Pattern of disease progression during third-line or later chemotherapy with nivolumab associated with poor prognosis in advanced gastric cancer: a multicenter retrospective study in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Accelerated tumor growth during immunotherapy in pre-existing measurable lesions, hyperprogressive disease (HPD), has been reported. However, progression of non-measurable lesions and new lesions are frequently observed in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC). METHODS: This retrospective study involved AGC patients at 24 Japanese institutions who had measurable lesions and received nivolumab after ≥ 2 lines of chemotherapy. HPD was defined as a ≥ two-fold increase in the tumor growth rate of measurable lesions. The pattern of disease progression was classified according to new lesions in different organs and ascites appeared/increase of ascites. RESULTS: Of 245 patients, 147 (60.0%) showed progressive disease (PD) as the best response and 41 (16.7%) showed HPD during nivolumab monotherapy. There was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) between patients with HPD and those with PD other than HPD (median OS 5.0 vs 4.8 months; hazard ratio [HR] 1.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.6-1.5; p = 1.0). Fifty-three patients developed new lesions in different organs and 58 had appearance/increase of ascites; these patients showed shorter OS than those without each of these features (median OS 3.3 vs 7.1 months, HR 1.8, 95% CI 1.2-2.7, p = 0.0031 for new lesions, and 3.0 vs 7.8 months, HR 2.6, 95% CI 1.8-3.8, p < 0.0001 for ascites). Thirty-one patients who had both features showed the worst prognosis (median OS 2.6 months). CONCLUSIONS: New lesions in different organs and appearance/increase of ascites, rather than the original definition of HPD, are the patterns of disease progression associated with poor prognosis in AGC patients receiving nivolumab whose best response was PD.

Exploration of predictors of benefit from nivolumab monotherapy for patients with pretreated advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer: post hoc subanalysis from the ATTRACTION-2 study.

BACKGROUND: The phase 3 ATTRACTION-2 study demonstrated that nivolumab monotherapy was superior to placebo for patients with pretreated advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer, but early progression of tumors in some patients was of concern. METHODS: This post hoc analysis statistically explored the baseline characteristics of the ATTRACTION-2 patients and extracted a single-factor and double-factor combinations associated with early disease progression or early death. In the extracted patient subgroups, the 3-year restricted mean survival times of progression-free survival and overall survival were compared between the nivolumab and placebo arms. RESULTS: Two single factors (age and peritoneal metastasis) were extracted as independent predictors of early progression, but none of them, as a single factor, stratified patients into two subgroups with significant differences in restricted mean survival time. In contrast, two double-factor combinations (serum sodium level and white blood cell count; serum sodium level and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio) stratifying patients into two subgroups with significant differences in the restricted mean survival time were extracted. Additional exploratory analysis of a triple-factor combination showed that patients aged < 60 years with peritoneal metastasis and low serum sodium levels (approximately 7% of all patients) might receive less benefit from nivolumab, and patients aged ≥ 60 years with no peritoneal metastasis and normal serum sodium levels might receive higher benefit. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of age, peritoneal metastasis, and serum sodium level might predict benefit from nivolumab as salvage therapy in advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer patients, especially less benefit for patients having all three risk factors.

Primary tumor location as a predictor of survival in patients with RAS wild-type colorectal cancer who receive molecularly targeted drugs as first-line therapy: a multicenter real-world observational study by the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum.

BACKGROUND: Primary tumor location is considered a predictor of overall survival (OS) in RAS wild-type (WT) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with bevacizumab (BEV) or an anti-epidermal growth factor antibody (cetuximab or panitumumab [CET/PAN]) as first-line molecularly targeted therapy. BEV is recommended for right-sided mCRC and CET/PAN for left-sided mCRC based on post-hoc analyses of clinical trial data, but real-world evidence is lacking. METHODS: We retrospectively collected data of patients who started BEV or CET/PAN plus 5-fluorouracil-based doublet chemotherapy between January 2013 and December 2016 as first-line treatment for RAS WT mCRC at any of 24 Japanese institutions. OS was compared between the BEV and CET/PAN groups according to primary tumor location by Cox multivariate regression analysis in the full cohort and in a propensity score-matched cohort. RESULTS: In total, 935 patients were enrolled. Median OS was 24.6 months with BEV and 20.9 months with CET/PAN in right-sided mCRC (n = 213; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-1.06) and 35.7 months and 30.0 months, respectively, in left-sided mCRC (n = 722; adjusted HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74-1.13). In the propensity score-matched cohort, OS was significantly better in the BEV group than in the CET/PAN group in right-sided mCRC (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28-0.96) but was not significantly different in left-sided mCRC (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.53-1.07). CONCLUSION: Real-world data showed that OS was better with BEV than with CET/PAN in right-sided mCRC. However, there was no significant difference in OS in left-sided mCRC.

