Ramucirumab, Avelumab, and Paclitaxel as Second-Line Treatment in Esophagogastric Adenocarcinoma: The Phase 2 RAP (AIO-STO-0218) Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.

Importance: Adding immune checkpoint inhibitors to chemotherapy has been associated with improved outcomes in metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma, but treatment combinations and optimal patient selection need to be established. Objective: To investigate the efficacy and tolerability of the programmed cell death ligand 1 (PDL-1) inhibitor avelumab with paclitaxel plus ramucirumab. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, single-group, phase 2 nonrandomized controlled trial was conducted among patients with second-line metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma. Patients pretreated with platinum plus fluoropyrimidine between April 2019 and November 2020 across 10 German centers (median follow-up, 27.4 months [95% CI 22.0-32.9 months]) were included. Data analysis was performed from January to December 2022. Interventions: Patients received ramucirumab at 8 mg/kg on days 1 and 15, avelumab at 10 mg/kg on days 1 and 15, and paclitaxel at 80 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: The prespecified primary end point was overall survival (OS) rate at 6 months, with the experimental therapy considered insufficiently active with an OS rate of 50% or less and a promising candidate with an OS rate of 65% or greater. Results: Of 60 enrolled patients, 59 patients (median [range] age, 64 [18-81] years; 47 males [70.7%]) were evaluable, including 30 patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the stomach and 29 patients with gastroesophageal junction. All patients were pretreated with platinum plus fluoropyrimidine, and 40 patients (67.8%) had received prior taxanes; 24 of 56 evaluable patients (42.9%) had a PDL-1 combined positive score (CPS) of 5 or greater, centrally assessed. The OS rate at 6 months was 71.2% (95% CI, 61.5%-83.7%). The median OS in the intention-to-treat population (59 patients) was 10.6 months (95% CI, 8.4-12.8 months) overall. Among patients assessable by central pathology, median OS was 9.4 months (95% CI, 7.2-11.7 months) in 32 patients with a PDL-1 CPS less than 5 and 14.0 months (95% CI, 6.0-22.1 months) in 24 patients with a PDL-1 CPS of 5 or greater (P = .25). Treatment was generally well tolerated, without unexpected toxicities. Patients with higher vs lower than median T cell repertoire richness showed an increased median OS of 20.4 months (95% CI, 7.7-33.0 months) compared with 8.3 months (95% CI, 3.7-12.9 months; hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.23-0.81; P = .008). Patients with lower vs higher than median cell-free DNA burden had a median OS of 19.2 months (95% CI, 8.9-29.6 months) compared with 7.3 months (95% CI, 3.2-11.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16-0.59; P < .001). Conclusions and relevance: In this study, the combination of avelumab with paclitaxel plus ramucirumab showed favorable efficacy and tolerability in the second-line treatment for metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma. A PDL-1 CPS score of 5 or greater, cell-free DNA level less than the median, and T cell repertoire richness greater than the median were associated with increased median OS. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03966118.

Prognostic Relevance of Weight and Weight Loss during Multimodal Therapy for Oesophagogastric Tumours.

The prognostic meaning of weight loss (WL) during standard treatment for operable oesophagogastric cancer is still unclear. The aim of this study is to analyse the prognostic effect of WL during perioperative chemotherapy (PC) for gastric cancer (GC) and oesophageal adenocarcinomas (OAC). We retrospectively analysed data from 128 patients (pts) with GC and OAC who underwent surgery in the context of multimodal treatment with PC. We collected data on WL during different steps of therapy together with other histopathologic and demographic information. We analysed the effects on overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Results: Pts with WL ≥ 5% during neoadjuvant chemotherapy exhibited significantly worse OS compared with pts with WL < 5% (median OS: 23.6 months [95% CI: 4.4−42.9] vs. 63.5 months [95% CI: 50.7−76.2], p = 0.007) and DFS (median DFS: 12.5 months [95% CI: 2.9−22.1] vs. 63.5 months [95% CI: 31.6−95.4], p = 0.016). Pts with WL ≥ 14% during the whole treatment exhibited significantly worse OS compared with pts with WL < 14% (median OS: 43.7 months [95% CI: 13.2−74.2] vs. not reached, p = 0.028) and DFS (median DFS: 34.3 months [95% CI: 14.0−54.5] vs. not reached, p = 0.038). Conclusion: WL patterns during neoadjuvant chemotherapy and during the whole treatment correlate with a significantly worse prognosis in operated pts with curative GC or OAC in the context of a multimodal treatment with PC. A validation of this prognostic effect in prospective studies is warranted.

Impact of Postoperative Chemotherapy in Patients with Gastric/Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma Treated with Perioperative Chemotherapy.

Perioperative chemotherapy is the standard of care for patients undergoing curative resection for gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. However, less than 50% of patients complete postoperative chemotherapy, and the added benefit to preoperative chemotherapy remains unclear. The aim of this study was to compare disease-free and overall survival (DFS and OS) in patients with perioperative chemotherapy to those who received preoperative chemotherapy only. In addition, a current literature overview is included. This multicenter, retrospective case series included 124 patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma undergoing potentially curative resection and receiving pre- or perioperative chemotherapy between 2006 and 2010. Histopathological, demographic, clinical, and survival data were used to identify the impact of perioperative vs. preoperative chemotherapy on DFS and OS. Patients with perioperative chemotherapy had significantly improved DFS and OS (median DFS 28.0 months; 95%CI 0-62.4 vs. 19.0 months; 95%CI 10.5-27.5; p = 0.008 and median OS 35.7 months; 95%CI 0-73.6 vs. 19.2 months; 95%CI 7.8-30.4; p = 0.002). However, in contrast to patients with tumor-free lymph nodes at the time of resection, patients with positive lymph node status did not significantly benefit from additional postoperative chemotherapy in subgroup analysis. Further studies are encouraged to investigate optimal adjuvant treatment strategies for primary chemotherapy-resistant patients.

Pazopanib with 5-FU and oxaliplatin as first line therapy in advanced gastric cancer: A randomized phase-II study-The PaFLO trial. A study of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie AIO-STO-0510.

VEGF inhibition in gastric cancer has a proven benefit in the second line setting. Pazopanib, an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor, selectively inhibits VEGFR-1, -2 and -3, c-kit and PDGF-R resulting in inhibition of angiogenesis. This open-label randomized phase II trial (2:1) investigated the efficacy of combining pazopanib with FLO (5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin) vs FLO alone (internal control arm) as first-line treatment in patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the stomach and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ). Eighty-seven patients were randomized and 78 patients were eligible and evaluable (PaFLO arm 51 patients, FLO arm 27 patients). The PFS rate at 6 months (primary endpoint) was 34% in the PaFLO arm vs 30% in the FLO arm. Comparing PaFLO with FLO median PFS was 4.66 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.87-6.46) vs 4.47 months (95% CI 1.79-7.14) (95% CI, hazard ratio [HR] 0.96 (0.60-1.55), P = .882 [exploratory]); median OS was 10.19 months (95% CI 5.46-14.92) vs 7.33 months (95% CI 4.93-9.73), (95% CI HR 1.01 [0.62-1.65], P = .953, exploratory), disease control rate was 72% vs 59%. PaFLO was well tolerable, toxicities were slightly higher in the PaFLO arm. Major adverse events were loss of appetite, nausea, fatigue, diarrhea, neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. Adding pazopanib to chemotherapy shows signs of efficacy but no major improvement in this randomized phase 2 trial. The PFS at 6 months in both arms was lower than expected from the literature. Biomarkers identifying subgroups who benefit and novel combinations are needed. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01503372.