Quality of Life and Nutritional Outcomes of Stomach-Preserving Surgery for Early Gastric Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of the SENORITA Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The Sentinel Node Oriented Tailored Approach (SENORITA) randomized clinical trial evaluated quality of life (QoL) and nutritional outcomes between the laparoscopic sentinel node navigation surgery (LSNNS) and laparoscopic standard gastrectomy (LSG). However, there has been no report on the QoL and nutritional outcomes of patients who underwent stomach-preserving surgery among the LSNNS group. Objective: To compare long-term QoL and nutritional outcomes between patients who underwent stomach-preserving surgery and those who underwent standard gastrectomy and to identify factors associated with poor QoL outcomes in patients who underwent stomach-preserving surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a secondary analysis of the SENORITA trial, a randomized clinical trial comparing LSNNS with LSG. Patients from 7 tertiary or general hospitals across the Republic of Korea were enrolled from March 2013 to December 2016, with follow-up through 5 years. Data were analyzed between August and September 2022. Among trial participants, patients who underwent actual laparoscopic standard gastrectomy in the LSG group and those who underwent stomach-preserving surgery in the LSNNS group were included. Patients who did not complete the baseline or any follow-up questionnaire were excluded. Intervention: Stomach-preserving surgery vs standard gastrectomy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and stomach module (STO22) scores, body mass index, hemoglobin, protein, and albumin levels. Results: A total of 194 and 257 patients who underwent stomach-preserving surgery and standard gastrectomy, respectively, were included in this study (mean [SD] age, 55.6 [10.6] years; 249 [55.2%] male). The stomach-preserving group had better QoL scores at 3 months postoperatively in terms of physical function (87.2 vs 83.9), dyspnea (5.9 vs 11.2), appetite loss (13.1 vs 19.4), dysphagia (8.0 vs 12.7), eating restriction (10.9 vs 18.2), anxiety (29.0 vs 35.2), taste change (7.4 vs 13.0), and body image (19.5 vs 27.2). At 1 year postoperatively, the stomach-preserving group had significantly higher body mass index (23.9 vs 22.1, calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) and hemoglobin (14.3 vs 13.3 g/dL), albumin (4.3 vs 4.25 g/dL), and protein (7.3 vs 7.1 g/dL) levels compared to the standard group. Multivariable analyses showed that tumor location (greater curvature, lower third) was favorably associated with global health status (ß, 10.5; 95% CI, 3.2 to 17.8), reflux (ß, -8.4; 95% CI, -14.7 to -2.1), and eating restriction (ß, -5.7; 95% CI, -10.3 to -1.0) at 3 months postoperatively in the stomach-preserving group. Segmental resection was associated with risk of diarrhea (ß, 40.6; 95% CI, 3.1 to 78.1) and eating restriction (ß, 15.1; 95% CI, 1.1 to 29.1) at 3 years postoperatively. Conclusions and Relevance: Stomach-preserving surgery after sentinel node evaluation was associated with better long-term QoL and nutritional outcomes than standard gastrectomy. These findings may help facilitate decision-making regarding treatment for patients with early-stage gastric cancer. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01804998.

