PD-1 inhibitor combined with apatinib for advanced gastric or esophagogastric junction cancer: a retrospective study

Immunotherapy combined with apatinib in the treatment of advanced or metastatic gastric/gastroesophageal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Immunotherapy or apatinib alone has been used as third-line adjuvant therapy for advanced or metastatic gastric/gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) tumors, but the efficacy of combining them with each other for the treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic G/GEJ is unknown; therefore, we further evaluated the efficacy and safety of immunotherapy combined with apatinib in patients with advanced or metastatic G/GEJ.

METHODS

The main search was conducted on published databases: Embase, Cochrane library, PubMed.The search was conducted from the establishment of the database to December 2023.Clinical trials with patients with advanced or metastatic G/GEJ and immunotherapy combined with apatinib as the study variable were collected. Review Manager 5.4 software as well as stata 15.0 software were used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 651 patients from 19 articles were included in this meta-analysis. In the included studies, immunotherapy combined with apatinib had a complete response (CR) of 0.03 (95% CI: 0.00 -0.06), partial response (PR) of 0.34 (95% CI: 0.19-0.49), stable disease (SD) of 0.43 (95% CI: 0.32-0.55), objective response rate (ORR) was 0.36 (95% CI: 0.23-0.48), disease control rate (DCR) was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.74-0.86), and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.29 (95% CI: 4.05-4.52), median Overall survival (OS) was 8.79 (95% CI: 7.92-9.66), and the incidence of grade ≥ 3 TRAEs was 0.34 (95% CI: 0:19-0.49). PR, ORR, DCR, median PFS and median OS were significantly higher in the immunotherapy and apatinib combination chemotherapy group (IAC) than in the immunotherapy combination apatinib group (IA). And the difference was not significant in the incidence of SD and grade ≥ 3 TRAEs.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis shows that immunotherapy combined with apatinib is safe and effective in the treatment of advanced or metastatic G/GEJ, where IAC can be a recommended adjuvant treatment option for patients with advanced or metastatic G/GEJ. However, more large multicenter randomized studies are urgently needed to reveal the long-term outcomes of immunotherapy combined with apatinib treatment.

PD-1 inhibitor combined with albumin paclitaxel and apatinib as second-line treatment for patients with metastatic gastric cancer: a single-center, single-arm, phase II study

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have been approved for first- and third-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer. However, pembrolizumab alone in the second line did not improve overall survival compared to chemotherapy in the KEYNOTE-061 study. In this study, we aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of a three-drug regimen of PD-1 inhibitor combined with albumin paclitaxel and apatinib (a VEGFR inhibitor) for the second-line treatment of patients with metastatic gastric cancer (mGC).

METHODS

This was a single-center, single-arm, phase II clinical study. Patients with mGC with stable microsatellite and negative HER-2 expression who failed first-line chemotherapy were enrolled. The enrolled patients were treated with PD-1 inhibitor (selected according to patients' requirements) in combination with albumin paclitaxel (125 mg/m2, intravenously, days 1 and 8, or 250 mg/m2, intravenously, day 1) and apatinib (250 or 500 mg, orally, days 1-21) every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), duration of response, and adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

From July 11, 2019, to October 13, 2022, a total of 43 patients were enrolled, of whom 10 were PD-L1 negative, 11 were PD-L1 positive, and 22 had unknown PD-L1 expression. As of the data cutoff on April 1st, 2023, nine patients had partial response, 29 had stable disease, and five experienced progressive disease, with the ORR of 20.9% and DCR of 88.3%. The median PFS was 6.2 months (95% CI, 3.9-9.3), and the median OS was 10.1 months (95% CI, 7.5-14.1). All patients suffered from alopecia and neurotoxicity. The other main AEs of grade 1 or 2 were bone marrow suppression (N = 21, 48.8%), hand-foot reaction (N = 19, 44.2%), hypertension (N = 18, 41.9%), hypothyroidism (N = 11, 25.6%), gastrointestinal bleeding (N = 3, 7.0%), and liver function damage (N = 5, 11.6%). Two patients reported grade 3-4 immune-related liver damage.

