Current status of integrating oncology and palliative care in Japan: a nationwide survey

BACKGROUND

Palliative care (PC) is increasingly recognized as essential for oncology care, and several academic societies strongly recommend integrating oncology and palliative care (IOP) in daily practice. Similarly, the Japanese government encouraged the implementation of IOP through the Cancer Control Act of 2007; however, its detailed progress remains unclear. Therefore, this cross-sectional nationwide survey was conducted to investigate the current status and hospital executive physicians' perception of IOP.

METHODS

The questionnaire was developed based on IOP indicators with international consensus. It was distributed to executive physicians at all government-designated cancer hospitals (DCHs, n = 399) and matched non-DCHs (n = 478) in November 2017 and the results were compared.

RESULTS

In total, 269 (67.4%) DCHs and 259 (54.2%) non-DCHs responded. The number of PC resources in DCHs was significantly higher than those in non-DCHs (e.g., full-time PC physicians and nurses, 52.8% vs. 14.0%, p < 0.001; availability of outpatient PC service ≥3 days per week, 47.6% vs. 20.7%, p < 0.001). Routine symptom screening was more frequently performed in DCHs than in non-DCHs (65.1% vs. 34.7%, p < 0.001). Automatic trigger for PC referral availability was limited (e.g., referral using time trigger, 14.9% vs. 15.3%, p = 0.700). Education and research opportunities were seriously limited in both types of hospitals. Most executive physicians regarded IOP as beneficial for their patients (95.9% vs. 94.7%, p = 0.163) and were willing to facilitate an early referral to PC services (54.7% vs. 60.0%, p < 0.569); however, the majority faced challenges to increase the number of full-time PC staff, and < 30% were planning to increase the staff members.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey highlighted a considerable number of IOP indicators met, particularly in DCHs probably due to the government policy. Further efforts are needed to address the serious research/educational gaps.

Pan-Asian adapted ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic oesophageal 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 oesophageal cancer was published in 2016, and covered the management and treatment of local/locoregional disease, limited disease, locally advanced disease and the management of advanced/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 oesophageal cancer in Asian patients. These guidelines represent the consensus opinions reached by experts in the treatment of patients with metastatic oesophageal cancer 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.

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.

Randomized phase III study of bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI and bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (WJOG4407G)

BACKGROUND

FOLFIRI and FOLFOX have shown equivalent efficacy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), but their comparative effectiveness is unknown when combined with bevacizumab.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

WJOG4407G was a randomized, open-label, phase III trial conducted in Japan. Patients with previously untreated mCRC were randomized 1:1 to receive either FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab (FOLFIRI + Bev) or mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab (mFOLFOX6 + Bev), stratified by institution, adjuvant chemotherapy, and liver-limited disease. The primary end point was non-inferiority of FOLFIRI + Bev to mFOLFOX6 + Bev in progression-free survival (PFS), with an expected hazard ratio (HR) of 0.9 and non-inferiority margin of 1.25 (power 0.85, one-sided α-error 0.025). The secondary end points were response rate (RR), overall survival (OS), safety, and quality of life (QoL) during 18 months. This trial is registered to the University Hospital Medical Information Network, number UMIN000001396.

RESULTS

Among 402 patients enrolled from September 2008 to January 2012, 395 patients were eligible for efficacy analysis. The median PFS for FOLFIRI + Bev (n = 197) and mFOLFOX6 + Bev (n = 198) were 12.1 and 10.7 months, respectively [HR, 0.905; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.723-1.133; P = 0.003 for non-inferiority]. The median OS for FOLFIRI + Bev and mFOLFOX6 + Bev were 31.4 and 30.1 months, respectively (HR, 0.990; 95% CI 0.785-1.249). The best overall RRs were 64% for FOLFIRI + Bev and 62% for mFOLFOX6 + Bev. The common grade 3 or higher adverse events were leukopenia (11% in FOLFIRI + Bev/5% in mFOLFOX6 + Bev), neutropenia (46%/35%), diarrhea (9%/5%), febrile neutropenia (5%/2%), peripheral neuropathy (0%/22%), and venous thromboembolism (6%/2%). The QoL assessed by FACT-C (TOI-PFC) and FACT/GOG-Ntx was favorable for FOLFIRI + Bev during 18 months.

CONCLUSION

FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab was non-inferior for PFS, compared with mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab, as the first-line systemic treatment for mCRC.

CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBER

UMIN000001396.

Chemosensitivity of patients with recurrent esophageal cancer receiving perioperative chemotherapy

Perioperative chemotherapy (CT) and chemoradiotherapy are widely used for advanced esophageal cancer. We evaluated the chemosensitivity of patients displaying recurrent esophageal cancer after esophagectomy with perioperative CT. From the database at National Cancer Center Hospital in Tokyo, we extracted recurrent esophageal cancer cases after perioperative CT and evaluated the effectiveness of the first CT against the recurrent disease according to the duration between termination of the original perioperative CT and recurrence with treatment-free intervals (TFIs) <or=6 and >6 months. Systemic CT for their recurrent disease was performed for 30 esophageal cancer patients after perioperative CT. All patients received 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin as perioperative CT, with relapses occurring at TFIs <or=6 months in 11 patients (eight received platinum-containing regimens and three received docetaxel for their recurrent disease) and >6 months in 19 patients (all received platinum-containing regimens). The response rate of patients experiencing a recurrence at TFIs <or=6 and >6 months was 0 and 37% (P = 0.029), the median progression-free survival was 2.8 and 4.8 months (log-rank P = 0.001) and the median overall survival was 6.1 and 10.2 months (log-rank P = 0.012), respectively. Recurrence at the TFI <or=6 months could represent resistance to CT, so regimens may need to be altered depending on a patient's specific TFI.

Impacts of excision repair cross-complementing gene 1 (ERCC1), dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase, and epidermal growth factor receptor on the outcomes of patients with advanced gastric cancer

Using laser-captured microdissection and a real-time RT-PCR assay, we quantitatively evaluated mRNA levels of the following biomarkers in paraffin-embedded gastric cancer (GC) specimens obtained by surgical resection or biopsy: excision repair cross-complementing gene 1 (ERCC1), dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), and five other biomarkers related to anticancer drug sensitivity. The study group comprised 140 patients who received first-line chemotherapy for advanced GC. All cancer specimens were obtained before chemotherapy. In patients who received first-line S-1 monotherapy (69 patients), low MTHFR expression correlated with a higher response rate (low: 44.9% vs high: 6.3%; P=0.006). In patients given first-line cisplatin-based regimens (combined with S-1 or irinotecan) (43 patients), low ERCC1 correlated with a higher response rate (low: 55.6% vs high: 18.8%; P=0.008). Multivariate survival analysis of all patients demonstrated that high ERCC1 (hazard ratio (HR): 2.38 (95% CI: 1.55-3.67)), high DPD (HR: 2.04 (1.37-3.02)), low EGFR (HR: 0.34 (0.20-0.56)), and an elevated serum alkaline phosphatase level (HR: 1.00 (1.001-1.002)) were significant predictors of poor survival. Our results suggest that these biomarkers are useful predictors of clinical outcomes in patients with advanced GC.