Efficacy and safety of chemotherapy in young patients with advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma: data from the Spanish AGAMENON-SEOM registry.

BACKGROUND: Gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma in young adults (GCYA) counts for 10-15% of diagnoses. Previous studies have mainly focused on surgical outcomes in patients with resectable tumors; however, systemic therapy for advanced GCYA remains under-evaluated. This study aims to assess the efficacy-related outcomes and safety of first-line chemotherapy (CT) in younger versus older patients with advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Patients with advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma from the AGAMENON-SEOM registry treated with first-line polychemotherapy between January 2008 and October 2022 were included. We compared clinicopathological features, therapies received, efficacy-related outcomes, and toxicity between individuals aged < and ≥ 45 years. RESULTS: Out of 3386 patients, 263 (7.8%) were < 45 years. Young patients exhibited a higher proportion of females affected, lower ECOG-PS ≥ 2, fewer comorbidities, and more aggressive disease-related features, such as higher proportion of diffuse subtype, signet-ring cells, plastic linitis, grade 3, peritoneal metastases and metastatic disease at diagnosis. They received more triple-agent combinations and underwent more surgeries in metastatic setting. No significant differences were observed between groups in overall response rate (53.1% vs. 52.3% in < and ≥ 45 years, respectively, p = 0.579), progression-free survival (6.1 vs. 6.83 months, p = 0.158) and overall survival (11.07 vs. 10.81 months, p = 0.82), even after adjusting for potential confounding factors. Grade 3-4 adverse events were comparable in both groups, although toxicity leading to treatment discontinuation was more frequent in older patients. CONCLUSIONS: In the AGAMENON-SEOM registry, younger patients with GCYA exhibited more aggressive clinicopathological features, and despite receiving more aggressive treatments, similar efficacy outcomes and toxicity profiles were achieved compared to their older counterparts. In the AGAMENON-SEOM registry, GEAC in < 45 years showed more aggressive clinicopathological features and, although treated with more intense first-line CT regimens, similar efficacy outcomes and toxicity were achieved compared to older patients.

Emerging biological drugs for the treatment of gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Gastric cancer (GC) and gastroesophageal junction cancer (GOJC) patients have a poor prognosis with a 5-year relative survival rate of 6% in the metastatic setting. Despite the well-characterized molecular features, patients have been historically considered for treatment with universal and undistinguishing chemotherapies and targeted agents, except for the HER2-positive population and some immunological approaches. AREAS COVERED: In this review, we discuss the intrinsic characteristics of GC/GOJC from an epidemiological, molecular, and clinical perspective with an exhaustive evaluation of the reported and ongoing phase II/III clinical trials with targeted therapies. EXPERT OPINION: The absence of robust biomarkers, the difficulties in measuring it due to the well-recognized molecular heterogeneity, and in part nonoptimistic clinical trial designs have been a major cause of frequent failure. Current efforts should focus on proper recognition of the distinctive molecular and clinical features of each GC/GOJC patient. Sequencing both tumor tissue DNA and ctDNA could identify targetable alterations, including rare alterations, thus allowing GC/GOJC patients for a precision medicine benefit.

External validity of docetaxel triplet trials in advanced gastric cancer: are there patients who still benefit?

BACKGROUND: The purpose of our study was to develop an online calculator to estimate the effect of docetaxel triplets (DPF) in first line of advanced gastric cancer (AGC), and to assess the external validity of docetaxel trials in individual patients. METHODS: The study includes patients with HER2(-) AGC treated with platin and fluoropyrimidine (PF) or with DPF in first line. Treatment effect and interactions were assessed using Bayesian accelerated failure time models. RESULT: The series comprises 1376 patients; 238 treated with DPF and 1138 with PF between 2008 and 2019. DPF was associated with increased progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with time ratio (TR) 1.27 (95% credible interval [CrI], 1.15-1.40), and TR 1.19 (95% CrI, 1.09-1.27), respectively. Serious adverse events were more common with DPF, particularly hematological effects (32% vs 22%). Younger participants received greater DPF dose density without achieving greater disease control, while severe toxicity was likewise higher. DPF yielded superior OS in Lauren intestinal (TR 1.27, 95% CrI, 1.08-1.11) vs diffuse subtype (TR 1.17, 95% CrI, 1.09-1.24) and the probability of increasing OS > 15% was 90% vs 67% in each subtype, respectively. The effect dwindles over time, which can be attributed to pathological changes and clinical practice changes. CONCLUSION: Our study confirms the effect of DPF is highly dependent on several clinical-pathological variables, with discreet and gradually declining benefit over platinum doublets in later years, at the expense of increased toxicity. These results may help to underpin the idea that external validity of AGC trials should be revised regularly.

