A population-based comparison of patients with metastatic esophagogastric carcinoma between Japan and the Netherlands

PURPOSE

Differences exist between Asian and Western patients with esophagogastric cancer, for example in terms of histological subtype and treatment strategies. This study aimed to compare characteristics and treatment between patients with metastatic esophagogastric cancer from Japan and the Netherlands using nationwide cancer registry data.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with metastatic esophageal or gastric cancer were included from the nationwide national cancer registry of Japan (2016-2019) and the Netherlands (2015-2020). Treatment strategies were analyzed using chi-squared tests.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients with metastatic esophageal (16.0% vs 34.2%) and gastric cancer (14.9% vs 45.2%) were lower in Japan compared to the Netherlands. Japanese patients with metastatic esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) or gastric cancer (GC) were more often male and older compared to Dutch patients. Proportion of patients with metastatic disease who received surgical resection was higher in Japan compared to the Netherlands (EAC 9.3 vs 1.4%, p < 0.001; ESCC 10.7% vs 2.3%, p < 0.001; GC 12.0% vs 3.6% p < 0.001). Proportion of patients who received systemic therapy was also higher (EAC 44.8% vs 30.4%, p < 0.001; ESCC 26.6% vs 12.0%, p < 0.001; GC 50.7% vs 35.8% p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Japanese patients less often presented with metastatic esophagogastric cancer and more often underwent surgical resection or received systemic therapy compared to Dutch patients. Further investigation should elucidate what the deliberations are in both Japan and the Netherlands and if more patients in the Netherlands could benefit from surgical resection or systemic therapy and whether this would translate in better survival and quality of life.

Biweekly oxaliplatin plus S1 for Chinese elderly patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer as the first-line therapy: a single-arm, phase 2 study

BACKGROUND

SOX (oxaliplatin and S1, every 3 weeks) is one of the most common first-line chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic G/GEJ (gastric or gastroesophageal junction) cancer in Asia, but it has noticeable hematological and neurological toxicity. In China, the majority of gastric cancer patients are middle-aged and elderly with poor tolerance to 3-weekly chemotherapy. Therefore, we aimed to assess efficacy and safety of biweekly SOX for Chinese advanced G/GEJ cancer patients aged ≥ 60 years as the first-line treatment in a single arm phase 2 study.

METHODS

Oxaliplatin was administered intravenously on day 1 at 85 mg/m2. S-1 was given at 80, 100 or 120 mg/day, depending on the body surface area (< 1.25 m2, 1.25 to < 1.5 m2, or ≥ 1.5 m2), twice daily, on day 1-10, every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR), and the secondary endpoints included progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR), duration of response (DOR) and safety.

RESULTS

Between May 2016 and Sep 2018, 42 patients were enrolled. The median follow-up was 43.6 months. The ORR and DCR were 52.4% and 85.7%, respectively. The median PFS was 4.6 months (95%CI 2.486-6.714), and the median OS was 11.1 months (95%CI 8.001-14.199). The most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of any grade included thrombocytopenia (59.5%), neutropenia (57.1%), appetite loss (57.1%) and nausea (54.8%). Only two patients suffered from grade 3 TRAEs (4.8%), including neutropenia (1 patient, [2.4%]) and diarrhea (1 patient, [2.4%]). No ≥ grade 4 TRAEs occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Biweekly SOX seemed to have favorable tolerance without compromising the efficacy as the first-line therapy in Chinese elderly patients aged ≥ 60 years with advanced G/GEJ cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04694404 (5/1/2021). This study was approved by the Ethical Committee of National Cancer Center/ National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/ Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, (17-048/1303).

A novel method of bedside hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy as adjuvant therapy for stage-III gastric cancer

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy and safety of a novel method of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) as adjuvant therapy for stage-III gastric cancer.

METHODS

Patients with stage-III gastric cancer who underwent D2 radical gastrectomy were randomly assigned to the HIPEC or control group four weeks after surgery. The HIPEC group was treated with cisplatin (60 mg/m²) administered with a HIPEC device on days 1 and 3 (30 mg/m² each time), along with oral S-1, 40-60 mg, twice daily, for 14 days. The control group was treated with cisplatin (60 mg/m²) administered intravenously plus oral S-1 (40-60 mg, 2/d for 14 days). The primary outcome of the study was disease-free survival (DFS).