Clinical Efficacy of Laparoscopic Sentinel Node Navigation Surgery for Stomach Preservation in Patients With Early Gastric Cancer: 5-year Results of the SENORITA Trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare laparoscopic standard gastrectomy (LSG) and laparoscopic sentinel node navigation surgery (LSNNS) for EGC in terms of 5-year long-term oncologic outcomes. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The oncological safety of LSNNS for early gastric cancer (EGC) has not been confirmed. Three-year disease-free survival (DFS), which is the primary endpoint of the phase III multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial (SEntinel Node ORIented Tailored Approach [SENORITA] trial), did not show the non-inferiority of LSNNS relative to LSG. METHODS: The SENORITA trial, a multicenter randomized clinical trial, was designed to show that LSNNS is non-inferior to LSG in terms of 3-year DFS. In the present study, we collected 5-year follow-up data from 527 patients recruited in the SENORITA trial as the full analysis set (FAS). Disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), and recurrence patterns were evaluated using the FAS of both LSG (n=269) and LSNNS (n=258). RESULTS: The 5-year DFS was not significantly different between the LSG and LSNNS groups (P=0.0561). During the 5-year follow-up, gastric cancer-related events, such as metachronous cancer, were more frequent in the LSNNS group than in the LSG group. However, ten recurrent cancers in the remnant stomach of both groups were curatively resected by additional gastrectomy and one by additional endoscopic resection. Two of the 198 patients who underwent local resection for stomach preservation based on the LSNNS results developed distant metastasis. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the 5-year OS and DSS (P=0.7403 and P=0.9586, respectively) between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The 5-year DFS, DSS and OS did not differ significantly between the two groups. Considering the benefits of LSNNS on postoperative quality of life, LSNNS could be recommended as an alternative treatment option for EGC.

Personalized Biomarker-Based Umbrella Trial for Patients With Recurrent or Metastatic Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: KCSG HN 15-16 TRIUMPH Trial.

PURPOSE: A precise oncologic approach for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is necessary. We performed a genomic profile-based umbrella trial for the patients with platinum-refractory recurrent and/or metastatic HNSCC. METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label, single-arm phase II trial, we performed targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS). Patients were assigned to each treatment arm on the basis of their matching genomic profiles: arm 1, alpelisib, a PIK3CA inhibitor; arm 2, poziotinib, an epidermal growth factor receptor/HER2 inhibitor; arm 3, nintedanib, an fibroblast growth factor receptor inhibitor; and arm 4, abemaciclib, a CDK4/6 inhibitor. If there was no matching target, patients were allocated to arm 5, duvalumab ± tremelimumab, anti-PD-L1/cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4 inhibitor. When progressive disease (PD) occurred in arms 1-4, cross over to arm 5 was allowed. The primary end point was disease control rate (DCR) in arm 1 and overall response rate (ORR) in arms 2-5 by investigator assessment. RESULTS: Between October 2017 and August 2020, 203 patients were enrolled, including crossover. In arm 1, the ORR was 21.2% and DCR was 65.6%. The ORR was 0% for arm 2, 42.9% for arm 3, 0% for arm 4, and 15.6% for arm 5. In the case of PD with durvalumab, tremelimumab was added, and the ORR for durvalumab + tremelimumab was 2.2%. The median progression-free survival was 3.4, 3.2, 5.6, 1.6, and 1.7 months for each arm, respectively. The median overall survival was 12.4, 6.1, 11.1, 9.1, and 12.7 months, respectively. Overall, the toxicity profiles were manageable, and there were no treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this study is the first biomarker-driven umbrella trial for platinum-refractory HNSCC using matched molecular targeted agents. We found that NGS-based genomic phenotyping was methodologically feasible and applicable.

Phase III, Randomized Study of Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab and Chemotherapy in Patients With EGFR- or ALK-Mutated Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (ATTLAS, KCSG-LU19-04).

PURPOSE: In the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with a driver mutation, the role of anti-PD-(L)1 antibody after tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) remains unclear. This randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase III study evaluates the efficacy of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, paclitaxel, and carboplatin (ABCP ) in EGFR- or ALK-mutated NSCLC that progressed before TKI therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared the clinical efficacy of ABCP followed by maintenance therapy with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab with pemetrexed plus carboplatin or cisplatin (PC) followed by pemetrexed maintenance. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: A total of 228 patients with activating EGFR mutation (n = 215) or ALK translocation (n = 13) were enrolled from 16 sites in the Republic of Korea and randomly assigned at 2:1 ratio to either ABCP (n = 154) or PC arm (n = 74). The median follow-up duration was 26.1 months (95% CI, 24.7 to 28.2). Objective response rates (69.5% v 41.9%, P < .001) and median PFS (8.48 v 5.62 months, hazard ratio [HR], 0.62 [95% CI, 0.45 to 0.86]; P = .004) were significantly better in the ABCP than PC arm. PFS benefit increased as PD-L1 expression increased, with an HR of 0.47, 0.41, and 0.24 for PD-L1 ≥1%, ≥10%, and ≥50%, respectively. Overall survival was similar between ABCP and PC arm (20.63 v 20.27 months, HR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.69 to 1.46]; P = .975). The safety profile of the ABCP arm was comparable with that previously reported, with no additional safety signals, but higher rates of treatment-related adverse events were observed compared with the PC arm. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this study is the first randomized phase III study to demonstrate the clinical benefit of anti-PD-L1 antibody in combination with bevacizumab and chemotherapy in patients with EGFR- or ALK-mutated NSCLC who have progressed on relevant targeted therapy.

