A phase II study of FOLFOX combined with nab-paclitaxel in the treatment of metastatic or advanced unresectable gastric, gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: a Big Ten Cancer Research Consortium trial.

BACKGROUND: Doublet platinum or taxane-based therapies are the current standard backbone of treatment for advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma. Previously used anthracycline-based triplet regimens are no longer used routinely due to toxicity and lack of superior efficacy. We hypothesized that the addition of nab-paclitaxel to FOLFOX (FOLFOX-A) would induce higher efficacy and better tolerability. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with chemotherapy-naïve advanced unresectable HER2-negative gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma were enrolled in this phase II single-arm trial of FOLFOX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, 5-FU 2400 mg/m2 over 46-48 hours) + nab-paclitaxel (150 mg/m2) every 14 days of a 28-day cycle. Evaluable disease according to RECIST v1.1 for solid tumors was required. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate. Simon's optimal 2-stage design was used to test 5% versus 20% response rate with 90% power and 10% one-sided type I error rate. RESULTS: The study enrolled 39 patients. Median age was 63 (range 20-80) years, 30 (77%) were male, 34 (94%) were White, and 21 (57%) had gastric tumors. The median number of cycles completed was 4.5 (range: 0-36), and 25 patients required dose reductions or discontinuation of at least one component due to toxicity. Of the 38 patients evaluable for response, 15 (42.9%) had complete/partial response (CR/PR) as the best response, and 13 (37.1%) had stable disease. progression-free survival (PFS) and OS data were available for 38 patients, with a median follow-up duration of 27 months (range: 18.2-51.9 months for censored patients). Median PFS was 6.6 months (95% CI: 5.6-12.9), with 31.0% (95% CI: 18.4%-52.4%) 12-month PFS rate. The median OS was 10.5 months (95% CI: 8.8-20.7), 12-month OS rate was 44.7% (95% CI: 31.4%-63.7%). Treatment-related grade 3-4 toxicities included peripheral sensory neuropathy and anemia (18.4% each), neutropenia (15.8%), and diarrhea and lymphopenia (7.9% each). CONCLUSIONS: FOLFOX-A has a significant response rate, expected toxicities, and should be considered for future investigation in combination with immunotherapy given the recent approvals.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Rectal Cancer, Version 3.2024.

The determination of an optimal treatment plan for an individual patient with rectal cancer is a complex process. In addition to decisions relating to the intent of rectal cancer surgery (ie, curative or palliative), consideration must also be given to the likely functional results of treatment, including the probability of maintaining or restoring normal bowel function/anal continence and preserving genitourinary functions. Particularly for patients with distal rectal cancer, finding a balance between curative-intent therapy while having minimal impact on quality of life can be challenging. Furthermore, the risk of pelvic recurrence is higher in patients with rectal cancer compared with those with colon cancer, and locally recurrent rectal cancer is associated with a poor prognosis. Careful patient selection and the use of sequenced multimodality therapy following a multidisciplinary approach is recommended. These NCCN Guidelines Insights detail recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Cancer, including the addition of endoscopic submucosal dissection as an option for early-stage rectal cancer, updates to the total neoadjuvant therapy approach based on the results of recent clinical trials, and the addition of a "watch-and-wait" nonoperative management approach for clinical complete responders to neoadjuvant therapy.

Colon Cancer, Version 3.2024, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most frequently diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Management of disseminated metastatic CRC involves various active drugs, either in combination or as single agents. The choice of therapy is based on consideration of the goals of therapy, the type and timing of prior therapy, the mutational profile of the tumor, and the differing toxicity profiles of the constituent drugs. This manuscript summarizes the data supporting the systemic therapy options recommended for metastatic CRC in the NCCN Guidelines for Colon Cancer.

Neoadjuvant Versus Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Resectable Metastatic Colon Cancer in Non-academic and Academic Programs.