Surrogate endpoints in phase III randomized trials of advanced gastroesophageal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Overall survival (OS) is the most meaningful endpoint in clinical trials. However, owing to their limitations, surrogate endpoints are commonly used and validation studies are required to assess their reliability. Analysis of phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of advanced gastroesophageal cancer (AGC) with > 100 patients, correlation coefficients (r), and determination coefficients (R²) between OS and surrogates were evaluated through meta-analyses. Progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression (TTP), and objective response rate (ORR) were examined to determine their correlations with OS. Analysis of 65 phase III RCTs (29,766 subjects) showed a moderate correlation between PFS/TTP and OS (r = 0.77, R² = 0.59), while ORR correlation was low (r = 0.56, R² = 0.31). Excluding immunotherapy trials improved the PFS/TTP and OS correlations (r = 0.83, R² = 0.70). These findings suggest the potential use of PFS/TTP in AGC phase III investigations, disregarding the use of ORR as a surrogate endpoint.

Is there a preferred platinum and fluoropyrimidine regimen for advanced HER2-negative esophagogastric adenocarcinoma? Insights from 1293 patients in AGAMENON-SEOM registry.

BACKGROUND: The optimal chemotherapy backbone for HER2-negative advanced esophagogastric cancer, either in combination with targeted therapies or as a comparator in clinical trials, is uncertain. The subtle yet crucial differences in platinum-based regimens' safety and synergy with combination treatments need consideration. METHODS: We analyzed cases from the AGAMENON-SEOM Spanish registry of HER2-negative advanced esophagogastric adenocarcinoma treated with platinum and fluoropyrimidine from 2008 to 2021. This study focused exclusively on patients receiving one of the four regimens: FOLFOX (5-FU and oxaliplatin), CAPOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin), CP (capecitabine and cisplatin) and FP (5-FU and cisplatin). The aim was to determine the most effective and tolerable platinum and fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy regimen and to identify any prognostic factors. RESULTS: Among 1293 patients, 36% received either FOLFOX (n = 468) or CAPOX (n = 466), 20% CP (n = 252), and 8% FP (n = 107). FOLFOX significantly increased PFS (progression free survival) compared to CP, with a hazard ratio of 0.73 (95% CI 0.58-0.92, p = 0.009). The duration of treatment was similar across all groups. Survival outcomes among regimens were similar, but analysis revealed worse ECOG-PS (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-Performance Status), > 2 metastatic sites, bone metastases, hypoalbuminemia, higher NLR (neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio), and CP regimen as predictors of poor PFS. Fatigue was common in all treatments, with the highest incidence in FOLFOX (77%), followed by FP (72%), CAPOX (68%), and CP (60%). Other notable toxicities included neuropathy (FOLFOX 69%, CAPOX 62%), neutropenia (FOLFOX 52%, FP 55%), hand-foot syndrome in CP (46%), and thromboembolic events (FP 12%, CP 11%). CONCLUSIONS: FOLFOX shown better PFS than CP. Adverse effects varied: neuropathy was more common with oxaliplatin, while thromboembolism was more frequent with cisplatin.

Current developments in gastric cancer: from molecular profiling to treatment strategy.

Gastric cancer and gastro-oesophageal junction cancer represent a global health-care challenge. Despite the efficacy of improved chemotherapy and surgical options, these patients still have a poor prognosis. In advanced disease, only trastuzumab and some immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as nivolumab and pembrolizumab in addition to chemotherapy, have demonstrated consistent and reliable efficacy in patients with HER2-positive and PDL1-positive tumours, respectively. In this Review, we discuss the intrinsic characteristics of gastric and gastro-oesophageal cancer from the molecular and clinical perspectives and provide a comprehensive review of previously reported and ongoing phase II and III clinical trials with targeted agents and immunotherapy in advanced and localized settings. Finally, we suggest alternative strategies to help overcome current challenges in precision medicine and to improve outcomes for these patients.