A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial to Compare Efficacy and Safety between Combination Therapy and Monotherapy in Elderly Patients with Advanced Gastric Cancer (KCSG ST13-10).

PURPOSE: This study evaluated whether combination therapy is more effective than monotherapy in elderly patients with metastatic or recurrent gastric cancer (MRGC) as first-line chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Elderly (≥ 70 years) chemo-naïve patients with MRGC were allocated to receive either combination therapy (group A: 5-fluorouracil [5-FU]/oxaliplatin, capecitabine/oxaliplatin, capecitabine/cisplatin, or S-1/cisplatin) or monotherapy (group B: 5-FU, capecitabine, or S-1). In group A, starting doses were 80% of standard doses, and they could be escalated to 100% at the discretion of the investigator. Primary endpoint was to confirm superior overall survival (OS) of combination therapy vs. monotherapy. RESULTS: After 111 of the planned 238 patients were randomized, enrollment was terminated due to poor accrual. In the full-analysis population (group A [n=53] and group B [n=51]), median OS of combination therapy vs. monotherapy was 11.5 vs. 7.5 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 1.30; p=0.231). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.6 vs. 3.7 months (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.83; p=0.005). In subgroup analyses, patients aged 70-74 years tended to have superior OS with combination therapy (15.9 vs. 7.2 months, p=0.056). Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred more frequently in group A vs. group B. However, among severe TRAEs (≥ grade 3), there were no TRAEs with a frequency difference of > 5%. CONCLUSION: Combination therapy was associated with numerically improved OS, although statistically insignificant, and a significant PFS benefit compared with monotherapy. Although combination therapy showed more frequent TRAEs, there was no difference in the frequency of severe TRAEs.

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.

Survival After Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy and Primary or Interval Cytoreductive Surgery in Ovarian Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Ovarian cancer has the highest mortality rate among gynecologic malignant tumors. Data are lacking on the survival benefit of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in women with ovarian cancer who underwent primary or interval cytoreductive surgery. Objective: To assess the clinical benefit of HIPEC after primary or interval maximal cytoreductive surgery in women with stage III or IV primary advanced ovarian cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this single-blind randomized clinical trial performed at 2 institutions in South Korea from March 2, 2010, to January 22, 2016, a total of 184 patients with stage III or IV ovarian cancer with residual tumor size less than 1 cm were randomized (1:1) to a HIPEC (41.5 °C, 75 mg/m2 of cisplatin, 90 minutes) or control group. The primary end point was progression-free survival. Overall survival and adverse events were key secondary end points. The date of the last follow-up was January 10, 2020, and the data were locked on February 17, 2020. Exposures: Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy after cytoreductive surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures: Progression-free and overall survival. Results: Of the 184 Korean women who underwent randomization, 92 were randomized to the HIPEC group (median age, 52.0 years; IQR, 46.0-59.5 years) and 92 to the control group (median age, 53.5 years; IQR, 47.5-61.0 years). After a median follow-up of 69.4 months (IQR, 54.4-86.3 months), median progression-free survival was 18.8 months (IQR, 13.0-43.2 months) in the control group and 19.8 months (IQR, 13.7-55.4 months) in the HIPEC group (P = .43), and median overall survival was 61.3 months (IQR, 34.3 months to not reported) in the control group and 69.5 months (IQR, 45.6 months to not reported) in the HIPEC group (P = .52). In the subgroup of interval cytoreductive surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the median progression-free survival was 15.4 months (IQR, 10.6-21.1 months) in the control group and 17.4 months (IQR, 13.8-31.5 months) in the HIPEC group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-0.99; P = .04), and the median overall survival was 48.2 months (IQR, 33.8-61.3 months) in the control group and 61.8 months (IQR, 46.7 months to not reported) in the HIPEC group (hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29-0.96; P = .04). In the subgroup of primary cytoreductive surgery, median progression-free survival was 29.7 (IQR, 17.2-90.1 months) in the control group and 23.9 months (IQR, 12.3-71.5 months) in the HIPEC group, and the median overall survival was not reached in the control group and 71.3 months (IQR, 45.6 months to not reported) in the HIPEC group. Conclusions and Relevance: The addition of HIPEC to cytoreductive surgery did not improve progression-free and overall survival in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Although the results are from a subgroup analysis, the addition of HIPEC to interval cytoreductive surgery provided an improvement of progression-free and overall survival. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01091636.

