Randomized phase II trial of first-line treatment with tailored irinotecan and S-1 therapy versus S-1 monotherapy for advanced or recurrent gastric carcinoma (JFMC31-0301)

Tailored-dose chemotherapy with gemcitabine and irinotecan in patients with platinum-refractory/resistant ovarian or primary peritoneal cancer: a phase II trial

OBJECTIVE

We investigated the efficacy and toxicity of tailored-dose chemotherapy with gemcitabine and irinotecan for platinum-refractory/resistant ovarian or primary peritoneal cancer.

METHODS

We enrolled patients with ovarian or primary peritoneal cancer who received ≥2 previous chemotherapeutic regimens but developed progressive disease during platinum-based chemotherapy or within 6 months post-treatment. All patients received gemcitabine (500 mg/m²) and irinotecan (50 mg/m²) on days 1 and 8 every 21 days at the starting dose. The dose was increased or decreased by 4 levels in subsequent cycles based on hematological or non-hematological toxicities observed. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), and secondary endpoints were disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), and adverse events.

RESULTS

We investigated 25 patients who received 267 cycles (median 8 cycles/patient) between October 2008 and May 2011. Tailored-dose gemcitabine was administered up to the 5th cycle as follows: 1,000 mg/m² in 1 (4%), 750 mg/m² in 16 (64%), 500 mg/m² in 6 (24%), and 250 mg/m² in 2 patients (8%). The median PFS and OS were 6.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI]=2.7-10.7) and 16.8 months (95% CI=9.4-30.7), respectively. The DCR was 76%, and PFS was >6 months in 12 of 25 patients (48%). Grade 3 hematological toxicities included leukopenia (9.4%), neutropenia (11.2%), anemia (9.8%), and thrombocytopenia (1.1%). Grade 3/4 non-hematological toxicities did not occur except for fatigue in one patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Tailored-dose chemotherapy with gemcitabine and irinotecan was effective and well tolerated in patients with platinum-refractory/resistant ovarian or primary peritoneal cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN Clinical Trials Registry Identifier: UMIN000004449.

First-line systemic therapy for advanced gastric cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Systemic therapy is the standard treatment against advanced gastric cancer. Fluoropyrimidine plus platinum doublet has been recommended as the preferred first-line strategy. However, there is still a lack of a comprehensive and hierarchical evidence that compares all eligible literature simultaneously.

METHODS

Record retrieval was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, ASCO, and ESMO meeting library from inception to October 2018. Randomized controlled trials featuring comparisons between different first-line systemic treatments against advanced gastric cancer were eligible. Overall survival was utilized as the primary endpoint. Pairwise and network calculations were based on a random-effects model and the hierarchical ranking was numerically indicated by P-score. All procedures were conducted according to Cochrane Handbook 5.1 and PRISMA for Network Meta-analysis (Registration identifier: CRD42018084951).

RESULTS

A total of 119 studies were eligible for our pooled analysis. Concerning general analysis, 'fluoropyrimidine plus platinum-based triplet' topped the overall survival hierarchy (HR 0.91 [0.83-0.99], P-score = 0.903, p = 0.04) while it ranked in second place for progression-free survival and objective response rate. However, it displayed worse tolerability against 'fluoropyrimidine plus platinum doublet'. More specifically, 'Capecitabine plus cisplatin-based triplet plus targeted medication' topped the ranking among all fluoropyrimidine plus platinum-based regimens in additional analysis. Nevertheless, it did not reach statistical advantage against fluoropyrimidine plus oxaliplatin doublet in terms of survival benefits, while still displaying significantly worse safety profile.

CONCLUSIONS

Taken together, fluoropyrimidine plus oxaliplatin doublet (especially capecitabine or S-1) should still be considered as the preferred first-line regimen owing to its comparable survival benefits and lower toxicity.

