Outcomes of Advanced Gastric Cancer Patients Treated with at Least Three Lines of Systemic Chemotherapy

Use of Real-World Evidence in a Virtual Bridging Analysis for a Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Targeted Antibody-Drug Conjugate in Gastric Cancer

This study bridged pharmacokinetic, efficacy, and safety clinical trial data from Japan to a Western population using real-world evidence (RWE) to investigate the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) in the treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive advanced gastric cancer. Using population pharmacokinetic and exposure-response (efficacy/safety) models, exposure-efficacy data from 117 patients and exposure-safety data from 158 patients in Japan who received T-DXd 6.4 mg/kg as second-line or later treatment were bridged to RWE including covariate information from 25 Western patients with HER2-positive gastric cancer who received second-line or later T-DXd treatment. Pharmacokinetic simulations indicated that intact T-DXd and released drug (DXd) steady-state exposures were comparable between Western patients and patients from Japan; the Western/Japan ratio of exposure medians ranged from 0.82 (T-DXd steady-state minimum concentration) to 1.18 (DXd steady-state maximum concentration). Exposure-efficacy simulations estimated a confirmed objective response rate of 28.6% (90% confidence interval, 20.8-38.4) in real-world Western patients versus 40.1% (90% confidence interval, 33.5-47.0) in patients from Japan, possibly because of checkpoint inhibitor use in 4% versus 30% of patients, respectively. Western patients had a higher estimated rate of serious adverse events than patients from Japan (42.2% vs 34.6%); however, the rate of interstitial lung disease was lower (less than 10%) in Western patients. Overall, T-DXd was predicted to have meaningful clinical activity and a manageable safety profile in Western patients with HER2-positive gastric cancer. Using RWE, bridging analysis supported US approval of T-DXd 6.4 mg/kg in advanced gastric cancer before a clinical trial was completed in Western patients.

Current developments in gastric cancer: from molecular profiling to treatment strategy

Gastric cancer and gastro-oesophageal junction cancer represent a global health-care challenge. Despite the efficacy of improved chemotherapy and surgical options, these patients still have a poor prognosis. In advanced disease, only trastuzumab and some immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as nivolumab and pembrolizumab in addition to chemotherapy, have demonstrated consistent and reliable efficacy in patients with HER2-positive and PDL1-positive tumours, respectively. In this Review, we discuss the intrinsic characteristics of gastric and gastro-oesophageal cancer from the molecular and clinical perspectives and provide a comprehensive review of previously reported and ongoing phase II and III clinical trials with targeted agents and immunotherapy in advanced and localized settings. Finally, we suggest alternative strategies to help overcome current challenges in precision medicine and to improve outcomes for these patients.

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

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

Clinical Significance of Molecular Subtypes in Western Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Real-World Multicenter Experience

In recent years, the molecular subtyping of gastric cancer has led to the identification of novel clinically relevant biomarkers as well as promising therapeutic targets. In parallel, the advent of checkpoint inhibitors has expanded treatment options beyond conventional chemotherapy. Compelling evidence has shown unprecedented efficacy results for anti-PD1-based therapies in the molecular subgroups of dMMR/MSI-h, EBV+ and PD-L1 CPS+ patients, to the point that these are granted approval for gastric cancer adenocarcinoma (AGC) in several countries. Despite this, cytotoxic chemotherapy remains the only treatment choice for the considerable proportion of biomarkers-negative patients. In this context, little is known about the association between subtypes-defining biomarkers (HER2, MMR/MSI, PD-L1, and EBV) and the efficacy of standard chemotherapy in non-Asian AGC. Here, we aimed to investigate the prevalence, the clinic-pathologic features, and the impact on treatment outcome of clinical molecular subtypes in a new-diagnosed Western cohort of AGC.

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.