BACKGROUND: Overall survival advantage of chemotherapy before versus after metastasectomy of liver or lung lesion is not clear for colon cancer with synchronous liver or lung metastasis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adults 20 years or older with primary colon cancer and single organ metastatic disease either in the liver or lung at diagnosis were identified between 2010 and 2015 through the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Patients were categorized into 2 cohorts: pre-operative/peri-operative chemotherapy (neoadjuvant -[NAC]) or post-operative chemotherapy (adjuvant [AC]). Survivals and factors associated with were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: A total of 3038 patients with colon cancer with liver or lung metastases were identified. The percentage of patients receiving NAC had steadily increased from 12.29% to 28.31%, mostly in academic programs. On multivariate analysis, patients who received NAC had an overall survival advantage in the non-academic setting whereas no advantage is seen in the patients treated in the academic settings. The median overall survival for patients receiving NAC and AC was 47.24 months and 38.08 months, respectively. Factors associated with overall survival advantage in NAC patients treated in non-academic programs included age 20-49 years, CEA value of >30, right-sided colon primary, liver metastasis, and clear resection margins. CONCLUSIONS: Metastatic colon cancer with single organ liver or lung lesions benefits from neoadjuvant chemotherapy, especially in -non-academic settings. The overall survival advantage in this setting has not been shown before.

Phase III Prospectively Randomized Trial of Perioperative 5-FU After Curative Resection for Colon Cancer: An Intergroup Trial of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (E1292).

BACKGROUND: Studies suggest that adjuvant chemotherapy should be initiated at the earliest possible time. The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) and Intergroup evaluated the effect of perioperative fluorouracil (5-FU) on overall survival (OS) for colon cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This phase III trial randomized patients to receive continuous infusional 5-FU for 7 days starting within 24 h after curative resection (arm A) or no perioperative 5-FU (arm B). Patients with Dukes' B3 and C disease received adjuvant chemotherapy per standard of care. The primary endpoint of the trial was overall survival in patients with Dukes' B3 and C disease. The secondary objective was to determine whether a week of perioperative infusion would affect survival in patients with Dukes' B2 colon cancer with no additional chemotherapy. RESULTS: From August 1993 to May 2000, 859 patients were enrolled and 855 randomized (arm A: 427; arm B: 428). The trial was terminated early due to slow accrual. The median follow-up is 15.4 years (0.03-20.3 years). Among patients with Dukes' B3 and C disease, there was no statistically significant difference in OS [median 10.3 years (95% CI 8.4, 13.2) for perioperative chemotherapy and 9.3 years (95% CI 5.7, 12.3) for no perioperative therapy, one-sided log-rank p = 0.178, HR = 0.88 (95% CI 0.66, 1.16)] or disease-free survival (DFS). For patients with Dukes' B2 disease, there was also no significant difference in OS (median 16.1 versus 12.9 years) or DFS. There was no difference between treatment arms in operative complications. One week of continuous infusion of 5-FU was tolerable; 18% of arm A patients experienced grade 3 or greater toxicity.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Biliary Tract Cancers, Version 2.2023.

In 2023, the NCCN Guidelines for Hepatobiliary Cancers were divided into 2 separate guidelines: Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Biliary Tract Cancers. The NCCN Guidelines for Biliary Tract Cancers provide recommendations for the evaluation and comprehensive care of patients with gallbladder cancer, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. The multidisciplinary panel of experts meets at least on an annual basis to review requests from internal and external entities as well as to evaluate new data on current and emerging therapies. These Guidelines Insights focus on some of the recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Biliary Tract Cancers as well as the newly published section on principles of molecular testing.

Ampullary Adenocarcinoma, Version 1.2023, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Ampullary cancers refer to tumors originating from the ampulla of Vater (the ampulla, the intraduodenal portion of the bile duct, and the intraduodenal portion of the pancreatic duct), while periampullary cancers may arise from locations encompassing the head of the pancreas, distal bile duct, duodenum, or ampulla of Vater. Ampullary cancers are rare gastrointestinal malignancies, and prognosis varies greatly based on factors such as patient age, TNM classification, differentiation grade, and treatment modality received. Systemic therapy is used in all stages of ampullary cancer, including neoadjuvant therapy, adjuvant therapy, and first-line or subsequent-line therapy for locally advanced, metastatic, and recurrent disease. Radiation therapy may be used in localized ampullary cancer, sometimes in combination with chemotherapy, but there is no high-level evidence to support its utility. Select tumors may be treated surgically. This article describes NCCN recommendations regarding management of ampullary adenocarcinoma.

