High Doses of 5-Fluorouracil and Epirubicin with or without Cisplatin in Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Randomized Study

A comparison between triplet and doublet chemotherapy in improving the survival of patients with advanced gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy can improve the survival of patients with advanced gastric cancer. However, whether triplet chemotherapy can further improve the survival of patients with advanced gastric cancer compared with doublet chemotherapy remains controversial. This study reviewed and updated all published and eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the efficacy, prognosis, and toxicity of triplet chemotherapy with doublet chemotherapy in patients with advanced gastric cancer.

METHODS

RCTs on first-line chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer on PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials and all abstracts from the annual meetings of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology conferences up to October 2018 were searched. The primary outcome was overall survival, while the secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), time to progress (TTP), objective response rate (ORR), and toxicity.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 23 RCTs involving 4540 patients and 8 types of triplet and doublet chemotherapy regimens, and systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that triplet chemotherapy was superior compared with doublet chemotherapy in terms of improving median OS (HR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.98; P = 0.02) and PFS (HR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.97; P = 0.02) and TTP (HR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.98; P = 0.02) and ORR (OR = 1.21; 95% CI, 1.12-1.31; P < 0.0001) among overall populations. Compared with doublet chemotherapy, subgroup analysis indicated that OS improved with fluoropyrimidine-based (HR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66-0.96; P = 0.02), platinum-based (HR = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57-0.99; P = 0.04), and other drug-based triplet (HR = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.90; P = 0.0006) chemotherapies while not with anthracycline-based (HR = 0.70; 95% CI, 0.42-1.15; P = 0.16), mitomycin-based (HR = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.47-1.39; P = 0.44), taxane-based (HR = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.81-1.01; P = 0.07), and irinotecan-based triplet (HR = 1.01; 95% CI, 0.82-1.24; P = 0.94) chemotherapies. For different patients, compared with doublet chemotherapy, triplet chemotherapy improved OS (HR = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81-0.99; P = 0.03) among Western patients but did not improve (HR = 0.96; 95% CI, 0.86-1.07; P = 0.47) that among Asian patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with doublet chemotherapy, triplet chemotherapy improved OS, PFS, TTP, and ORR in patients with advanced gastric cancer in the population overall, and improved OS in Western but not in Asian patients.

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.

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.

Esophagogastric Adenocarcinoma: Is More Chemotherapy Better?

OPINION STATEMENT

Two cycles of neoadjuvant cisplatin and fluoropyrimidine (CF) and 6 cycles of perioperative CF with or without epirubicin are an evidence-based approach in operable esophageal and esophagogastric junctional adenocarcinomas. Three-drug regimens with anthracycline or taxane are associated with significantly higher tumor regression rates, with an expected increase in toxicity. In order to achieve an R0 resection and consequently a survival advantage, in selected patients having a risk of a threatened margin or incomplete resection, chemotherapy might be continued beyond 2 cycles if a response has been demonstrated. In metastatic setting, multidrug combination regimens have demonstrated a significant survival benefit when compared to single-agent regimes. A three-drug regimen should be considered for fit patients and/or when a response is required for symptom control. The expected increase in toxicity needs to be carefully considered and discussed with patients. The choice to use a taxane in first-line setting may limit the options of second-line treatment to irinotecan-containing regimens and also precludes the use of anthracyclines in the first line. For this reason, we prefer to reserve taxane-based therapy for the second-line setting.

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.

Optimal first-line chemotherapeutic treatment in patients with locally advanced or metastatic esophagogastric carcinoma: triplet versus doublet chemotherapy: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

There is a debate whether triplet or doublet chemotherapy should be used as a first-line treatment in patients with advanced or metastatic esophagogastric cancer. Therefore, here we will review the available literature to assess the efficacy and safety of triplet versus doublet chemotherapy as a first-line treatment in patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) between 1980 and March 2015 for randomized controlled phase II and III trials comparing triplet with doublet chemotherapy and abstracts of major oncology meetings from 1990 to 2014. Twenty-one studies with a total of 3475 participants were included in the meta-analysis for overall survival. An improvement in overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio (HR) 0.90, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.83–0.97) and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR 0.80, 95 % CI 0.69–0.93) was observed in favor of triplet. In addition, the use of triplet was associated with better objective response rate (ORR) (risk ratio 1.25, 95 % CI 1.09–1.44) compared to doublet. The risks of grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia (6.2 vs 3.8 %), infection (10.2 vs 6.4 %), and mucositis (9.7 vs 4.7 %) were statistically significantly increased with triplet compared to doublet. This review shows that first-line triplet therapy is superior to doublet therapy in patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer. However, the survival benefit is limited and the risks of grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia, infection, and mucositis are increased.

