Randomized prospective phase II study to compare the combination chemotherapy regimen epirubicin, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil with epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine in patients with advanced or metastatic gastric cancer. Am J Clin Oncol. 2012;35:237-241. [PMID: 21399488 DOI: 10.1097/coc.0b013e31820dc0b0]

A Nomogram to Predict Severe Toxicity in DPYD Wild-Type Patients Treated With Capecitabine-Based Anticancer Regimens

DPYD-guided dosing has improved the safety of fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in recent years. However, severe toxicity remains in ~ 23% of patients not carrying DPYD variant alleles treated with capecitabine. Therefore, we developed a predictive model based on patient-related and treatment-related factors aimed at estimating the risk of developing severe capecitabine-related toxicity. The nomogram was developed using data from two large clinical trials (NCT00838370 and NCT02324452). Patients with cancer carrying a DPYD variant allele (DPYD*2A, c.1236G>A, c.2846A>T, and c.1679T>G) were excluded. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression using predetermined predictors based on previous findings, including age, sex, body surface area, type of treatment regimen, and creatinine levels were used to develop the nomogram. The developed model was internally validated using bootstrap resampling and cross-validation. This model was not externally or clinically validated. A total of 2,147 DPYD wild-type patients with cancer treated with capecitabine-based chemotherapy regimens were included of which complete data of 1,745 patients were available and used for the development of the nomogram. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression showed that age, sex, and type of treatment regimen were strong predictors of severe capecitabine-related toxicity in DPYD wild-type patients. Internal validation demonstrated a concordance index of 0.68 which indicates a good discriminative ability for prediction of severe capecitabine-related toxicity. The developed nomogram includes readily available parameters and may be a helpful tool for clinicians to assess the risk of developing severe capecitabine-related toxicity in patients without known risk DPYD variant alleles treated with capecitabine-based anticancer regimens.

Meta-Analysis of Capecitabine versus 5-Fluorouracil in Advanced Gastric Cancer

Objective

To investigate the effect of capecitabine versus 5-fluorouracil in advanced gastric cancer patients.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and other databases from database establishment to June 2022, containing randomized controlled trials (RCT) on capecitabine and 5-fluorouracil in advanced gastric cancer patients. A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of capecitabine versus 5-fluorouracil on overall response rate, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, stomatitis, hand-foot syndrome, nausea and vomiting, alopecia, and diarrhea.

Results

Eight RCTs with a total of 1998 patients with advanced gastric cancer were finally included, including 982 with capecitabine and 1016 with 5-fluorouracil. Compared with 5-fluorouracil, capecitabine use was significantly associated with an improved overall response rate in patients (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.02-1.25, P=0.02). Compared with 5-fluorouracil, treatment with capecitabine was significantly associated with decreased neutropenia events (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62-0.99, I² = 86%, P=0.04), and a decreased risk of stomatitis (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.64-0.84, I² = 40%, P < 0.0001) in patients with advanced gastric cancer. In terms of hand-foot syndrome, capecitabine was associated with increased hand-foot syndrome events than 5-fluorouracil (RR 2.00, 95% CI 1.21-3.31, P=0.007). In terms of thrombocytopenia, nausea and vomiting, alopecia, and diarrhea, the effect of capecitabine and 5-fluorouracil were similar (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

Compared with 5-fluorouracil, capecitabine treatment improves the overall response rate and reduces the risk of neutropenia and stomatitis in advanced gastric cancer patients. It should be noted that capecitabine treatment may also increase the occurrence of hand-foot syndrome. Capecitabine is similar to 5-fluorouracil in causing thrombocytopenia, nausea and vomiting, alopecia, and diarrhea.

Capecitabine-induced enterocolitis: a case report and pharmacogenetic profile

Capecitabine is a widely-used antineoplastic drug, a prodrug to 5-fluorouracil which commonly induces gastrointestinal toxicity. Enterocolitis, as a rarely recognized gastrointestinal adverse effect (AE) of capecitabine, is potentially severe and usually results in antitumor treatment withdrawal. For the better management of severe AEs, pharmacogenetics is one promising field. Herein, we describe a case of capecitabine-induced enterocolitis presenting with severe diarrhea in order to improve recognition by clinicians. Moreover, we conduct a pharmacogenetic profile of the patient and review the current studies of gene polymorphisms of 5-fluorouracil-related diarrhea, hoping to offer a reference for further clinical pharmacogenetic practice in predicting capecitabine AEs showing diarrhea as the main symptom.

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.