A risk scoring system to predict progression to severe pneumonia in patients with Covid-19.

Rapid outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) raised major concern regarding medical resource constraints. We constructed and validated a scoring system for early prediction of progression to severe pneumonia in patients with Covid-19. A total of 561 patients from a Covid-19 designated hospital in Daegu, South Korea were randomly divided into two cohorts: development cohort (N = 421) and validation cohort (N = 140). We used multivariate logistic regression to identify four independent risk predictors for progression to severe pneumonia and constructed a risk scoring system by giving each factor a number of scores corresponding to its regression coefficient. We calculated risk scores for each patient and defined two groups: low risk (0 to 8 points) and high risk (9 to 20 points). In the development cohort, the sensitivity and specificity were 83.8% and 78.9%. In the validation cohort, the sensitivity and specificity were 70.8% and 79.3%, respectively. The C-statistics was 0.884 (95% CI 0.833-0.934) in the development cohort and 0.828 (95% CI 0.733-0.923) in the validation cohort. This risk scoring system is useful to identify high-risk group for progression to severe pneumonia in Covid-19 patients and can prevent unnecessary overuse of medical care in limited-resource settings.

Laparoscopic Sentinel Node Navigation Surgery for Stomach Preservation in Patients With Early Gastric Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: To compare postoperative complications, long-term survival, and quality of life (QOL) after laparoscopic sentinel node navigation surgery (LSNNS) and laparoscopic standard gastrectomy (LSG). METHODS: Five hundred eighty patients with preoperatively diagnosed stage IA gastric adenocarcinoma (≤ 3 cm) were assigned to undergo either LSG or LSNNS. Observers were not blinded to patient grouping. The primary outcome was 3-year disease-free survival (3y-DFS). Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications, QOL, 3-year disease-specific survival (3y-DSS), and 3-year overall survival (3y-OS). RESULTS: In total, 527 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis population for the primary outcome (LSG, 269; LSNNS, 258). Stomach-preserving surgery was performed in 210 patients (81%) in the LSNNS group. During the median follow-up duration, the 3y-DFS rates in the LSG and LSNNS groups were 95.5% and 91.8%, respectively (difference: 3.7%; 95% CI, -0.6 to 8.1). Three patients with recurrence and five with metachronous gastric cancer in the LSNNS group underwent standard surgery. Two patients with distant metastasis in both groups were treated with palliative chemotherapy. The 3y-DSS and 3y-OS rates in the LSG and LSNNS groups were 99.5% and 99.1% (P = .59) and 99.2% and 97.6% (P = .17), respectively. Postoperative complications occurred in 19.0% of the LSG group and 15.5% of the LSNNS group (P = .294). The LSNNS group showed better physical function (P = .015), less symptoms (P < .001), and improved nutrition than the LSG group. CONCLUSION: LSNNS did not show noninferiority to LSG for 3y-DFS, with a 5% margin. However, the 3y-DSS and 3y-OS were not different after rescue surgery in cases of recurrence/metachronous gastric cancer, and LSNNS had better long-term QOL and nutrition than LSG.