Role of chemotherapy for advanced/recurrent gastric cancer: an individual-patient-data meta-analysis

We conducted an individual-patient-data meta-analysis of the efficacy of chemotherapy on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in advanced/recurrent gastric cancer (AGC). Our primary research question was whether the experimental arms of the trials included in the meta-analysis showed a benefit as compared with their corresponding control arms. MEDLINE (up to 2010), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, National Institutes of Health (NIH) trial registry and proceedings of major oncologic and gastrointestinal cancer meetings were searched. Randomised controlled trials for AGC closed to patient accrual before the end of 2006 were eligible. As of December 2010, individual patient data were available from 22 trials (4245 patients, representing 47% of the targeted data) of 55 eligible trials. The overall comparison of experimental arms with the corresponding control arms showed statistically significant differences in terms of both OS and PFS. Hazard ratio was 0.88 (95% confidence interval 0.82-0.94, P<0.0001) for OS and 0.81 (0.76-0.88, P<0.0001) for PFS. The results of the sub-analysis of adding a given chemotherapeutic agent to any chemotherapy confirm the results of the overall analysis, with a hazard reduction of 11% for OS (P<0.01) and 26% for PFS (P<0.0001). This meta-analysis of individual patient data shows that the additions of experimental chemotherapeutic agents to pre-existing control or standard regimens have produced a modest improvement in OS and PFS. Median survival remained below 1 year for all investigated chemotherapy regimens and none emerged as a clear standard.

Chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer currently ranks second in global cancer mortality. Most patients are either diagnosed at an advanced stage, or develop a relapse after surgery with curative intent. Apart from supportive care and palliative radiation to localized (e.g. bone) metastasis, systemic chemotherapy is the only treatment option available in this situation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of chemotherapy versus best supportive care, combination versus single agent chemotherapy and different combination chemotherapy regimens in advanced gastric cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE up to March 2009, reference lists of studies, and contacted pharmaceutical companies and national and international experts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials on systemic intravenous chemotherapy versus best supportive care, combination versus single agent chemotherapy and different combination chemotherapies in advanced gastric cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty five trials, with a total of 5726 patients, have been included in the meta-analysis of overall survival. The comparison of chemotherapy versus best supportive care consistently demonstrated a significant benefit in overall survival in favour of the group receiving chemotherapy (hazard ratios (HR) 0.37; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.24 to 0.55, 184 participants). The comparison of combination versus single-agent chemotherapy provides evidence for a survival benefit in favour of combination chemotherapy (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.90, 1914 participants). The price of this benefit is increased toxicity as a result of combination chemotherapy. When comparing 5-FU/cisplatin-containing combination therapy regimens with versus without anthracyclines (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.95, 501 participants) and 5-FU/anthracycline-containing combinations with versus without cisplatin (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.92, 1147 participants) there was a significant survival benefit for regimens including 5-FU, anthracyclines and cisplatin. Both the comparison of irinotecan versus non-irinotecan (HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.02, 639 participants) and docetaxel versus non-docetaxel containing regimens (HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15, 805 participants) show non-significant overall survival benefits in favour of the irinotecan and docetaxel-containing regimens.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Chemotherapy significantly improves survival in comparison to best supportive care. In addition, combination chemotherapy improves survival compared to single-agent 5-FU. All patients should be tested for their HER-2 status and trastuzumab should be added to a standard fluoropyrimidine/cisplatin regimen in patients with HER-2 positive tumours. Two and three-drug regimens including 5-FU, cisplatin, with or without an anthracycline, as well as irinotecan or docetaxel-containing regimens are reasonable treatment options for HER-2 negative patients.

Epirubicin, Cisplatin, and Fluorouracil (ECF) Regimen

The complexity of cancer chemotherapy requires pharmacists be familiar with the complicated regimens and highly toxic agents used. This column reviews various issues related to preparing, dispensing, and administering antineoplastic therapy and to the agents, commercially available and investigational, used to treat malignant diseases.