CONCLUSION

Second-line PD-1 inhibitor combined with albumin paclitaxel and apatinib showed certain efficacy and safety in patients with mGC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical trials, NCT04182724. Registered 27 November 2019; retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04182724.

PD-1 inhibitors-based second-line therapy for metastatic gastric cancer

Background

Metastatic gastric cancer (MGC) patients with progression on first-line treatment still have poor outcomes on chemotherapy. The KEYNOTE-061 study demonstrated that pembrolizumab, a PD-1inhibitor, was not better than paclitaxel as second-line therapy for MGC. Herein, we explored the efficacy and safety of PD-1inhibitor based treatment for MGC patients in the second line.

Methods

In this observational, retrospective study, we enrolled MGC patients treated with anti-PD-1 based therapy as second-line in our hospital. We primarily assessed the treatment's efficacy and safety. We also evaluated the relationship between clinical features and outcomes using univariate and multivariate analyses.

Results

We enrolled 129 patients with an objective response rate (ORR) of 16.3% and a disease control rate (DCR) of 79.1%. Patients treated with PD-1inhibitor combined with chemotherapy and anti-angiogenic agents had ORR of 19.6% and higher DCR of 94.1%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.10 months, and the median overall survival (OS) was 7.60 months. In univariate analysis, patients treated with PD-1inhibitor combined with chemotherapy and anti-angiogenic agents and with prior anti-PD-1 history were significantly associated with favorable PFS and OS. In the multivariate analysis, different combination therapy and prior anti-PD-1 history were independent prognosis biomarkers for PFS and OS. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 28 (21.7%) patients. Common adverse events (AEs) included fatigue, hyper/hypothyroidism, neutrophil decrease, anemia, skin reactions, proteinuria, and hypertension. We did not observe treatment-related deaths.

Conclusion

Our current results indicated that PD-1-inhibitor and chemo-anti-angiogenic agents combination therapy and prior PD-1 treatment history might improve clinical activity for GC immunotherapy as second-line treatment with acceptable safety profiles. Further studies are needed to verify those outcomes for MGC in other centers.

Neoadjuvant PD-1 Inhibitor Plus Apatinib and Chemotherapy Versus Apatinib Plus Chemotherapy in Treating Patients With Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Prospective, Cohort Study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors plus apatinib and chemotherapy (PAC) in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventy-three patients with resectable LAGC were enrolled and named the PAC group (n=39) or apatinib plus chemotherapy (AC) group (n=34) based on the treatment they chose. Neoadjuvant therapy was administered in a 21-day cycle for 3 consecutive cycles, after which surgery was performed.

RESULTS

The PAC group exhibited a higher objective response rate than the AC group (74.4% vs. 58.8%, P=0.159). Moreover, the PAC group showed a numerically better response profile than the AC group (P=0.081). Strikingly, progression-free survival (PFS) (P=0.019) and overall survival (OS) (P=0.049) were prolonged, whereas disease-free survival (DFS) tended to be longer in the PAC group than in the AC group (P=0.056). Briefly, the 3-year PFS, DFS, and OS rates were 76.1%, 76.1%, and 86.7% in the PAC group and 46.9%, 49.9%, and 70.3% in the AC group, respectively. Furthermore, PAC (vs. AC) treatment (hazard ratio=0.286, P=0.034) was independently associated with prolonged PFS in multivariate Cox regression analyses. The incidence of adverse events did not differ between the two groups (all P>0.05), where leukopenia, anemia, hypertension, and other adverse events were commonly observed in the PAC group.

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant PAC therapy may achieve a preferable pathological response, delayed progression, and prolonged survival compared to AC therapy with a similar safety profile in patients with LAGC; however, further validation is warranted.

Meta-Analysis of Efficacy and Safety of Karelizumab Combined with Apatinib in the Treatment of Advanced Gastric Cancer

Objective

To systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of karelizumab combined with apatinib in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer.

