surpassing placebo and nivolumab respectively. In conclusion, paclitaxel plus ramucirumab is the optimal second-line regimen. Both apatinib and nivolumab could be potentially recommended as refractory regimens.

Delivery rate of patients with advanced gastric cancer to third-line chemotherapy and those patients' characteristics: an analysis in real-world setting

Background

Nivolumab has recently become available for third-line chemotherapy of advanced gastric cancer in Japan. The drug is expected to provide long-term survival in some patients. However, not all patients receive third-line therapy. In this study, we investigated the frequency of prescribing and the predictive factors for prescribing of third-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced gastric cancer.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 271 patients with unresected advanced gastric cancer who had started chemotherapy between January 2006 and June 2017 at Kurashiki Central Hospital. Patients' median age was 68 years, and 190 patients were male. We compared baseline characteristics of patients who did or did not receive third-line chemotherapy and, through multivariate logistic-regression analysis, identified potential predictive factors for receiving third-line chemotherapy.

Results

Among the 271 patients, 71 (26.2%) received third-line chemotherapy. In the univariate analysis, the rate of receiving this care was significantly related to patients' performance status, cancer histology, and several laboratory variables at baseline. Multivariate analysis revealed that performance status 0 and serum C-reactive protein levels ≤0.6 mg/dL were independent and significant predictive factors for administration of the third-line chemotherapy; adjusted odds ratios of the two factors were 4.17 (95% confidence interval, 2.13-8.15) and 2.46 (1.19-5.08), respectively.

Conclusions

In this real-world study, only 26.2% of patients received third-line chemotherapy. Poor performance status and high serum C-reactive protein value at the start of first-line chemotherapy were significantly associated with lower frequency of administration of third-line chemotherapy.

Late-line treatment in metastatic gastric cancer: today and tomorrow

Survival for patients with unresectable advanced or recurrent gastric cancer (GC) remains poor and the historical lack of evidence-based therapeutic options after second-line therapy is reflected in current clinical guidelines for this condition. Despite uncertainty about optimal therapeutic strategies, further treatment is appropriate for some patients after failure of second line and may prolong survival. This approach has been reported in clinical trials and is becoming more common in real-world clinical settings. Several prognostic factors may increase the likelihood that a patient will be eligible for treatment in the third-line setting, including geographic location, status at diagnosis and response to treatment. There has been little progress over the last decade until the results from two large phase III randomized controlled trials completed in the last year: the ATTRACTION-2 trial with the programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor, nivolumab, in an Asian population; and the TAGS trial with the oral chemotherapy trifluridine/tipiracil in a global population. Both ATTRACTION-2 and TAGS reported positive results in third-line treatment in advanced GC in specific patient groups. A further recently reported study, KEYNOTE-059, which was a single-arm phase II trial of the PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab in a mainly non-Asian population, has provided evidence supporting the use of this immunotherapy in patients with advanced GC. As further third-line options become available, more GC patients are expected to benefit from an individualized evidence-based approach to later-line therapy, with a common goal of extending survival and improving outcomes for their refractory disease.

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.

Gastric Cancer - From Aetiology to Management: Differences Between the East and the West

Gastric cancers are highly prevalent in both the East and the West, although they differ in aetiology and prognostic outcome. Management of gastric cancer from screening to definitive treatment varies substantially between Eastern and Western countries and regions, owing to numerous factors, including government incentives to carry out population-wide screening programmes to detect early disease, differences in clinical and biological tumour behaviours and responsiveness to treatment, patient accessibility to effective treatment, etc. This review highlights and contrasts the differences in tumour aetiology and histology, as well as the management approaches between the East and the West, which gives important insights and inspirations on future international multicentre research collaboration to combat this dreadful malignancy.

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.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with low-dose cisplatin and doxorubicin (PIPAC C/D) in patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal metastasis: a phase II study

Background:

Efficacy of second-line systemic chemotherapy in recurrent gastric cancer with peritoneal metastasis (RGCPM) is limited. We assessed the feasibility, safety and possible efficacy of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in patients with RGCPM after ⩾1 line of palliative intravenous chemotherapy.