Role of low dose capecitabine combined to irinotecan in advanced and metastatic gastric cancer

Chemotherapy has a proven role in advanced and metastatic gastric cancer (AMGC) significantly improving quality of life and prolonging survival compared with best supportive care alone. Multiple regimens have been explored. The choice of treatment should be individualized and tailored to the patient's overall conditions and preference. This manuscript is divided into two sections. The first section illustrates the results of a phase II trial combining weekly irinotecan and low dose capecitabine in the management of untreated AMGC patients. The second section aims to identify the current optimal place of this combination in the management of AMGC in the light of the latest advances. In this manuscript we detail our phase II trial which showed objective response rate of 47% (15 patients), disease stabilization of 28% (9 patients), and overall tumor control rate of 75% (24 patients). Median time to progression and overall survival were 5.8 and 8 months, respectively. Grades III-IV toxicities were reported in 7 cases. Low-dose capecitabine plus irinotecan is effective in the treatment of AMGC with an acceptable toxicity profile. Compared to the recent published data, this combination is indicated in the second-line treatment of AMGC and in the first-line treatment where a contraindication for docetaxel- and/or oxaliplatin-based regimen is present.

Chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on aggregate data

PURPOSE

This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of chemotherapy in patients with advanced gastric cancer.

METHODS

Randomized phase II and III clinical trials on first-line chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer were identified by electronic searches of Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and Cancerlit; hand searches of relevant abstract books and reference lists; and contact to experts. Meta-analysis was performed using the fixed-effect model. Overall survival, reported as hazard ratio (HR) with 95% CI, was the primary outcome measure.

RESULTS

Analysis of chemotherapy versus best supportive care (HR = 0.39; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.52) and combination versus single agent, mainly fluorouracil (FU) -based chemotherapy (HR = 0.83; 95% CI = 0.74 to 0.93) showed significant overall survival benefits in favor of chemotherapy and combination chemotherapy, respectively. In addition, comparisons of FU/cisplatin-containing regimens with versus without anthracyclines (HR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.95) and FU/anthracycline-containing combinations with versus without cisplatin (HR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.91) both demonstrated a significant survival benefit for the three-drug combination. Comparing irinotecan-containing versus nonirinotecan-containing combinations (mainly FU/cisplatin) resulted in a nonsignificant survival benefit in favor of the irinotecan-containing regimens (HR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.06), but they have never been compared against a three-drug combination.

CONCLUSION

Best survival results are achieved with three-drug regimens containing FU, an anthracycline, and cisplatin. Among these, regimens including FU as bolus exhibit a higher rate of toxic deaths than regimens using a continuous infusion of FU, such as epirubicin, cisplatin, and continuous-infusion FU.

Is there a role for palliative gastrectomy in patients with stage IV gastric cancer?

Patients with metastatic gastric cancer are currently not considered operative candidates and are most often offered systemic therapy. Palliative resection of the primary tumor has been considered irrelevant to the outcome and has been recommended only for palliation of symptoms. We have examined the role of palliative gastrectomy and its impact on survival in patients with stage IV gastric cancer at initial diagnosis between 1990 and 2000. A total of 105 patients with stage IV disease were identified during this period; 81 of them (77.1%) had no resection, and 24 (22.9%) underwent palliative gastric resection. Mean survival in those without resection who received chemotherapy (with or without radiation) treatment was 5.9 months (95% confidence interval 4.2-7.6). For those with resection and adjuvant therapy, mean survival time was 16.3 months (95% confidence interval 4.3-28.8 months). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed significantly better survival in those with resection and adjuvant therapy (log-rank test, P = 0.01). Mortality and morbidity rates associated with palliative resection were 8.7% and 33.3%, respectively, which did not differ statistically from the 3.7% and 25.3% in patients who underwent curative gastrectomy during same period of time. However, the length of hospitalization (22 versus 16 days) was significantly higher compared with those without stage IV disease. These data suggest that palliative resection combined with adjuvant therapy may improve survival in a selected group of patients with stage IV gastric cancer. Palliative gastrectomy plus systemic therapy should be compared with systemic therapy alone in a randomized trial.

The role of chemotherapy in patients with established gastric cancer

Chemotherapy significantly improves survival in comparison to best supportive care in patients with metastasised gastric cancer. In patients for whom a three-drug-combination is considered as the treatment of choice, ECF (epirubicin, cisplatin and 5-FU as a continuous infusion) should be regarded as standard of care. However, results for ECF have been challenged by the recently presented REAL-2-trial, which demonstrated a significant survival benefit for EOX (epirubicin, oxaliplatin, capecitabine) over ECF. Adjuvant 5-FU-based chemoradiation should be discussed in patients with inadequate lymphadenectomy, but is not internationally accepted as standard of care: whether patients with adequate lymhphadenectomy benefit from adjuvant chemoradiotherapy is currently unclear. According to the results of the UK MAGIC trial, perioperative treatment with ECF (3 cycles prior to and post surgery) results in a significantly reduced risk of death for patients with resectable gastric cancer as compared to surgery alone. Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy has the ability to downsize gastric tumours and appears to improve R0-resection rates, but its potential to improve overall survival is still unclear.