Randomized Phase II Study of Axitinib versus Observation in Patients with Recurred or Metastatic Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: The role of chemotherapy in adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) is controversial because ACC is usually stable without chemotherapy and the lack of randomized trials. Here, we conducted the first randomized trial to evaluate the efficacy of axitinib as compared with observation in ACC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, prospective phase II trial, we enrolled patients with recurrent or metastatic ACC whose cancer had progressed within the past 9 months. Patients were randomly assigned to either axitinib (5 mg twice daily) or observation at a 1:1 ratio. Crossover from observation to axitinib was permitted after progression. The primary endpoint was a 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate. The secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), PFS, duration of response, and adverse events. RESULTS: Sixty patients were allocated to the axitinib or observation group, with response evaluation conducted in 54 patients. With a median follow-up of 25.4 months, the 6-month PFS rate was 73.0% with axitinib and 23.0% with observation. Median PFS was longer in the axitinib arm (10.8 months vs. 2.8 months, P < 0.001). The ORR of axitinib was 0.0%, but the disease control rate was 100.0% with axitinib and 51.9% with observation. Median OS was not reached with axitinib, but was 27.2 months with observation (P = 0.226). The most frequently reported adverse events for axitinib were oral mucositis and fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: In this first randomized trial in patients with ACC, axitinib significantly increased the 6-month PFS rate as compared with observation. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02859012).

Modulated electro-hyperthermia with weekly paclitaxel or cisplatin in patients with recurrent or persistent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal carcinoma: The KGOG 3030 trial.

The present study (KGOG 3030) aimed to evaluate the safety of modulated electro-hyperthermia (mEHT) therapy with weekly administration of paclitaxel or cisplatin in female patients with recurrent or persistent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal carcinoma. A total of 12 patients were randomized into the paclitaxel or cisplatin arm at a 1:1 ratio. Patients received weekly administration of paclitaxel (70 mg/m2) or cisplatin (40 mg/m2) intravenously on days 1, 8 and 15, and underwent mEHT therapy for 1 h on days 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, 18, 21 and 24 for each 4-week cycle. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). The secondary endpoints were treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), objective response rate, carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125) response rate, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). In total, 16 patients were recruited, but four patients dropped out. None of the 12 remaining patients (6 each in the two arms) experienced DLT. Overall, 0 and 4 grade 3 TEAEs (anemia, nausea, neutrophil count decreased and platelet count decreased) occurred in the paclitaxel and cisplatin arm, respectively. Furthermore, one confirmed partial response and two CA125 responses were observed in the cisplatin arm. The median PFS time in the paclitaxel and cisplatin arms was 3.0 months (range, 1.7-4.6 months) and 6.8 months (range, 3.9-11.8 months), respectively, while the median OS time was 11.5 months (range, 8.4-28.8+ months) and not reached (range, 3.9-38.5+ months), respectively. In conclusion, mEHT therapy with weekly paclitaxel or cisplatin appeared safe and warrants further investigation. The present trial was registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov on January 22, 2015 (trial registration no. NCT02344095).

Incorporating patient centered benefits as endpoints in randomized trials of maintenance therapies in advanced ovarian cancer: A position paper from the GCIG symptom benefit committee.