Anal Carcinoma, Version 2.2023, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

This discussion summarizes the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines for managing squamous cell anal carcinoma, which represents the most common histologic form of the disease. A multidisciplinary approach including physicians from gastroenterology, medical oncology, surgical oncology, radiation oncology, and radiology is necessary. Primary treatment of perianal cancer and anal canal cancer are similar and include chemoradiation in most cases. Follow-up clinical evaluations are recommended for all patients with anal carcinoma because additional curative-intent treatment is possible. Biopsy-proven evidence of locally recurrent or persistent disease after primary treatment may require surgical treatment. Systemic therapy is generally recommended for extrapelvic metastatic disease. Recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Anal Carcinoma include staging classification updates based on the 9th edition of the AJCC Staging System and updates to the systemic therapy recommendations based on new data that better define optimal treatment of patients with metastatic anal carcinoma.

Baseline Quality of Life is a Strong and Independent Prognostic Factor for Overall Survival in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have established that higher baseline quality of life (QOL) scores are associated with improved survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We examined the relationship between overall survival (OS) and baseline QOL. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 1 247 patients with mCRC participating in N9741 (comparing bolus 5-FU/LV, irinotecan [IFL] vs infusional 5-FU/leucovorin [LV]/oxaliplatin [FOLFOX] vs. irinotecan/oxaliplatin [IROX]) provided data at baseline on overall QOL using a single-item linear analogue self-assessment (LASA) 0-100 point scale. The association of OS according to clinically deficient (defined as CD-QOL, score 0-50) vs not clinically deficient (nCD-QOL, score 51-100) baseline QOL scores was tested. A multivariable analysis using Cox proportional hazards modeling was performed to adjust for the effects of multiple baseline factors. An exploratory analysis was performed evaluating OS according to baseline QOL status among patients who did or did not receive second-line therapy. RESULTS: Baseline QOL was a strong predictor of OS for the whole cohort (CD-QOL vs nCD-QOL: 11.2 months vs 18.4 months, P < .0001), and in each arm IFL 12.4 vs 15.1 months, FOLFOX 11.1 months vs 20.6 months, and IROX 8.9 months vs 18.1 months. Baseline QOL was associated with baseline performance status (PS) (P < .0001). After adjusting for PS and treatment arm, baseline QOL was still associated with OS (P = .017). CONCLUSIONS: Baseline QOL is an independent prognostic factor for OS in patients with mCRC. The demonstration that patient-assessed QOL and PS are independent prognostic indicators suggests that these assessments provide important complementary prognostic information.

Neoadjuvant therapy use and association with postoperative outcomes and overall survival in patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Evidence for neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) in extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (eCCA) is limited. Our objectives were to: (1) characterize treatment trends, (2) identify factors associated with receipt of NAT, and (3) evaluate associations between NAT and postoperative outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of the National Cancer Database (2004-2017). Multivariable logistic regression assessed associations between NAT and postoperative outcomes. Stratified analysis evaluated differences between surgery first, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT). RESULTS: Among 8040 patients, 417 (5.2%) received NAT. NAT increased during the study period 2.9%-8.4% (p < 0.001). Factors associated with receipt of NAT included age <50 (vs. >75, odds ratio [OR] 4.32, p < 0.001) and stage 3 disease (vs. 1, OR 1.68, p = 0.01). Compared with surgery first, patients who received NAT had higher odds of R0 resection (OR 1.49, p = 0.01) and lower 30-day mortality (OR 0.51, p = 0.04). On stratified analysis, neoadjuvant chemotherapy was not associated with differences in any outcomes. However, neoadjuvant CRT was associated with improvement in R0 resection (OR 3.52, <0.001) and median survival (47.8 vs. 25.3 months, log-rank < 0.001) compared to surgery first. CONCLUSIONS: NAT, particularly neoadjuvant CRT, was associated with improved postoperative outcomes. These data suggest expanding the use of neoadjuvant CRT for eCCA.