Nivolumab in previously treated advanced gastric cancer (ATTRACTION-2): 3-year update and outcome of treatment beyond progression with nivolumab.

BACKGROUND: ATTRACTION-2 demonstrated that nivolumab improved overall survival (OS) vs placebo in patients with advanced gastric cancer treated with ≥ 2 chemotherapy regimens. However, its long-term efficacy and outcome of treatment beyond progression (TBP) with nivolumab have not been clarified. METHODS: The 3-year follow-up data were collected. A subset analysis was performed to explore the efficacy of TBP by assessing postprogression survival (PPS) after the first event of disease progression. RESULTS: Overall, 493 patients were randomized (2:1) to receive nivolumab (n = 330) or placebo (n = 163). With a median follow-up of 38.5 (range 36.1-47.5) months, OS of the nivolumab group was significantly longer compared to the placebo group (median 5.3 vs 4.1 months; 3-year survival rate, 5.6% vs 1.9%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.62 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50-0.75], P < 0.0001). The median OS of responders (n = 32) who achieved complete response or partial response was 26.7 months and the 3-year survival rate was 35.5% in the nivolumab group. Overall, 109 patients in the nivolumab group and 37 patients in the placebo group received TBP. PPS tended to be longer in the nivolumab group vs placebo group (median 5.8 vs 4.5 months; HR [95% CI], 0.69 [0.47-1.01], P = 0.057). In contrast, PPS was similar between both treatment groups in non-TBP patients (median 2.3 vs 2.2 months; HR 0.90, P = 0.42). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term efficacy of nivolumab was confirmed at the 3-year follow-up, and a survival benefit of TBP with nivolumab was suggested. Biomarkers for selecting patients suitable for TBP with nivolumab should be identified in the future.

Randomized phase II study of CPT-11 versus PTX versus each combination chemotherapy with S-1 for advanced gastric cancer that is refractory to S-1 or S-1 plus CDDP: OGSG0701.

BACKGROUND: To compare irinotecan-alone, paclitaxel-alone, and each combination chemotherapy with S-1 in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) that is refractory to S-1 or S-1 plus cisplatin (SP). METHODS: Patients with AGC after first-line chemotherapy with S-1 or SP, or patients during adjuvant chemotherapy or within 26 weeks after adjuvant chemotherapy completion with S-1 with confirmed disease progression were eligible. Patients were randomly divided into four groups based on treatment: irinotecan-alone (irinotecan; 150 mg/m2, day 1, q14 days), paclitaxel-alone (paclitaxel; 80 mg/m2, days 1, 8, 15, q28 days), S-1 plus irinotecan (irinotecan; 80 mg/m2, days 1, 15, S-1; 80 mg/m2, days 1-21, q35 days), and S-1 plus paclitaxel (paclitaxel; 50 mg/m2, day1, 8, S-1; 80 mg/m2, days 1-14, q21 days). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) and secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), response rate, and safety. RESULTS: From July 2008 to March 2012, 127 patients were enrolled. No difference in median OS was observed in the irinotecan vs. paclitaxel groups or in the monotherapy groups vs. the S-1 combination therapy groups. Median PFS was longer in the paclitaxel group compared with the irinotecan group (4.1 vs. 3.6 months, p = 0.035), although no difference was observed when comparing monotherapy vs. S-1 combination. The most common grade 3 to 4 hematological adverse events were neutropenia with no difference in incidence rate across the treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in OS between irinotecan and paclitaxel no in OS prolongation of S-1 combination therapy in second-line chemotherapy.

