Treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with metastatic gastric cancer receiving third-line chemotherapy: A population-based outcomes study

Real-world evidence of treatment patterns and survival of metastatic gastric cancer patients in Germany

BACKGROUND

Patients with metastatic gastric cancer (mGC) have poor prognosis. This real-world study aimed to describe treatment regimens and survival of mGC patients.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted using anonymized German claims data (AOK PLUS) covering a period from 2010 to 2021. The study population included newly diagnosed mGC cases identified from 2011 to 2020. The index date was defined as the first diagnosis of metastasis on or after gastric cancer diagnosis. Therapy regimens were identified based on inpatient and outpatient data, and subsequently stratified by line of treatment. Survival analyses were conducted using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

The cohort consisted of 5,278 mGC incident cases (mean age: 72.7 years; male: 61.9%). Nearly half of the incident cases received mGC-related treatment (49.8%). Treated patients were more often male, younger, and had fewer comorbidities compared to untreated patients. Of the 2,629 mGC patients who started the first line of treatment (1LOT), 32.8% switched to 2LOT, and 10.2% reached 3LOT. Longer survival time was observed among disease-specific treated cases compared with untreated cases (median real-world overall survival (rwOS): 12.7 months [95%CI 12.1 - 13.3 months] vs. 3.7 months [95%CI 3.4 - 4.0 months]).

CONCLUSION

Systemic therapy was not received in almost half of the mGC patients. In those patients, a very short median rwOS was observed. Treatment patterns were generally in line with the guideline recommendations, however, therapy switching rates and poor prognosis indicate high unmet needs also in the treated population.

Effects of prior therapies on outcomes with trifluridine/tipiracil in patients with metastatic gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer in a randomized phase III trial (TAGS)

BACKGROUND

In the phase III TAGS trial, trifluridine/tipiracil showed survival benefit versus placebo in patients with metastatic gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer and ≥ 2 prior chemotherapies. This post hoc exploratory analysis assessed the impact of prior therapy type on outcomes.

METHODS

Based on prior treatment, patients in TAGS (N = 507) were categorized into overlapping subgroups: ramucirumab ± other agents (n = 169), no ramucirumab (n = 338), paclitaxel but no ramucirumab (n = 136), ramucirumab + paclitaxel sequentially or in combination (n = 154), neither paclitaxel nor ramucirumab (n = 202), irinotecan (n = 281), and no irinotecan (n = 226). Overall and progression-free survival, time to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) ≥ 2, and safety were assessed.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics and prior therapy patterns were generally well balanced between trifluridine/tipiracil and placebo arms across subgroups. Trifluridine/tipiracil was associated with survival benefits versus placebo regardless of prior treatment: across subgroups, median overall survival was 4.6-6.1 versus 3.0-3.8 months (hazard ratios, 0.47-0.88), median progression-free survival was 1.9-2.3 versus 1.7-1.8 months (hazard ratios, 0.49-0.67), and median time to ECOG PS ≥ 2 was 4.0-4.7 versus 1.9-2.5 months (hazard ratios, 0.56-0.88). Among trifluridine/tipiracil-randomized patients, median overall and progression-free survival trended longer in those who had not received ramucirumab, paclitaxel and ramucirumab, or irinotecan (6.0-6.1 and 2.1-2.3 months, respectively) than in those who previously received these agents (4.6-5.7 and 1.9 months). The trifluridine/tipiracil safety profile was consistent across subgroups, with similar overall incidences of grade ≥ 3 adverse events. Minor variations in hematologic toxicities were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

In TAGS, third- or later-line trifluridine/tipiracil treatment demonstrated overall and progression-free survival and functioning benefits versus placebo and a consistent safety profile in patients with metastatic gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer, regardless of prior treatment type.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov NCT02500043.

Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2022: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in Korea and the world. Since 2004, this is the 4th gastric cancer guideline published in Korea which is the revised version of previous evidence-based approach in 2018. Current guideline is a collaborative work of the interdisciplinary working group including experts in the field of gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology and guideline development methodology. Total of 33 key questions were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group and 40 statements were developed according to the systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and KoreaMed database. The level of evidence and the grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation proposition. Evidence level, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability was considered as the significant factors for recommendation. The working group reviewed recommendations and discussed for consensus. In the earlier part, general consideration discusses screening, diagnosis and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. Flowchart is depicted with statements which is supported by meta-analysis and references. Since clinical trial and systematic review was not suitable for postoperative oncologic and nutritional follow-up, working group agreed to conduct a nationwide survey investigating the clinical practice of all tertiary or general hospitals in Korea. The purpose of this survey was to provide baseline information on follow up. Herein we present a multidisciplinary-evidence based gastric cancer guideline.

