Chronological improvement of survival in patients with advanced gastric cancer over 15 years.

Background: Recent trials have reported a median overall survival (OS) of 11-17 months in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC). However, it is unclear how recently approved drugs contribute to patient prognosis. Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the characteristics and survival in patients with AGC over the past 15 years. Design: Retrospective study. Methods: We evaluated data of 1355 patients with AGC who received first-line chemotherapy between January 2005 and March 2019 at a single institution. We compared the characteristics and survival rates across four periods: January 2005-December 2007 (period A), January 2008-February 2011 (period B), March 2011-May 2015 (period C), and June 2015-March 2019 (period D). The median follow-up duration was 13.1 months, with 312, 333, 393, and 317 patients in periods A, B, C, and D, respectively. Results: There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between the four periods, except for the proportion of patients who underwent prior gastrectomy and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing. Patients in period D had significantly longer OS than those in period A [median: 15.7 versus 12.4 months; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 0.79; p = 0.02]. The mean OS in patients with liver metastasis (LM) in period D was remarkably longer than that in patients in period A (median: 19.3 versus 12.4 months; aHR: 0.61; p < 0.01), while that in patients with peritoneal metastasis showed limited improvement. Conclusion: Clinical strategy changes, including gastrectomy, HER2 testing, and approval of new drugs, may be associated with improved OS in patients with AGC. In the last 4 years, a remarkable improvement has been observed in patients with LM.

Safety and Efficacy of Gemcitabine Plus Cisplatin Against Recurrent/Metastatic Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Although gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) prolongs survival in patients with recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (R/M NPC) compared with fluorouracil plus cisplatin, no study has evaluated the efficacy and safety of GC in nonendemic regions, including Japan, yet. Therefore, we assessed the safety and efficacy of GC in Japanese patients with R/M NPC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients with R/M NPC who received GC treatment at the Aichi Cancer Center Hospital from January 2017 to March 2020. The main eligibility criteria were histologically confirmed NPC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0-2, and locally recurrent disease unsuitable for local treatment or metastatic disease. The regimen was administered every 3 weeks (gemcitabine, 1,000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8; cisplatin, 80 mg/m2 on day 1). RESULTS: Fourteen patients (median age, 58 years) were included in the study. Two patients had an ECOG PS of 2 and 11 exhibited nonkeratinizing histology. Of the eight patients with measurable lesions, one exhibited complete response and seven exhibited partial response, with an objective response rate of 75%. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 7.7 and 24.2 months, respectively. Common grade 3 or 4 adverse events included neutropenia (64%), thrombocytopenia (14%), and febrile neutropenia (14%). The median relative dose intensity of gemcitabine and cisplatin was 62% and 60%, respectively. No treatment-related deaths occurred. CONCLUSION: The GC regimen demonstrates promising activity and is tolerable in Japanese patients with R/M NPC.

Differential Efficacy of Targeted Monoclonal Antibodies in Left-Sided Colon and Rectal Metastatic Cancers.

BACKGROUND: The recommended first-line chemotherapy for RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is bevacizumab (BEV)-containing therapy for right-sided colon cancer (R) and antiepidermal growth factor receptor antibody (anti-EGFR)-containing therapy for left-sided colon cancer (L) or rectal cancer (RE). However, anatomical or biological heterogeneity reportedly exists between L and RE. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacies of anti-EGFR and BEV therapies for L and RE, respectively. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 265 patients with KRAS (RAS)/BRAF wild-type mCRC treated with fluoropyrimidine-based doublet chemotherapy plus anti-EGFR or BEV as the first-line treatment at a single institution. They were divided into 3 groups: R, L, and RE. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, and conversion surgery rate were analyzed. RESULTS: Forty-five patients had R (anti-EGFR/BEV: 6/39), 137 patients had L (45/92), and 83 patients had RE (25/58). In patients with R, both median (m) PFS and OS were superior with BEV therapy (mPFS, anti-EGFR vs. BEV: 8.7 vs. 13.0 months, hazard ratio [HR]: 3.90, P = .01; mOS, 17.1 vs. 33.9 months, HR: 1.54, P = .38). In patients with L, better mPFS and comparable mOS with anti-EGFR therapy were observed (mPFS, 20.0 vs. 13.4 months, HR: 0.68, P = .08; mOS, 44.8 vs. 36.0 months, HR: 0.87, P = .53), whereas, in patients with RE, comparable mPFS and worse mOS with anti-EGFR therapy were observed (mPFS, 17.2 vs. 17.8 months, HR: 1.08, P = .81; mOS, 29.1 vs. 42.2 months, HR: 1.53, P = .17). CONCLUSIONS: Efficacies of anti-EGFR and BEV therapies may differ between patients with L and RE.