Methods:

In this open-label, single-arm, monocentric phase II ICH-GCP clinical trial, patients were scheduled for three courses of PIPAC with cisplatin 7.5 mg/m² and doxorubicin 1.5 mg/m² (PIPAC C/D) every 6 weeks. Patients with bowel obstruction or extraperitoneal metastasis were ineligible. The primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR) by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors based on clinical records. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), median time to progression (TTP), peritoneal carcinomatosis index (PCI), histological regression and ascites volume. Safety and tolerability were assessed by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4, quality of life (QoL) by EORTC-QLQ30 questionnaire.

Results:

A total of 25 patients were enrolled and available for the analysis of the primary endpoint. Of those 25 patients, 10 (40%) had a radiological complete, partial response or stable disease. Median OS [intention to treat (ITT)] was 6.7 months, median TTP was 2.7 months. Complete or major regression on histology were observed in 9/25 patients (36%, ITT) or 6/6 [100%, per protocol (PP)] patients. There were no suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions, no treatment-related deaths, no CTCAE grade 4 toxicity and three (12%) grade 3 toxicities. Changes in the QLQ-C30 scores during PIPAC C/D therapy were small and not significant.

Conclusions:

PIPAC C/D was well tolerated and active in patients with RGCPM. Survival was encouraging. Randomized controlled trials should now be designed in this indication.

Maintenance avelumab versus continuation of first-line chemotherapy in gastric cancer: JAVELIN Gastric 100 study design

Avelumab is a human anti-PD-L1 IgG1 monoclonal antibody that has shown antitumor activity in early phase studies in advanced/metastatic gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer, including as first-line maintenance therapy. Here, we describe the design of JAVELIN Gastric 100 (NCT02625610), an open-label, Phase III trial. A total of 499 patients with locally advanced/metastatic HER2- gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer adenocarcinoma, who had achieved at least stable disease following 12 weeks of first-line oxaliplatin/fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy, have been randomized 1:1 to receive avelumab maintenance therapy or continue chemotherapy. The primary objective is to demonstrate superior overall survival in all randomized patients or in the PD-L1+ population. Secondary objectives are to demonstrate superiority for progression-free survival and objective response rate, compare quality of life measures, and determine safety.

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.

miR-17-92 cluster is connected with disease progression and oxaliplatin/capecitabine chemotherapy efficacy in advanced gastric cancer patients: A preliminary study

This study aimed to determine the role of plasma miR-17-92 cluster level in predicting chemoresistance in patients with gastric cancer (GC) undergoing oxaliplatin/capecitabine (XELOX) chemotherapy.Patients recently diagnosed with advanced GC were chosen as participants based on the inclusion criteria. The plasma levels of miR-17-5p, miR-18a, miR-19a/b, miR-20a, and miR-92-1 (miR-17-92 cluster) were determined through quantitative RT-PCR of blood samples from GC patients and healthy volunteers. All the patients received XELOX chemotherapy, and the effectiveness of the chemotherapy was evaluated.The miR-17-92 plasma level was increased in advanced GC patients and decreased after XELOX chemotherapy. Moreover, the miR-17-92 cluster level was associated with chemotherapy response but not with chemotherapy-related toxicity. The miR-17-92 cluster plasma level was decreased in chemosensitive patients, but not in chemoresistant patients, after chemotherapy. The sensitivity and specificity of the combined detection of the miR-17-92 cluster in patients with advanced GC were 100% each.The results suggest that the miR-17-92 plasma level is associated with the progression of advanced GC and effectiveness of XELOX chemotherapy.

Survival in Advanced Esophagogastric Adenocarcinoma Improves With Use of Multiple Lines of Therapy: Results From an Analysis of More Than 500 Patients

BACKGROUND

Although progress has been made in the molecular stratification of esophagogastric adenocarcinoma, the outlook for advanced disease remains poor. The present evaluation of over 500 patients treated at a single European high-volume tertiary center during a 6-year period gives important information on current and developing "real-world" treatment patterns and outcomes.

RESULTS

The overall survival for the whole cohort was 11.5 months, with a range of treatments used in first-, second-, and third-line settings. Treatment with sequential lines of therapy was associated with better outcomes, although only 39% and 14% of patients subsequently received treatment in the second- and third-line setting, respectively. Treatment within a therapeutic clinical trial was associated with significantly improved survival.

