Determinants of clinical outcomes of gastric cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a sub-analysis of the PRODIGY study.

BACKGROUND: In this post hoc analysis of the PRODIGY study, we aimed to investigate factors associated with survival outcomes and provide evidence for designing optimal perioperative treatment strategies for gastric cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 212 patients in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group of the PRODIGY study were included as the study population. The prognostic impact of clinicopathologic factors, including the initial radiological clinical stage (cStage) and post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy pathological stage (ypStage), was analyzed. RESULTS: The median age was 58 years. The majority of patients (77.4%) had cStage III disease, and about 10% and 25% had ypStage 0 and I disease, respectively. According to the initial cStage, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were significantly different (P < 0.01). PFS and OS were also different according to the ypStage (P < 0.01). In multivariate analyses, cStage IIIC disease (vs. cStage II) and ypStage II and III disease (vs. ypStage 0/I) were independent factors for poor survival outcomes. Based on the patterns of PFS and OS according to both cStage and ypStage, three patient groups were defined. These groups showed distinct PFS and OS (P < 0.01) with 5-year PFS rates of 95.7%, 77.9%, and 31.3% and 5-year OS rates of 95.7%, 82.4%, and 42.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Both initial cStage and ypStage were independent factors for survival outcomes of gastric cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Efforts should be made to develop optimal peri-operative treatment strategies for patients at different risks according to cStage and ypStage.

Multicenter phase III trial of S-1 and cisplatin versus S-1 and oxaliplatin combination chemotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer (SOPP trial).

BACKGROUND: In East Asia, S-1 plus cisplatin (SP) is one of the standard first-line chemotherapy regimens for metastatic or recurrent gastric cancer (MRGC). Oxaliplatin is generally less toxic and more convenient to administer than cisplatin. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a multicenter, phase III study assessing whether S-1/oxaliplatin (SOX) was non-inferior/superior to SP in terms of progression-free survival (PFS). Patients with MRGC were randomized 1:1 to receive either SOX (S-1 80 mg/m2/day on days 1-14; oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1; every 3 weeks) or SP (S-1 80 mg/m2/day on days 1-14; cisplatin 60 mg/m2 on day 1; every 3 weeks [SP3]). RESULTS: Between October 2012 and October 2014, 338 patients were randomized. The median age was 56 years, and 51% of patients had measurable lesions. SOX was significantly non-inferior but not superior to SP3 in terms of PFS [median 5.6 versus 5.7 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67-1.07]. In patients with measurable disease, objective response rates were similar between SOX and SP3 (58% versus 60%). Overall, the survival in both groups did not differ (median 12.9 versus 11.4 months; HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.66-1.11). Treatment was well tolerated in both arms. Anemia, leucopenia, neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and oral mucositis were more common with SP3. In contrast, thrombocytopenia, nausea, vomiting, and peripheral neuropathy were more common with SOX. CONCLUSIONS: SOX was non-inferior to SP3. The two regimens were well tolerated with different toxicity profiles. The SOX regimen can be recommended as a first-line treatment for MRGC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01671449.

A phase I/II study of poziotinib combined with paclitaxel and trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive advanced gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Poziotinib (HM781-36B) is an irreversible pan-HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor which targets EGFR, HER2, and HER4. This prospective, multicenter, open-label, phase I/II study determined the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and evaluated the safety and efficacy of poziotinib combined with paclitaxel and trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive advanced gastric cancer (GC). METHODS: Patients with HER2-positive GC previously treated with one line of chemotherapy received oral poziotinib (8 mg or 12 mg) once daily for 14 days, followed by 7 days off. Paclitaxel (175 mg/m2 infusion) and trastuzumab (8 mg/kg loading dose, then 6 mg/kg infusion) were administered concomitantly with poziotinib on day 1 every 3 weeks. RESULTS: In the phase I part, 12 patients were enrolled (7 at dose level 1, 5 at dose level 2). One patient receiving poziotinib 8 mg and 2 receiving poziotinib 12 mg had dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs); all DLTs were grade 4 neutropenia, one with fever. The most common poziotinib-related adverse events were diarrhea, rash, stomatitis, pruritus and loss of appetite. The MTD of poziotinib was determined to be 8 mg/day and this was used in the phase II part which enrolled 32 patients. Two patients (6.3%) had complete responses and 5 (15.6%) had partial responses (objective response rate 21.9%). Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 13.0 weeks (95% CI 9.8-21.9) and 29.5 weeks (95% CI 17.9-59.2), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The MTD of poziotinib combined with paclitaxel and trastuzumab was 8 mg/day. This combination yielded promising anti-tumor efficacy with manageable toxicity in previously treated patients with HER2-positive GC.