BACKGROUND: Quality of life and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important secondary endpoints and incorporated in most contemporary clinical trials. There have been deficiencies in their assessment and reporting in ovarian cancer clinical trials, particularly in trials of maintenance treatment where they are of particular importance. The Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) symptom benefit committee (SBC) recently convened a brainstorming meeting with representation from all collaborative groups to address questions of how to best incorporate PROMs into trials of maintenance therapies to support the primary endpoint which is usually progression free survival (PFS). These recommendations should harmonize the collection, analysis and reporting of PROM's across future GCIG trials. METHODS: Through literature review, trials analysis and input from international experts, the SBC identified four relevant topics to address with respect to promoting the role of PROMs to support the PFS endpoint in clinical trials of maintenance treatment for OC. RESULTS: The GCIG SBC unanimously accepted the importance of integrating PROM's in future maintenance trials and developed four guiding principles to be considered early in trial design. These include 1) adherence to SPIRIT-PRO guidelines, 2) harmonization of selection, collection and reporting of PROM's; 3) combining Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL) measures with clinical endpoints and 4) common approaches to dealing with incomplete HRQL data. CONCLUSIONS: Close attention to incorporating HRQL and PROM's is critical to interpret the results of ovarian cancer clinical trials of maintenance therapies. There should be a consistent approach to assessing and reporting patient centered benefits across all GCIG trials to enable cross trial comparisons which can be used to inform practice.

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.

First-iGAP: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Phase II Study of First-line Intercalated Gefitinib and Pemetrexed-Cisplatin Chemotherapy for Never-Smoker Lung Adenocarcinoma Patients.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate whether intercalated combination of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib and chemotherapy improves survival outcomes in never-smokers with advanced lung adenocarcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Never-smokers with chemo-naive stage IIIB/IV lung adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned to receive either gefitinib or placebo on days 5 to 18 of a 3-weekly cycle of pemetrexed and cisplatin. Chemotherapy was given up to 9 cycles, after which gefitinib or placebo was given daily. Patients in the placebo arm who had progression were crossed over to receive gefitinib. RESULTS: Between June 2012 and December 2014, 76 patients with median age of 58.0 years were randomized, 39 on gefitinib and 37 on the placebo arm. EGFR mutation was positive in 34 (44.7%) patients. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the 2 arms. The gefitinib arm had a better response rate (79.5% vs. 51.4%, P = .010) and median progression-free survival (PFS) (12.4 vs. 6.7 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0.49, P = .005) than the placebo arm; however, there was no statistically significant difference in median overall survival between the 2 arms (31.8 vs. 22.9 months, HR 0.78, P = .412). The PFS benefit of intercalated use of gefitinib over placebo was more apparent for patients with EGFR-mutant tumors (13.3 vs. 7.8 months, P = .025) than those with EGFR-wild-type tumors (8.2 vs. 6.6 months, P = .063). Overall, there was no difference in the frequency of severe adverse effect between the 2 arms. CONCLUSIONS: Intercalated combination of gefitinib with pemetrexed and cisplatin was well tolerated and improved PFS in never-smoker patients with lung adenocarcinoma.

Prognostic Value of CD200R1 mRNA Expression in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

Immune system dysfunction is associated with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) development and progression and immune checkpoint inhibitors have demonstrated substantial survival benefits in platinum-refractory HNSCC; therefore, we examined the prognostic value of immune-related gene (IRG) expression in HNSCC. We analyzed the expression of 82 IRGs in 71 patients with HNSCC enrolled in a feasibility study for a prospective HNSCC biomarker-driven umbrella trial (Korean Cancer Study Group TRIUMPH study, NCT03292250). CD200R1 was identified as an independent prognostic factor and validated in GEO and TCGA database. CD2000R1 mRNA expression was found to be an independent favorable prognostic factor in patients with HNSCC. Moreover, CD200R1 was found to affect genes and pathways associated with the immune response, while seven differentially expressed genes (CD8A, DOK2, CX3CR1, TYROBP, CXCL9, CD300LF, IFNG) were associated with CD200R1 expression. Samples with higher CD200R1 expression displayed higher tumor-infiltrating immune cell counts both in silico and in histological analysis. These findings will help in the development of more accurate prognostic tools and suggest CD200R1 modulation as a HNSCC immunotherapy.

Randomised Phase 2 study of lapatinib and vinorelbine vs vinorelbine in patients with HER2 + metastatic breast cancer after lapatinib and trastuzumab treatment (KCSG BR11-16).