A phase 3 study of nivolumab in previously treated advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer (ATTRACTION-2): 2-year update data.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab showed improvement in overall survival (OS) in ATTRACTION-2, the first phase 3 study in patients with gastric/gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) cancer treated with ≥ 2 chemotherapy regimens. The 2-year follow-up results of ATTRACTION-2 are presented herein. METHODS: ATTRACTION-2 was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial (49 sites; Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan). The median (min-max) follow-up period was 27.3 (24.1-36.3) months. The primary endpoint was OS. A subanalysis of OS was performed based on best overall response and tumor-programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression status. RESULTS: Overall, 493 of 601 screened patients were randomized (2:1) to receive nivolumab (330) or placebo (163). OS (median [95% confidence interval; CI]) was significantly longer in the nivolumab group (5.26 [4.60-6.37] vs 4.14 [3.42-4.86] months in placebo group) at the 2-year follow-up (hazard ratio [95% CI], 0.62 [0.51-0.76]; P < 0.0001). A higher OS rate was observed in the nivolumab vs placebo group at 1 (27.3% vs 11.6%) and 2 years (10.6% vs 3.2%). The OS benefit was observed regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression. Among patients with a complete or partial response (CR or PR) in the nivolumab group, the median OS (95% CI) was 26.6 (21.65-not applicable) months; the OS rates at 1 and 2 years were 87.1% and 61.3%, respectively. No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab treatment resulted in clinically meaningful long-term improvements in OS in patients with previously treated G/GEJ cancer. The long-term survival benefit of nivolumab was most evident in patients with a CR or PR.

Exploratory subgroup analysis of patients with prior trastuzumab use in the ATTRACTION-2 trial: a randomized phase III clinical trial investigating the efficacy and safety of nivolumab in patients with advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer.

BACKGROUND: Data on immune checkpoint inhibitor efficacy in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) cancer are lacking. Because HER2 status was not captured in the ATTRACTION-2 trial, we used patients with prior trastuzumab use (Tmab+) as surrogate for HER2 expression status to evaluate the efficacy and safety of nivolumab as third- or later-line therapy in these patients. METHODS: In ATTRACTION-2, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 multicenter trial, patients were randomized (2:1) to receive nivolumab (3 mg/kg) or placebo every 2 weeks until disease progression or toxicity requiring study discontinuation. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety were assessed. RESULTS: Of 493 enrolled patients, 81 (nivolumab, n = 59; placebo, n = 22) were Tmab+ and 412 (nivolumab, n = 271; placebo, n = 141) were Tmab-. In both groups, patients receiving nivolumab showed a longer median OS vs placebo (Tmab+, 8.3 [95% confidence interval, 5.3-12.9] vs 3.1 [1.9-5.3] months, hazard ratio, 0.38 [0.22-0.66]; P = 0.0006; Tmab-, 4.8 [4.1-6.0] vs 4.2 [3.6-4.9] months, 0.71 [0.57-0.88]; P = 0.0022). PFS was longer in both groups receiving nivolumab vs placebo (Tmab+, 1.6 [1.5-4.0] vs 1.5 [1.3-2.9] months, 0.49 [0.29-0.85]; P = 0.0111; Tmab-, 1.6 [1.5-2.4] vs 1.5 [1.5-1.5] months, 0.64 [0.51-0.80]; P = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab was efficacious and safe as third- or later-line therapy regardless of prior trastuzumab use in patients with advanced G/GEJ cancer.

Comparison of S-1-cisplatin every 5 weeks with capecitabine-cisplatin every 3 weeks for HER2-negative gastric cancer (recurrent after S-1 adjuvant therapy or chemotherapy-naïve advanced): pooled analysis of HERBIS-2 (OGSG 1103) and HERBIS-4A (OGSG 1105) trials.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported the HERBIS-4A phase II trial comparing S-1 plus cisplatin (SP) with capecitabine plus cisplatin (XP) in chemotherapy-naïve patients with HER2-negative advanced gastric cancer (GC). We performed a pooled analysis of HERBIS-4A and HERBIS-2, the phase II trial comparing SP with XP in HER2-negative recurrent GC patients with a recurrence-free interval after S-1 adjuvant therapy of ≥ 6 months. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either SP [S-1 (40-60 mg twice daily for 21 days) plus cisplatin (60 mg/m2 on day 8), every 5 weeks] or XP [capecitabine (1000 mg/m2 twice daily for 14 days) plus cisplatin (80 mg/m2 on day 1), every 3 weeks]. RESULTS: In the pooled analysis, SP (n = 44-50) showed a longer progression-free survival [6.4 versus 5.1 months; hazard ratio (HR), 0.666; P = 0.062], overall survival (14.8 versus 10.6 months; HR, 0.695; P = 0.099), and time to treatment failure (4.6 versus 3.6 months; HR, 0.668; P = 0.045) as well as a higher disease control rate (86.4% versus 68.1%, P = 0.149) compared with XP (n = 47-51). A significant survival advantage for SP over XP was apparent in patients with a performance status of 0, a differentiated-type tumor histology, or a primary tumor localization to the upper portion of the stomach. CONCLUSION: Our pooled analysis supports the use of SP in the first-line setting for patients with HER2-negative advanced or recurrent GC with a recurrence-free interval of ≥ 6 months. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The HERBIS-2 trial was registered with UMIN-CTR as UMIN000006105.