Comparison of toxicity and effectiveness between fixed-dose and body surface area-based dose capecitabine

BACKGROUND

Capecitabine is generally dosed based on body surface area (BSA). This dosing strategy has several limitations; however, evidence for alternative strategies is lacking. Therefore, we analyzed the toxicity and effectiveness of fixed-dose capecitabine and compared this strategy with a BSA-based dose of capecitabine in a large set of patients.

METHODS

Patients treated with fixed-dose capecitabine between 2003 and 2015 were studied. A comparable group of patients, dosed based on BSA, was chosen as a control cohort. A total of two combined scores were used: capecitabine-specific toxicity (diarrhea, National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria grade ⩾3, hand-foot syndrome ⩾2, or neutropenia ⩾2), and clinically relevant events due to toxicity, that is, hospital admission, dose reduction, or discontinuation. Per treatment regimen, patients were divided into three BSA groups based on BSA quartiles corrected for sex. Toxicity scores were compared by a Chi-square test between cohorts, and within cohorts using BSA groups. Progression-free survival (PFS) was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

A total of 2319 patients were included (fixed dosed, n = 1126 and BSA-based dose, n = 1193). Overall, four regimens were evaluated: capecitabine-radiotherapy (n = 1178), capecitabine-oxaliplatin (n = 519), capecitabine triplet (n = 181) and capecitabine monotherapy (n = 441). The incidence of capecitabine-specific toxicity and clinically relevant events was comparable between fixed-dose and BSA-dosed patients, while a small difference (7.1%) in absolute dose was found. Both cohorts showed only a higher incidence of both toxicity scores in the lowest BSA group of the capecitabine-radiotherapy group (p < 0.05). Subgroups of the fixed-dose cohort analyzed for PFS, showed no differences between BSA groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Fixed-dose capecitabine is as comparably well tolerated and effective as BSA-based dosing and could be considered as a reasonable alternative for BSA-based dosing.

A multicentre, open-label phase II study of Irinotecan, capecitabine (Xeloda®), and Oxaliplatin (IXO) as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma

Purpose Chemotherapy remains the primary treatment for metastatic gastric/GEJ cancer but optimal agents and schedule remain controversial. This study examined the safety and efficacy of first-line Irinotecan, capecitabine (Xeloda®), and Oxaliplatin (IXO). Patients and Methods Eligible patients with HER2-unamplified/unknown, metastatic gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma were treated with 21-day cycle IXO at dose level 1 (DL1: Day 1 O-100 mg/m² & I-160 mg/m² IV, Day 2-15 X-1900 mg/m²/day PO divided doses) or modified IXO (mIXO): Day 1 O-85 mg/m² & I-120 mg/m² IV, Day 2-15 X-1425 mg/m²/day PO divided doses). This Bryant and Day two-stage designed study had dual primary endpoints of objective response rate (ORR) and toxicity. Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results Fifty patients were enrolled and received a median of 7 cycles. After accrual of 9 patients at DL1, evaluable RR was 88% however dose limiting toxicity (DLT) rate was 56% thus doses were adjusted to mIXO. Fifteen patients accrued at mIXO had a RR of 60% and DLT rate of 13% allowing continuation to stage 2. Overall, 48 and 49 patients were evaluable for efficacy and safety, respectively, with ORR of 54% and DLTs in 24% of patients (DL1 = 56%; mIXO = 18%). Disease control rate was 85%. The most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events were diarrhea, neutropenia, fatigue, hypokalemia, and nausea. Median PFS and OS were 7.5 and 13.0 months, respectively, with a median follow-up of 9.7 months. Conclusion mIXO demonstrates promising ORR, PFS, OS, and acceptable toxicity compared to standard triplet regimens. IXO should be evaluated in phase III trials.

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.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Tumor response evaluation after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced gastric adenocarcinoma: a prospective, multi-center cohort study

BACKGROUND

To verify the prognostic value of the pathologic and radiological tumor response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced gastric adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

A total of 67 patients with locally advanced gastric cancer (clinical ≥ T2 or nodal disease and without evidence of distant metastases) underwent perioperative chemotherapy (ECF or ECX regimen) from December 2009 through June 2015 in two surgical units. Histopathological and radiological response to chemotherapy were evaluated by using tumor regression grade (TRG) (Becker's criteria) and volume change assessed by CT.

RESULTS

Fifty-one (86%) patients completed all chemotherapy scheduled cycles successfully and surgery was curative (R0) in 64 (97%) subjects. The histopathological analysis showed 19 (29%) specimens with TRG1 (less than 10% of vital tumor left) and 25 (37%) patients had partial or complete response (CR) assessed by CT scan. Median disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were 25.70 months (range, 14.52-36.80 months) and 36.60 months (range, 24.3-52.9 months), respectively. The median follow up was 27 months (range, 5.00-68.00 months). Radiological response and TRG were found to be a prognostic factor for OS and DFS, while tumor histology was not significantly related to survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Both radiological response and TRG have been shown as promising survival markers in patients treated with perioperative chemotherapy for locally advanced gastric cancer. Other predictive markers of response to chemotherapy are strongly required.

