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

Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Systemic Treatments for Advanced and Metastatic Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

Recent advances in the development of biomarker-directed therapy and immunotherapy, for advanced and metastatic gastric cancers, have the potential to improve survival and quality of life. Much attention has been directed towards second- and later-line treatments, and the landscape here is evolving rapidly. However, uncertainty in relative effectiveness, high costs and uncertainty in cost effectiveness represent challenges for decision makers.

OBJECTIVE

To identify economic evaluations for the second-line or later-line treatment of advanced and metastatic gastric cancer. Also, to assess key criteria (including model assumptions, inputs and outcomes), reporting completeness and methodological quality to inform future cost-effectiveness evaluations.

METHODS

A systematic literature search (from database inception to 5 March 2023) of EconLit via EBSCOhost, Cochrane Library (restricted to National Health Service [NHS] Economic Evaluation Database and Health Technology Assessment [HTA] Database), Embase, MEDLINE and of grey literature was conducted. This aimed to identify systemic treatments that align with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines. Data were collected on key criteria and on reporting completeness and methodological quality. A narrative synthesis focussed on cost-effectiveness and cost-of-illness studies. Outcomes of interest included total and incremental costs and outcomes (life-years and quality-adjusted life-years), ratios of incremental costs per unit outcome and other summary cost and outcome measures. Also, for cost-effectiveness studies, reporting completeness and the methodological quality were assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) and the Philips Checklist, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 19 eligible economic evaluations were identified (cost-effectiveness studies [n = 15] and cost-of-illness studies [n = 4]). There was a general lack of consistency in the methodological approaches taken across studies. In the main, the cost-effectiveness studies indicated that the intervention under consideration was more effective and more costly than the comparator(s). However, most interventions were not cost effective. No studies were fully compliant with reporting-completeness and methodological-quality requirements. Given the lack of consistency in the approaches taken across cost-of-illness studies, outcomes could not be directly compared.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the first published systematic literature review that has qualitatively synthesised economic evaluations for advanced and metastatic gastric cancer. There were differences in the approaches taken across the cost-effectiveness studies and the cost-of-illness studies. The conclusions of most of the cost-effectiveness studies were consistent despite identified differences in approaches. In the main, the interventions under consideration were not cost effective, presenting challenges to sustainability and affordability. We highlight a requirement for cost-effectiveness evaluations and for second-line or later-line treatments of advanced and metastatic gastric cancer that consider all relevant comparators and that are compliant with reporting-completeness and methodological-quality requirements. By addressing the methodological gaps identified here, future healthcare decision-making, within the context of this rapidly changing treatment landscape, would be better informed.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023405951.

CA125 Kinetics as a Potential Biomarker for Peritoneal Metastasis Progression following Taxane-Plus-Ramucirumab Administration in Patients with Advanced Gastric Cancer

Currently, no established marker exists for predicting peritoneal metastasis progression during chemotherapy, although they are major interruptive factors in sequential chemotherapy in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC). This multicenter retrospective study was conducted from June 2015 to July 2019, analyzing 73 patients with AGC who underwent taxane-plus-ramucirumab (TAX/RAM) therapy and had their serum carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125) concentrations measured. Of 31 patients with elevated CA125 levels above a cutoff of 35 U/mL, 25 (80.6%) had peritoneal metastasis. The CA125 concentrations before TAX/RAM treatment were associated with ascites burden. The overall survival was significantly shorter in the CA125-elevated group. CA125 kinetics, measured at a median of 28 days after chemotherapy, were associated with the ascites response (complete or partial response: -1.86%/day; stable disease: 0.28%/day; progressive disease: 2.33%/day). Progression-free survival in the CA125-increased group, defined by an increase of 0.0067%/day using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, was significantly poorer among patients with peritoneal metastases. In conclusion, this study highlights that CA125 kinetics can serve as an early predictor for the progression of peritoneal metastasis during TAX/RAM treatment.