RESULTS

Total 114 patients were included in the study, with 57 patients in each group. The median DFS was 29.0 months in the HIPEC group, which was significantly longer than that in the control group (15.0 months, p = 0.006). The two-year DFS rate in the HIPEC group was higher than that in the control group (50.4% vs. 25.5%). Median OS was 42.0 month in the HIPEC group and 31.0 month in the control (p = 0.042). Peritoneal metastasis occurred in six patients in the HIPEC group (10.5%) and 12 patients in the control (21.1%, p = 0.198). No significant difference in the incidence of adverse event except for thrombocytopenia.

CONCLUSION

HIPEC with cisplatin plus oral S-1 is a safe and effective adjuvant therapy for patients with advanced gastric cancer following D2 radical gastrectomy. Trial registration: This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with the identifier (NCT number): NCT02396498.

Toward a Treatment Sequencing Strategy: A Systematic Review of Treatment Regimens in Advanced Gastric Cancer/Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Platinum and fluoropyrimidine combinations typically comprise first-line (1L) therapy in advanced gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (G/GEA), although controversy exists regarding the use of 5doublet versus triplet cytotoxic regimens. Historically, second-line (2L) and third-line or later (3L+) therapy has been fragmented. Recent trials have increased the need for optimal treatment sequencing in advanced G/GEA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of peer-reviewed manuscripts of randomized clinical trials examining 1L, 2L, and 3L+ therapy for advanced G/GEA published from 2009 through November 19, 2019. When available, overall survival, progression-free survival, time to progression, overall response rate, and toxicity were extracted from each and compared descriptively.

RESULTS

In 1L therapy, chemotherapy triplets demonstrated variable efficacy improvements with invariable increased toxicity compared with platinum/fluoropyrimidine doublets. Currently, the only published report of positive outcomes using biologics in 1L describes adding trastuzumab in HER2-overexpressing advanced G/GEA. In 2L, doublet chemotherapy regimens are not uniformly more efficacious than single-agent taxanes or irinotecan, and ramucirumab has demonstrated improved outcomes both as monotherapy and in combination.

CONCLUSION

For advanced G/GEA, review of trial results from 2009-2019 support 1L therapy with platinum and fluoropyrimidine and sequencing with taxanes or irinotecan in combination with biologics as effective 2L options. Escalating to a triplet may add some efficacy at the expense of added toxicity.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The rapidly changing treatment landscape for advanced gastric cancer includes increasing options for refractory disease. With multiple first-line platinum-based regimens, identification of those with the best benefit-to-risk ratio may provide guidance on treatment sequencing strategies. This article presents findings from the published literature of randomized controlled trials that included a first-line platinum/fluoropyrimidine combination and, for second-line trials, patients with platinum/fluoropyrimidine-refractory disease. This guiding summary could be a tool for clinicians to identify the optimal first-line regimen(s) followed by a strategy for subsequent regimens.

The Efficacy and Adverse Events in Patients with Head and Neck Cancer Following Radiotherapy Combined with S-1 Therapy: A Meta-Analysis

This meta-analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy and adverse events associated with S-1 chemotherapy combined with radiotherapy for patients with head and neck cancer. The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to 10 February 2021. Eligible studies included clinical trials using S-1 chemotherapy combined with radiotherapy for head and neck cancer patients that measured tumor response, local control rate, overall survival, and grade 3/4 adverse events. A meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model. Twelve trials involving 378 patients met the selection criteria. The objective response and clinical benefit rate (complete/partial response and stable disease) of S-1 chemotherapy with radiotherapy were 86.3% (95% confidence interval (CI), 60.3-96.3) and 88.3% (95% CI, 70.1-96.1), respectively. The median 3-year local control rate, 3-year overall survival rate, and grade 3/4 adverse event rate were 84.0% (95% CI, 71.4-91.7), 69.6% (95% CI, 54.9-81.1), and 42.0% (95% CI, 36.2-48.0), respectively. S-1 combined with radiotherapy for patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma results in a good tumor response, favorable survival rate, and low toxicity. A prospective randomized, double-blind trial is required to assess the efficacy and safety of S-1 combined with radiotherapy to treat HNSCC.