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.

Capecitabine, 5-fluorouracil and S-1 based regimens for previously untreated advanced oesophagogastric cancer: A network meta-analysis

As evidence is inconsistent and based on either isolated Asian or Western studies, we conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to examine efficacy and safety of 5-FU (5-fluorouracil), capecitabine and S-1-based first-line treatment of advanced esophagogastric cancer in Asian and Western patients. Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL and conferences ASCO and ESMO were searched up to January 2016 for randomized-controlled-trials comparing 5-FU, capecitabine or S-1-based regimens with equal chemotherapy backbones. Direct and indirect data for overall survival (OS) and progression-free-survival (PFS) were combined on the Hazard Ratio (HR)-scale using random-effects NMA and calculated as combined HRs and 95%credible intervals (95%CrI). Grade 1-2 and grade 3-4 adverse events were compared with pair-wise meta-analysis. Fifteen studies were identified including capecitabine (n = 945), 5-FU (n = 2,132) or S-1 (n = 1,636). No differences were found in respectively OS and PFS for capecitabine-based versus 5-FU-based regimens (HR = 0.89, 95%CrI = 0.76-1.04 and HR = 0.98, 95%CrI = 0.75-1.32), S-1-based versus 5-FU-based regimens (HR = 0.92, 95%CrI = 0.82-1.04 and HR = 0.88, 95%CrI = 0.70-1.11) and S-1-based versus capecitabine-based regimens (HR = 1.03, 95%CrI = 0.87-1.22 and HR = 0.89, 95%CrI = 0.65-1.20). Effects were similar in Asian and Western subgroups. Toxicity profiles were different but a lower frequency of relevant adverse events was observed with S-1 In conclusion, as efficacy was similar, choosing fluoropyrimidines should be based on their individual toxicity profiles.

Capecitabine for the treatment of gastric cancer

Capecitabine is an orally administered prodrug of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and was designed to specifically affect tumor cells more than normal tissues. Capecitabine is as effective and well tolerated as infusional 5-FU in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Following the REAL-2 and ML17032 studies, capecitabine has replaced infusional 5-FU for treating GC. Capecitabine plus platinum is one of the most widely used regimens for the first-line treatment of AGC, regardless of HER2 status. The adjuvant capecitabine/oxaliplatin regimen is one therapeutic option for resectable gastric cancer, especially after D2 resection. Compared with S-1, capecitabine has been shown to have a similar efficacy, but is associated with fewer ethnic differences than S-1, which accounts for the more widespread usage of capecitabine worldwide.

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.

Fluoropyrimidine-Based Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Advanced Gastric Cancer: a Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

Fluoropyrimidine-based regimens are the most common treatments in advanced gastric cancer. We used a Bayesian network meta-analysis to identify the optimal fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy by comparing their relative efficacy and safety. We systematically searched databases and extracted data from randomized controlled trials, which compared fluoropyrimidine-based regimens as first-line treatment in AGC. The main outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), and grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs). A total of 12 RCTs of 4026 patients were included in our network meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed S-1 and capecitabine had a significant OS benefit over 5-Fu, with hazard ratios of 0.90 (95%CI = 0.81-0.99) and 0.88 (95%CI = 0.80-0.96), respectively. The result also exhibited a trend that S-1 and capecitabine prolonged PFS in contrast to 5-Fu, with hazard ratios of 0.84 (95%CI = 0.66-1.02) and 0.84 (95%CI = 0.65-1.03), respectively. Additionally, all the three fluoropyrimidine-based regimens were similar in terms of ORR and grade 3 or 4 AEs. Compared with regimens based on 5-Fu, regimens based on S-1 or capecitabine demonstrated a significant OS improvement without compromise of AEs as first-line treatment in AGC in Asian population. S-1 and capecitabine can be interchangeable according their different emphasis on AEs.

Thymidylate synthase genotype-directed chemotherapy for patients with gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancers

BACKGROUND

Retrospective studies indicate associations between TSER (thymidylate synthase enhancer region) genotypes and clinical outcomes in patients receiving 5-FU based chemotherapy, but well-controlled prospective validation has been lacking.