INTEGRATE II: randomised phase III controlled trials of regorafenib containing regimens versus standard of care in refractory Advanced Gastro-Oesophageal Cancer (AGOC): a study by the Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group (AGITG)

BACKGROUND

Advanced gastro-oesophageal cancer (AGOC) carries a poor prognosis. No standard of care treatment options are available after first and second-line therapies. Regorafenib is an oral multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting angiogenic, stromal, and oncogenic receptor tyrosine kinases. Regorafenib 160 mg daily prolonged progression free survival compared to placebo (INTEGRATE, phase 2). Regorafenib 80 mg daily in combination with nivolumab 3 mg/kg showed promising objective response rates (REGONIVO).

METHODS/DESIGN

INTEGRATE II (INTEGRATE IIa and IIb) platform comprises two international phase III randomised controlled trials (RCT) with 2:1 randomisation in favor of experimental intervention. INTEGRATE IIa (double-blind) compares regorafenib 160 mg daily on days 1 to 21 of each 28-day cycle to placebo. INTEGRATE IIb (open label) compares REGONIVO, regorafenib 90 mg days 1 to 21 in combination with intravenous nivolumab 240 mg days 1 and 15 each 28-day cycle with investigator's choice of chemotherapy (control). Treatment continues until disease progression or intolerable adverse events as per protocol. Eligible participants include adults with AGOC who have failed two or more lines of treatment. Stratification is by location of tumour (INTEGRATE IIa only), geographic region, prior VEGF inhibitor and prior immunotherapy use (INTEGRATE IIb only). Primary endpoint is overall survival. Secondary endpoints are progression free survival, objective response rate, quality of life, and safety. Tertiary/correlative objectives include biomarker and pharmacokinetic evaluation.

DISCUSSION

INTEGRATE II provides a platform to evaluate the clinical utility of regorafenib alone, as well as regorafenib in combination with nivolumab in treatment of participants with refractory AGOC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

INTEGRATE IIa prospectively registered 1 April 2016 Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry: ACTRN12616000420448 (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02773524). INTEGRATE IIb prospectively registered 10 May 2021 ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04879368.

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

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

Treatment Pattern for Advanced Gastric Cancer in Japan and Factors Associated with Sequential Treatment: A Retrospective Administrative Claims Database Study

Introduction

Clinical trials have proven the efficacy and safety of new therapies for advanced gastric cancer (AGC), but how those therapies are used in the real world is poorly described. Real-world treatment patterns of antitumor therapies and factors associated with overall therapy duration in patients with AGC in Japan were investigated.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study used a Japanese administrative claims database (June 2014 to September 2019). Patients with AGC who started the guideline-recommended first-line combination regimens with platinum and fluoropyrimidine agents between June 2015 and July 2019 were included. Cox regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with overall therapy duration (first line to last administration of guideline-listed agent).

Results

Of the 10,581 patients included, the most common first-line combination regimen without trastuzumab was S-1 plus oxaliplatin (4327/9069 patients; 47.7%) and with trastuzumab was capecitabine plus cisplatin (608/1512 patients; 40.2%). Most common second- and third-line regimens were ramucirumab plus taxane (3650/5358 patients; 68.1%) and nivolumab (1229/2390 patients; 51.4%), respectively. Factors positively associated with longer overall therapy duration were: oral fluoropyrimidine in first line (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.63 [0.57–0.69]); trastuzumab in any line (0.73 [0.68–0.78]); treatment at a designated cancer hospital (0.89 [0.84–0.94]); dietary consultation within 1 month before/after start of first line (0.92 [0.86–0.98]); and treatment at a surgical department (0.94 [0.89–0.99]). Negatively associated factors were: edema (1.21 [1.07–1.37]); physical therapy (1.21 [1.12–1.31]); nutritional intervention (1.21 [1.14–1.28]) within 1 month before/after start of first line; thrombosis (1.13 [1.04–1.23]); renal disease (1.11 [1.02–1.21]); age (1.07 [1.02–1.13]); and peritoneal metastasis/ascites (1.06 [1.01–1.13]).

