Comparison of FOLFOX and DOF regimens as first-line treatment in East Asian patients with advanced gastric cancer

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy outcome with taxane-based versus non-taxane protocols in gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer is the fifth most common cancer worldwide. One of the chemotherapy agents, taxanes is important in increasing patients' survival. The purpose of this study is to assess the efficacy of taxane-based drugs versus non-taxanes in neoadjuvant chemotherapy in non-metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma (GA) in Iranian patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a historical cohort method, 65 patients between 18 and 75 years old who suffered from non-metastatic GA were included. Nineteen and 21 and 25 patients, had undergone DCF (docetaxel, cisplatin, 5fluorouracil) and FLOT (5fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, docetaxel) and FOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, leucovorin, 5fluorouracil) regimens, respectively, between 2018 and 2021. Survival criteria consisting of progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), progression rate, and mortality rate were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method, in a three-year follow-up period.

RESULTS

The majority of patients were male (72.3%), with a median age of 65 years. Most of the patients had lesions with tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) stage IIIb (27.7%) and poor differentiated pathological grade (49.2%). OS time had a significant correlation with the low TNM stage (P = 0.01), well-differentiated pathological grade (P = 0.005), and FLOT vs. FOLFOX protocol (20.3 vs. 12.2 months, respectively. P =0.04). FLOT regimen had significantly better OS survival vs. DCF regimen (20.3 vs. 15.4 months, respectively, P = 0.03). No significant correlation was observed between survival criteria and other factors like gender, age, past medical history, Karnofsky scale, and tumor location in the stomach. The taxane-based arm (sum of DSF and FLOT) had no superiority over the non-taxane arm in survival criteria.

CONCLUSION

FLOT protocol, as a taxane-based regimen had better survival compared to FOLFOX protocol in neoadjuvant chemotherapy in gastric non-metastatic adenocarcinoma.

Efficacy and tolerability of fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin and docetaxel (FLOT) in unselected patients with advanced gastric and gastroesophageal cancer: does age really matter?

PURPOSE

Fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin and docetaxel (FLOT) regimen has shown strong efficacy as perioperative therapy for patients with locally advanced gastric (GC) and gastroesophageal (AEG) carcinoma. In the palliative situation, FLOT is recommended only for young fit patients. Data of efficacy and tolerability of FLOT in elderly patients are scarce and controversial. Thus, this study aimed to provide real-life experience of elderly patients with GC and AEG treated with FLOT as first-line palliative chemotherapy.

METHODS

Patients with advanced or metastatic GC or AEG and treated with FLOT as first-line palliative therapy between 2010 and 2021 were analyzed. Patients were grouped into < 65 years old (n = 35) and ≥ 65 years old (n = 22) groups. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), feasibility and toxicity were analyzed.

RESULTS

The median OS was 10.4 months with no significant difference between both groups (HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.48, 1.57; p = 0.632). The ECOG performance status showed powerful influence on OS in the subgroup analysis with median OS of 12.3 months for ECOG = 0 compared to 5.0 months for ECOG ≥ 1 (p = 0.015) as well as in multivariate analysis (HR 2.62; 95% CI 1.36, 5.04; p = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

In the present study the ECOG performance status showed a stronger prognostic value than patient age in FLOT as first- line therapy in a real-life cohort with advanced and metastatic GC and AEG. The performance status should therefore be considered in the therapeutic decision making of elderly patients with GC and AEG.

Does docetaxel matter in metastatic gastric cancer? FOLFOX versus FLOT regimens as first-line treatment

We aimed to compare the efficacy and the safety of the FOLFOX and the FLOT regimens in metastatic gastric cancer (mGC) as first-line treatment. It was a retrospective multicenter observational study. The comparisons between groups were conducted in terms of progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and hematologic adverse events. Seventy-nine patients, diagnosed with mGC between March 2012 and December 2019, treated with FOLFOX (n = 43) or FLOT (n = 36) regimens as first-line treatment were included in the study. The mPFS was 10.9 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 5.8-16.1] in the FLOT arm and 7.1 months (95% CI, 5.1-9.1) in the FOLFOX arm (P < 0.001). The ORR was 63.9% in the FLOT arm and 30.2% in the FOLFOX arm (P = 0.003). The mOS was 13.3 months (95% CI, 11.3-15.4) in the FLOT arm and 10.9 months (95% CI, 8.2-13.5) in the FOLFOX arm (P = 0.103). The hematologic adverse events in all grades were 88.4% (n = 38) in the FOLFOX arm compared with 80.6% (n = 29) in the FLOT arm (P = 0.335). The FLOT regimen might be a preferred option in mGC with an improved PFS and ORR compared with the FOLFOX regimen.