Clinical outcomes of patients diagnosed with cancer of unknown primary or malignancy of undefined primary origin who were referred to a regional cancer center.

BACKGROUND: A regional cancer hospital has been identified to be crucial in the management of malignancies of undefined primary origin (MUO) and cancer of unknown primary (CUP). This hospital primarily consists of oncologists with expertise in CUP, pathologists, and interventional radiologists. Early consultation or referral of MUO and CUP to a cancer hospital is deemed important. METHODS: This study retrospectively collected and analyzed the clinical, pathological, and outcome data of all patients (n = 407) referred to the Aichi Cancer Center Hospital (ACCH) in Japan over an 8-year period. RESULTS: In total, 30% of patients were referred for a second opinion. Among 285 patients, 13% had non-neoplastic disease or confirmed primary site and 76% had confirmed CUP (cCUP), with 29% of cCUP being identified as favorable risk. In 155 patients with unfavorable-risk CUP, 73% had primary sites predicted by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and distribution of metastatic sites, whereas 66% of them received site-specific therapies based on the predicted primary sites. The median overall survival (OS) was found to be poor in patients with MUO (1 month) and provisional CUP (6 months). In addition, the median OS of 206 patients with cCUP treated at the ACCH was 16 months (favorable risk, 27 months; unfavorable risk, 12 months). No significant difference was noted in OS between patients with non-predictable and predictable primary-sites (13 vs 12 months, p = 0.411). CONCLUSION: The outcome of patients with unfavorable-risk CUP remains to be poor. Site-specific therapy based on IHC is not recommended for all patients with unfavorable-risk CUP.

The impact of combined PD-L1 positive score on clinical response to nivolumab in patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab is recommended for patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (aESCC) refractory or intolerant to fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-based chemotherapy regardless of the tumor proportion score (TPS). However, the role of combined positive score (CPS) in predicting nivolumab efficacy remains unclear. We aimed to study whether TPS or CPS is a more suitable biomarker for predicting nivolumab efficacy in these patients. METHODS: We retrospectively collected data from patients with aESCC treated with fluoropyrimidines and platinum and subsequently received nivolumab monotherapy between January 1, 2014 and September 15, 2020. Next, we evaluated the efficiencies of TPS and CPS in predicting the clinical response to nivolumab using PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx assay. RESULTS: This study included 50 patients (CPS groups: ≥ 10/1-10/ < 1, n = 24/18/8, respectively; TPS groups, ≥ 10%/1%-10%/ < 1%, n = 17/8/25, respectively). The median progression-free survival was 3.2, 2.5, and 1.5 months in the ≥ 10, 1-10 [hazard ratio (HR) vs. CPS of ≥ 10 group, 1.01; p = 0.98; adjusted HR, 1.33; p = 0.56], and < 1 CPS groups (HR vs. CPS of ≥ 10 group, 3.44; p = 0.006; adjusted HR, 1.67; p = 0.41), respectively. For the patients with CPS of ≥ 10/1-10/ < 1 and TPS of ≥ 10%/1%-10%/ < 1%, the objective response rate was 30%/25%/0% and 36%/0%/19% and the disease control rate was 60%/50%/12% (p = 0.06) and 65%/40%/38% (p = 0.30), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that a CPS of < 1 is not a strong predictor of efficacy but can predict the absence of response to nivolumab in patients with aESCC.