A randomized phase II study of S-1 versus capecitabine as first-line chemotherapy in elderly metastatic gastric cancer patients with or without poor performance status: clinical and pharmacogenetic results.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the efficacy and safety of S-1 versus capecitabine in elderly patients with metastatic gastric cancer (MGC), and examined the association between cytochrome P450 2A6 (CYP2A6) polymorphisms and treatment outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MGC patients 70-85 years old with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0-2 or 65-70 years old with ECOG PS 2 were randomized to receive S-1 40 mg/m, twice daily, or capecitabine 1250 mg/m, twice daily, on days 1-14 every 3 weeks. RESULTS: From May 2007 up to July 2010, 107 patients were enrolled. G3/4 neutropenia developed in 3.8% of each arm, and the most common G3/4 nonhematological toxicities were anorexia and fatigue. Vomiting and tearing were more frequent with S-1 and hand-foot syndrome with capecitabine. The primary endpoint, the overall response rate, was 26.4% (14/53, 95% confidence interval: 14.5-38.3%) in S-1 and 24.1% (13/54, 95% confidence interval: 12.7-35.5%) in capecitabine, both of which exceeded the null hypothesis response rate of 10%. The median time to progression (TTP; 3.2 vs. 3.4 months, P=0.813) and overall survival (OS; 8.5 vs. 10.3 months, P=0.691) were similar in both arms. CYP2A6 polymorphisms were associated with S-1 efficacy. In the S-1 arm only, patients with CYP2A6 variant/variant alleles had worse TTP and OS than those with wild/wild or wild/variant alleles, and in multivariate analysis, the CYP2A6 genotype was predictive for TTP and OS. CONCLUSION: Both S-1 and capecitabine were active and tolerable for elderly MGC patients. The CYP2A6 genotyping might guide treatment selection.

Nomograms predicting survival of patients with unresectable or metastatic gastric cancer who receive combination cytotoxic chemotherapy as first-line treatment.

BACKGROUND: Some clinicopathological variables are known to influence the survival of patients with advanced gastric cancer. A comprehensive model based on these factors is needed for prediction of an individual's survival and appropriate patient counseling. METHODS: A nomogram for predicting 1-year survival in patients with advanced gastric cancer in the palliative chemotherapy setting was developed using clinicopathological data from 949 patients with unresectable or metastatic gastric cancer who had received first-line doublet cytotoxic chemotherapy from 2001 to 2006 at the National Cancer Center, Korea (Baseline Nomogram). For 836 patients whose initial response to chemotherapy is known, another nomogram (ChemoResponse-based Nomogram) was constructed using the response to chemotherapy as additional variable. Nomogram performance in terms of discrimination and calibration ability was evaluated using the C statistic and Hosmer-Lemeshow-type χ 2 statistics. RESULTS: Two different nomograms were developed and subjected to internal validation. The baseline nomogram incorporated 13 baseline clinicopathological variables, whereas the chemoresponse-based nomogram was composed of 11 variables including initial response to chemotherapy. Internal validation revealed good performance of the two nomograms in discrimination: C statistics = 0.656 (95% confidence interval, 0.628-0.673) for the baseline and 0.718 (95% confidence interval, 0.694-0.741) for the chemoresponse-based nomogram, which showed significantly better discrimination performance than the baseline nomogram (Z statistics = 3.74, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that individual 1-year survival probability of patients receiving first-line doublet cytotoxic chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer can be reliably predicted by a nomogram-based method incorporating clinicopathological variables and initial response to chemotherapy.