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.

Meta-analysis for the efficacy of S-1-based regimens as the first-line treatment in Asian chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

AIM

We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety for S-1-based regimens as the first-line treatment in Asian chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PATIENTS & METHODS

Eligible randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included, of which data were extracted by inclusion criteria and exclusion one. Odds ratio and hazard ratio (HR) of outcomes including objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and adverse effects (AEs) were explored for the final analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-one RCTs including 3263 patients were fit into the analysis. Pooled HR for PFS was 1.01 (95% CI: 0.92-1.10; p = 0.88), the pooled HR for OS was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.85-1.06; p = 0.33) and the pooled odds ratio for ORR was 0.74 (95% CI: 0.61-0.90; p = 0.003). S-1-based regimens showed milder AEs in high-grade nausea/vomit, anorexia, leukopenia, neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The present study has revealed that S-1-based regimens are accompanied by the similar efficacy and slighter AEs compared with standard regimens as the first-line treatment in Asian chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

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.

Phase II trial of S-1 plus leucovorin in patients with advanced gastric cancer and clinical prediction by S-1 pharmacogenetic pathway

Background

The first one-arm phase II trial aimed to evaluate and predict efficacy and safety of S-1 plus oral leucovorin (S-1/LV) as first-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC), using S-1 pharmacogenetic pathway approach.

Patients and methods

A total of 39 patients orally took S-1 at conventional dose and LV simultaneously at a dose of 25 mg twice daily for a week, within a 2-week cycle. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR), while the secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), time to failure (TTF), overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR), and adverse events (AEs). Peripheral blood was sampled prospectively for baseline expression of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), orotate phosphoribosyltransferase (OPRT), thymidine phosphorylase (TP), and thymidylate synthase (TS), CYP2A6 gene polymorphisms, and 5-FU pharmacokinetics.

Results

The ORR and DCR were 41.0 and 76.9%. The median PFS, TTF, and OS were 4.13, 3.70, and 11.40 months. Grade 3–4 AEs occurred in only 13 patients, and grade 4 AEs occurred in only 1 of them. High OPRT/TS and peritoneal metastasis (vs. liver metastasis) independently predicted responding. High OPRT/DPD independently predicted grade 3–4 AEs. High AUC_0–24h of 5-FU and metastatic/recurrent sites ≤2 (vs. >3) independently predicted prolonged PFS. Low baseline plasmic DPD independently predicted prolonged OS.

Conclusions

Two-week, oral S-1/LV regimen demonstrated promising efficacy and safety as first-line chemotherapy for AGC.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier

NCT02090153

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00280-016-3209-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Can S-1 replace fluorouracil for advanced gastric cancer? A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis

It remains to be seen whether S-1 can be a replacement for infusional fluorouracil (5-FU) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of S-1 with 5-FU in AGC.PubMed and Cochrane Library were searched. Randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses comparing S-1 with 5-FU for AGC were eligible. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2.Seven trials involving 2443 patients were included. Compared with 5-FU, S-1 showed no significant prolongation of overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.83-1.01], P = 0.07) and progression-free survival (HR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.70-1.13], P = 0.35), but longer time to treatment failure (HR = 0.74, 95% CI [0.56-0.97], P = 0.03). The objective response rates were comparable (risk ratio [RR] = 1.36, 95% CI [0.95, 1.96], P = 0.10). Regarding treatment-related deaths and hematological toxicities, there was significant heterogeneity between Asian and non-Asian trials, and subgroup analysis was applied. In Asian patients, there was a significant increase in hematological toxicities such as leukopenia (grade 1-4: RR = 1.22, 95% CI [1.08, 1.37], P = 0.001; grade 3-4: RR = 2.21, 95% CI [1.52, 3.21], P < 0.0001), neutropenia (grade 1-4: RR = 1.29, 95% CI [1.11, 1.48], P = 0.0005; grade 3-4: RR = 1.87, 95% CI [1.11, 3.17], P = 0.02), and thrombocytopenia (grade 1-4: RR = 1.71, 95% CI [1.22, 2.41], P = 0.002) in S-1-containing regimens compared with 5-FU-containing regimens, but without significant difference in treatment-related mortality rate (risk difference [RD] = 0.00, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.01], P = 0.68). In non-Asian patients, S-1-containing regimens were, however, associated with significantly fewer treatment-related deaths (RD = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.05, -0.00], P = 0.04), as well as less all grade 1-4 and grade 3-4 hematological toxicities except anemia. There was no significant heterogeneity in nonhematologic toxicities between Asian and non-Asian trials. Lower incidence of grade 1-4 nausea, diarrhea, mucositis, grade 3-4 mucositis, increased creatinine, and decreased calculated creatinine clearance was observed in S-1-containing regimens.S-1 could not improve OS, but increase some hematological toxicities in Asian patients. Therefore, special attention on hematological toxicities should be paid to Asian patients because S-1 is administered on an outpatient basis.

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.

A Meta-analysis Reveals S-1-based Chemotherapy Improves the Survival of Patients With Advanced Gastric Cancer

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of S-1-based therapy versus non-S-1-based therapy in advanced gastric cancer (AGC) patients.Eligible studies stratifying objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs) in AGC patients were identified from Embase, Pubmed, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases. The STATA package (version 11.0) was used to pool the data from the eligible studies.Fifteen studies with 2973 AGC cases, of which 1497 (50.4%) received S-1-based therapy and 1476 (49.6%) received non-S-1-based therapy, were identified in the meta-analysis. AGC patients who had received S-1-based therapy had a higher median OS, median PFS, and ORR than those who had received 5-fluorouracil (FU)-based therapy (OS: hazard ratio [HR] 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80-0.98, P = 0.015; PFS: HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80-0.98, P = 0.016; ORR: OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08-1.45, P = 0.003, respectively). S-1-based therapy had similar efficacy to capecitabine-based therapy in terms of median OS (HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91-1.41, P = 0.253), median PFS (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.82-1.25, P = 0.927), and ORR (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.63-1.12, P = 0.226). Subgroup analysis for grade 3 to 4 toxicity showed higher incidence of neutropenia (relative risk [RR] = 0.827, P = 0.006), nausea (RR = 0.808, P = 0.040), and lower diarrhea (RR = 1.716, P = 0.012) in 5-FU-based arm, and higher diarrhea (RR = 0.386, P = 0.007) in capecitabine-based arm.S-1-based chemotherapy is favorable to AGC patients with better clinical benefit than 5-FU-based chemotherapy and with equivalent antitumor compare with capecitabine-based therapy.

Survival benefit from S-1 as compared to Fluorouracil in Asian patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancer: a meta-analysis

Whether S-1 could replace 5-Fluorouracil (5-Fu) or not in the treatment of advanced gastrointestinal (GI) cancer (including advanced gastric cancer [AGS] and metastatic colorectal cancer [mCRC]) in Asian patients has been controversial. This meta-analysis was performed to compare the activity, efficacy and toxicity of S-1-based versus 5-Fu-based chemotherapy in those Asian patients. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified by electronic search of Pubmed. Relevant abstracts were manually searched to identify relevant trials. A total of 2182 patients from eight RCTs were included, and our results demonstrated that S-1-based chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77-1.00) and overall response rate (ORR) (odds ratio [OR], 1.72; 95% CI, 1.09-2.70), but no significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit was found between arms (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.72-1.06). Subgroup analyses revealed that S-1-based chemotherapy significantly improved OS and ORR in subgroups of patients with non-platinum containing regimens (P = 0.041; P = 0.034) and patients with no prior chemotherapy history (P = 0.025; P = 0.016). Statistically significant improvements of PFS and ORR in the S-1-based chemotherapy were observed in the subgroup of patients with AGC (P < 0.001; P = 0.005). S-1-based chemotherapy was characterized by significantly higher incidences of diarrhea, fatigue and thrombocytopenia, and a lower incidence of nausea. This analysis provided strong evidence for survival benefits of S-1, and S-1-based chemotherapy could be considered to replace 5-Fu-based therapy for the treatment of advanced GI cancer in Asian patients.