Conclusions

In real-world treatment practice for AGC in Japan, therapy choice after the recommended first-line chemotherapy was consistent with guidelines. Factors associated with overall therapy duration were identified, which may assist in optimizing treatment sequence.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01931-3.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal metastasis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with low-dose cisplatin and doxorubicin (PIPAC C/D) for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer.

METHODS

A Partitioned Survival Model followed by state transition Markov model was developed to estimate the costs and effectiveness of the use of PIPAC C/D versus palliative chemotherapy in the UK. The intervention was assessed at two different levels of care, including upfront therapy (PIPAC C/D plus Oxaliplatin in combination with Capecitabine (XELOX) chemotherapy versus first-line chemotherapy alone) and second-line therapy (PIPAC C/D alone versus second-line chemotherapy (ramucirumab monotherapy)). Data from multiple sources, including published literature and UK-based databases, were used to inform the economic model.

RESULTS

For the upfront therapy analysis, the estimated total costs in the intervention and comparator arms were £32,606 (SD: £3877) and £17,844 (SD: £920), respectively. PIPAC C/D plus XELOX led to an increase of 0.46 in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. The incremental cost per QALY gained was £31,868. For the second-line therapy analysis, the use of PIPAC C/D led to an increase of 0.19 in QALYs and a £21,474 reduction in costs, meaning the intervention was a dominant strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-effectiveness results for the upfront therapy analysis indicate that PIPAC C/D plus chemotherapy is a cost-effective strategy. Additionally, PIPAC C/D alone as a second-line therapy has the potential to reduce costs and improve clinical outcomes for patients with advanced gastric cancer with peritoneal metastasis.

Cost-effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil as a third-line treatment of metastatic gastric cancer, including adenocarcinoma of the gastrohesophageal junction, among patients previously treated in Greece

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) compared with best supportive care (BSC) for the treatment of patients with metastatic gastric cancer(mGC), including gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma(GEJ), who have received at least two prior therapies for metastatic disease and are eligible for third-line treatment, in Greece.Methods: A partitioned survival model was locally adapted from a public payer perspective over a 10-year time horizon. Clinical, safety and utility data were extracted from literature. Resource consumption data obtained from a panel of local experts using a questionnaire developed for the study was combined with unit costs obtained from official sources. All costs reflect the year 2020 (€). Outcomes of the model were patients' life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), total costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY and LY gained.Results: The total cost per patient was estimated to be €6,965 for FTD/TPI and €1,906 for BSC, while FTD/TPI was associated with 0.180 and 0.107 increments in LYs and QALYs, respectively, compared with BSC, resulting in an ICER of €47,144 per QALY gained and €28,112 per LY gained.Conclusion: FTD/TPI was estimated to be a cost-effective treatment option for eligible third line mGC patients, including GEJ in Greece.

Role of Systemic Treatment for Advanced/Metastatic Gastric Carcinoma in the Third-Line Setting: A Bayesian Network Analysis

Background: Increasing evidences from phase II or III trials have proved that salvage systematic therapy, including chemotherapy, target therapy, or checkpoint inhibitor therapy can prolong survival in patients who do not succeed with second line therapy, yet there are no guidelines for the optimum third-line treatments. To compare the effectiveness and safety of current third-line therapies for metastatic Gastric Cancer (mGC), we conducted this network analysis.

Methods: Literature up to Sep 30, 2019 were systematically searched and analyzed by a Bayesian fixed-effect model.

Results: This study included seven randomized clinical trails which involved 2,655 patients. It turns out that for overall survival, nivolumab has the highest probability to be the optimal choice for overall survival (OS). For patients with no peritoneal metastases, the network meta-analysis showed that Nivolumab (HR:0.64; 95% CI: 0.48–0.85) and Trifluridine/tipiacil (HR:0.66; 95% CI: 0.51–0.86) were associated with significantly higher improvement in OS than placebo. However, patients with peritoneal metastases could not benefit from nivolumab, ramucirumab, or Trifluridine/tipiacil, when compared with a placebo. For progression-free survival, apatinib (850 mg) was the most likely candidate, followed by ramucirumab. Statistically, Apatinib (850 mg), Trifluridine/tipiacil, and SLC had higher incidences of high-grade adverse events (AEs) than placebo.

Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate that nivolumab has the best balance between acceptability and effectiveness in the third line therapy for mGC.

A Review of Research Progress in Multidrug-Resistance Mechanisms in Gastric Cancer

Gastric cancer is one of the most common malignant tumors, and it is also one of the leading causes of cancer death worldwide. Because of its insidious symptoms and lack of early dictation screening, many cases of gastric cancer are at late stages which make it more complicated to cure. For these advanced-stage gastric cancers, combination therapy of surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy and target therapy would bring more benefit to the patients. However, the drug-resistance to the chemotherapy restricts its effect and might lead to treatment failure. In this review article, we discuss the mechanisms which have been found in recent years of drug resistance in gastric cancer. And we also want to find new approaches to counteract chemotherapy resistance and bring more benefits to the patients.

Trifluridine/Tipiracil: A Review in Metastatic Gastric Cancer

Trifluridine/tipiracil (Lonsurf^®) is a fixed-dose combination tablet comprising trifluridine, an antineoplastic nucleoside analogue, and tipiracil, a thymidine phosphorylase inhibitor. Trifluridine/tipiracil has recently been granted an additional indication in the USA for the treatment of metastatic gastric cancer, including gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, in patients who have been previously treated with at least two systemic treatment regimens, and has received a positive opinion for this indication in the EU. In the large pivotal phase III TAGS trial, trifluridine/tipiracil plus best supportive care (BSC) significantly prolonged overall survival (OS; primary endpoint) compared with placebo plus BSC in this patient group. Progression-free survival (PFS) and the disease control rate were also improved with trifluridine/tipiracil relative to placebo. Health-related quality of life was not adversely affected by the addition of trifluridine/tipiracil to BSC and time to deterioration of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status was significantly delayed. The most common adverse events were mainly haematological (neutropenia, leucopenia and anaemia) and gastrointestinal (nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea), and were generally manageable with dosage modifications and/or supportive care. Adverse events ≥ Grade 3 were most frequently haematological in nature. Thus, trifluridine/tipiracil provides a valuable and much needed treatment option for patients with metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma that has progressed on at least two prior therapies.

Efficacy and Safety of Trifluridine/Tipiracil Treatment in Patients With Metastatic Gastric Cancer Who Had Undergone Gastrectomy: Subgroup Analyses of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Question

Is trifluridine/tipiracil treatment safe and effective for the subpopulation of patients with previously treated metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer who have undergone gastrectomy?

Findings

In this subgroup analysis of a randomized clinical trial, trifluridine/tipiracil treatment improved overall survival and progression-free survival compared with placebo among patients with previously treated metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer and who had or had not undergone gastrectomy. No new safety concerns were reported, and hematologic toxic effects were more frequent among the subgroup who had undergone gastrectomy but were treated using dosing modifications.

Meaning

Trifluridine/tipiracil is a safe and effective treatment option for patients with pretreated metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer regardless of previous gastrectomy.

Importance

Trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) treatment has shown clinical benefit in patients with pretreated metastatic gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction cancer (mGC/GEJC). Patients who have undergone gastrectomy constitute a significant proportion of patients with mGC/GEJC.

Objective

To assess the efficacy and safety of FTD/TPI among patients with previously treated mGC/GEJC who had or had not undergone gastrectomy.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This preplanned subgroup analysis of TAGS (TAS-102 Gastric Study), a phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial included patients with mGC/GEJC who had received at least 2 previous chemotherapy regimens, and was conducted at 110 academic hospitals in 17 countries in Europe, Asia, and North America, with enrollment between February 24, 2016, and January 5, 2018; the data cutoff was March 31, 2018.

