Comparison of adjuvant capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX) versus S-1 after gastrectomy: a population-based cohort study using a nationwide claims database.

Although both capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX) and S-1 are accepted as adjuvant chemotherapy following gastrectomy for gastric cancer, the better option between the two is still controversial. We conducted a retrospective nationwide cohort study using data from the National Health Insurance Service of Korea. We included patients who underwent gastrectomy for a primary diagnosis of gastric cancer between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2018. The study compared the survival outcomes of patients who received postoperative chemotherapy based on S-1 (Arm S) vs. CAPOX (Arm C), as well as other relevant clinical variables such as comorbidity and completion of planned treatment. A total of 6602 patients were included in the analysis, with 4199 in Arm S and 2403 in Arm C. After propensity score matching, the final study population consisted of 2067 patients in each arm. Arm C showed statistically inferior 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates compared to Arm S (84.0% vs. 90.0%; p < 0.0001; and 78.4% vs. 86.1%; p < 0.0001). Age (65 ≥ vs. < 65) and the incomplete planned treatment also had a significant negative effect on both OS and DFS. In the multivariable analysis, Arm C still showed worse OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.609; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 1.339-1.934; p < 0.0001) and DFS (HR, 1.552; 95% CI 1.333-1.807; p < 0.0001) than Arm S. Both S-1 and CAPOX showed excellent efficacy, but this nationwide cohort study suggests that S-1 may be a better option in certain clinical situations.

Effect of Acupuncture on Delayed Emesis for the Patients Who Received High-Emetogenic Chemotherapy with Standard Antiemetic Prophylaxis (KHMC-HO-01): An Open-Label, Randomized Study.

Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most important issues associated with chemotherapy. The additional or synergistic effect of acupuncture on CINV remains controversial. Methods: Patients were randomized into either the group that received standard antiemetics with acupuncture (Arm A) or standard antiemetics only (Arm C). Acupuncture with manual stimulation was applied at eight predefined points and was started before the first cycle of chemotherapy on the first day and two additional sessions were administered on the second day of chemotherapy. Acute and delayed CINV was assessed using the Rhodes Index of Nausea, Vomiting, and Retching (RINVR) and the MASCC Antiemesis Tool (MAT). The primary outcome was the delayed nausea score assessed using the RINVR. Results: Overall, 42 patients were included. In the delay phase, the severity of delayed nausea was slightly lower without significance in Arm A than in Arm C (5.35 vs. 5.98, p = 0.3011). Similarly, patients in Arm A reported less severe vomiting than those in Arm C (0.75 vs. 1.25, p = 0.3064). Delayed nausea and vomiting assessed by the MAT showed significant relief with acupuncture compared to standard antiemesis alone. In terms of acute emesis, there was no significant difference between the two arms according to either scoring method. Conclusions: Delayed nausea after HEC tended to decrease with acupuncture using the RINVR score, though it was also not significant. With the MAT assessment, delayed emesis (nausea and vomiting) was significantly improved with acupuncture, suggesting a promising effect of acupuncture. This trial is registered with KCT0006477.

Effect of multimodal intervention care on cachexia in patients with advanced cancer compared to conventional management (MIRACLE): an open-label, parallel, randomized, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Cancer cachexia (CC) is a multifactorial process characterized by progressive weight loss, muscle mass, and fat tissue wasting, which adversely affects the quality of life and survival of patients with advanced stages of cancer. CC has a complex and multifactorial pathophysiology, and there is no established standard treatment. Therefore, it is often irreversible and a single treatment modality is unlikely to suppress its progression. We are conducting a randomized trial to investigate the efficacy and safety of a multimodal intervention compared to the best supportive care for patients who received palliative chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients with lung or gastrointestinal cancers undergoing palliative chemotherapy are eligible. Patients are randomized into a multimodal intervention care (MIC) arm versus a conventional palliative care (CPC) arm. MIC includes ibuprofen, omega-3-fatty acid, oral nutritional supplement, weekly physical, psychiatric assessment, nutritional counseling, and complementary and alternative medicine. CPC includes basic nutritional counseling and megestrol acetate as needed (i.e., anorexia ≥ grade 2). All interventions are performed for 12 weeks per subject. The co-primary outcomes are change (kg) in total lean body mass and handgrip strength (kg) from the baseline. A total of 112 patients will be assigned to the two arms (56 in each group). DISCUSSION: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of MIC in preventing or alleviating CC in patients who underwent palliative chemotherapy. As there is no established single treatment for CC, it is expected that the results of this clinical trial will provide new insights to significantly improve the quality of life of patients with cancer. Considering the complex mechanisms of cachexia, the effect of MIC rather than a single specific drug is more promising. In this study, we did not overly restrict the type of cancer or chemotherapy. Therefore, we attempted to measure the effects of complex interventions while preserving clinical situations. Thus, it is expected that the results of this study can be applied effectively to real-world practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This clinical trial was registered in the Clinical Research Information Service (KCT0004967), Korean Clinical Trial Registry on April 27, 2020, and ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT04907864) on June 1, 2021.