The evolving strategies for the management of patients with metastatic gastric cancer: A narrative review and expert opinion

Gastric cancer (GC) is recognized as one of the most common deadly malignancies worldwide and about 40-50% of patients present at diagnosis with an unresectable disease due to a locally advanced or already metastatic condition. Recently, therapeutic options for management of metastatic GC (mGC) have been approved allowing a potential improvement of patient cancer treatment response and also an establishment of a continuum of care for this aggressive disease. This report is the result of a literature review by an expert panel. The aim of this document is to provide evidence, wherever it is lacking, to provide expert opinion directed at strategic management of mGC, and in particular aspect at practical management where appropriate guidelines are not available. Treatment landscape with new therapeutic strategies for third line and beyond, role of imaging, prognostic factors, symptoms, and markers as well as the importance of multidisciplinary approach particularly the nutritional aspects are discussed.

Apatinib combined with PD-1 antibody for third-line or later treatment of advanced gastric cancer

Background

Both apatinib and programmed death 1 (PD-1) monoclonal antibody (mAb) monotherapy have been licensed in China for the third-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer (AGC). However, whether the combination could improve the prognosis of patients with AGC after second-line treatment has not been evaluated.

Methods

We retrospectively screened 892 patients with AGC who received third-line or later treatment from June 2016 to July 2021 at the Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University and second People’s Hospital of Pingdingshan. 166 patients who received apatinib plus PD-1 mAb, apatinib, or PD-1 mAb were included. Based on medical records and follow-up data, we analyzed the efficacy and safety of these three treatment options.

Results

Patients received apatinib plus PD-1 mAb (n=49), apatinib monotherapy (n=63), or PD-1 mAb monotherapy (n=54). Apatinib plus PD-1 mAb showed significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) and overall surivival (OS) compared with the apatinib monotherapy (PFS: 5.5 months versus 3.0 months; p=0.002; OS: 10 months versus 7.6 months; p=0.011) or PD-1 mAb monotherapy (PFS: 5.5 months versus 2.3 months; p=0.017; OS: 10 months versus 6.5 months; p=0.004). Apatinib plus PD-1 mAb showed higher ORR and DCR than the apatinib and PD-1 mAb monotherapy (ORR: 34.7% versus 6.3% versus 9.3%; p=0.001; DCR: 75.5% versus 44.4% versus 40.7%; p=0.001). Further subgroup analysis for PFS and OS shown consistent efficacy in most subgroups with apatinib plus PD-1 mAb versus apatinib monotherapy or PD-1 mAb monotherapy. Multivariate analyses suggested that apatinib plus PD-1 mAb was significantly associated with better PFS and OS. Most of the treatment-related toxicities were mild and tolerable.

Conclusion

Compared with the monotherapy of either apatinib or PD-1 mAb, apatinib plus PD-1 mAb treatment yielded longer PFS and OS, and achieved significant higher ORR and DCR.

A Comprehensive and Comparative Review of Global Gastric Cancer Treatment Guidelines

Countries differ in their treatment expertise and research results regarding gastric cancer; hence, treatment guidelines are diverse based on evidence and medical situations. A comprehensive and comparative review of each country’s guidelines is imperative to understand the similarities and differences among countries. We reviewed and compared five gastric cancer treatment guidelines in terms of endoscopic, surgical, perioperative, and palliative systemic treatment based on evidence levels and recommendation grades, as well as the postoperative follow-up strategies for each guideline. The Korean, Chinese, and European guidelines provided evidence and grading of the recommendations. The United States guidelines suggested categories for evidence and consensus. The Japanese guidelines suggested evidence and recommendations only for systemic treatment. The Korean and Japanese guidelines described endoscopic treatment, surgery, and lymphadenectomy in detail. The Chinese, United States, and European guidelines more intensively considered perioperative chemotherapy. In particular, the indications for chemotherapy and the regimens recommended by each guideline differed slightly. Considering their medical situations, each guideline had some diversity in terms of adopting evidence, which resulted in heterogeneous recommendations. This review will help medical personnel to comprehensively understand the diversity in gastric cancer treatment guidelines for each country in terms of evidence and recommendations.

Pembrolizumab versus paclitaxel for previously treated advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer (KEYNOTE-063): A randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial in Asian patients

Background

KEYNOTE‐063 (NCT03019588) investigated pembrolizumab versus paclitaxel as second‐line therapy in Asian patients with advanced programmed death ligand 1 (PD‐L1)–positive (combined positive score ≥1) gastric/gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer.