BACKGROUND: The continuum of anti-HER2 agents is a standard treatment of HER2 + metastatic breast cancer (MBC). This study evaluated the efficacy of lapatinib plus vinorelbine in patients progressed on both trastuzumab and lapatinib treatments. METHODS: A total of 149 patients were randomly assigned to lapatinib with vinorelbine (LV) (n = 75; lapatinib, 1000 mg daily; vinorelbine 20 mg/m2 D1, D8 q3w) or vinorelbine (V) (n = 74; 30 mg/m2 D1, D8 q3w). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 18 weeks. RESULTS: The median number of previous anti-HER2 therapies was 2 (range 2-5). There was no significant difference in PFS rate at 18 weeks between LV and V arms (45.9% vs 38.9%, p = 0.40). ORR was 19.7% in LV arm, and 16.9% in V arm (p = 0.88). PFS and OS did not differ between two arms (LV vs V; median PFS, 16 vs 12 weeks, HR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.61-1.22; median OS, 15.0 vs 18.9 months, HR = 1.07, 95% CI 0.72-1.58). Toxicity profiles were similar in both arms and all were manageable. CONCLUSIONS: Lapatinib plus vinorelbine treatment was tolerable; however, it failed to demonstrate the clinical benefits over vinorelbine alone in patients with HER2 + MBC after progression on both trastuzumab and lapatinib. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01730677.

Oxaliplatin-Based Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Rectal Cancer After Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy (ADORE): Long-Term Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the role of oxaliplatin as adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with rectal cancer who received preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with fluoropyrimidine monotherapy and total mesorectal excision (TME). METHODS: The ADORE trial (adjuvant oxaliplatin in rectal cancer) is a multicenter, randomized trial in patients with postoperative ypStage II (ypT3-4N0) or III (ypTanyN1-2) rectal cancer after fluoropyrimidine-based preoperative CRT and TME. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive adjuvant chemotherapy either with FL (fluorouracil 380 mg/m2 and leucovorin 20 mg/m2) or FOLFOX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, leucovorin 200 mg/m2, and fluorouracil bolus 400 mg/m2 on day 1, fluorouracil infusion 2,400 mg/m2 for 46 hours). Stratification factors included ypStage and participating center. Primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: A total of 321 patients were enrolled between November 19, 2008, and June 12, 2012. Six-year DFS rates were 68.2% in the FOLFOX arm versus 56.8% in the FL arm, with a stratified hazard ratio of 0.63 (95% CI, 0.43 to 0.93; P = .018) by intention-to-treat analysis. In the subgroup analysis for DFS, FOLFOX was favorable versus FL in patients with ypStage III, ypN1b, ypN2, high-grade histology, minimally regressed tumor, and an absence of lymphovascular or perineural invasion. Six-year overall survival rate was 78.1% in the FOLFOX arm versus76.4% in the FL arm (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.45 to 1.19; P = .21). In the subgroup analysis for OS, FOLFOX was favorable versus FL in patients with ypN2 and minimally regressed tumor. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant FOLFOX improved DFS in patients with rectal cancer with ypStage II and III disease after preoperative CRT. Adjuvant FOLFOX may be considered on the basis of the postoperative pathologic stage in those who received preoperative CRT and TME.

The binary presence or absence of lymph node metastasis or extrathyroidal extension is not associated with survival in papillary thyroid cancers: Implications for staging systems.