Chemorefractory Gastric Cancer: The Evolving Terrain of Third-Line Therapy and Beyond

Simple Summary

Gastric and gastro-oesophageal junction cancers (GC) are the fourth cause of cancer-related deaths, representing an international problem which needs a proper assessment. Beyond being an aggressive disease, which rapidly progress to different lines of treatment, patients suffering GC normally present a non-depreciable number of symptoms that make them especially fragile. In this context, sequential treatment lines with few toxic adverse events have been associated to an increased survival. A satisfactory GC therapy comprise at least three lines of treatment including chemotherapy and immunotherapy and/or targeted agents when indicated.

Abstract

Gastric and gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (GC) represent a global healthcare problem being the fifth most common tumour type and the fourth cause of cancer mortality. Extremely poor median survival of approximately 10 months is normally reported within advanced GC patients, mainly secondary to two factors, i.e., the fragility of these patients and the aggressiveness of this disease. In this context, the correct treatment of GC patients requires not only a multidisciplinary team with special attention to palliative and nutritional care but also a close follow-up with regular monitoring of disease symptoms and tumour evaluation. Sequential treatment lines with few toxic adverse events have emerged as the best therapeutic approach, and a third line of therapy could further improve survival and quality of life of GC patients. Chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and targeted agents -when indicated- constitute the treatment armamentarium of these patients. In this review, we discuss treatment options in the refractory setting as well as novel approaches to overcome the poor prognosis of GC.

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.

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.

[Factors affecting survival prognosis of advanced gastric cancer and establishment of a nomogram predictive model]

OBJECTIVE

To explore the factors affecting the survival of patients with advanced gastric cancer and establish a reliable predictive model of the patients' survival outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

We retrospectively collected the clinical data from patients with advanced gastric cancer treated in our department between January, 2015 and December, 2019. Univariate survival analysis was carried out using Kaplan-Meier method followed by multivariate Cox regression analysis to identify the factors associated with the survival outcomes of the patients. The R package was used to generate the survival rates, and a nomogram was established based on the results of multivariate analysis. The calibration curves and C-index were calculated to determine the predictive and discriminatory power of the model. The performance of the nomogram model for predicting the survival outcomes of the patients was evaluated using receiver- operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and decision curve analysis (DCA).

OBJECTIVE

Univariate analysis showed that the number of metastatic sites, the number of treatment lines received, disease control rate (DCR) and progression-free survival (PFS) time following first-line treatment, and surgical treatment in first-line treatment were significantly correlated with the survival time of the patients (P < 0.05). Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that surgical treatment, number of treatment lines, PFS time following first-line treatment and peritoneal metastasis, as independent prognostic factors, were significantly correlated with the patients' survival (P < 0.05). The C-index of the nomogram was 0.785 (95%CI: 0.744-0.826) for overall survival of the patients. The calibration curves showed that the actual survival rate of the patients was consistent with the predicted survival rate. The time-dependent AUC and DCA demonstrated that the nomogram had a good performance for predicting the survival outcomes of patients with advanced gastric cancer.

OBJECTIVE

Peritoneal metastasis is associated with s shorter overall survival time of patients with advanced gastric cancer, while a PFS time following first-line treatment of more than 7.0 months and third-line and posterior-line treatments are related with a longer survival time. Systematic treatment including elective surgery can improve the survival outcomes of the patients. The nomogram we established provides a reliable prognostic model for evaluating the prognosis of patients with advanced gastric cancer.

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

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

Outcomes of 596 Advanced Gastric Cancer Patients with Different Numbers of Chemotherapy Lines: The More Chemotherapy Lines, the Better Survival

Objective

Many large-sample prospective randomized clinical trials investigating advanced gastric cancer (AGC) have confirmed the survival advantages of first-line, second-line, or third-line chemotherapy compared with their respective control groups. However, due to the ethical concerns of prospective clinical trials, it is impossible to conduct a randomized comparative study of patients who do not receive chemotherapy and those who receive a second-line or above chemotherapy. Few research reports have addressed the relationship between the number of chemotherapy lines and overall survival (OS) in patients with AGC. In the present study, we analyzed the impact of the number of chemotherapy lines on OS in AGC patients using real-world data.