A phase I study of sorafenib in combination with S-1 plus cisplatin in patients with advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Sorafenib inhibits several receptor tyrosine kinases involved in tumor progression and angiogenesis. S-1, an oral fluorouracil antitumor drug, plus cisplatin (CDDP) is the standard regimen for advanced gastric adenocarcinoma (AGC) in Japan. The purpose of this phase I study was to evaluate the safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary efficacy of sorafenib in combination with S-1 plus CDDP.

METHODS

Patients with histologically confirmed previously untreated AGC were evaluated for eligibility and treated with sorafenib (400 mg bid, days 1-35), S-1 (40 mg/m(2) bid, days 1-21), and CDDP (60 mg/m(2), day 8). Treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Pharmacokinetics for sorafenib, 5-FU, and CDDP were investigated in cycle 1.

RESULTS

Thirteen patients were enrolled and received at least one dose of the study treatment. No specific or serious adverse event was newly reported in this study. Five patients had partial response and 8 had stable disease as the best response. Pharmacokinetic analysis showed no significant differences in the exposures of sorafenib when administered alone or in combination with S-1 and CDDP.

CONCLUSIONS

The present phase I study demonstrates the acceptable toxicity and preliminary efficacy of combined treatment with S-1, CDDP, and sorafenib.

S-1-based chemotherapy versus capecitabine-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced gastric carcinoma: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although both oral fluoropyrimidines were reported effective and safe, doubts exist about whether S-1 or capecitabine is more advantageous in advanced gastric carcinoma (AGC). Herein, we performed a meta-analysis to comprehensively compare the efficacy and safety of S-1-based chemotherapy versus capecitabine-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment for AGC.

METHODS

PubMed/Medline, EmBase, Cochrane library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched for articles comparing S-1-based chemotherapy to capecitabine-based chemotherapy for AGC. Primary outcomes were overall response rate (ORR), time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS), progression-free probability, and survival probability. Secondary outcomes were toxicities. Fixed-effects model were used and all the results were confirmed by random-effects model.

RESULTS

Five randomized controlled trials and five cohort studies with 821 patients were included. We found equivalent ORR (38.3% vs. 39.1%, odds ratio [OR] 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-1.24, P = 0.59), TTP (harzad ratio [HR] 0.98, 95% CI 0.82-1.16, P = 0.79), OS (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87-1.13, P = 0.91), progression-free probability (3-month OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.62-1.68, P = 0.94; 6-month OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.88-2.04, P = 0.18) and survival probability (0.5-year OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.61-1.31, P =0.57; 1-year OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.70- 1.33, P = 0.84; 2-year OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.61-2.17, P = 0.66). Equivalent grade 3 to 4 hematological and non-hematological toxicities were found except hand-foot syndrome was less prominent in S-1-based chemotherapy (0.3% vs. 5.9%, OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.06-0.56, P = 0.003). There're no significant heterogeneity and publication bias. Cumulative analysis found stable time-dependent trend. Consistent results stratified by study design, age, regimen, cycle, country were observed.

CONCLUSION

S-1-based chemotherapy was associated with non-inferior antitumor efficacy and better safety profile, compared with capecitabine-based therapy. We recommended S-1 and capecitabine can be used interchangeably for AGC, at least in Asia.

A feasibility study of outpatient chemotherapy with S-1 + cisplatin in patients with advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Regimens of standard-dose cisplatin have usually been administered as inpatient chemotherapy in Japan. This prospective study evaluated the feasibility of outpatient chemotherapy with standard-dose cisplatin in Japanese patients with advanced gastric cancer.