Methods

This randomized, open‐label, phase 3 study was conducted at 36 medical centers in China (mainland), Malaysia, South Korea, and Taiwan. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to 200 mg of pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks for ≤2 years or 80 mg/m² of paclitaxel intravenously every week. Primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression‐free survival (PFS). Secondary end points were objective response rate (ORR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 and safety.

Results

Between February 16, 2017, and March 12, 2018, 94 patients were randomly assigned (47 pembrolizumab/47 paclitaxel) after screening; enrollment was stopped on March 12, 2018, based on the results of the global KEYNOTE‐061 study, and patients were followed until the last patient's last visit. Median OS was 8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4‐10 months) with pembrolizumab versus 8 months (95% CI, 5‐11 months) with paclitaxel (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; 95% CI, 0.63‐1.54). Median PFS was 2 months (95% CI, 1‐3 months) with pembrolizumab versus 4 months (95% CI, 3‐6 months) with paclitaxel (HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.04‐2.52). ORR was 13% for pembrolizumab versus 19% for paclitaxel. Any‐grade treatment‐related adverse events occurred in 28 pembrolizumab‐treated patients (60%) and 42 paclitaxel‐treated patients (96%); grades 3 to 5 events occurred in 5 patients (11%) and 28 patients (64%), respectively.

Conclusions

Definitive conclusions about the efficacy of second‐line pembrolizumab in Asian patients with advanced PD‐L1–positive gastric/GEJ cancer are limited because of insufficient power, but pembrolizumab was well tolerated in this patient population. Efficacy followed a trend similar to that observed in the phase 3 KEYNOTE‐061 trial.

In this small sample of Asian patients with advanced PD‐L1–positive (combined positive score [CPS] ≥1) gastric/gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer enrolled in the randomized, open‐label, phase 3 KEYNOTE‐063 study, definitive conclusions on clinical outcomes are limited; however, second‐line pembrolizumab monotherapy seems to be well tolerated in this patient population. These findings are consistent with those of the larger global KEYNOTE‐061 study in patients with CPS ≥1 gastric/GEJ cancer.

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.

Trifluridine/tipiracil versus placebo for third or later lines of treatment in metastatic gastric cancer: an exploratory subgroup analysis from the TAGS study

BACKGROUND

Metastatic gastric cancer and cancer of the esophagogastric junction (GC/EGJ) is an aggressive disease with poor prognosis. In the TAGS study, trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) improved overall survival (OS) compared with placebo in heavily pre-treated patients. This unplanned, exploratory subgroup analysis of the TAGS study aimed to clarify outcomes when FTD/TPI was used as third-line (3L) treatment and fourth- or later-line (4L+) treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were divided into a 3L group (126 and 64 in FTD/TPI and placebo arms, respectively) and 4L+ group (211 and 106 in FTD/TPI and placebo arms, respectively). Endpoints included OS, progression-free survival (PFS), time to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) deterioration to ≥2, and safety.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were generally well balanced between FTD/TPI and placebo for 3L and 4L+ treatment. Median OS (mOS) for FTD/TPI versus placebo was: 6.8 versus 3.2 months {hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 0.68 (0.47-0.97), P = 0.0318} in the 3L group; and 5.2 versus 3.7 months [0.73 (0.55-0.95), P = 0.0192] in the 4L+ group. Median PFS for FTD/TPI versus placebo was 3.1 versus 1.9 months [0.54 (0.38-0.77), P = 0.0004] in the 3L group; and 1.9 versus 1.8 months [0.57 (0.44-0.74), P < 0.0001] in the 4L+ group. Time to deterioration of ECOG PS to ≥2 for FTD/TPI versus placebo was 4.8 versus 2.0 months [HR (95% CI) = 0.60 (0.42-0.86), P = 0.0049] in the 3L group; and 4.0 versus 2.5 months [0.75 (0.57-0.98), P = 0.0329] in the 4L+ group. The safety of FTD/TPI was consistent in all subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis confirms the efficacy and safety of FTD/TPI in patients with GC/EGJ in third and later lines with a survival benefit that seems slightly superior in 3L treatment. When FTD/TPI is taken in 3L as recommended in the international guidelines, physicians can expect to provide patients with an mOS of 6.8 months.

Recent Developments of Systemic Chemotherapy for Gastric Cancer

Gastric cancer (GC) is a molecularly heterogeneous disease. Its molecular background, epidemiology, and standard of care are quite different between Eastern and Western countries. Many efforts have been made in developing more effective surgeries and adjuvant chemotherapies for resectable GC in each region. Recently, an intensive combination of cytotoxic agents has been established as a new standard of adjuvant treatment. Meanwhile, palliative chemotherapy is a uniform standard treatment for unresectable GC worldwide. Recently, one of the most remarkable advances in therapy for unresectable GC has been the approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). The use of ICIs as frontline treatment is currently being investigated. In addition, novel combinations of ICIs and targeted drugs are being evaluated in clinical trials. Despite these advances, the complex biology of GC has resulted in the failure of targeted therapies, with the exceptions of HER2-targeted trastuzumab and VEGFR2-targeted ramucirumab. GC harbors many redundant oncogenic pathways, and small subsets of tumors are driven by different specific pathways. Therefore, a combination strategy simultaneously inhibiting several pathways and/or stricter patient selection for better response to targeted drugs are needed to improve clinical outcomes in this field.