A pan-cancer clinical platform to predict immunotherapy outcomes and prioritize immuno-oncology combinations in early-phase trials.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy is effective, but current biomarkers for patient selection have proven modest sensitivity. Here, we developed VIGex, an optimized gene signature based on the expression level of 12 genes involved in immune response with RNA sequencing. METHODS: We implemented VIGex using the nCounter platform (Nanostring) on a large clinical cohort encompassing 909 tumor samples across 45 tumor types. VIGex was developed as a continuous variable, with cutoffs selected to detect three main categories (hot, intermediate-cold and cold) based on the different inflammatory status of the tumor microenvironment. FINDINGS: Hot tumors had the highest VIGex scores and exhibited an increased abundance of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes as compared with the intermediate-cold and cold. VIGex scores varied depending on tumor origin and anatomic site of metastases, with liver metastases showing an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. The predictive power of VIGex-Hot was observed in a cohort of 98 refractory solid tumor from patients treated in early-phase immunotherapy trials and its clinical performance was confirmed through an extensive metanalysis across 13 clinically annotated gene expression datasets from 877 patients treated with immunotherapy agents. Last, we generated a pan-cancer biomarker platform that integrates VIGex categories with the expression levels of immunotherapy targets under development in early-phase clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the clinical utility of VIGex as a tool to aid clinicians for patient selection and personalized immunotherapy interventions. FUNDING: BBVA Foundation; 202-2021 Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology Fellowship award; Princess Margaret Cancer Center.

Does HER2 status influence in the benefit of ramucirumab and paclitaxel as second line treatment of advanced gastro-esophageal adenocarcinoma? Data from the AGAMENON-SEOM registry.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare ramucirumab-paclitaxel versus chemotherapy in second-line (2L) advanced gastroesophageal cancer (aGEC) based on HER2 status and analyze prognostic factors. METHODS: The study includes patients from the AGAMENON-SEOM registry with aGEC and known HER2 status who received 2L between 2016 and 2021. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) and multivariable Cox regression analysis was done to adjust for confounding variables. RESULTS: Of the 552 patients who met the selection criteria, 149 (26.9%) had HER2-positive aGEC, 89 were treated with chemotherapy, and 60 with ramucirumab-paclitaxel, and 403 had an HER2-negative aGEC, 259 were treated with chemotherapy, and 144 with ramucirumab-paclitaxel. In the whole sample, 2L PFS was 3.0 months (95% CI 2.8-3.2), 2L OS, 5.7 months (5.2-6.3), and ramucirumab-paclitaxel versus chemotherapy was associated with increased PFS (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.53-0.78, p < 0.0001) and OS (HR 0.68, 0.55-0.83, p = 0.0002). Median PFS of ramucirumab- paclitaxel versus chemotherapy was 3.5 vs 2.8 months (HR 0.67, 0.54-0.83, p = 0.0004) in HER2-negative, and 4.7 vs 2.7 months (HR 0.57, 0.40-0.82, p = 0.0031) in HER2-positive aGEC, respectively. Median OS for ramucirumab-paclitaxel versus chemotherapy was 6.6 vs 5 months (HR 0.67, 0.53-0.85, p = 0.0007) in HER2-negative, and 7.4 vs 5.6 months (HR 0.70, 0.53-1.04, p = 0.083) in HER2-positive aGEC, respectively. ECOG-PS, tumor burden, Lauren subtype, and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio were prognostic factors. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with an aGEC from the AGAMENON-SEOM registry, 2L treatment with ramucirumab-paclitaxel was superior to chemotherapy in PFS, OS and response rate, independent of HER2 status.

Chemorefractory Gastric Cancer: The Evolving Terrain of Third-Line Therapy and Beyond.