METHODS

In this phase II study (NCT00515216 registered through ClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00515216), patients with "good risk" TSER genotypes (at least one TSER*2 allele) were treated with FOLFOX chemotherapy to determine whether prospective patient selection can improve overall response rates (ORR) in patients with gastric and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancers, compared with historical outcomes in unselected patients (estimated 43%).

RESULTS

The ORR in genotype-selected patients was 39.1% (9 partial responses out of 23 evaluable patients, 95% CI, 22.2 to 59.2), not achieving the primary objective of improving ORR. An encouraging disease control rate (DCR, consisting of partial responses and stable diseases) of 95.7% was noted and patients with homozygous TSER*2 genotype showed better tumor response.

CONCLUSIONS

In this first prospective, multi-institutional study in patients with gastric or GEJ cancers, selecting patients with at least one TSER*2 allele did not improve the ORR but led to an encouraging DCR. Further studies are needed to investigate the utility of selecting patients homozygous for the TSER*2 allele and additional genomic markers in improving clinical outcomes for patients with gastric and GEJ cancers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00515216.

S-1-based vs non-S-1-based chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer: A meta-analysis

AIM: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of S-1-based vs non-S-1-based chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer (AGC).

METHODS: We extracted reported endpoints, including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), time-to-treatment failure (TTF), objective response rate (ORR) and adverse effects, from randomized controlled trials identified in PubMed, the Cochrane library, Science Direct, EMBASE and American Society of Clinical Oncology meetings. Stata software was used to calculate the pooled values.

RESULTS: Seven randomized controlled trials involving 2176 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to non-S-1-based regimens, the use of S-1-based regimens were associated with an increase in ORR (RR = 1.300; 95%CI: 1.028-1.645); OS (HR = 0.89; 95%CI: 0.81-0.99; P = 0.025), TTF (HR = 0.83; 95%CI: 0.75-0.92; P = 0.000), and a lower risk of febrile neutropenia (RR = 0.225; P = 0.000) and stomatitis (RR = 0.230; P = 0.032). OS, PFS and TTF were prolonged, especially in the Asian population. In subgroup analysis, statistically significant increases in ORR (RR = 1.454; P = 0.029), OS (HR = 0.895; P = 0.041) and TTF (HR = 0.832; P = 0.000) were found when S-1-based chemotherapy was compared to 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-based chemotherapy. The incidence of leukopenia (RR = 0.584; P = 0.002) and stomatitis (RR = 0.230; P = 0.032) was higher in the 5-FU-based arm. S-1-based regimens had no advantage in ORR, OS, PFS, TTF and grade 3 or 4 adverse events over capecitabine-based regimens.

CONCLUSION: S-1-based chemotherapy may be a good choice for AGC because of longer survival times, better tolerance and more convenient use.

Rilotumumab in combination with epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine as first-line treatment for gastric or oesophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma: an open-label, dose de-escalation phase 1b study and a double-blind, randomised phase 2 study

BACKGROUND

Dysregulation of the hepatocyte growth factor (HGF)/MET pathway promotes tumour growth and metastasis. Rilotumumab is a fully human, monoclonal antibody that neutralises HGF. We aimed to assess the safety, efficacy, biomarkers, and pharmacokinetics of rilotumumab combined with epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (ECX) in patients with advanced gastric or oesophagogastric junction cancer.

METHODS

We recruited patients (≥18 years old) with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic gastric or oesophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, who had not received previous systemic therapy, from 43 sites worldwide. Phase 1b was an open-label, dose de-escalation study to identify a safe dose of rilotumumab (initial dose 15 mg/kg intravenously on day 1) plus ECX (epirubicin 50 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1, cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1, capecitabine 625 mg/m(2) twice a day orally on days 1-21, respectively), administered every 3 weeks. The phase 1b primary endpoint was the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities in all phase 1b patients who received at least one dose of rilotumumab and completed the dose-limiting toxicity assessment window (first cycle of therapy). Phase 2 was a double-blind study that randomly assigned patients (1:1:1) using an interactive voice response system to receive rilotumumab 15 mg/kg, rilotumumab 7·5 mg/kg, or placebo, plus ECX (doses as above), stratified by ECOG performance status and disease extent. The phase 2 primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), analysed by intention to treat. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00719550.