Efficacy and Safety of FOLFIRI Regimen in Elderly Versus Nonelderly Patients with Metastatic Colorectal or Gastric Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Irinotecan-based chemotherapy is a standard backbone of therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) or gastric cancer (GC). However, there is still a paucity of information concerning the efficacy and safety of irinotecan-based regimens in elderly patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the patient cohort (n = 1,545) from the UGT1A1 genotype study, we compared the efficacy and safety between elderly and nonelderly patients with metastatic CRC (n = 934) or GC (n = 611) who received first- or second-line FOLFIRI (irinotecan, leucovorin, and 5-fluorouracil) chemotherapy. RESULTS: Despite lower relative dose intensity in elderly patients, progression-free survival and overall survival were similar between elderly (age ≥70 years) and nonelderly (<70 years) patients in the CRC cohort (hazard ratio [HR], 1.117; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.927-1.345; p = .244, and HR, 0.989; 95% CI, 0.774-1.264; p = .931, respectively) and the GC cohort (HR, 1.093; 95% CI, 0.854-1.400; p = .479, and HR, 1.188; 95% CI, 0.891-1.585; p = .241, respectively). In both cohorts, febrile neutropenia (22.1% vs. 14.6% in CRC cohort and 35.2% vs. 22.5% in GC cohort) and asthenia (grade 3: 8.4% vs. 1.7% in CRC cohort and 5.5% vs. 2.9% in GC cohort) were more frequent in elderly patients. In the CRC cohort, mucositis and anorexia were more frequent in elderly patients. In the GC cohort, nausea and vomiting were less frequent in elderly patients. CONCLUSION: The efficacy of the FOLFIRI regimen was similar between elderly and nonelderly patients in both the CRC and the GC cohorts. However, special attention should be paid to elderly patients because of increased risk for febrile neutropenia and asthenia. The Oncologist 2017;22:293-303 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The efficacy of FOLFIRI (irinotecan, leucovorin, and 5-fluorouracil) chemotherapy in elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer or gastric cancer was similar to that in nonelderly patients. However, special attention should be paid to elderly patients because of the increased risk for febrile neutropenia and asthenia. These data suggest that the FOLFIRI regimen could be considered as a standard backbone of therapy in elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer or gastric cancer and that the clinical decision between doublet and singlet chemotherapy may not be based solely on age. However, the data require further assessment of frailty and performance status.

A phase II study of perioperative S-1 combined with weekly docetaxel in patients with locally advanced gastric carcinoma: clinical outcomes and clinicopathological and pharmacogenetic predictors for survival.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of perioperative S-1 plus docetaxel in locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) and to investigate the association between CYP2A6 genotype and outcome. METHODS: Patients with LAGC [clinical stage III-IV (M0) by the Japanese staging system] received three cycles of pre- and postoperative chemotherapy (S-1 40 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14; intravenous docetaxel 35 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks) followed by gastrectomy with D2 dissection. We also performed a pharmacokinetic and CYP2A6 genotyping study (*1, *4, *7, *9, *10) for S-1. RESULTS: From October 2006 to June 2008, 44 patients entered the study. 43 eligible patients completed preoperative chemotherapy and 40 completed postoperative chemotherapy. The most common G3/4 toxicities during pre- and postoperative chemotherapy were neutropenia, stomatitis, and abdominal pain. The clinical response rate by RECIST was 74.4 % (95 % CI, 61.4-87.4 %), and the R0 resection rate was 97.7 %. Clinical downstaging in T or N occurred in 41.9 % of patients. The 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 62.8 % and 5-year overall survival (OS) rate was 69.6 %. PFS and OS differed significantly according to clinical response, clinical downstaging, and CYP2A6 genotype. Patients with CYP2A6 variant/variant genotypes had a higher tegafur C max and worse survival than those with wild/wild or wild/variant genotypes. CONCLUSION: Perioperative S-1 plus docetaxel is active with a manageable toxicity in patients with LAGC receiving D2 surgery. Clinical tumor response, clinical downstaging, and CYP2A6 genotype may predict efficacy.