Prognostic scores for evaluating the survival benefit of regorafenib or trifluridine/tipiracil in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: an exploratory analysis of the REGOTAS study.

BACKGROUND: Although regorafenib or trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) has been recognized as a later-line standard treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), not all patients have beneficial outcomes. This study aimed to develop a prognostic scoring system for evaluating the overall survival (OS) benefit. METHODS: Patients included in the REGOTAS study, which comprised 489 patients (regorafenib group: 199; FTD/TPI group: 290 patients), were evaluated. OS was analyzed using multivariate Cox proportional model. The prognostic score was calculated using the worst four individual factors weighted by hazard ratio, and the total scores were categorized as low-, moderate-, and high-OS benefit. RESULTS: The worst four factors in the regorafenib group were AST > 40 IU/dL (point, + 3), CRP ≥ 1.0 mg/dL (+ 2), number of metastatic organ site ≥ 3 (+ 2), and duration from initiation of 1st-line chemotherapy < 18 months (+ 2), while they were AST (+ 2), CRP (+ 2), CA19-9 > 37.0 U/mL (+ 2), and ECOG PS ≥ 1 (+ 2) in the FTD/TPI group. These corresponded to a total prognostic score of > 5, 2-4, and 0 points in the regorafenib group and 8, 2-6, and 0 points in the FTD/TPI group. The median OS in the low, moderate, and high OS benefit group was 3.3 (95% CI 3.0-3.7), 8.1 (95% CI 6.4-9.7), and 12.6 months (95% CI 10.6-14.6) in the regorafenib group and 2.8 (95% CI 2.0-3.5), 7.5 (95% CI 6.6-8.3), and 15.4 months (95% CI 9.7-21.2) in the FTD/TPI group. CONCLUSION: These prognostic scores are useful for identifying patients with mCRC who will obtain survival benefits from these drugs.

Phase II Trial of 5-Fluorouracil, Docetaxel, and Nedaplatin (UDON) Combination Therapy for Recurrent or Metastatic Esophageal Cancer.

LESSONS LEARNED: The 5-fluorouracil, docetaxel, and nedaplatin (UDON) regimen was well tolerated and showed promising antitumor activity in terms of both objective response rate and survival for patients with advanced or recurrent esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in the first-line setting.UDON may be an optimal treatment option for patients with advanced esophageal cancer who are unfit for docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil regimens.The high response rate as well as the rapid and marked tumor shrinkage associated with UDON suggest that further evaluation of this regimen in the neoadjuvant setting is warranted. BACKGROUND: A phase II study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), docetaxel, and nedaplatin (UDON) combination therapy for untreated recurrent or metastatic esophageal cancer. METHODS: Patients received intravenous nedaplatin (90 mg/m2) on day 1, docetaxel (35 mg/m2) on days 1 and 15, and 5-fluorouracil (800 mg/m2) on days 1-5 of a 4-week cycle. The primary endpoint was response rate, with secondary endpoints including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), dysphagia score, and adverse events. RESULTS: Between March 2015 and July 2017, 23 patients were enrolled. Of 22 evaluable patients, 16 and 4 individuals experienced a partial response and stable disease, respectively, yielding a response rate of 72.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 49.8%-89.3%) and disease control rate of 90.9% (95% CI, 70.8%-98.9%). Median OS and PFS were 11.2 months (95% CI, 9.1 months to not reached) and 6.0 months (95% CI, 2.5-10.6 months), respectively. Eleven (64.7%) of the 17 patients with a primary lesion showed amelioration of dysphagia after treatment. Frequent adverse events of grade 3 or 4 included neutropenia (87.0%) and leukopenia (39.1%). Febrile neutropenia was observed in two patients (8.7%). CONCLUSION: This phase II study demonstrated promising antitumor activity and good tolerability of UDON.