Methods

The published databases were searched by computer, Chinese: China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), Wanfang Journal Database, China national knowledge infrastructure (CNKI), and China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP); English: Embase, Cochrane library, and PubMed. The search time is from the establishment of the database to May 2022, and clinical randomized controlled trials (RCT) with advanced gastric cancer as the research object and karelizumab combined with apatinib as the research variables are collected. According to the bias risk evaluation standard of Cochrane System Evaluator's Manual, the literatures meeting the inclusion standard were evaluated for bias risk, and the meta-analysis was conducted by Review Manager 5.3. Results. A total of 20 articles with 1150 patients were included in this study. All the included 20 articles reported objective remission rate (ORR), and the heterogeneity among 20 studies was low (P > 0.05, I² = 0%). The ORR of gastric cancer patients in the observation group was significantly higher than that in the blank group [odds ratio (OR) = 1.97, 95% CI [1.53, 2.62], P < 0.01). All the included 20 articles reported disease control rate (DCR), and the heterogeneity among 20 studies was low (P = 0.87, I² = 0%). The ORR of gastric cancer patients in the observation group was significantly higher than that in the blank group (OR = 3.09, 95% CI [2.29, 4.16], P < 0.01). Three articles in the included literature reported the median OS, and the heterogeneity among the three studies was low (P = 0.70, I² = 0%). The median OS of gastric cancer patients in the observation group was significantly higher than that in the blank group (MD = 3.97, 95% CI [3.61, 4.39], P < 0.01). There are three reports on median progression-free survival (PFS) in the included literature, and there is high homogeneity among the three studies (P < 0.00001, I² = 86%). There is no statistical difference between the median PFS of gastric cancer patients in the observation group and the blank group (MD = 1.21, 95% CI [−1.20, 3.70], P = 0.29). The incidence of hypertension in the observation group was significantly higher than that in the blank group [OR = 6.19, 95% CI (1.91, 20.20), P = 0.003]. The incidence of proteinuria in the observation group was significantly higher than that in the blank group [OR = 3.97, 95% CI (1.08, 14.59), P = 0.03]. There was no significant difference in the incidence of other adverse reactions such as hand-foot syndrome, diarrhea, and myelosuppression between the observation group and the blank group. The levels of IFN-γ and TNF-α in the observation group were significantly higher than those in the blank group (P < 0.0001). The levels of IL-10, IL-4, and tumor markers in the observation group were significantly lower than those in the blank group (P < 0.05). Egger's test showed that there was no publication bias in the 20 included studies (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

Karelizumab combined with apatinib is effective in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer, with low incidence of adverse reactions and high safety. However, a large number of multicenter, large sample size, and high-level RCT are needed for clinical verification.

Neoadjuvant PD-1 inhibitor and apatinib combined with S-1 plus oxaliplatin for locally advanced gastric cancer patients: a multicentered, prospective, cohort study

PURPOSE

Programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitor and apatinib have been utilized in metastatic gastric cancer patients. The current study aimed to further investigate the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant S-1 plus oxaliplatin combined with PD-1 inhibitor and apatinib (SOXPA) in locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) patients.

METHODS

This two-centered, prospective, cohort study analyzed 30 resectable LAGC patients receiving SOXPA as neoadjuvant therapy.

RESULTS

Two (6.7%), 18 (60.0%), and 10 (33.3%) patients achieved complete response (CR), partial response (PR), and stable disease (SD), separately. The objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were 66.7% and 100.0%, respectively. The R0 resection rate was 93.3%. Beyond that, 6 (20.0%), 18 (60.0%), and 6 (20.0%) patients achieved grade 1, 2, and 3 pathological responses. The pathological complete response (pCR) rate was 20%. The 1-year and 2-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates were 96.6% and 77.7% respectively; meanwhile, the 1-year and 2-year overall survival (OS) rates were 96.6% and 90.1%, separately. What's more, better clinical response (P = 0.046); achievement of ORR (P = 0.014), and better pathological response (P = 0.020) were correlated with longer DFS. Besides, ORR achievement was linked with longer OS (P = 0.040). Most adverse events were relatively mild and manageable. Grade 3 adverse events included leukopenia, anemia, neutropenia, fatigue, hand-foot syndrome, nausea and vomiting. No grade 4 adverse events were witnessed.

CONCLUSION

SOXPA as neoadjuvant therapy achieves a satisfying clinical response, pathological response, survival profile, and tolerable safety in LAGC patients.