Phase I/II Study of Weekly Oraxol for the Second-Line Treatment of Patients With Metastatic or Recurrent Gastric Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Oraxol consists of paclitaxel and HM30181A, a P-glycoprotein inhibitor, to increase the oral bioavailability of paclitaxel. This phase I/II study (HM-OXL-201) was conducted to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of Oraxol. In addition, we investigated the efficacy and safety of Oraxol as second-line chemotherapy for metastatic or recurrent gastric cancer (GC). METHODS: In the phase I component, paclitaxel was orally administered at escalating doses (90, 120, or 150 mg/m(2) per day) with a fixed dose (15 mg/day) of HM30181A. Oraxol was administrated 6 times per cycle (days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16) every 4 weeks. In the phase II component, the efficacy and safety of Oraxol were evaluated. RESULTS: In the phase I component, the MTD could not be determined. Based on toxicity and pharmacokinetic data, the RP2D of oral paclitaxel was determined to be 150 mg/m(2). In the phase II component, 4 of 43 patients (9.3%) achieved partial responses. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 2.6 and 10.7 months, respectively. Toxicity profiles were favorable, and the most common drug-related adverse events (grade ≥3) were neutropenia and diarrhea. CONCLUSION: Oraxol exhibited modest efficacy and favorable toxicity profiles as second-line chemotherapy for GC.

Prognostic impact of microscopic tumor involved resection margin in advanced gastric cancer patients after gastric resection.

BACKGROUND: The prognosis of patients with positive surgical resection margins is dismal in gastric cancer. However, the influence of positive margin itself on prognosis is still uncertain, especially in advanced gastric cancer (AGC). The aims of the present study were to evaluate the prognostic impact of microscopic tumor involved resection margins in stage III-IV AGC after gastric resection in comparison with other well-known factors. METHODS: Among 1,536 consecutive gastric cancer patients who received intentional curative resection for stage III-IV AGC between April 2001 and December 2011 at the National Cancer Center, 35 patients (2.28 %) had positive resection margins on their final histology. A comparison of clinicopathologic characteristics, recurrence pattern, overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS) was made between positive margin (PM) patients and negative margin (NM) patients. RESULTS: Among the 35 PM patients, 15 (42.9 %) had proximal involved margins, 21 (60.0 %) had distal involved margins, and one (2.9 %) had both involved margins. Twenty-eight PM patients (80.0 %) were stage III, and 7 (20.0 %) were stage IV. Recurrence was significantly higher in PM than NM (63.6 % vs. 39.7 %, respectively; p = 0.005). The OS and DFS rates were significantly lower in the PM group than in the NM group (14.9 vs. 36.3 months, p < 0.001 and 11.6 vs. 27.1 months, p = 0.005, respectively). The presence of PM was an independent risk factor for both OS and DFS. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of PM is an independent risk factor for OS and DFS. Considering the prognostic impact of PM, a sufficient resection margin should be ensured when determining the resection line in gastrectomy with curative intent. The reoperation to secure clear resection margins should be considered as a treatment of choice in the case of PM.

Outcome of endoscopic therapy for cancer bleeding in patients with unresectable gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Gastric cancer bleeding is not rare complication in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and clinical outcomes of endoscopic therapy (ET) for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) from unresectable AGC. METHODS: Data from 113 patients with UGIB from unresectable AGC who underwent ET at the National Cancer Center, Korea were analyzed retrospectively. Success rates of endoscopic hemostasis, rebleeding rates, mortality at 30 days, and overall survival (OS) rate after initial hemostasis were investigated. RESULTS: The initial hemostasis rate was 92.9% (105/113). Electrocoagulation was the most common method used (92.0%, 104/113), and combination ET was required in 34 patients (30.1%). Rebleeding occurred in 43 patients (41.0%); 3-day and 30-day rebleeding rates were 18.1% and 29.5%, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that transfusion of packed red blood cells (> 5 units) was associated with early rebleeding (≤ 3 days after initial hemostasis) (odd ratio, 4.75; 95% confidential interval, 1.45-15.57; P = 0.010). ET was attempted in 18 patients with rebleeding; hemostasis was achieved in 88.9%. The 30-day mortality rate after initial bleeding event was 15.9%. Median OS after initial hemostasis was 3.2 months. OS was lower for patients with early rebleeding than for those with late rebleeding (> 3 days after initial hemostasis) or without rebleeding (1.0, 3.1, and 4.3 months, respectively; P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: ET, primarily endoscopic electrocoagulation, achieved a high initial hemostasis rate for UGIB in patients with unresectable AGC. However, rebleeding frequently occurred, and early rebleeding was associated with poor survival.