Palliative chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

More than two-thirds of patients diagnosed with gastric cancer will have unresectable disease. They present a difficult problem to clinicians as to whether to choose a strictly supportive approach or expose patients to the side-effects of a potentially ineffective treatment. The objective of this article is to review the clinical trials utilizing cytotoxic chemotherapy in patients with advanced gastric cancer.

METHODS

A computerized (Medline) search was carried out to identify papers published on this topic between 1966 and 2003. Only articles with an English abstract were reviewed, and studies only presented in abstract form were not included in the analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 101 trials were subsequently identified. Four randomized trials compared palliative chemotherapy with best supportive care in 174 patients with advanced gastric cancer. Effectiveness and side-effects were evaluated in 73 phase II studies and 24 randomized phase III trials.

CONCLUSION

Analysis of results shows chemotherapy to be superior to best supportive care alone. Combination chemotherapy compared with monochemotherapy is associated with significantly higher overall (complete plus partial) response rates but nevertheless results in similar survival. ECF (epirubicin, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil) currently represents one of the most effective regimens for advanced gastric cancer, whereas among the newer combinations, irinotecan- or taxane-based regimens have also given promising results. In patients with a poor performance status, consideration could be given to leucovorin-modulated 5-fluorouracil alone. Prognosis for the majority of patients, however, remains poor, as increases in survival were moderate at best.

Chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer currently ranks second in global cancer mortality. Most patients are either diagnosed at an advanced stage, or develop a relapse after apparently curative operation. Apart from supportive measures, systemic chemotherapy is the only treatment option available in this situation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of chemotherapy versus best supportive care, combination versus single agent chemotherapy and different combination chemotherapy regimens in advanced gastric cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2004), MEDLINE and EMBASE up to February 2004 and reference lists of articles. We also contacted pharmaceutical companies as well as national and international experts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials on systemic intravenous chemotherapy versus best supportive care, combination versus single agent chemotherapy and different combination chemotherapies in advanced gastric cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

Chemotherapy versus best supportive care consistently demonstrated a significant benefit in terms of overall survival in favour of the group receiving chemotherapy (Hazard Ratios (HR) 0.39; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.28 to 0.52). Combination versus single-agent chemotherapy provides evidence for a survival benefit in favour of combination chemotherapy (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.76 to 0.96). Numbers included in these comparisons were 184 and 1338 participants respectively. This benefit is achieved at the price of increased toxicity in the combination chemotherapy arms. When comparing 5-FU/cisplatin-containing combination therapy regimens with anthracyclines versus those without anthracyclines (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.95 based on 501 participants) and 5-FU/anthracycline-containing combinations with cisplatin versus those without cisplatin (HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.76 to 0.91 based on 1147 participants), there was a significant survival benefit for regimens including 5-FU, anthracyclines and cisplatin.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Chemotherapy significantly improves survival in comparison to best supportive care. In addition, combination chemotherapy improves survival compared to single-agent 5-FU, but the effect size is much smaller. Among the combination chemotherapy regimens studied, best survival results are achieved with regimens containing 5-FU, anthracyclines and cisplatin. In this category, ECF (epirubicin, cisplatin and continuous infusion 5-FU) is tolerated best.

Phase II trial of cisplatin and gemcitabine in patients with advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

This phase II study was performed to determine the efficacy and toxicity of cisplatin and gemcitabine in patients with advanced gastric cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Forty chemo-naïve patients with measurable locoregionally advanced or metastatic gastric cancer were included; the median patient age was 53 years (range 35-71). Cisplatin was administered at a dose of 50 mg/m2, given in 1 h intravenously (i.v.) on days 1 and 8, followed after 24 h by gemcitabine at a dose of 800 mg/m2 given in 30 min i.v. on days 2, 9 and 16, every 28 days.

RESULTS

A median number of four therapy cycles were given (range 2-8). Myelosuppresion was the most important toxicity. Grade 3-4 thrombopenia was observed in 19 patients (48%) and grade 3-4 leukopenia was observed in 23 (58%). Myelotoxicity was cumulative and caused omission of gemcitabine on day 16 in 55% of cycles. Non-haematological toxicity consisted mainly of grade 1-2 nausea and vomiting. Objective responses were observed in 30% of patients including two complete remissions and 10 partial remissions. Median survival was 11 months (range 3-27+).