aCGH Analysis of Predictive Biomarkers for Response to Bevacizumab plus Oxaliplatin- or Irinotecan-Based Chemotherapy in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The randomized phase III study (WJOG4407G) showed equivalent efficacy between FOLFOX and FOLFIRI in combination with bevacizumab as the first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We studied whole genome copy number profiles using array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) analysis of tumor tissue samples obtained in this study. The aim of this study was to identify gene copy number alterations that could aid in selecting either FOLFOX or FOLFIRI in combination with bevacizumab for patients with mCRC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: DNA was purified from 154 pretreatment formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue samples (75 from the FOLFOX arm and 79 from the FOLFIRI arm) of 395 patients enrolled in the WJOG4407G trial and analyzed by aCGH. Genomic regions greater than 1.2-fold were regarded as copy number gain (CNG). RESULTS: Patient characteristics between the treatment arms were well balanced except for tumor laterality (left side; 64% in FOLFOX arm and 80% in FOLFIRI arm, p = .07). FOLFIRI showed a trend toward better response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) than FOLFOX in the patients with CNG of chromosome 8q24.1 (Fisher's exact test, p = .134 for RR; interaction test, p = .102 for PFS and p = .003 for OS) and 8q24.2 (Fisher's exact test, p = .179 for RR; interaction test, p = .144 for PFS and p = .002 for OS). CONCLUSION: Chromosome 8q24.1-q24.2 may contain genes that could potentially serve as predictive markers for selecting either FOLFOX or FOLFIRI in combination with bevacizumab for treatment of patients with mCRC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Bevacizumab has been used as a standard first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in combination with either oxaliplatin-based or irinotecan-based chemotherapy. Until now, there has been no predictive marker to choose between the two combination chemotherapies. This array-based comparative genomic hybridization analysis revealed that the difference in therapeutic effect between the two combination chemotherapies is prominent in patients with mCRC with gene copy number gain in chromosome 8p24.1-p24.2. Such patients showed more favorable response and survival when treated with irinotecan-based combination chemotherapy. Overlapping genes commonly found in this region may be predictive biomarkers of the efficacy of the combination chemotherapy with bevacizumab.

A subanalysis of Japanese patients in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of nivolumab for patients with advanced gastric or gastro-esophageal junction cancer refractory to, or intolerant of, at least two previous chemotherapy regimens (ONO-4538-12, ATTRACTION-2).

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab, an anti-programmed death-1 agent, showed survival benefits in Asian patients, including Japanese, with gastric/gastro-esophageal junction (G/GEJ) cancer. We report the analysis of the Japanese subpopulation from ATTRACTION-2 that evaluated nivolumab versus placebo in unresectable advanced or recurrent G/GEJ cancer after ≥ 2 chemotherapy regimens. METHODS: Data from the Japanese subpopulation in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial were analyzed (data cutoff, February 25, 2017). Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Among the overall study population of 493 patients, 226 (nivolumab 152; placebo 74) were enrolled from 28 sites in Japan. In the Japanese subset, median OS was longer with nivolumab versus placebo (5.4 months, 95% CI 4.6-7.4 versus 3.6 months, 95% CI 2.8-5.0). The risk of death was lower in the nivolumab versus placebo group (hazard ratio 0.58, 95% CI 0.42-0.78; p = 0.0002). Incidences of serious adverse events were 23% (35/152) and 25% (18/72) in the nivolumab and placebo groups, respectively. In the Japanese ITT population, 22% of nivolumab-treated and 28% of placebo-treated patients received prior ramucirumab treatment. Overall, clinical activity of nivolumab was observed regardless of prior ramucirumab use. In the nivolumab group, ORR and PFS were numerically higher in patients with prior ramucirumab use than in those without. CONCLUSIONS: In the Japanese subpopulation, patients receiving nivolumab had longer OS, similar to the overall population, with a manageable safety profile. The interaction between nivolumab and ramucirumab will be clarified in ongoing clinical trials.

Liquid-based endometrial cytology using SurePath™ is not inferior to suction endometrial tissue biopsy for detecting endometrial malignancies: Midterm report of a multicentre study advocated by Japan Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a prospective, multicentre study to compare the clinical performance of liquid-based endometrial cytology (LBEC) using SurePath™ with that of suction endometrial tissue biopsy (SETB). This study is officially advocated and reported by the Japan Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. By publishing our midterm data, we intend to disseminate the benefits of LBEC system, using the descriptive reporting format and algorithmic interpretational approach. METHODS: From April 2014 to December 2015, we consecutively assessed 1116 LBEC specimens and 1044 SETB specimens in our five outpatient clinics. RESULTS: The sensitivity of suction tissue biopsies was 85.2%, whereas the sensitivity of LBEC was 92.2%. The specificity of suction tissue biopsies was 98.9% and that of LBEC was 98.5%. The negative predictive value of LBEC (99.1%) was higher than that of SETB (98.1%), although the difference between these values was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical performance of LBEC for detecting endometrial malignancies was almost identical to the performance of SETB. This indicates that LBEC was not inferior to SETB for the detection of endometrial cancer. The LBEC is appropriate for various clinical situations as the first-step detecting tool. In addition, it could be used for cancer surveillance for women with signs highly suggestive of endometrial malignancies and in Lynch syndrome patients, on a larger scale.