Randomized phase II study of capecitabine plus cisplatin with or without sorafenib in patients with metastatic gastric cancer (STARGATE).

BACKGROUND: In this randomized phase II study, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of sorafenib in combination with capecitabine and cisplatin (XP) as first-line chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma were randomized (1:1) to receive either sorafenib plus XP (S + XP) or XP alone. In cases of disease progression in the XP arm, crossover to sorafenib alone was allowed. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), response rates, safety profiles, and biomarkers, and the response rates and PFS with secondline sorafenib alone after progression in the XP arm. RESULTS: Between Jan 2011 and Feb 2013, a total of 195 patients were accrued (97 in the S + XP arm and 98 in the XP alone arm). The overall response rate was 54% with S + XP, and 52% with XP alone (p = 0.83). With a median follow-up of 12.6 months (range, 0.1-29.2), the median PFS assessed by independent review was 5.6 months in the S + XP arm and 5.3 months in the XP arm (hazard ratio [HR] 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-1.27, p = 0.61). Overall survival was not different between the two arms (median 11.7 vs. 10.8 months; HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.65-1.31, p = 0.66). Frequencies of grade 3/4 toxicities were similar between the S + XP and XP alone arms, except for neutropenia (21% vs. 37%), anorexia (0% vs. 5%), and hand-foot skin reaction (7% vs. 1%). Among 51 patients who crossed over to sorafenib alone after disease progression in the XP arm, there was no objective response and their median PFS was 1.3 months (95% CI, 1.2-1.7). CONCLUSION: The addition of sorafenib to XP chemotherapy was safe but not more effective than XP alone for first-line treatment of metastatic gastric cancer.

A Comprehensive and Comparative Review of Global Gastric Cancer Treatment Guidelines.

Countries differ in their treatment expertise and research results regarding gastric cancer; hence, treatment guidelines are diverse based on evidence and medical situations. A comprehensive and comparative review of each country's guidelines is imperative to understand the similarities and differences among countries. We reviewed and compared five gastric cancer treatment guidelines in terms of endoscopic, surgical, perioperative, and palliative systemic treatment based on evidence levels and recommendation grades, as well as the postoperative follow-up strategies for each guideline. The Korean, Chinese, and European guidelines provided evidence and grading of the recommendations. The United States guidelines suggested categories for evidence and consensus. The Japanese guidelines suggested evidence and recommendations only for systemic treatment. The Korean and Japanese guidelines described endoscopic treatment, surgery, and lymphadenectomy in detail. The Chinese, United States, and European guidelines more intensively considered perioperative chemotherapy. In particular, the indications for chemotherapy and the regimens recommended by each guideline differed slightly. Considering their medical situations, each guideline had some diversity in terms of adopting evidence, which resulted in heterogeneous recommendations. This review will help medical personnel to comprehensively understand the diversity in gastric cancer treatment guidelines for each country in terms of evidence and recommendations.

Self-expandable metallic stent placement for malignant obstruction in patients with locally recurrent gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Self-expandable metallic stents (SEMSs) provide effective palliation for inoperable malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of SEMSs in patients with recurrent gastric cancer after radical gastrectomy. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from patients with gastric cancer who underwent endoscopic SEMS placement. The patients had obstructive symptoms due to recurrent gastric cancer after curative-intent subtotal or total gastrectomies. Technical and clinical success rates of stent placement were evaluated and clinical outcomes were compared according to operation types. RESULTS: A total of 15 patients underwent total gastrectomies with esophagojejunostomies and Roux-en-Y reconstructions, 8 underwent subtotal gastrectomies with Billroth I reconstructions, and 12 underwent subtotal gastrectomies with Billroth II reconstructions. Four patients in the Billroth II group received stents in afferent and efferent loops, so a total of 39 stents were placed. Technical success was achieved with 92% (36/39) of stents, and clinical success occurred with 90% (35/39) of stents, with no significant differences among surgery groups or between stent types (covered vs. uncovered). The GOO score (preprocedure: 0.45±0.62) increased by 1 week (2.06±0.51, p<0.001) and was maintained up to 1 month (1.71±1.15, p<0.001 compared with initial score). Complications occurred with 17 of 39 stents (44%) and included 2 perforations, 3 migrations, and 12 restenoses. Median stent patency duration was 10.7 weeks and median survival was 21.3 weeks; these did not significantly differ by surgery group (p=0.25 and 0.93, respectively) or stent type (covered vs. uncovered, p=0.51 and 0.96, respectively). CONCLUSION: Endoscopic SEMS placement for obstruction due to recurrent cancer after total or subtotal gastrectomy is feasible and provides effective short-term palliation, independent of the type of surgical procedure or stent (covered vs. uncovered) used.