CONCLUSION

At present, a substantial proportion of patients with advanced esophagogastric adenocarcinoma will not proceed beyond first-line therapy, and for this group refinement of initial systemic therapies are required to improve outcomes. Although a number of established first- and second-line treatment options are now available, the therapeutic landscape of the disease continues to change, most notably in the application of immunotherapy and increasing interest in establishing evidence-based interventions in the third-line setting and beyond. A small but growing proportion of patients will benefit from sequential treatment approaches incorporating multiple lines of therapy, and improved selection of such patients will be a key challenge for clinicians moving forwards. Data such as these provide an overview of current treatment patterns and outcomes which can be used to inform planning of future research effectively within existing treatment frameworks.

Safety and Efficacy of Pembrolizumab Monotherapy in Patients With Previously Treated Advanced Gastric and Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer: Phase 2 Clinical KEYNOTE-059 Trial

Importance

Therapeutic options are needed for patients with advanced gastric cancer whose disease has progressed after 2 or more lines of therapy.

Objective

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab in a cohort of patients with previously treated gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In the phase 2, global, open-label, single-arm, multicohort KEYNOTE-059 study, 259 patients in 16 countries were enrolled in a cohort between March 2, 2015, and May 26, 2016. Median (range) follow-up was 5.8 (0.5-21.6) months.

Intervention

Patients received pembrolizumab, 200 mg, intravenously every 3 weeks until disease progression, investigator or patient decision to withdraw, or unacceptable toxic effects.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary end points were objective response rate and safety. Objective response rate was assessed by central radiologic review per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, in all patients and those with programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive tumors. Expression of PD-L1 was assessed by immunohistochemistry. Secondary end points included response duration.

Results

Of 259 patients enrolled, most were male (198 [76.4%]) and white (200 [77.2%]); median (range) age was 62 (24-89) years. Objective response rate was 11.6% (95% CI, 8.0%-16.1%; 30 of 259 patients), with complete response in 2.3% (95% CI, 0.9%-5.0%; 6 of 259 patients). Median (range) response duration was 8.4 (1.6+ to 17.3+) months (+ indicates that patients had no progressive disease at their last assessment). Objective response rate and median (range) response duration were 15.5% (95% CI, 10.1%-22.4%; 23 of 148 patients) and 16.3 (1.6+ to 17.3+) months and 6.4% (95% CI, 2.6%-12.8%; 7 of 109 patients) and 6.9 (2.4 to 7.0+) months in patients with PD-L1-positive and PD-L1-negative tumors, respectively. Forty-six patients (17.8%) experienced 1 or more grade 3 to 5 treatment-related adverse events. Two patients (0.8%) discontinued because of treatment-related adverse events, and 2 deaths were considered related to treatment.

Conclusions and Relevance

Pembrolizumab monotherapy demonstrated promising activity and manageable safety in patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer who had previously received at least 2 lines of treatment. Durable responses were observed in patients with PD-L1-positive and PD-L1-negative tumors. Further study of pembrolizumab for this group of patients is warranted.

Trial Registration

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02335411.

Long noncoding AFAP1-antisense RNA 1 is upregulated and promotes tumorigenesis in gastric cancer

Long noncoding RNA serves important roles in gastric cancer (GC). However, the prognostic significance and tumorigenesis effect of AFAP1-antisense RNA 1 (AS1) in GC remain to be clarified. The present study was conducted in order to determine the expression level of AFAP1-AS1 by reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction. It was demonstrated that AFAP1-AS1 expression level was higher in GC tissues in comparison with adjacent tissues. By analyzing 66 GC tissue specimens, AFAP1-AS1 expression level was found to be markedly associated with tumor size, clinical stage and differentiation. By performing multivariate Cox regression test, AFAP1-AS1 expression level was confirmed to be an independent factor for poor prognosis in patients with GC. Furthermore, SGC-7901 and BGC-823 cells were used for further investigation following transfection of an AFAP1-AS1 short hairpin RNA lentiviral vector. Knockdown of AFAP1-AS1 significantly inhibited GC cell proliferation, migration and invasion abilities in vitro. Finally, nude mice experiments confirmed that downregulation of AFAP1-AS1 in GC cells suppressed tumor growth in vivo. In conclusion, the results of the present study suggested that AFAP1-AS1 may serve as a valuable prognostic indicator and therapeutic target for GC.