[Outcomes of FOLFIRINOX as First-Line Treatment for Recurrent or Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer].

We retrospectively analyzed adverse effects(AEs), overall survival(OS), and progression-free survival(PFS)in 15 consecutive patients treated with FOLFIRINOX as the first-line treatment for recurrent or unresectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma( PDAC)between February 2014 and December 2017 in our hospital. Eleven patients were treated for unresectable PDAC with distant metastases(UR-M), and 4 were treated for locally advanced unresectable PDAC(UR-LA). The median age was 56(range: 40-75)years. Nine patients were male, and 6 were female. The performance status was 0 or 1 in all patients. Tumors were located in the pancreas head in 8 cases and in the body-tail in 7 cases. Grade 5 AEs were observed in 1 case in which liver abscess causing sepsis resulted in mortality. The response rate was 20.0%, and the disease control rate was 66.7%. Two patients underwent conversion surgery after FOLFIRINOX treatment. Seven patients received a nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine regimen as second-line treatment. The median OS and PFS were 17.0 and 8.4 months, respectively, and the 1-year survival rate was 66.7%. FOLFIRINOX for recurrent and unresectable PDAC showed relatively good tumor control. However, strict attention is required for severe AEs. Conversion surgery might be effective in patients who are good responders even if they have metastatic disease.

Nivolumab in patients with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer refractory to, or intolerant of, at least two previous chemotherapy regimens (ONO-4538-12, ATTRACTION-2): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer refractory to, or intolerant of, two or more previous regimens of chemotherapy have a poor prognosis, and current guidelines do not recommend any specific treatments for these patients. We assessed the efficacy and safety of nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 monoclonal antibody inhibitor of programmed death-1 (PD-1), in patients with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer who had been previously been treated with two or more chemotherapy regimens. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial done at 49 clinical sites in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, eligible patients (aged ≥20 years with unresectable advanced or recurrent gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer refractory to, or intolerant of, standard therapy [including two or more previous chemotherapy regimens], with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] performance status of 0-1, and naive to anti-PD-1 therapy or other therapeutic antibodies and pharmacotherapies for the regulation of T cells) were recruited. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) using an interactive web response system to receive 3 mg/kg nivolumab or placebo intravenously every 2 weeks, stratified by country, ECOG performance status, and number of organs with metastases. Study treatment was continued until progressive disease per investigator assessment or onset of toxicities requiring permanent discontinuation. Patients and investigators were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is ongoing but not recruiting new patients, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02267343. FINDINGS: Between Nov 4, 2014, and Feb 26, 2016, we randomly assigned 493 patients to receive nivolumab (n=330) or placebo (n=163). At the data cutoff (Aug 13, 2016), median follow-up in surviving patients was 8·87 months (IQR 6·57-12·37) in the nivolumab group and 8·59 months (5·65-11·37) in the placebo group. Median overall survival was 5·26 months (95% CI 4·60-6·37) in the nivolumab group and 4·14 months (3·42-4·86) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·63, 95% CI 0·51-0·78; p<0·0001). 12-month overall survival rates were 26·2% (95% CI 20·7-32·0) with nivolumab and 10·9% (6·2-17·0) with placebo. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 34 (10%) of 330 patients who received nivolumab and seven (4%) of 161 patients who received placebo; treatment-related adverse events led to death in five (2%) of 330 patients in the nivolumab group and two (1%) of 161 patients in the placebo group. No new safety signals were observed. INTERPRETATION: In this phase 3 study, the survival benefits indicate that nivolumab might be a new treatment option for heavily pretreated patients with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer. Ongoing trials that include non-Asian patients are investigating nivolumab for advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer in various settings and earlier treatment lines. FUNDING: Ono Pharmaceutical and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Randomized, Open-Label Phase II Study Comparing Capecitabine-Cisplatin Every 3 Weeks with S-1-Cisplatin Every 5 Weeks in Chemotherapy-Naïve Patients with HER2-Negative Advanced Gastric Cancer: OGSG1105, HERBIS-4A Trial.