Clinical outcomes and prognostic factors of metastatic gastric carcinoma patients who experience gastrointestinal perforation during palliative chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: We conducted the current study to investigate the clinical outcomes of metastatic gastric carcinoma (MGC) patients who experienced gastrointestinal (GI) perforation during palliative chemotherapy and to examine the prognostic factors associated with survival after perforation. METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of patients at the Center for Gastric Cancer of the National Cancer Center, Korea who developed GI perforation during palliative chemotherapy between January 2001 and December 2008. RESULTS: Of the 1,856 patients who received palliative chemotherapy for MGC, 32 patients (1.7%) developed GI perforation during chemotherapy. Patients with perforation at the primary gastric site were more likely to have ulcerative gastric cancer lesion (90.5 vs. 40.0%, P = 0.034) or gastric tumor bleeding (28.6 vs. 0%, P = 0.298), and less likely to have Bormann type IV (14.3 vs. 60.0%, P = 0.062), than patients with perforation at nongastric sites. In 14 patients (43.8%) who resumed chemotherapy after perforation, the disease control rate was 57.1%, and median overall survival (OS) after perforation was 7.5 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 6.0-9.0 months]. In all patients, median OS following perforation was 4.0 months (95% CI, 1.5-6.6 months), and multivariate analysis revealed that differentiated tumor histology, response to chemotherapy before perforation, and absence of septic shock at time of perforation were significantly associated with favorable OS after perforation. CONCLUSIONS: As patients experiencing GI perforation during palliative chemotherapy have heterogeneous clinical presentation, we need to adopt different approaches in the management of the patients that are compatible with the favorable prognostic factors.

Covered versus uncovered self-expandable metallic stents for palliation of malignant pyloric obstruction in gastric cancer patients: a randomized, prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Self-expandable metallic stents (SEMSs) provide effective palliation of malignant pyloric obstruction in patients with inoperable gastric cancer. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and side effects of covered and uncovered SEMSs for the palliation of malignant pyloric obstruction. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, single-center study. SETTING: Tertiary-care cancer center hospital. PATIENTS: This study involved 80 patients with pyloric obstruction related to inoperable gastric cancer. INTERVENTION: Covered or uncovered SEMS placement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Technical and clinical success rates as well as the patency rate at 8 weeks after placement. RESULTS: Both groups had a technical success rate of 100% with no immediate complications. Both groups also had comparable clinical success rates (covered SEMS, 95% [38 of 40] and uncovered SEMS, 90% [36 of 40], P = .68) and 8-week patency rates (covered SEMS, 61.3% [19 of 31] and uncovered SEMS, 61.1% [22 of 36], P > .99). Stent migration within 8 weeks was more common in the covered SEMS group (25.8% [8 of 31]) than in the uncovered SEMS group (2.8% [1 of 36], P = .009), whereas re-stenosis because of tumor ingrowth was more common in the uncovered SEMS group (25.0% [9 of 36] vs 0% [0 of 31] in the covered SEMS group, P = .003). Overall patient survival and stent patency did not differ between groups (P = .27 and 0.61 by log-rank test, respectively). LIMITATIONS: The study population was limited to gastric cancer patients, and stent designs were changed in the midst of the study period. CONCLUSION: Both the covered and uncovered SEMSs are effective and have comparable 8-week patency in patients with malignant pyloric obstruction, despite different patterns of late stent failure.

Phase II study of the paclitaxel, cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (TPFL) regimen in the treatment of advanced or metastatic gastric cancer.