Interventions

Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive oral FTD/TPI 35 mg/m² twice daily or placebo twice daily with best supportive care on days 1 through 5 and days 8 through 12 of each 28-day treatment cycle.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was overall survival. This subgroup analysis was conducted to examine potential trends and was not powered for statistical significance. Efficacy and safety end points were evaluated in the subgroups.

Results

Of 507 randomized patients (369 [72.8%] male; mean [SD] age, 62.5 [10.5] years), 221 (43.6%) had undergone gastrectomy (147 randomized to FTD/TPI and 74 to placebo) and 286 (56.4%) had not undergone gastrectomy (190 randomized to FTD/TPI and 96 to placebo). In the gastrectomy subgroup, the overall survival hazard ratio (HR) in the FTD/TPI group vs placebo group was 0.57 (95% CI, 0.41-0.79), and the progression-free survival HR was 0.48 (95% CI, 0.35-0.65). In the no gastrectomy subgroup, the overall survival HR in the FTD/TPI group vs placebo group was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.60-1.06), and the progression-free survival HR was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.49-0.85). Among FTD/TPI-treated patients, grade 3 or higher adverse events of any cause occurred in 122 of 145 patients (84.1%) in the gastrectomy subgroup and 145 of 190 (76.3%) in the no gastrectomy subgroup: 64 (44.1%) in the gastrectomy subgroup and 50 (26.3%) in the no gastrectomy subgroup had grade 3 or higher neutropenia, 31 (21.4%) in the gastrectomy subgroup and 33 (17.4%) in the no gastrectomy subgroup had grade 3 or higher anemia, and 21 (14.5%) in the gastrectomy subgroup and 10 (5.3%) in the no gastrectomy subgroup hD grade 3 or higher leukopenia. In the gastrectomy subgroup, 94 (64.8%) had dosing modifications because of adverse events vs 101 (53.2%) in the no gastrectomy subgroup; 15 (10.3%) in the gastrectomy group and 28 (14.7%) in the no gastrectomy group discontinued treatment because of adverse events. Treatment exposure was similar between groups.

Conclusions and Relevance

The FTD/TPI treatment was tolerable and provided efficacy benefits among patients with pretreated mGC/GEJC regardless of previous gastrectomy.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02500043

Achieving sequential therapy in advanced gastric cancer: the importance of appropriate patient management for the elderly and/or those with ascites

Treatment options for patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) are limited. One approach to improving survival in patients with AGC is to optimize the available agents via sequential therapy. However, clinical trial reports of first-line chemotherapy indicate that elderly patients and patients with massive ascites are less likely to receive subsequent lines of therapy. In addition, clinical trials of second- and third-line chemotherapy generally exclude these two patient populations because they are likely to have poor performance status and additional issues that are difficult to manage. Good patient management is likely to be key to the successful use of sequential therapy in these two patient populations by minimizing adverse effects to allow patients to derive benefit from the additional treatment. This narrative review summarizes the available information on AGC treatment and patient management in elderly patients and patients with massive ascites. The available data suggest that elderly patients benefit from chemotherapy; however, monitoring toxicity is essential to avoid chemotherapy-related toxicities. Important aspects of patient management for elderly patients include symptom monitoring, nutritional support, and fall prevention. The available data for patients with massive ascites show limited success for a range of treatment approaches, including systemic chemotherapy. The management of ascites is also challenging, with no clear guidance on the preferred strategies. To address these gaps in knowledge, future clinical trials should incorporate more inclusive eligibility criteria to enroll populations of patients with AGC that are more reflective of the real-world population with respect to age, complications, and overall health status.

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.

Phase III, randomised trial of avelumab versus physician's choice of chemotherapy as third-line treatment of patients with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer: primary analysis of JAVELIN Gastric 300

Background

There currently are no internationally recognised treatment guidelines for patients with advanced gastric cancer/gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (GC/GEJC) in whom two prior lines of therapy have failed. The randomised, phase III JAVELIN Gastric 300 trial compared avelumab versus physician’s choice of chemotherapy as third-line therapy in patients with advanced GC/GEJC.