Impact of omitting fluorouracil from FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as second-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) plus bevacizumab is the standard second-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who are refractory or intolerant to fluoropyrimidines and oxaliplatin. However, the benefits of incorporating fluoropyrimidines into second-line chemotherapy for patients with mCRC who are refractory to fluoropyrimidines are unknown. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated patients with mCRC who were administered irinotecan plus bevacizumab or FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as second-line chemotherapy at a single institution from January 2010 to April 2020. We compared the efficacy and safety of irinotecan plus bevacizumab (IRI group) with those of FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab (FOLFIRI group). RESULTS: Of the 255 enrolled patients, 107 (IRI/FOLFIRI group, 31/76 patients) were eligible for analysis. After a median follow-up of 13.1 months (range 1.2-48.4) and 14.3 months (range 0.9-46.5) for the IRI and FOLFIRI groups, respectively, the median progression-free survival was 6.4 months and 5.8 months [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR), 0.82; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50-1.34, p = 0.44] and the median overall survival was 16.6 months and 16.5 months (aHR, 1.01; 95% CI 0.59-1.69; p = 0.97) in the IRI and FOLFIRI groups, respectively. All-grade nausea, stomatitis, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, Grade 3/4 neutropenia, and febrile neutropenia occurred more frequently in the FOLFIRI group than in the IRI group. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests omitting fluorouracil from FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as the second-line chemotherapy decreases adverse events without affecting the treatment efficacy in patients with mCRC who are refractory to fluoropyrimidines. Further randomized prospective studies are warranted to validate our result.

Second-line Chemotherapy for Previously Treated Metastatic Small Bowel Adenocarcinoma: A Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Metastatic small bowel adenocarcinoma (SBA) is a rare disease with poor prognosis. This study aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of second-line chemotherapy for patients with SBA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical characteristics of 27 metastatic patients with SBA after progression on first-line chemotherapy. The patients were divided into Cohort A, receiving second-line chemotherapy, and Cohort B, receiving best supportive care. RESULTS: Patients in Cohort B had higher age, worse performance status, and higher neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio compared with those in Cohort A. Cohort A showed significantly better overall survival (OS) compared with Cohort B (median OS, 15.6 vs. 3.4 months; p=0.002). Objective response rate, disease control rate, and median progression-free survival (PFS) for Cohort A were 7%, 74%, and 5.0 months, respectively. Patients who underwent irinotecan-based chemotherapy showed longer PFS and OS compared with those who underwent taxane-based chemotherapy. No significant adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Second-line chemotherapy for metastatic SBA demonstrated clinical activity with acceptable toxicities.

Clinical Impact of Oral Intake in Second-line or Third-line Chemotherapy for 589 Patients With Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: Insufficient oral intake in advanced gastric cancer (AGC) limits the use of several drugs. We aimed to determine the oral intake status of patients with AGC during later-line chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated data of patients with AGC who experienced disease progression during first-line chemotherapy administered from January 2012 to December 2018 in a single institution. We defined "insufficient oral intake" as requiring daily intravenous fluids or hyperalimentation. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify oral intake-related factors. RESULTS: Among 589 included patients, at disease progression during first-line, second-line, and third-line chemotherapy, 78.3% (461), 53.3% (314), and 30.4% (179) of patients, respectively, exhibited sufficient oral intake. Fourth-line chemotherapy was initiated for 22.2% (131) of patients, with 20.0% (118) exhibiting sufficient oral intake. During second-line and third-line chemotherapy, 11/67 (16%) and 2/39 (5%) patients, respectively, exhibited improvements in oral intake; 85/428 (19.9%) and 70/259 (27.0%), respectively, exhibited deteriorations in oral intake. Factors correlated to deterioration in oral intake during second-line chemotherapy were poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (odds ratio, 4.32; P<0.001), moderate or severe ascites (1.96; P=0.045), peritoneal metastasis (2.12; P=0.029), prior palliative surgery (3.41; P=0.003), and high neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (3.09; P<0.001); those correlated to deterioration in oral intake during third-line chemotherapy were poorly differentiated pathology (2.52; P=0.025) and high neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (2.65; P=0.006). CONCLUSION: As later-line chemotherapy is ineffective in improving oral intake in patients with AGC, careful adaptation of regimens is required for patients at risk for impaired oral intake.