LESSONS LEARNED: Evidence has suggested that capecitabine-cisplatin is similar or possibly superior to S-1-cisplatin in terms of safety and efficacy for Japanese patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC).As far as we are aware, our study is the first randomized trial of two regimens consisting of an oral fluoropyrimidine plus cisplatin in human epidermal growth receptor 2-negative AGC patients with measurable lesions. BACKGROUND: We performed a phase II study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of capecitabine plus cisplatin in comparison with S-1 plus cisplatin for first-line treatment of human epidermal growth receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced gastric cancer in Japan. METHODS: Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive either capecitabine at 1,000 mg/m2 twice daily for 14 days plus cisplatin at 80 mg/m2 on day 1 every 3 weeks (n = 43) or S-1 at 40-60 mg twice daily for 21 days plus cisplatin at 60 mg/m2 on day 8 every 5 weeks (n = 41). The primary endpoint of the study was response rate. RESULTS: Response rate did not differ significantly between the capecitabine-cisplatin and S-1-cisplatin groups (53.5% vs. 51.2%, respectively, p > .999). S-1-cisplatin tended to confer a better progression-free survival (PFS; median of 5.9 vs. 4.1 months, p = .284), overall survival (OS; median of 13.5 vs. 10.0 months, p = .290), and time to treatment failure (TTF; median of 4.5 vs. 3.1 months, p = .052) compared with capecitabine-cisplatin. Common hematologic toxicities of grade 3 or 4 included anemia and neutropenia in both groups. However, anorexia, fatigue, and hyponatremia of grade 3 or 4 occurred more frequently in the capecitabine-cisplatin group. CONCLUSION: Capecitabine-cisplatin failed to demonstrate superior efficacy compared with S-1-cisplatin. The higher incidence of severe adverse events with capecitabine-cisplatin suggests that S-1-cisplatin should remain the standard first-line chemotherapy for HER2-negative advanced gastric cancer in Japan.

Propensity Score Analysis of Regorafenib Versus Trifluridine/Tipiracil in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Refractory to Standard Chemotherapy (REGOTAS): A Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum Multicenter Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: This study compared the efficacy of regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil (TFTD) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who are refractory to standard chemotherapy, because despite their clinical approval, it still remains unclear which of these two drugs should be used as initial treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The clinical data of patients with mCRC who were treated with regorafenib or TFTD and those of drug-naive patients, between June 2014 and September 2015, were retrospectively collected from 24 institutions in Japan. Overall survival (OS) was evaluated using the Cox's proportional hazard models based on propensity score adjustment for baseline characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 550 patients (223 patients in the regorafenib group and 327 patients in the TFTD group) met all criteria. The median OS was 7.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.8-9.2) in the regorafenib group and 7.4 months (95% CI, 6.6-8.3) in the TFTD group. The propensity score adjusted analysis showed that OS was similar between the two groups (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.96; 95% CI, 0.78-1.18). In the subgroup analysis, a significant interaction with age was observed. Regorafenib showed favorable survival in patients aged <65 years (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.98-1.69), whereas TFTD was favored in patients aged ≥65 years (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.59-1.03). CONCLUSION: No significant difference in OS between regorafenib and TFTD was observed in patients with mCRC. Although the choice of the drug by age might affect survival, a clearly predictive biomarker to distinguish the two drugs should be identified in further studies. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Previous studies of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer refractory to standard chemotherapy had demonstrated that both regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil could result in increased overall survival compared with placebo, but there are no head-to-head trials. This large, multicenter, observational study retrospectively compared the efficacy of regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil in 550 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer refractory to standard chemotherapy who had access to both drugs. Although no difference in overall survival was found between the two drugs in adjusted analysis using propensity score, regorafenib showed favorable survival in patients aged <65 years, whereas trifluridine/tipiracil was favored in patients aged ≥65 years in the subgroup analysis.

First-line chemotherapy with S-1 alone or S-1 plus cisplatin for elderly patients with advanced gastric cancer: a multicenter propensity score matched study.