BACKGROUND: The characteristics of diagnosed papillary thyroid cancer (PTC) have changed over time with the increasing trend of early diagnosis, and the survival impact of conventional prognostic factors such as lymph node metastasis (LNM) and extrathyroidal extension (ETE) is controversial. We investigated PTC prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) and disease specific survival (DSS), focusing on LNM, ETE, and their implications for PTC staging systems. METHODS: We assessed prognostic factors for OS and DSS in a nationwide sample of Korean PTC patients (N = 5192, median follow-up 121 months) using Cox regression. The binary presence or absence of LNM and ETE, as well as other measures of LNM and ETE, were examined for their survival impact. We also evaluated the relative performance of PTC staging systems before and after revising the staging criteria for LNM and ETE. RESULTS: The binary presence of LNM or ETE was not a prognostic factor for OS or DSS, nor were other various measures of LNM. However, the extent of ETE as none, microscopic, or gross independently influenced survival (OS hazard ratio for gross vs. none: 3.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.97-5.46; DSS hazard ratio for gross vs. none: 3.75, 95% CI 1.59-8.81). The performance of PTC staging systems improved when the extent of ETE and/or location of LNM were used as staging components. CONCLUSION: The extent of ETE and/or location of LNM may be better survival indicators than their binary presence or absence, and we propose staging criteria revisions to pertinent staging systems to better reflect the contemporary PTC population.

Prospective Multicenter Feasibility Study of Laparoscopic Sentinel Basin Dissection after Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Early Gastric Cancer: SENORITA 2 Trial Protocol.

PURPOSE: Although standard radical gastrectomy is recommended after noncurative resection of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer in most cases, residual tumor and lymph node metastasis have not been identified after surgery. The aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of sentinel node navigation surgery after noncurative ESD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This trial is an investigator-initiated, multicenter prospective phase II trial. Patients who underwent ESD for clinical stage T1N0M0 gastric cancer with noncurative resections were eligible. Qualified investigators who completed the prior phase III trial (SENORITA 1) are exclusively allowed to participate. In this study, 2 detection methods will be used: 1) intraoperative endoscopic submucosal injection of dual tracer, including radioisotope and indocyanine green (ICG) with sentinel basins detected using gamma-probe; 2) endoscopic injection of ICG, with sentinel basins detected using a fluorescence imaging system. Standard laparoscopic gastrectomy with lymphadenectomy will be performed. Sample size is calculated based on the inferior confidence interval of the detection rate of 95%, and the calculated accrual is 237 patients. The primary endpoint is detection rate, and the secondary endpoints are sensitivity and postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: This study is expected to clarify the feasibility of laparoscopic sentinel basin dissection after noncurative ESD. If the feasibility is demonstrated, a multicenter phase III trial will be initiated to compare laparoscopic sentinel node navigation surgery versus laparoscopic standard gastrectomy in early gastric cancer after endoscopic resection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03123042.

Randomized Open Label Phase III Trial of Irinotecan Plus Capecitabine versus Capecitabine Monotherapy in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer Previously Treated with Anthracycline and Taxane: PROCEED Trial (KCSG BR 11-01).

PURPOSE: We investigated whether irinotecan plus capecitabine improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with capecitabine alone in patients with human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2) negative and anthracycline and taxane pretreated metastatic breast cancer (MBC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 221 patients were randomly assigned to irinotecan (80 mg/m2, days 1 and 8) and capecitabine (1,000 mg/m2 twice a day, days 1-14) or capecitabine alone (1,250 mg/m2 twice a day, days 1-14) every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was PFS. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in PFS between the combination and monotherapy arm (median, 6.4 months vs. 4.7 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 1.11; p=0.84). In patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC, n=90), the combination significantly improved PFS (median, 4.7 months vs. 2.5 months; HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.91; p=0.02). Objective response rate was numerically higher in the combination arm, though it failed to reach statistical significance (44.4% vs. 33.3%, p=0.30). Overall survival did not differ between arms (median, 20.4 months vs. 24.0 months; p=0.63). While grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was more common in the combination arm (39.6% vs 9.0%), hand-foot syndrome was more often observed in capecitabine arm. Quality of life measurements in global health status was similar. However, patients in the combination arm showed significantly worse symptom scales especially in nausea/vomiting and diarrhea. CONCLUSION: Irinotecan plus capecitabine did not prove clinically superior to single-agent capecitabine in anthracycline- and taxane-pretreated HER2 negative MBC patients. Toxicity profiles of the two groups differed but were manageable. The role of added irinotecan in patients with TNBC remains to be elucidated.