TOXview: a novel graphical presentation of cancer treatment toxicity profiles

Background: Toxicity profiles play a crucial role in the choice between specific palliative chemotherapy regimens. To optimize the quality of life for cancer patients, patients should be adequately informed about potential toxicities before undergoing chemotherapy. Therefore, we constructed TOXviews, a novel graphical presentation and overview of toxicity profiles to improve information provision about adverse events. As an example, we analyzed first-line chemotherapy regimens for advanced esophagogastric cancer (AEGC). Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ASCO and ESMO for prospective phase II or III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on palliative first-line systemic treatment for AEGC until February 2017. We extracted proportions of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 1-2 (mild) and 3-4 (severe) adverse events from each chemotherapy arm and pooled these by using single-arm meta-analysis. Toxicity profiles per chemotherapy regimen were visualized in bidirectional bar charts with pooled proportions plus 95% confidence intervals. For comparative analysis, chemotherapy regimens were grouped in singlets, doublets and triplets. Results: We included 92 RCTs with a total of 16,963 patients. TOXviews for 3 fluoropyrimidine singlets, 5 cisplatin-containing doublets (C-doublets), 10 fluoropyrimidine non-cisplatin containing doublets (F-doublets), 4 anthracycline-containing triplets (A-triplets) and 5 taxane-containing triplets (T-triplets) were constructed. C-doublets, A-triplets and T-triplets all showed an increased incidence of grade 3-4 adverse events and clinically relevant grade 1-2 adverse events compared to F-doublets. Conclusion: TOXview provides a new graphical presentation and overview of chemotherapy toxicities. TOXviews can be used to educate physicians about the incidences of AEs of systemic therapy and improve informed decision-making.

Short-term efficacy of different chemotherapy regimens in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer: a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

A network meta-analysis was performed to compare the short-term efficacy of different chemotherapy regimens in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials of different chemotherapy regimens for advanced gastric cancer were included in this study. Network meta-analysis combined direct evidence and indirect evidence to evaluate the odds ratio and draw surface under the cumulative ranking curves of different chemotherapy regimens in advanced gastric cancer.

RESULTS

The results of surface under the cumulative ranking curves showed that S-1 and capecitabine regimens were better than fluorouracil. As for multi-drug combination regimens, the disease control rate of cisplatin + capecitabine, docetaxel + cisplatin + fluorouracil and etoposide + cisplatin + capecitabine regimens were relatively better, while fluorouracil + adriamycin + mitomycin regimen was relatively poorer when compared with cisplatin + fluorouracil regimen. Additionally, the overall response ratio of cisplatin + capecitabine, paclitaxel + fluorouracil, docetaxel + cisplatin + fluorouracil and etoposide + cisplatin + fluorouracil regimens were relatively better, while the disease control rate of fluorouracil + adriamycin + mitomycin regimen was relatively poorer when compared with cisplatin + fluorouracil regimen. Furthermore, the results of cluster analysis demonstrated that cisplatin + capecitabine, etoposide + cisplatin + capecitabine, S-1 + paclitaxel and S-1 + irinotecan chemotherapy regimens had better disease control rate and overall response ratio for advanced gastric cancer patients.

CONCLUSION

This network meta-analysis clearly showed that multi-drug combination chemotherapy regimens based on capecitabine and S-1 might be the best chemotherapy regimen for advanced gastric cancer.

Palliative chemotherapy and targeted therapies for esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer

BACKGROUND

Almost half of people with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer have metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis. Chemotherapy and targeted therapies are increasingly used with a palliative intent to control tumor growth, improve quality of life, and prolong survival. To date, and with the exception of ramucirumab, evidence for the efficacy of palliative treatments for esophageal and gastroesophageal cancer is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of cytostatic or targeted therapy for treating esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer with palliative intent.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Web of Science, PubMed Publisher, Google Scholar, and trial registries up to 13 May 2015, and we handsearched the reference lists of studies. We did not restrict the search to publications in English. Additional searches were run in September 2017 prior to publication, and they are listed in the 'Studies awaiting assessment' section.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy versus best supportive care or control in people with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data. We assessed the quality and risk of bias of eligible studies according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We calculated pooled estimates of effect using an inverse variance random-effects model for meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 41 RCTs with 11,853 participants for inclusion in the review as well as 49 ongoing studies. For the main comparison of adding a cytostatic and/or targeted agent to a control arm, we included 11 studies with 1347 participants. This analysis demonstrated an increase in overall survival in favor of the arm with an additional cytostatic or targeted therapeutic agent with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.75 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 0.84, high-quality evidence). The median increased survival time was one month. Five studies in 750 participants contributed data to the comparison of palliative therapy versus best supportive care. We found a benefit in overall survival in favor of the group receiving palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy compared to best supportive care (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.92, high-quality evidence). Subcomparisons including only people receiving second-line therapies, chemotherapies, targeted therapies, adenocarcinomas, and squamous cell carcinomas all showed a similar benefit. The only individual agent that more than one study found to improve both overall survival and progression-free survival was ramucirumab. Palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy increased the frequency of grade 3 or higher treatment-related toxicity. However, treatment-related deaths did not occur more frequently. Quality of life often improved in the arm with an additional agent.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