CONCLUSIONS

This cisplatin-gemcitabine regimen had moderate efficacy in patients with advanced gastric cancer, with manageable toxicity. Further studies with this combination may be warranted.

Chemotherapy in gastric cancer: a review and updated meta-analysis

The five years survival rate for patients with gastric cancer is 15-25%. With the aim of improving survival, chemotherapy has been used in different adjuvant settings. Similarly, but with the aim of improving quality of life and prolonging life, chemotherapy has been used extensively in metastatic disease. In this review we have included studies of systemic and intraperitoneal chemotherapy given before, during or after operation and for advanced disease. A meta-analysis has been made on the 21 randomised studies that used adjuvant systemic chemotherapy postoperatively. A significant survival benefit for the patients treated postoperatively compared with controls was identified (odds ratio (OR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 0.96). When western and Asian studies were analysed separately we found no survival benefit for the treated patients in the western groups (OR 0.96 (95 CI 0.83 to 1.12)). Flaws in the conduct of several trials made it difficult to draw firm conclusions, including the exclusion of a small but clinically meaningful survival benefit. Preoperative or neoadjuvant chemotherapy has shown effects in some patients, but no significant benefit was found in the few randomised studies. The few studies that reported intraperitoneal therapy showed no detectable survival benefit either. In patients with advanced disease, four small randomised studies found significantly longer survival in the treated patients. The survival benefit is in the range of 3-9 months, and there were also improvements of the quality of life. Several drug combinations have been tested, however, with no confirmed superiority for a particular regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjuvant chemotherapy cannot be recommended as a routine because of the lack of confirmed beneficial effects. Some patients with advanced disease will have a clinically important benefit from palliative chemotherapy, so this can be recommended for patients who are otherwise in good health.

Marimastat as maintenance therapy for patients with advanced gastric cancer: a randomised trial

This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was designed to evaluate the ability of the orally administered matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor, marimastat, to prolong survival in patients with non-resectable gastric and gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Three hundred and sixty-nine patients with histological proof of adenocarcinoma, who had received no more than a single regimen of 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy, were randomised to receive either marimastat (10 mg b.d.) or placebo. Patients were treated for as long as was tolerable. The primary endpoint was overall survival with secondary endpoints of time to disease progression and quality of life. At the point of protocol-defined study completion (85% mortality in the placebo arm) there was a modest difference in survival in the intention-to-treat population in favour of marimastat (P=0.07 log-rank test, hazard ratio=1.23 (95% confidence interval 0.98-1.55)). This survival benefit was maintained over a further 2 years of follow-up (P=0.024, hazard ratio=1.27 (1.03-1.57)). The median survival was 138 days for placebo and 160 days for marimastat, with 2-year survival of 3% and 9% respectively. A significant survival benefit was identified at study completion in the pre-defined sub-group of 123 patients who had received prior chemotherapy (P=0.045, hazard ratio=1.53 (1.00-2.34)). This benefit increased with 2 years additional follow-up (P=0.006, hazard ratio=1.68 (1.16-2.44)), with 2-year survival of 5% and 18% respectively. Progression-free survival was also significantly longer for patients receiving marimastat compared to placebo (P=0.009, hazard ratio=1.32 (1.07-1.63)). Marimastat treatment was associated with the development of musculoskeletal pain and inflammation. Events of anaemia, abdominal pain, jaundice and weight loss were more common in the placebo arm. This is one of the first demonstrations of a therapeutic benefit for a matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor in cancer patients. The greatest benefit was observed in patients who had previously received chemotherapy. A further randomised study of marimastat in these patients is warranted.

Randomized clinical trials in gastric cancer

A total of 52 prospective, randomized controlled trials (RCT), published from 1975 to 2000, were reviewed for gastric cancer. The primary focus of these efforts has been the use of chemotherapy in patients with metastatic or locally advanced disease, accounting for 23 of the 52 trials. In comparison, there were only six surgical trials evaluating the extent of either primary resection or lymphadenectomy.

Epirubicin Temozolomide

The increasing complexity of cancer chemotherapy makes it mandatory that pharmacists be familiar with these highly toxic agents. This column reviews various issues related to the preparation, dispensing, and administration of cancer chemotherapy, both commercially available and investigational.