Patients and Methods

This study collected the medical records of patients with AGC diagnosed at Shandong Cancer Hospital from December 2007 to December 2017. According to the treatment received, AGC patients were divided into groups that did not receive chemotherapy, those who received only 1 line, 2 lines, or 3 lines and above. Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to assess patient survival.

Results

A total of 596 AGC patients were included in this study. The following patients were enrolled: 0 lines (did not receive chemotherapy), 77 (12.9%); 1 line, 235 (39.4%) patients; 2 lines, 185 (31.1%) patients; and ≥3 lines 99 (16.6%) patients. OS was significantly correlated with the number of chemotherapy lines (P<0.001), with a median OS from diagnosis of 3.3, 8.6, 15.6, and 21.0 months for patients receiving 0, 1, 2, ≥3 lines of chemotherapy, respectively.

Conclusion

This study showed that the more chemotherapy lines AGC patients received, the longer the OS. This study not only confirmed the impact of chemotherapy lines on OS but it also supplements the results of prospective clinical trials that cannot be completed due to the ethical implications.

Real-world treatment attrition rates in advanced esophagogastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Over the last decade, multiple agents have demonstrated efficacy for advanced esophagogastric cancer (EGC). Despite the availability of later lines of therapy, there remains limited real-world data about the treatment attrition rates between lines of therapy.

AIM

To characterize the use and attrition rates between lines of therapy for patients with advanced EGC.

METHODS

We identified patients who received at least one cycle of chemotherapy for advanced EGC between July 1, 2017 and July 31, 2018 across six regional centers in British Columbia (BC), Canada. Clinicopathologic, treatment, and outcomes data were extracted.

RESULTS

Of 245 patients who received at least one line of therapy, median age was 66 years (IQR 58.2-72.3) and 186 (76%) were male, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0/1 (80%), gastric vs GEJ (36% vs 64%). Histologies included adenocarcinoma (78%), squamous cell carcinoma (8%), and signet ring (14%), with 31% HER2 positive. 72% presented with de novo disease, and 25% had received previous chemoradiation. There was a high level of treatment attrition, with patients receiving only one line of therapy n = 122, 50%), two lines n = 83, 34%), three lines n = 34, 14%), and four lines n = 6, 2%). Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated improved survival with increasing lines of therapy (median overall survival 7.7 vs 16.6 vs 22.8 vs 40.4 mo, P < 0.05). On multivariable Cox regression, improved survival was associated with better baseline ECOG and increased lines of therapy (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The steep attrition rates between therapies highlight the unmet need for more efficacious early-line treatment options for patients with advanced EGC.

Real-world treatment patterns, healthcare resource use and clinical outcomes of patients receiving second line therapy for advanced or metastatic gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Second-line (2 L) chemotherapies for advanced or metastatic gastric cancer have shown improved survival but there is no commonly accepted standard of care. This study examines real-world patient characteristics, treatment patterns, healthcare resource use (HCRU) and clinical outcomes in this setting.

METHODS

Retrospective chart reviews were performed at participating institutions from Australia, Canada, Italy and UK for adult patients receiving 2 L treatment for advanced/metastatic disease from January 2013 to July 2015. Data were collected for 12 months or until death.