Patients and methods

Patients with unresectable, recurrent, locally advanced, or metastatic GC/GEJC were recruited at 147 sites globally. All patients were randomised to receive either avelumab 10 mg/kg by intravenous infusion every 2 weeks or physician’s choice of chemotherapy (paclitaxel 80 mg/m² on days 1, 8, and 15 or irinotecan 150 mg/m² on days 1 and 15, each of a 4-week treatment cycle); patients ineligible for chemotherapy received best supportive care. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety.

Results

A total of 371 patients were randomised. The trial did not meet its primary end point of improving OS {median, 4.6 versus 5.0 months; hazard ratio (HR)=1.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.9–1.4]; P = 0.81} or the secondary end points of PFS [median, 1.4 versus 2.7 months; HR=1.73 (95% CI 1.4–2.2); P > 0.99] or ORR (2.2% versus 4.3%) in the avelumab versus chemotherapy arms, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of any grade occurred in 90 patients (48.9%) and 131 patients (74.0%) in the avelumab and chemotherapy arms, respectively. Grade ≥3 TRAEs occurred in 17 patients (9.2%) in the avelumab arm and in 56 patients (31.6%) in the chemotherapy arm.

Conclusions

Treatment of patients with GC/GEJC with single-agent avelumab in the third-line setting did not result in an improvement in OS or PFS compared with chemotherapy. Avelumab showed a more manageable safety profile than chemotherapy.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02625623.

Careful dose modification of apatinib as third or further-line treatment in advanced gastric cancer patients with poor performance status

The retrospective study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of careful dose modification of apatinib as third or further-line treatment in advanced gastric cancer (aGC) patients with poor performance status (PS = 2 or 3).Patients with aGC of poor PS who had received at least 2 lines of chemotherapy were treated with apatinib at a dose of 250 mg initially and best supportive care (BSC). During the whole treatment, the dose of apatinib was adjusted according to the status of PS (group treatment). Meanwhile, patients of poor PS (PS = 2 or 3) with aGC who received BSC alone after second or further-line treatment in the recent 5 years in our institution have been investigated for their median overall survival (mOS) as control. Kaplan-Meier curve was adopted for the description of OS in the 2 groups. Univariate analysis was conducted with log-rank test between OS and the potential characteristics including gender, age, PS status, primary tumor lesion, Her-2 status, and previous lines of treatment. Toxicities were assessed with the criteria of National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria (NCI CTC) version 4.0.A total of 23 patients who received apatinib plus BSC treatment and 41 patients treated with BSC alone were reviewed in the present study. Median exposure time of apatinib was 2.4 months ranging from 0.2 to 5.1 months. The median OS in the group treatment was 4.3 months (95% CI, 2.735-5.865) comparing to the control as 2.1 months (95% CI, 1.473-2.727, P = .0004). In addition, PS status was shown as the only independently significant factor to influence the OS (P = .049). Fatigue (82.6%), appetite decrease (73.9%), and anemia (69.6%) appeared to be the most common adverse events at any grade during the therapy of apatinib.The outcomes of the present study revealed that therapeutic model of careful dose modification of apatinib therapy initiated with low dose plus BSC as third or further-line treatment might be more beneficial on survival time comparing to BSC alone in patients with aGC of poor PS, however, as well as apparent adverse events.

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.

Neoadjuvant Modified FOLFOX6 With or Without Radiation Versus Fluorouracil Plus Radiation for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: Final Results of the Chinese FOWARC Trial

PURPOSE

In the multicenter, open-label, phase III FOWARC trial, modified infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) plus radiotherapy resulted in a higher pathologic complete response rate than fluorouracil plus radiotherapy in Chinese patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Here, we report the final results.

METHODS

Adults ages 18 to 75 years with stage II/III rectal cancer were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to five cycles of infusional fluorouracil (leucovorin 400 mg/m², fluorouracil 400 mg/m², and fluorouracil 2.4 g/m² over 48 hours) plus radiotherapy (46.0 to 50.4 Gy delivered in 23 to 25 fractions during cycles 2 to 4) followed by surgery and seven cycles of infusional fluorouracil, the same treatment plus intravenous oxaliplatin 85 mg/m² on day 1 of each cycle (mFOLFOX6), or four to six cycles of mFOLFOX6 followed by surgery and six to eight cycles of mFOLFOX6. The primary end point was 3-year disease-free survival (DFS).