Impact of Prior Ramucirumab Use on Treatment Outcomes of Checkpoint Inhibitors in Advanced Gastric Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

A taxane plus ramucirumab as second-line therapy followed by a checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) in third line has become a standard treatment strategy for advanced gastric cancer.

OBJECTIVE

Herein, we investigated the impact of prior ramucirumab use on the efficacy of third-line immunotherapy and performed an exploratory analysis to identify potential biomarkers for the success of immunotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed patients receiving CPI as a third-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer between January 2015 and March 2019. Clinicopathologic data, including patient characteristics, histopathologic reports, and treatment types and outcomes, were reviewed.

RESULTS

Of the 74 patients included in this study, 45 (61%) received nivolumab and 29 (39%) received pembrolizumab as a third-line CPI. For second-line therapy, 41 patients (55%) were treated with ramucirumab plus a taxane, and 33 (45%) received a chemotherapy regimen without ramucirumab. The disease control rates of CPIs were not statistically different according to prior use of ramucirumab. The overall survival (OS) with CPI was higher in patients receiving second-line therapy without ramucirumab compared with those receiving ramucirumab and taxane (5.6 vs 4.8 months, HR 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-0.96; p = 0.03); however, this was not significant in a multivariate analysis. Patients achieving a response to second-line ramucirumab and a taxane showed greater benefit from subsequent CPI treatment compared with those not achieving a response (median OS 9.9 vs 2.3 months, HR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07-0.54; p < 0.001) as found in an exploratory analysis. Multivariate analysis also showed that prior response to ramucirumab and a taxane was an independent prognostic factor of OS with third-line CPI.

CONCLUSIONS

Response to ramucirumab and a taxane as a second-line treatment is an important prognostic marker for OS with subsequent third-line CPI. This data might provide useful information when applying CPIs as third-line therapies in advanced gastric cancer patients.

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

Third-line systemic treatment in advanced/metastatic gastric cancer: a comprehensive review

The management of advanced gastric cancer has improved over the past decade. There is more evidence to support the efficacy of systemic treatment in refractory gastric cancer beyond second-line treatment. Important randomized controlled trials of chemotherapies, targeted agents and immunotherapies have been reported. With the development of these novel therapies, clinicians can better individualize treatment for patients beyond progression on second-line therapy. However, there is no guideline on third-line therapy available for clinicians. This review discussed the efficacy and safety data from the pivotal trials of the agents proven to be effective in third-line settings, including the quality of study design, level of evidence and subgroup analysis, and how the data can help to guide clinicians on selecting the most appropriate third-line therapy for their patients.

A population-based outcomes study of patients with metastatic gastric cancer receiving second-line chemotherapy: A nationwide health insurance database study

PURPOSE

The survival benefit of second-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic gastric cancer (MGC) has recently been established. We conducted a nationwide population-based outcomes study of patients with MGC receiving second-line chemotherapy to better understand real-world treatment patterns and outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were collected from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database. We identified 509 newly diagnosed patients with MGC in 2010 who received second-line chemotherapy. These patients were divided into three groups for analyses: Group A comprised all patients who received second-line chemotherapy (N = 509); Group B comprised those who received fluoropyrimidine (Fp) plus platinum as first-line treatment, followed by irinotecan-based or taxane-based regimens as second-line chemotherapy (N = 284); and Group C comprised those who received Fp plus cisplatin as first-line treatment, followed by 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/oxaliplatin, irinotecan-based, or taxane-based regimens as second-line chemotherapy (N = 184).

RESULTS

Among patients who received first-line chemotherapy, 47.2% (509/1,078) continued to receive second-line chemotherapy. The most commonly used second-line chemotherapy regimens were 5-FU/irinotecan, 5-FU/oxaliplatin, and docetaxel. The median overall survival (OS) of all 509 patients was 5.2 months. The time from the start date of first-line chemotherapy to the start date of second-line chemotherapy > 6.1 months was an independent prognostic factor for improved OS. The type of chemotherapy regimen was not a significant factor affecting OS.

CONCLUSION

The findings provide a better understanding of second-line treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with MGC and will help guide treatment decisions in real-world clinical practice.

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.