RESULTS

Two hundred eighty patients were included, mean age was 60.9 years and 68.9% were male. Half (51.8%) received monotherapy in 2 L, of whom 69.0% received taxanes. Irinotecan monotherapy was common in Australia (30.0% of monotherapy patients) and Canada (43.8%), but infrequent in Italy and UK. Doublet chemotherapy was used in 36.4% of 2 L patients, most commonly fluoropyrimidine + irinotecan. Use of targeted therapies (trastuzumab, ramucirumab) was infrequent except in Italy. Estimated median real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) and real-world overall survival (rwOS) from the time of 2 L treatment initiation was 3.09 (95% CI: 2.76-3.68) and 6.54 (5.29-7.76) months, respectively, and estimated 12-month rwPFS and rwOS rate was 8 and 26%, respectively. Only a minority (26.8%) of patients were hospitalized during the follow-up period, with the lowest hospitalization in Italy (16.7%). Laboratory and imaging tests were performed for 93.2 and 70.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

About half of patients received monotherapy as 2 L chemotherapy for advanced/metastatic gastric cancer and a third received doublets. Real-world clinical outcomes for 2 L treatment are poor and HCRU is considerable.

New Treatment Options for Advanced Gastroesophageal Tumours: Mature for the Current Practice?

Several clinical trials attempted to identify novel treatment options for advanced gastroesophageal tumours in first, second and further lines. Although results of targeted therapy regimens were mainly disappointing, novel immunotherapy agents showed promising activity, which led to their approval in second and third lines in many countries. This review focuses on the results of recent clinical trials investigating novel agents including targeted therapies, immunotherapy components and chemotherapies and discuss their current impact as well as current approval status on the treatment armamentarium of advanced gastroesophageal tumours.

Third- and later-line treatment in advanced or metastatic gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of third-line (TLT) and salvage treatment (ST) in advanced or metastatic gastric cancer. Materials & methods: Eligible studies included randomized clinical trials assessing TLT and ST versus placebo or best supportive care. Outcomes of interest included: overall survival, objective response rate and disease control rate in TLT; progression-free survival in ST; grade 3-4 adverse events in ST. Results: The use of TLT and ST was superior to placebo or best supportive care in terms of prolonging overall survival and progression-free survival. Hematological toxicities were more frequent in ST. Conclusion: TLT and ST are considerable and tolerable treatment options for patients with advanced or metastatic gastric cancer. Given the substantial heterogeneities affecting the efficacy analyses, these results have to be interpreted cautiously.

Late-line treatment in metastatic gastric cancer: today and tomorrow

Survival for patients with unresectable advanced or recurrent gastric cancer (GC) remains poor and the historical lack of evidence-based therapeutic options after second-line therapy is reflected in current clinical guidelines for this condition. Despite uncertainty about optimal therapeutic strategies, further treatment is appropriate for some patients after failure of second line and may prolong survival. This approach has been reported in clinical trials and is becoming more common in real-world clinical settings. Several prognostic factors may increase the likelihood that a patient will be eligible for treatment in the third-line setting, including geographic location, status at diagnosis and response to treatment. There has been little progress over the last decade until the results from two large phase III randomized controlled trials completed in the last year: the ATTRACTION-2 trial with the programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor, nivolumab, in an Asian population; and the TAGS trial with the oral chemotherapy trifluridine/tipiracil in a global population. Both ATTRACTION-2 and TAGS reported positive results in third-line treatment in advanced GC in specific patient groups. A further recently reported study, KEYNOTE-059, which was a single-arm phase II trial of the PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab in a mainly non-Asian population, has provided evidence supporting the use of this immunotherapy in patients with advanced GC. As further third-line options become available, more GC patients are expected to benefit from an individualized evidence-based approach to later-line therapy, with a common goal of extending survival and improving outcomes for their refractory disease.

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.

Gastric Cancer - From Aetiology to Management: Differences Between the East and the West

Gastric cancers are highly prevalent in both the East and the West, although they differ in aetiology and prognostic outcome. Management of gastric cancer from screening to definitive treatment varies substantially between Eastern and Western countries and regions, owing to numerous factors, including government incentives to carry out population-wide screening programmes to detect early disease, differences in clinical and biological tumour behaviours and responsiveness to treatment, patient accessibility to effective treatment, etc. This review highlights and contrasts the differences in tumour aetiology and histology, as well as the management approaches between the East and the West, which gives important insights and inspirations on future international multicentre research collaboration to combat this dreadful malignancy.