People who receive more chemotherapeutic or targeted therapeutic agents have an increased overall survival compared to people who receive less. These agents, administered as both first-line or second-line treatments, also led to better overall survival than best supportive care. With the exception of ramucirumab, it remains unclear which other individual agents cause the survival benefit. Although treatment-associated toxicities of grade 3 or more occurred more frequently in arms with an additional chemotherapy or targeted therapy agent, there is no evidence that palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy decrease quality of life. Based on this meta-analysis, palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy can be considered standard care for esophageal and gastroesophageal junction carcinoma.

Chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer is the fifth most common cancer worldwide. In "Western" countries, most people are either diagnosed at an advanced stage, or develop a relapse after surgery with curative intent. In people with advanced disease, significant benefits from targeted therapies are currently limited to HER-2 positive disease treated with trastuzumab, in combination with chemotherapy, in first-line. In second-line, ramucirumab, alone or in combination with paclitaxel, demonstrated significant survival benefits. Thus, systemic chemotherapy remains the mainstay of treatment for advanced gastric cancer. Uncertainty remains regarding the choice of the regimen.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of chemotherapy versus best supportive care (BSC), combination versus single-agent chemotherapy and different chemotherapy combinations in advanced gastric cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and Embase up to June 2016, reference lists of studies, and contacted pharmaceutical companies and experts to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered only RCTs on systemic, intravenous or oral chemotherapy versus BSC, combination versus single-agent chemotherapy and different chemotherapy regimens in advanced gastric cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified studies and extracted data. A third investigator was consulted in case of disagreements. We contacted study authors to obtain missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 64 RCTs, of which 60 RCTs (11,698 participants) provided data for the meta-analysis of overall survival. We found chemotherapy extends overall survival (OS) by approximately 6.7 months more than BSC (hazard ratio (HR) 0.3, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.24 to 0.55, 184 participants, three studies, moderate-quality evidence). Combination chemotherapy extends OS slightly (by an additional month) versus single-agent chemotherapy (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.89, 4447 participants, 23 studies, moderate-quality evidence), which is partly counterbalanced by increased toxicity. The benefit of epirubicin in three-drug combinations, in which cisplatin is replaced by oxaliplatin and 5-FU is replaced by capecitabine is unknown.Irinotecan extends OS slightly (by an additional 1.6 months) versus non-irinotecan-containing regimens (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.95, 2135 participants, 10 studies, high-quality evidence).Docetaxel extends OS slightly (just over one month) compared to non-docetaxel-containing regimens (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.95, 2001 participants, eight studies, high-quality evidence). However, due to subgroup analyses, we are uncertain whether docetaxel-containing combinations (docetaxel added to a single-agent or two-drug combination) extends OS due to moderate-quality evidence (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.91, 1466 participants, four studies, moderate-quality evidence). When another chemotherapy was replaced by docetaxel, there is probably little or no difference in OS (HR 1.05; 0.87 to 1.27, 479 participants, three studies, moderate-quality evidence). We found there is probably little or no difference in OS when comparing capecitabine versus 5-FU-containing regimens (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.11, 732 participants, five studies, moderate-quality evidence) .Oxaliplatin may extend (by less than one month) OS versus cisplatin-containing regimens (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.98, 1105 participants, five studies, low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether taxane-platinum combinations with (versus without) fluoropyrimidines extend OS due to very low-quality evidence (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.06, 482 participants, three studies, very low-quality evidence). S-1 regimens improve OS slightly (by less than an additional month) versus 5-FU-containing regimens (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.00, 1793 participants, four studies, high-quality evidence), however since S-1 is used in different doses and schedules between Asian and non-Asian population, the applicability of this finding to individual populations is uncertain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Chemotherapy improves survival (by an additional 6.7 months) in comparison to BSC, and combination chemotherapy improves survival (by an additional month) compared to single-agent 5-FU. Testing all patients for HER-2 status may help to identify patients with HER-2-positive tumours, for whom, in the absence of contraindications, trastuzumab in combination with capecitabine or 5-FU in combination with cisplatin has been shown to be beneficial. For HER-2 negative people, all different two-and three-drug combinations including irinotecan, docetaxel, oxaliplatin or oral 5-FU prodrugs are valid treatment options for advanced gastric cancer, and consideration of the side effects of each regimen is essential in the treatment decision. Irinotecan-containing combinations and docetaxel-containing combinations (in which docetaxel was added to a single-agent or two-drug (platinum/5-FUcombination) show significant survival benefits in the comparisons studied above. Furthermore, docetaxel-containing three-drug regimens have increased response rates, but the advantages of the docetaxel-containing three-drug combinations (DCF, FLO-T) are counterbalanced by increased toxicity. Additionally, oxaliplatin-containing regimens demonstrated a benefit in OS as compared to the same regimen containing cisplatin, and there is a modest survival improvement of S-1 compared to 5-FU-containing regimens.Whether the survival benefit for three-drug combinations including cisplatin, 5-FU, and epirubicin as compared to the same regimen without epirubicin is still valid when second-line therapy is routinely administered and when cisplatin is replaced by oxaliplatin and 5-FU by capecitabine is questionable. Furthermore, the magnitude of the observed survival benefits for the three-drug regimens is not large enough to be clinically meaningful as defined recently by the American Society for Clinical Oncology (Ellis 2014). In contrast to the comparisons in which a survival benefit was observed by adding a third drug to a two-drug regimen at the cost of increased toxicity, the comparison of regimens in which another chemotherapy was replaced by irinotecan was associated with a survival benefit (of borderline statistical significance), but without increased toxicity. For this reason irinotecan/5-FU-containing combinations are an attractive option for first-line treatment. Although they need to be interpreted with caution, subgroup analyses of one study suggest that elderly people have a greater benefit form oxaliplatin, as compared to cisplatin-based regimens, and that people with locally advanced disease or younger than 65 years might benefit more from a three-drug regimen including 5-FU, docetaxel, and oxaliplatin as compared to a two-drug combination of 5-FU and oxaliplatin, a hypothesis that needs further confirmation. For people with good performance status, the benefit of second-line chemotherapy has been established in several RCTs.

Efficacy and safety comparison of chemotherapies for advanced gastric cancer: A network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Chemotherapy is one of the commonly used therapies for advanced gastric cancer. In this study, we performed a network meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of common treatments to give evidences of their relative benefits.

RESULTS

32 trials with 8550 patients and 20 regimens were included in this study. According to the results of primary outcomes, 5-FU plus OXA, 5-FU plus DOC, CAP plus CIS, CAP plus OXA, S-1 plus OXA and S-1 plus PAC performed well in improving OS and ORR. As for the adverse events, S-1 had a safer effect than other treatments, conversely, 5-FU plus CIS ranked the last. However, there was no regimen with outstanding performances in both efficacy and safety.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Studies were searched from database and screened with criteria. The Bayesian framework based network meta-analysis was performed with software R and STATA. Overall survival (OS) and overall response rate (ORR) were considered as primary outcomes while adverse events as secondary outcomes. The outcomes were represented by hazard ratios or odd ratios with 95% corresponding credible intervals, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The network meta-analysis suggested that 5-FU plus OXA and 5-FU plus DOC were recommended when efficacy was stressed. S-1 was safest but poorly effective. A regimen, as an excellent combination of efficacy and safety, is still waiting to be discovered.