FINDINGS

Seven of the nine patients enrolled in the phase 1b study received at least one dose of rilotumumab 15 mg/kg, only two of whom had three dose-limiting toxicities: palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, cerebral ischaemia, and deep-vein thrombosis. In phase 2, 121 patients were randomly assigned (40 to rilotumumab 15 mg/kg; 42 to rilotumumab 7·5 mg/kg; 39 to placebo). Median PFS was 5·1 months (95% CI 2·9-7·0) in the rilotumumab 15 mg/kg group, 6·8 months (4·5-7·5) in the rilotumumab 7·5 mg/kg group, 5·7 months (4·5-7·0) in both rilotumumab groups combined, and 4·2 months (2·9-4·9) in the placebo group. The hazard ratio for PFS events compared with placebo was 0·69 (80% CI 0·49-0·97; p=0·164) for rilotumumab 15 mg/kg, 0·53 (80% CI 0·38-0·73; p=0·009) for rilotumumab 7·5 mg/kg, and 0·60 (80% CI 0·45-0·79; p=0·016) for combined rilotumumab. Any grade adverse events more common in the combined rilotumumab group than in the placebo group included haematological adverse events (neutropenia in 44 [54%] of 81 patients vs 13 [33%] of 39 patients; anaemia in 32 [40%] vs 11 [28%]; and thrombocytopenia in nine [11%] vs none), peripheral oedema (22 [27%] vs three [8%]), and venous thromboembolism (16 [20%] vs five [13%]). Grade 3-4 adverse events more common with rilotumumab included neutropenia (36 [44%] vs 11 [28%]) and venous thromboembolism (16 [20%] vs four [10%]). Serious adverse events were balanced between groups except for anaemia, which occurred more frequently in the combined rilotumumab group (ten [12%] vs none).

INTERPRETATION

Rilotumumab plus ECX had no unexpected safety signals and showed greater activity than placebo plus ECX. A phase 3 study of the combination in MET-positive gastric and oesophagogastric junction cancer is in progress.

FUNDING

Amgen Inc.

Outcomes in gastric and junctional cancer using neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy (epirubicin, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine) and radical surgery

BACKGROUND

The MAGIC/UK Medical Research Council (MRC) trial set the standard of care for treatment of resectable gastric and junctional adenocarcinoma, demonstrating that perioperative chemotherapy with epirubicin, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (ECF) confers a survival benefit over surgery alone. The randomized ECF for advanced and locally advanced esophagogastric cancer (REAL-2) trial showed that, in the metastatic setting, the EOX regimen (epirubicin, oxaliplatin and capecitabine) is as effective as ECF, with a favourable toxicity profile.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with resectable gastric or junctional adenocarcinoma treated with perioperative EOX, between 2007 and 2012, were retrospectively analysed.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine patients (12 female, 47 male), commenced EOX therapy; 47 underwent surgery. A good pathological response was seen in 34%, (16/47). Disease recurrence occurred in 19 patients (19/47, 40%). Median overall survival was 22 months, with 4-year survival of 47%. Chemotoxicities were consistent with those previously reported for this regimen.

CONCLUSION

This study in a high-volume centre demonstrates that EOX in resectable gastric and junctional adenocarcinoma is associated with a reasonable safety profile, and efficacy consistent with that reported for ECF.

Capecitabine in adjuvant radiochemotherapy for gastric adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

In patients with non-metastatic gastric cancer surgery still remains the treatment of choice. Postoperative radiochemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin significantly improves the treatment outcome. The oral fluoropyrimidines, such as capecitabine, mimic continuous 5-fluorouracil infusion, are at least as effective as 5-fluorouracil, and such treatment is more comfortable for the patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In the period from October 2006 to December 2009, 101 patients with gastric cancer in stages Ib-IIIc were treated with postoperative chemoradiation with capecitabine. Distal subtotal resection of the stomach was performed in 46.3%, total resection in 50.5% and multivisceral resection in 3.2% of patients. The main endpoints of this study were loco-regional control (LRC), disease-free survival (DFS), disease-specific survival (DSS) and overall survival (OS). The rates of acute side-effects were also estimated.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven percent of patients completed the treatment according to the protocol. The median follow-up time of all patients was 3.9 years (range: 0.4-6.3 years) and in survivors it was 4.7 years (range: 3.2-6.3 years). No death occurred due to the therapy. Acute toxicity, such as nausea and vomiting, stomatitis, diarrhoea, hand-foot syndrome and infections of grade 3 or 4, occurred in 5%, 1%, 2%, 8.9% and 18.8% of patients, respectively. On the close-out date 63.4% patients were still alive and with no signs of the disease. The 4-years follow-up survey showed that LRC, DFS, DSS and OS were 95.5%, 69.2%, 70.7%, and 66.2%, respectively. Higher pN-stage and splenectomy were found to be independent prognostic factors for all four types of survival and perineural invasion and lower treatment intensity for DFS, DSS and OS.

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative radiochemotherapy with capecitabine is feasible, with low toxicity and the results of such treatment are good.