Gastric and gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (GC) represent a global healthcare problem being the fifth most common tumour type and the fourth cause of cancer mortality. Extremely poor median survival of approximately 10 months is normally reported within advanced GC patients, mainly secondary to two factors, i.e., the fragility of these patients and the aggressiveness of this disease. In this context, the correct treatment of GC patients requires not only a multidisciplinary team with special attention to palliative and nutritional care but also a close follow-up with regular monitoring of disease symptoms and tumour evaluation. Sequential treatment lines with few toxic adverse events have emerged as the best therapeutic approach, and a third line of therapy could further improve survival and quality of life of GC patients. Chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and targeted agents -when indicated- constitute the treatment armamentarium of these patients. In this review, we discuss treatment options in the refractory setting as well as novel approaches to overcome the poor prognosis of GC.

How I treat gastric adenocarcinoma.

Gastric and gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (GC) represents a worldwide problem, this being the fifth most common malignancy. The fragility of patients with GC together with the aggressiveness of this tumour makes it as one of the most difficult neoplasias to manage. This article summarises the main strategies for treating patients with GC. Correct assessment of patients with GC requires a multidisciplinary evaluation and close follow-up. For patients with resectable tumours, perioperative chemotherapy should be always considered, especially in the neoadjuvant setting given its capacity for tumour downstaging and eradication of micro-metastases. In the metastatic setting, first-line and second-line treatment improve survival and quality of life in patients with GC. In this setting, only trastuzumab as first-line therapy in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive tumours and ramucirumab as second-line therapy have demonstrated a clear survival improvement. The lack of adequate biomarker selection and the intrinsic heterogeneity of these tumours have jeopardised the possible usefulness of many other targeted agents. Finally, when considering GC carcinogenesis as a multiple stepwise process from initial inflammation starting in the gastric epithelia, immune checkpoint inhibitors may improve the survival of these patients, although the optimal setting for their activity has yet to be fully elucidated.

Clinical implications of the intrinsic molecular subtypes of breast cancer.

Gene-expression profiling has had a considerable impact on our understanding of breast cancer biology. During the last 15 years, 5 intrinsic molecular subtypes of breast cancer (Luminal A, Luminal B, HER2-enriched, Basal-like and Claudin-low) have been identified and intensively studied. In this review, we will focus on the current and future clinical implications of the intrinsic molecular subtypes beyond the current pathological-based classification endorsed by the 2013 St. Gallen Consensus Recommendations. Within hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative early breast cancer, the Luminal A and B subtypes predict 10-year outcome regardless of systemic treatment administered as well as residual risk of distant recurrence after 5 years of endocrine therapy. Within clinically HER2-positive disease, the 4 main intrinsic subtypes can be identified and dominate the biological and clinical phenotype. From a clinical perspective, patients with HER2+/HER2-enriched disease seem to benefit the most from neoadjuvant trastuzumab, or dual HER2 blockade with trastuzumab/lapatinib, in combination with chemotherapy, and patients with HER2+/Luminal A disease seem to have a relative better outcome compared to the other subtypes. Finally, within triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), the Basal-like disease predominates (70-80%) and, from a biological perspective, should be considered a cancer-type by itself. Importantly, the distinction between Basal-like versus non-Basal-like within TNBC might predict survival following (neo)adjvuvant multi-agent chemotherapy, bevacizumab benefit in the neoadjuvant setting (CALGB40603), and docetaxel vs. carboplatin benefit in first-line metastatic disease (TNT study). Overall, this data suggests that intrinsic molecular profiling provides clinically relevant information beyond current pathology-based classifications.

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: diagnosis and treatment.

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) are relatively rare and complex neoplasms that present many clinical challenges. Most GEP-NETs are sporadic, but they can be multiple and a component of a familial syndrome. Assessment of the location and extent of GEP-NETs is crucial for management and a number of novel imaging modalities are under evaluation with the principal goal of increasing sensitivity for the detection of micro-metastases while retaining specificity. The appropriate diagnosis and treatment of neuroendocrine tumors often involves collaboration between specialists in multiple disciplines, using specific biochemical, radiologic, and surgical methods. Management strategies include surgery, radiological intervention, cytotoxic chemotherapies, somatostatin analogs and novel biological agents such as sunitinib and everolimus. Other biological agents, new chemoteraphy regimens and somatostatin-tagged radionuclide therapies are also under investigation. In spite of this, comparison between therapeutic modalities is currently difficult. Further studies are warranted to individualize and optimize the diagnosis and treatment of these tumors.