Advanced or metastatic gastric cancer, which is one of the most common malignancies in Korea, is difficult to cure by surgery alone and generally requires combination chemotherapy. Paclitaxel is active against gastric cancer and when combined with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin and/or cisplatin is effective in the treatment of gastric cancer. We attempted to determine the effect and safety with the combination of paclitaxel with split cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin in advanced or metastatic gastric cancer. Patients with histologically-proven locally advanced/metastatic or recurrent gastric cancer with an ECOG performance status 0-2 were enrolled. The patients received 135 mg/m(2) of paclitaxel as a 3-h intravenous infusion on day 1 and 5-fluorouracil (1200 mg/m(2)) plus leucovorin (20 mg/m(2)) as an intravenous infusion over 12 h plus cisplatin (30 mg/m(2)) by continuous intravenous infusion on days 1-3, every 21 days. Between September 2003 and April 2005, 30 patients (26 evaluable patients) with a median age of 57 years (range 34-74) were enrolled and underwent 111 completed treatment cycles (a median of 3 cycles per patient). Of the evaluable patients, 12 patients showed a partial response and 8 patients had stable disease. The overall response rate was 46.2%. The median progression-free survival was 5.6 months (95% CI. 3.76-7.4 months), and the median overall survival was 9.6 months (95% CI. 6.67-12.47 months). The hematologic and non-hematologic toxicities were tolerable. The grade III and IV hematologic toxicities were anemia (6.8%) and neutropenia (2.6%). Febrile neutropenia was observed in 1 patients and 1 cycle. Other hematologic toxicities and grade III and IV non-hematologic toxicities, except nausea (66.7%) and vomiting (33.3%) were uncommon and not severe. TPFL combination chemotherapy is effective and tolerable with acceptable toxicities in patients with advanced/metastatic, recurrent gastric cancer.

Survival Benefit of Perioperative Chemotherapy in Patients with Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: a Propensity Score Matched Analysis.

PURPOSE: It has been reported that the survival of patients with locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) is better in East Asia countries than in developed western countries; however, the prognosis of LAGC remains poor. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of perioperative chemotherapy on the long-term survival of East Asia patients with LAGC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From October 2006 through August 2008, 43 patients with LAGC received perioperative S-1 combined with weekly docetaxel in a phase II study (neoadjuvant group). These patients were matched using propensity scores to patients who underwent surgery without neoadjuvant chemotherapy during the same period (surgery group). The surgical outcomes and long-term survivals were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: After matching, 43 and 86 patients were included in the neoadjuvant and surgery groups, respectively, and there was no significant difference in their baseline characteristics. Although the operating time was longer in the neoadjuvant group, there was no significant difference in postoperative complications between the 2 groups. The neoadjuvant group had a significantly higher 5-year overall survival (OS) rate (73.3% vs. 51.1%, P=0.005) and a trend towards higher 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) (62.8% vs. 49.9%, P=0.145). In the multivariate analysis, perioperative chemotherapy was an independent factor for OS, with a hazard ratio of 0.4 (P=0.005) and a marginal effect on the PFS (P=0.054). CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative chemotherapy was associated with better long-term survival without increasing postoperative complications in the setting of D2 surgery for patients with LAGC, suggesting that perioperative chemotherapy can be a therapeutic option in East Asia countries.

A randomised phase II study of continuous versus stop-and-go S-1 plus oxaliplatin following disease stabilisation in first-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic gastric cancer.