RESULTS

In total, 495 patients were randomly assigned to treatment. After a median follow-up of 45.2 months, DFS events were reported in 46, 39, and 46 patients in the fluorouracil plus radiotherapy, mFOLFOX6 plus radiotherapy, and mFOLFOX6 arms. In each arm, the probability of 3-year DFS was 72.9%, 77.2%, and 73.5% (P = .709 by the log-rank test), the 3-year probability of local recurrence after R0/1 resection was 8.0%, 7.0%, and 8.3% (P = .873 by the log-rank test), and the 3-year overall survival rate was 91.3%, 89.1%, and 90.7% (P = .971 by log-rank test), respectively.

CONCLUSION

mFOLFOX6, with or without radiation, did not significantly improve 3-year DFS versus fluorouracil with radiation in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. No significant difference in outcomes was found between mFOLFOX6 without radiotherapy and fluorouracil with radiotherapy, which requires additional investigation of the role of radiotherapy in these regimens.

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.

The 2017 Assisi Think Tank Meeting on rectal cancer: A positioning paper

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSES

To describe current practice in the management of rectal cancer, to identify uncertainties that usually arise in the multidisciplinary team (MDT)'s discussions ('grey zones') and propose next generation studies which may provide answers to them.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A questionnaire on the areas of controversy in managing T2, T3 and T4 rectal cancer was drawn up and distributed to the Rectal-Assisi Think Tank Meeting (ATTM) Expert European Board. Less than 70% agreement on a treatment option was indicated as uncertainty and selected as a 'grey zone'. Topics with large disagreement were selected by the task force group for discussion at the Rectal-ATTM.

RESULTS

The controversial clinical issues that had been identified within cT2-cT3-cT4 needed further investigation. The discussions focused on the role of (1) neoadjuvant therapy and organ preservation on cT2-3a low-middle rectal cancer; (2) neoadjuvant therapy in cT3 low rectal cancer without high risk features; (3) total neoadjuvant therapy, radiotherapy boost and the best chemo-radiotherapy schedule in T4 tumors. A description of each area of investigation and trial proposals are reported.

CONCLUSION

The meeting successfully identified 'grey zones' and, in the light of new evidence, proposed clinical trials for treatment of early, intermediate and advanced stage rectal cancer.

miR-383 Inhibited the Cell Cycle Progression of Gastric Cancer Cells via Targeting Cyclin E2

Increasing evidence has suggested the key roles of miRNAs in the initiation and progression of human cancers. miR-383 was downregulated and played a suppressive role in a variety of cancers; however, the function of miR-383 in gastric cancer remains unclear. In this study, we found that the expression of miR-383 was significantly reduced in gastric cancer tissues and correlated with the advanced progression of these cancer patients. Functional analysis showed that overexpression of miR-383 inhibited the proliferation and upregulated the apoptosis of gastric cancer cells. Furthermore, cyclin E2 was predicted as the target of miR-383 using the bioinformatics database. miR-383 bound the 3'-untranslated region of cyclin E2 and decreased the expression of cyclin E2 in gastric cancer cells. Upregulation of cyclin E2 was observed in gastric cancer tissues compared with the normal controls. Highly expressed cyclin E2 was inversely correlated with the level of miR-383 in gastric cancer tissues. Consistent with the decreased expression of cyclin E2 with miR-383, transfection of miR-383 induced cell cycle arrest at G1 phase in gastric cancer cells. Restoration of cyclin E2 significantly reversed the inhibitory effect of miR-183 on gastric cancer cell proliferation. Collectively, our results characterized the suppressive role of miR-383 in gastric cancer partially through targeting cyclin E2.

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

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

Third line 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.

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.