Attrition during neoadjuvant chemotherapy for gastric adenocarcinoma is associated with decreased survival: A United States Safety-Net Collaborative analysis

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is standard management for localized gastric cancer (GC). Attrition during NAC due to treatment-related toxicity or functional decline is considered a surrogate for worse biologic outcomes; however, data supporting this paradigm are lacking. We investigated factors predicting attrition and its association with overall survival (OS) in GC.

METHODS

Patients with nonmetastatic GC initiating NAC were identified from the US Safety-Net Collaborative (2012-2014). Patient/treatment-related characteristics were compared between attrition/nonattrition cohorts. Cox models determined factors associated with OS.

RESULTS

Of 116 patients initiating NAC, attrition during prescribed NAC occurred in 24%. No differences were observed in performance status, comorbidities, treatment at safety-net hospital, or clinicopathologic factors between cohorts. Despite absence of distinguishing factors, attrition was associated with worse OS (median: 11 vs. 37 months; p = 0.01) and was an independent predictor of mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 4.7, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.5-15.2; p = 0.02). Fewer patients with attrition underwent curative-intent surgery (39% vs. 89%; p < 0.001). Even in patients undergoing surgical exploration (n = 89), NAC attrition remained an independent predictor of worse OS (HR: 50.8, 95% CI: 3.6-717.8; p = 0.004) despite similar receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Attrition during NAC for nonmetastatic GC is independently associated with worse OS, even in patients undergoing surgery. Attrition during NAC may reflect unfavorable tumor biology not captured by conventional staging metrics.

Evolving therapies in advanced oesophago-gastric cancers and the increasing role of immunotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Esophagogastric cancers remain a considerable health burden and among the top causes of global cancer-related deaths. Chemotherapy remains the cornerstone of treatment for patients with advanced disease. Doublet platinum/fluoropyrimidine therapy is established as first-line treatment with the option of adding a taxane in selected patients. Irinotecan, taxanes, and ramucirumab are approved as second-line treatments. Results from the trials KEYNOTE-059, ATTRACTION-2, and TAGS have established the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors and trifluridine/tipiracil as a third-line treatment. High PD-L1 expression, microsatellite instability, tumor mutational burden, and Epstein-Barr virus status may also be used to enrich for responses to immunotherapy.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we discuss the outcome of recent trials in the later lines of therapy for esophagogastric cancer and place these in the context of current treatment paradigms. We also discuss the biology of esophagogastric cancers and how this might inform the development of new treatments. Finally, we comment on promising new drugs in development.

EXPERT OPINION

Recent advances in the treatment of chemo-refractory esophagogastric cancer add to the improving survival of patients with this disease. Further research is needed to improve patient selection to therapies and the earlier incorporation of these agents in the treatment journey.

Outcome of FOLFOX and Modified DCF Chemotherapy Regimen in Patients with Advanced Gastric Adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVES

Chemotherapy is used as an indispensable therapy for advanced gastric cancer. Different chemotherapy regimens have been used for this purpose. Toxicity due to the Chemotherapy drugs is one limiting factor. In this study we aim to compare the efficacy and toxicity of two regimens FOLFOX (leucoverin, 5-fluorouracil and oxaliplatin) and modified DCF (mDCF) (docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil) in patients with advanced gastric adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

In this analytical cross-sectional study, 47 patients treated with FOLFOX regimen and 57 patients treated with mDCF regimen were recruited, Patients in both groups were compared for demographic findings, response rate, mortality rate, overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS).

RESULTS

In FOLFOX and mDCF group, complete response (CR) occurred in 4.3% and 5.3%, partial response (PR) in 42.6% and 29.8%, stable disease in 34% and 52.6% and disease progression in 19.1% and 12.3%, respectively (p=0.25). Overall response rate was 48.9% and 56.1%, respectively. There was no significant difference between two regimens in OS and PFS (p=0.22). mDCF compared to FOLFOX had significantly higher hematologic, gastrointestinal complications, as well as creatinine rise, stomatitis and hair loss, but peripheral neuropathy was significantly lower.