The Efficacy and Safety of First-line Chemotherapy in Advanced Esophagogastric Cancer: A Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A globally accepted standard first-line chemotherapy regimen in advanced esophagogastric cancer (AEGC) is not clearly established. We conducted a systematic review to investigate the efficacy and safety of first-line chemotherapy using Network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS

Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and conferences were searched until June 2015 for randomized controlled trials that compared regimens containing: fluoropyrimidine (F), platinum (cisplatin [C] and oxaliplatin [Ox]), taxane (T), anthracycline (A), irinotecan (I), or methotrexate (M). Direct and indirect evidence for overall survival (OS) and progression-free-survival (PFS) were combined using random-effects NMA on the hazard ratio (HR) scale and calculated as combined hazard ratios and 95% credible intervals (CrIs).

RESULTS

The NMA incorporated 17 chemotherapy regimens with 37 direct comparisons between regimens for OS (50 studies, n = 10 249) and 29 direct comparisons for PFS (34 studies, n = 7795). Combining direct and indirect effects showed increased efficacy for fluoropyrimidine noncisplatin doublets (F-doublets) over cisplatin doublets (C-doublets): FI vs CF (combined HR = 0.85, 95% CrI = 0.71 to 0.99), FOx vs CF (combined HR = 0.83, 95% CrI = 0.71 to 0.98) in OS and FOx vs CF (combined HR = 0.82, 95% CrI = 0.66 to 0.99) in PFS. Anthracycline-containing triplets (A-triplets: ACF, AFOx, AFM) and TCF triplet showed no benefit over F-doublets in OS and PFS. The triplet FOxT showed increased PFS vs F-doublets FT (combined HR = 0.61, 95% CrI = 0.38 to 0.99), FI (combined HR = 0.62, 95% CrI = 0.38 to 0.99), and FOx (combined HR = 0.67, 95% CrI = 0.44 to 0.99). Increased grade 3 to 4 toxicity was found for CF vs F-doublets, for ACF vs FI for TCF vs CF, and for FOxT vs FOx.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on efficacy and toxicity, F-doublets FOx, FI, and FT are preferred as first-line treatment for AEGC compared with C-doublets, A-triplets, and TCF. FOxT is the most promising triplet.

The efficacy and safety of S-1-based regimens in the first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

S-1 is first-line therapy for advanced gastric cancer in Asia and is used with increased frequency in Western counties. We conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and toxicity of S-1-based therapy compared with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/capecitabine-based therapy and S-1-based combination therapy compared with S-1 monotherapy.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting abstracts, European Society for Medical Oncology meeting abstracts and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for randomized clinical trials until May 2015. Data were extracted for overall survival (OS), progression-free-survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and grade 1-2 and grade 3-4 adverse events. Stratified OS data for subgroups were extracted.

RESULTS

S-1 was not different from 5-FU (eight studies, n = 2788) in terms of OS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.93, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.85-1.01] and PFS (HR 0.87, 95 % CI 0.73-1.04), whereas ORR was higher (risk ratio 1.43, 95 % CI 1.05-1.96). There was no subgroup difference in efficacy among Asian and Western patients, but in Western patients S-1 was associated with a lower rate of febrile neutropenia, toxicity-related deaths and grade 3-4 stomatitis and mucositis compared with 5-FU. S-1 showed no difference in efficacy compared with capecitabine (three studies, n = 329), but was associated with a lower rate of grade 3-4 neutropenia and grade 1-2 hand-foot syndrome. S-1-combination therapy was superior to S-1 monotherapy (eight studies, n = 1808) in terms of OS (HR 0.76, 95 % CI 0.65-0.90), PFS (HR 0.68, 95 % CI 0.56-0.82) and ORR (risk ratio 1.20, 95 % CI 1.04-1.38) but was more toxic. Survival benefit of S-1 combination therapy over S-1 monotherapy was most pronounced in patients with non-measurable disease, diffuse-type histological features and peritoneal metastasis.

CONCLUSIONS

S-1 is effective and tolerable as first-line therapy for advanced gastric cancer in both Asian and Western countries.

