Treatment in resectable non-metastatic adenocarcinoma of stomach: Changing paradigms

Practical Consensus Guidelines for the Use of S-1 in GI Malignancies

Purvish M ParikhS-1 (5-fluorouracil prodrug [tegafur] in combination with 5-chloro-2,4-dihydroxypyridine [CDHP] and potassium oxonate [OXO]) was first approved in 1999. In order to make it easy for community oncologists, we decided to put together this expert consensus guideline for its use in gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies. A total of 15 subject matter experts used modified Delphi method to discuss, analyze, and vote on key aspects regarding practical approach to use of S-1 in GI cancers, a process involving 6 months of work. The consensus guidelines specify how S-1 use can be optimized in patients with colorectal, gastric, and pancreatic tumors. The voting for the 17 key points resulted in a majority consensus for all the statements (approval ranging from 13/15 [87%] to 15/15 [100%]). S-1 is a combination of three drugs (tegafur, CDHP, and OXO) specifically designed to reduce toxicity and enhance efficacy; clinical data and meta-analysis confirm both factors; and it is recommended as standard of care for GI cancers. S-1 is approved and one of the standards of care for all lines of therapy in colorectal cancer and pancreatic cancers. S-1 with oxaliplatin is the standard of care for gastric cancers.

Does Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Increase the Survival in Patients with Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer Patients? – A Real‑World Evidence

Background: In locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC), perioperative chemotherapy has shown to improve the survival to a larger extent compared to surgery alone. In India, the treatment followed for gastric carcinoma widely varies based on the type of health-care provider and treatment access. There is a paucity of data on the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on survival among LAGC patients in the Indian context. Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) between neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapies among LAGC patients. Subjects and Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study involving clinical record review of LAGC patients enrolled between 2015 and 2017 from four tertiary cancer centers in South India. The date for the following events, namely diagnosis, recurrence, death, and last day of visit, was extracted in a mobile-based open-access tool. The median duration of OS and DFS between the neoadjuvant and adjuvant groups was compared using Kaplan–Meier survival curves. Results: Of the 137 patients, 70 (51%) had received neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery and 67 (49%) had adjuvant chemotherapy following the surgery. The mean (standard deviation) age of participants was 55.4 (11.4) years. Seventy-eight percent of the patients were diagnosed at Stage 3 or 4. Regional lymph nodes were involved in 83.9%. The median duration of follow-up was 15 months. The OS in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant groups was 18.6 months and 8.3 months, respectively. Nonregional lymph node involvement and adjacent organ involvement had independently increased the risk of death. Conclusion: Among LAGC patients, the neoadjuvant chemotherapy indicated a better median and DFS compared to the adjuvant group. However, these findings were statistically not significant. The current study has contributed an important finding to the existing evidences of clinical practice in an Indian setting. Further large-scale studies are required to validate the promising trend of using neoadjuvant chemotherapy in LAGC.