CONCLUSION

The results of current study showed that in patients with advanced gastric adenocarcinoma, FOLFOX regimen compared to mDCF regimen have similar ORR, OS and PFS. Toxicity rate are also lower in FOLFOX group, thus it seems a better regimen for chemotherapy.<br />.

Serum miR-191 and miR-425 as Diagnostic and Prognostic Markers of Advanced Gastric Cancer Can Predict the Sensitivity of FOLFOX Chemotherapy Regimen

Purpose

miR-191 and miR-425 have been proved to be highly expressed in gastric carcinoma (GC). However, little research has been done on their clinical value in serum of patients with advanced GC. In addition, it is not clear whether they can be used as markers for the response and prognosis of GC patients treated with oxaliplatin combined with 5-fluorouracil and FOLFOX chemotherapy.

Patients and Methods

A total of 230 patients with advanced GC admitted to our hospital were selected as the study objects, all of whom received FOLFOX chemotherapy regimen. Another 100 cases of healthy subjects were included. QRT-PCR was employed to detect the serum expression of miR-191 and miR-425 in patients.

Results

Compared with the healthy subjects, the serum expressions of miR-191 and miR-425 in GC patients were significantly upregulated, which were correlated with differentiation degree and TNM staging, respectively. According to the ROC curve, the AUC of miR-191 and miR-425 for GC diagnosis was 0.937 and 0.901, respectively, while the AUC for differentiation degree diagnosis was 0.854 and 0.822, and that for TNM staging diagnosis was 0.860 and 0.829, respectively. The predictive AUC of miR-191 and miR-425 for chemosensitivity was 0.868 and 0.835, respectively, with a combined predictive AUC of 0.935. Low differentiation degree, high TNM staging, high miR-191 and high miR-425 expressions were independent risk factors for chemotherapy insensitivity. Differentiation degree, TNM staging, chemotherapy effect, miR-191 and miR-425 were independent influencing factors for the prognosis of GC patients.

Conclusion

Up-regulated expression of miR-191 and miR-425 in the serum of patients with advanced GC are effective biomarkers for the diagnosis, chemotherapy and prognosis evaluation of GC.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of docetaxel perioperative chemotherapy regimens in gastric and esophagogastric tumors

FLOT regimen became the standard perioperative treatment in several centers around the world for esophagogastric tumors despite concerns about toxicity. In addition, FLOT has never been compared with other docetaxel-based regimens. To address this question, we conducted a systematic review of PubMed, Embase and Web of Science including prospective or retrospective studies of docetaxel based perioperative regimen in gastric and esophagogastric tumors. Data regarding chemotherapy regimens, efficacy and toxicity were extracted. Outcomes were compared using a random effects model. Of 548 abstracts, 16 were considered eligible. Comparing the studies with meta-analysis we can see that the regimens are similar in terms of pathological complete response, resection rate, progression free survival and overall survival in one year, without significant heterogeneity. The meta-regression of docetaxel dose failed to show any association with dose ranging between 120–450 mg/m². Regarding the toxicity of the regimens it is noted that the regimens are quite toxic (up to 50–70% of grade 3–4 neutropenia). The results of this meta-analysis with a combined sample size of more than 1,000 patients suggest that docetaxel perioperative regimens are equivalent in outcomes. Prospective trials addressing modified regimens should be performed to provide less toxic strategies and be applicable to all patients.

Pan-Asian adapted ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic gastric cancer: a JSMO-ESMO initiative endorsed by CSCO, KSMO, MOS, SSO and TOS

The most recent version of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of gastric cancer (GC) was published in 2016, and covered the management and treatment of local, locoregional, locally advanced and metastatic disease. At the ESMO Asia Meeting in November 2017 it was decided by both ESMO and The Japanese Society of Medical Oncology (JSMO) to convene a special guidelines meeting immediately after the JSMO Annual Meeting in 2018. The aim was to adapt the ESMO 2016 guidelines to take into account the ethnic differences associated with the treatment of metastatic GC in Asian patients. These guidelines represent the consensus opinions reached by experts in the treatment of patients with metastatic GC representing the oncological societies of Japan (JSMO), China (CSCO), Korea (KSMO), Malaysia (MOS), Singapore (SSO) and Taiwan (TOS). The voting was based on scientific evidence and was independent of both the current treatment practices and the drug availability and reimbursement situations in the individual participating Asian countries.