Docetexal plus S-1 versus oxaliplatin plus S-1 for first-line treatment of patients with advanced gastric cancer: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Both docetexal plus S-1 (DS) and oxaliplatin plus S-1 (SOX) are active regimens currently used in patients with advanced gastric cancer. In this retrospective study, efficacy and safety of these 2 combination regimens were evaluated.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients received docetaxel infusion 75 mg/m(2) in the DS group or oxaliplatin infusion 130 mg/m(2) in the SOX group at day 1 of each 3-week cycle. S-1 40 mg/m(2) was administered orally twice daily on days 1-14 in the 3-week cycle in both groups. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety perimeters were evaluated.

RESULTS

84 patients were retrospectively evaluated in the study: 36 patients in the DS group and 48 patients in the SOX group. The median PFS was 6.55 months in the DS group and 5.73months in the SOX group. The median OS was 13.97 in the DS group and 13.13 months in the SOX group. The overall response rates were 41.7% and 43.8% and the disease control rates were 77.8% and 87.5% for DS and SOX, respectively. The most frequent grade 3 and 4 toxicities were thrombocytopenia for DS (19.4%) and anemia for SOX (12.5%).

CONCLUSION

Both regimens were active and well tolerated in advanced gastric cancer patients. © 2014 S. Karger GmbH, Freiburg.

S-1-based therapy versus S-1 monotherapy in advanced gastric cancer: a meta-analysis

This study aimed to derive a more precise estimate of the prognostic significance of S-1-based therapy over S-1 monotherapy in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC), including overall survival (OS) time, progression-free survival (PFS) time, objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs). Studies stratifying OS, PFS, ORR, and AEs in AGC patients in an S-1-based therapy versus an S-1 monotherapy setting were eligible for analysis by systematic computerized PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library searches. Data from these studies were pooled using STATA package version 11.0. Six studies that investigated outcomes in a total of 913 AGC cases, of which 443 (48.5%) received S-1-based therapy and 470 (51.5%) received S-1 monotherapy, were included in the meta-analysis. Median OS and median PFS were significantly prolonged in AGC patients receiving S-1-based therapy compared with those receiving S-1 monotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-0.96, P = 0.015, and HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.60-0.80, P = 0.000, respectively). The ORR favored patients with S-1-based therapy (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.34-2.06, P = 0.000). Higher incidence of grade 3/4 neutropenia was found in patients with S-1-based therapy (P = 0.000). For the Asian population, S-1-based therapy significantly improved OS and PFS and enhanced ORR in comparison to S-1 monotherapy. The safety profile was poorer in patients with S-1-based therapy, but could be considerable between the S-1-based therapy and S-1 monotherapy group. Our conclusion needs to be confirmed via high-quality trials and the results need to be reproduced in other regions and populations.

Overall survival benefits for irinotecan-containing regimens as first-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer: an updated meta-analysis of ten randomized controlled trials

The standard treatment for patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) is still debated, and the available data on the benefit of irinotecan-containing regimen as first-line treatment for those patients are controversial. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to determine the survival benefits of irinotecan-containing regimens in this setting. A total of 1,837 patients from ten trials were included in the analysis. Our results showed that irinotecan-containing regimens significantly improved overall survival [OS: hazard ratio (HR) 0.86, 95% CI = 0.78-0.94, p = 0.002] and progression-free survival [HR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.69-0.97, p = 0.026); however, the improvement of time to failure (HR = 0.90; 95% CI = 0.77-1.04, p = 0.15), 1-year survival rate [1-year SR: relative risk (RR) 1.10, 95% CI = 0.97-1.24, p = 0.13] and overall response rate (RR = 1.16, 95% CI = 0.91-1.49, p = 0.24] were nonsignificant. Equivalent frequencies of toxicities were found between the two groups excluding more Grade 3 or 4 fatigue (p = 0.001) in irinotecan-containing regimens. This updated meta-analysis provided strong evidence for a survival benefit of irinotecan-containing regimen as first-line treatment for AGC. A clear advantage of irinotecan-containing over nonirinotecan-containing regimen had not been established. These results should help to inform decisions about patient management and design of future trials.