OBJECTIVES: We compared continuous versus stop-and-go chemotherapy after disease stabilisation with induction chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of metastatic gastric cancer (MGC). METHODS: MGC patients who achieved disease control after 6 cycles of S-1/oxaliplatin (SOX) were randomised to receive either continuous SOX until progression (continuous arm) or to have a chemotherapy-free interval followed by SOX reintroduction at progression (stop-and-go arm). The primary end-point was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of the 250 patients enrolled, 247 participated in the induction phase. Of these, 121 patients were randomised to the continuous arm (n = 59) or the stop-and-go arm (n = 62). Progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly longer in the continuous arm than in the stop-and-go arm (10.5 versus 7.2 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.55, 95% CI, 0.37-0.81; P = 0.002). Duration of disease control (DDC) and OS, however, were comparable between the two arms: median DDC, 10.5 versus 11.3 months, HR 0.92 (95% CI, 0.62-1.36; P = 0.674); median OS, 22.6 versus 22.7 months, HR 0.78 (95% CI, 0.50-1.23; P = 0.284). Adverse events including grade ≥3 fatigue (28.8% versus 8.1%; P = 0.003) and sensory neuropathy (25.4% versus 9.7%; P = 0.022) occurred more frequently in the continuous arm than in the stop-and-go arm. Quality of life (QOL) including global health status, physical/role functioning and other symptom scores significantly favoured the stop-and-go arm. CONCLUSION: Compared with the stop-and-go strategy, maintenance chemotherapy improved PFS but not DDC and OS and had a negative impact on QOL, suggesting the stop-and-go strategy may be an appropriate option in MGC patients following induction chemotherapy.

A Multicenter Randomized Phase II Study of Docetaxel vs. Docetaxel Plus Cisplatin vs. Docetaxel Plus S-1 as Second-Line Chemotherapy in Metastatic Gastric Cancer Patients Who Had Progressed after Cisplatin Plus Either S-1 or Capecitabine.

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the re-challenge of S-1 or cisplatin in combination with docetaxel in metastatic gastric cancer (MGC) that had progressed on a cisplatin plus either S-1 or capecitabine regimen. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with progressive disease after first-line cisplatin plus S-1 or capecitabine were randomized to receive 3-week cycles of docetaxel 75 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) on D1 (D), docetaxel 60 mg/m2 IV plus cisplatin 60 mg/m² IV on D1 (DC), or docetaxel 60 mg/m2 IV D1 plus oral S-1 30 mg/m2 twice a day on D1-14 (DS). RESULTS: Seventy-two patients were randomized to the D (n=23), DC (n=24), or DS (n=25) group. The confirmed response rate was 4.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0% to 12.6%), 4.3% (95% CI, 0% to 12.6%), and 8.7% (95% CI, 0% to 20.2%) for the D, DC, and DS groups, respectively. Compared to the D arm, the DS arm had a better progression-free survival (2.7 months vs. 1.3 months, p=0.034) without any deterioration in safety or quality of life, whereas the DC arm had a similar progression-free survival (1.8 months vs. 1.3 months, p=0.804) and poorer overall survival (5.6 months vs. 10.0 months, p=0.035). CONCLUSION: A re-challenge with S-1, but not cisplatin, in combination with docetaxel has potential anticancer benefits over docetaxel alone in MGC with progression after prior cisplatin plus S-1 or capecitabine.

Effect of a Proton Pump Inhibitor on Tumor Bleeding Prevention in Unresectable Gastric Cancer Patients: a Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Tumor bleeding is a major complication in inoperable gastric cancer. The study aim was to investigate the effects of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment for the prevention of gastric tumor bleeding. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was a prospective double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Patients with inoperable gastric cancer were randomly assigned to receive oral lansoprazole (30 mg) or placebo daily. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of tumor bleeding, and the secondary endpoints were transfusion requirement and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: This study initially planned to enroll 394 patients, but prematurely ended due to low recruitment rate. Overall, 127 patients were included in the analyses: 64 in the lansoprazole group and 63 in the placebo group. During the median follow-up of 6.4 months, tumor bleeding rates were 7.8% and 9.5%, in the lansoprazole and placebo groups, respectively, with the cumulative bleeding incidence not statistically different between the groups (P=0.515, Gray's test). However, during the initial 4 months, 4 placebo-treated patients developed tumor bleeding, whereas there were no bleeding events in the lansoprazole-treated patients (P=0.041, Gray's test). There was no difference in the proportion of patients who required transfusion between the groups. The OS between the lansoprazole (11.7 months) and the placebo (11.0 months) groups was not statistically different (P=0.610). Study drug-related serious adverse event or bleeding-related death did not occur. CONCLUSIONS: Treating patients with inoperable gastric cancer with lansoprazole did not significantly reduce the incidence of tumor bleeding. However, further studies are needed to evaluate whether lansoprazole can prevent tumor bleeding during earlier phases of chemotherapy (ClinicalTrial.gov, identifier No. NCT02150447).