BACKGROUND: Fluoropyrimidine and platinum combination is the standard treatment for advanced or recurrent gastric cancer (AGC). However, fluoropyrimidine monotherapy is commonly used for elderly patients with AGC because of its good tolerability. METHODS: In this multicenter retrospective study, we collected clinical data of AGC patients aged 70 years or older, treated with S-1 alone or S-1 plus cisplatin (SP) as the first-line treatment between January 2009 and December 2011. Propensity score matched cohorts (PSMC) were used for reducing the confounding effects to compare efficacy and safety between the two treatment groups. Cox regression analysis was performed to clarify the prognostic factors. RESULTS: PSMC (n = 109 in each group) were selected from among 444 eligible patients (S-1 group, 210; SP group, 234); the S-1 group included more patients deemed unfit for intensive chemotherapy than the SP group (e.g., higher age, poorer PS, poor renal function). In the PSMC, patients' characteristics were comparable between groups, except the male ratio (S-1 group, 64.2%; SP group, 77.1%; p = 0.04). No significant differences were observed in either overall survival [hazard ratio (HR) 0.93, p = 0.63] or progression-free survival (HR 1.09, p = 0.61). Severe adverse events (AEs) and hospitalization due to AEs were more frequent in the SP group than in the S-1 group (p < 0.001 each). CONCLUSION: Our findings do not support the survival benefit of SP over S-1 in elderly patients with AGC. We are now conducting a prospective comparative study to optimize treatment strategy and explore applicability of the geriatric assessment for these patients.

What information can change the attitude of teachers toward the human papillomavirus vaccine?

AIM: We conducted a self-administered survey on the perception of teachers toward human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine to determine the ways to increase their willingness to encourage its use. METHODS: Answers were obtained both prior to and after having the teachers read five brief information articles: (i) cervical cancer knowledge, (ii) vaccine knowledge, (iii) result of a survey in Nagoya, (iv) news report of the World Health Organization statement and (v) articles written by Dr Muranaka, a journalist. RESULTS: Most of the respondents (180/247) did not know about the natural history of cervical cancer. Only 36% knew that HPV is the cause of cervical cancer, although 63% knew that HPV vaccine would prevent cervical cancer. Few respondents had knowledge regarding adverse events following immunization and the survey results from Nagoya. Among those who were initially negative for the HPV vaccine, only 43% revealed that they fully understood its safety and only 29% reversed their opinion to recommend vaccination to their daughters and/or students, even after reading our informational material. The most useful information for changing their attitudes was to increase their understanding of vaccines and informing them about Nagoya city survey results. They mostly wanted a proof of the preventive effects of the vaccine on cervical cancer in Japan. CONCLUSION: Gynecologists and pediatricians must proactively communicate accurate scientific information to the government and the media to spread awareness among people in Japan. Also, we must try to demonstrate the capabilities of this vaccine to prevent cervical cancer and/or its precancerous lesions.

DS-8201a, a new HER2-targeting antibody-drug conjugate incorporating a novel DNA topoisomerase I inhibitor, overcomes HER2-positive gastric cancer T-DM1 resistance.

Anti-HER2 therapies are beneficial for patients with HER2-positive breast or gastric cancer. T-DM1 is a HER2-targeting antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) comprising the antibody trastuzumab, a linker, and the tubulin inhibitor DM1. Although effective in treating advanced breast cancer, all patients eventually develop T-DM1 resistance. DS-8201a is a new ADC incorporating an anti-HER2 antibody, a newly developed, enzymatically cleavable peptide linker, and a novel, potent, exatecan-derivative topoisomerase I inhibitor (DXd). DS-8201a has a drug-to-antibody-ratio (DAR) of 8, which is higher than that of T-DM1 (3.5). Owing to these unique characteristics and unlike T-DM1, DS-8201a is effective against cancers with low-HER2 expression. In the present work, T-DM1-resistant cells (N87-TDMR), established using the HER2-positive gastric cancer line NCI-N87 and continuous T-DM1 exposure, were shown to be susceptible to DS-8201a. The ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporters ABCC2 and ABCG2 were upregulated in N87-TDMR cells, but HER2 overexpression was retained. Furthermore, inhibition of ABCC2 and ABCG2 by MK571 restored T-DM1 sensitivity. Therefore, resistance to T-DM1 is caused by efflux of its payload DM1, due to aberrant expression of ABC transporters. In contrast to DM1, DXd payload of DS-8201a inhibited the growth of N87-TDMR cells in vitro. This suggests that either DXd may be a poor substrate of ABCC2 and ABCG2 in comparison to DM1, or the high DAR of DS-8201a relative to T-DM1 compensates for increased efflux. Notably, N87-TDMR xenograft tumor growth was prevented by DS-8201a. In conclusion, the efficacy of DS-8201a as a treatment for patients with T-DM1-resistant breast or gastric cancer merits investigation.