METHODS

Advanced gastric cancer patients received an S-1 + cisplatin regimen (S-1: 80-120 mg days 1-21; cisplatin: 60 mg/m(2) day 8, every 4-5 weeks), either as outpatient chemotherapy with oral hydration on days 9-10, or as inpatient chemotherapy with intravenous hydration on days 9-10, based on the results of an oral hydration test during days 1-7 of the first cycle. The primary endpoint was the completion rate of two cycles in the outpatient group.

RESULTS

A total of 36 patients were enrolled: 32 were allocated to the outpatient group and 4 to the inpatient group. The completion rate of two cycles in the outpatient group was 78% [90% confidence interval (CI): 63-89]. The median of the total number of treatment cycles of S-1 + cisplatin and the median progression-free survival in the outpatient group were 5 (range 1-11) and 10.6 months (95% CI 4.2-16.9), respectively. Although seven patients in the outpatient group discontinued treatment, mainly owing to gastrointestinal toxicity, most of them could continue S-1 + cisplatin by switching to inpatient chemotherapy from the next cycle.

CONCLUSION

Outpatient chemotherapy with S-1 + cisplatin in advanced gastric cancer patients can be safely and effectively administered in Japan with appropriate patient selection and supportive treatment.

S-1 for the treatment of gastrointestinal cancer

INTRODUCTION

5-Fluorouracil (5-FU)-based regimens are used worldwide as the standard treatment in chemotherapy for gastric cancer. S-1 , a fourth-generation oral fluoropyrimidine that combines tegafur and two biochemical modulators: gimeracil and oteracil potassium, is now attracting considerable interest.

AREAS COVERED

This review addresses the clinical evidence of S-1 in gastrointestinal malignancies, such as gastric, colorectal, pancreatic and biliary tract cancers. S-1 has demonstrated advantages over standard therapies, in both advanced and postoperative settings, in large Phase III studies. S-1 alone or S-1 plus cisplatin is recommended in the 2010 Gastric Cancer Treatment Guidelines, by the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Results from Phase III studies have demonstrated that S-1 in combination with chemotherapies, such as cisplatin in gastric cancer, and irinotecan and oxaliplatin in colorectal cancers, is non-inferior to conventional 5-FU-based standard regimens, with the benefit of convenience and reduced toxicity.

EXPERT OPINION

The excellent design of S-1 aimed to reduce toxicity by avoiding certain routes of degradation, and to enhance activity by reducing catabolism. This has provided not only a suitable alternative to 5-FU, but also higher efficacy.

S-1-based therapy versus 5-FU-based therapy in advanced gastric cancer: a meta-analysis

We set out to evaluate the efficacy and safety of S-1-based therapy versus fluorouracil (5-FU)-based therapy in advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Eligible studies were identified from Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Additionally, abstracts presented at American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) conferences held between January 2000 and November 2009 were searched to identify relevant clinical trials. The outcome included overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and grade 3/4 advent events. Four randomized controlled trials (one full text and three abstracts) with 2,115 participants in AGC were identified in our analysis(1,065 patients were in the S-1-based group, 1,050 patients were in the 5-FU-based group). Meta-analysis showed there was significant OS benefit in favor of S-1-based therapy (hazard ratio [HR]=0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79 to 0.96). Pooled estimate for ORR showed no significant difference between S-1-based group and 5-FU-based group (OR=1.25, 95%CI: 0.31 to 5.09). Lower incidence of grade 3/4 neutropenia was observed in patients with S-1-based therapy (OR=0.33, 95%CI: 0.25 to 0.44). With regard to grade 3/4 anemia (OR=1.20, 95%CI: 0.74 to 1.96), leucopenia (OR=1.09, 95%CI: 0.43 to 2.74), stomatitis (OR=2.65, 95%CI: 0.12 to 58.89), diarrhea (OR=0.53, 95% CI: 0.00 to 229.10), nausea (OR=1.36, 95%CI: 0.68 to 2.72), and treatment-related deaths (OR=1.84, 95%CI: 0.95 to 3.54), equivalent frequencies were found between groups. S-1-based therapy significantly improved OS in relation to 5-FU-based therapy. ORR and safety profile were considerable between two groups. These results needed to be confirmed by high-quality trials and further studies in the West.