A phase II study of sapanisertib (TAK-228) a mTORC1/2 inhibitor in rapalog-resistant advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNET): ECOG-ACRIN EA2161.

This was a two-stage phase II trial of a mTORC1/2 inhibitor (mTORC: mammalian target of rapamycin complex) Sapanisertib (TAK228) in patients with rapalog-resistant pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) (NCT02893930). Approved rapalogs such as everolimus inhibit mTORC1 and have limited clinical activity, possibly due to compensatory feedback loops. Sapanisertib addresses the potential for incomplete inhibition of the mTOR pathway through targeting of both mTORC1 and mTORC2, and thus to reverse resistance to earlier rapamycin analogues. In stage 1, patients received sapanisertib 3 mg by mouth once daily on a continuous dosing schedule in 28-day cycle. This trial adopted a two-stage design with the primary objective of evaluating objective tumor response. The first stage would recruit 13 patients in order to accrue 12 eligible and treated patients. If among the 12 eligible patients at least 1 patient had an objective response to therapy, the study would move to the second stage of accrual where 25 eligible and treated patients would be enrolled. This study activated on February 1, 2017, the required pre-determined number of patients (n = 13) had entered by November 5, 2018 for the first stage response evaluation. The accrual of this trial was formally terminated on December 27, 2019 as no response had been observed after the first stage accrual. Treatment-related grade 3 adverse events were reported in eight (61%) patients with hyperglycemia being the most frequent, in three patients (23%). Other toxicities noted in the trial included fatigue, rash diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting. The median PFS was 5.19 months (95% CI [3.84, 9.30]) and the median OS was 20.44 months (95% CI [5.65, 22.54]). Due to the lack of responses in Stage 1 of the study, the study did not proceed to stage 2. Thus the potential to reverse resistance was not evident.

Rectal Cancer, Version 2.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Cancer focuses on management of malignant polyps and resectable nonmetastatic rectal cancer because important updates have been made to these guidelines. These recent updates include redrawing the algorithms for stage II and III disease to reflect new data supporting the increasingly prominent role of total neoadjuvant therapy, expanded recommendations for short-course radiation therapy techniques, and new recommendations for a "watch-and-wait" nonoperative management technique for patients with cancer that shows a complete response to neoadjuvant therapy. The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Cancer, available online at NCCN.org, covers additional topics including risk assessment, pathology and staging, management of metastatic disease, posttreatment surveillance, treatment of recurrent disease, and survivorship.

Management of colorectal cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic: Recommendations from a statewide multidisciplinary cancer collaborative.

COVID-19 has resulted in significant disruptions in cancer care. The Illinois Cancer Collaborative (ILCC), a statewide multidisciplinary cancer collaborative, has developed expert recommendations for triage and management of colorectal cancer when disruptions occur in usual care. Such recommendations would be applicable to future outbreaks of COVID-19 or other large-scale disruptions in cancer care.

Use of Molecular Assays and Circulating Tumor DNA in Early-Stage Colorectal Cancer: A Roundtable Discussion of the Gastrointestinal Cancer Therapy Expert Group.

The use of genomic testing is rapidly emerging as an important clinical tool both for cancer diagnosis and for guiding treatment decisions in a wide range of malignancies, including gastrointestinal (GI) cancers such as colorectal cancer (CRC). Advances in technologies such as polymerase chain reaction and next-generation sequencing methods have made it possible to noninvasively screen for CRC through, for example, the use of blood- or stool-based testing, with high specificity. Tests are also available that can provide prognostic information beyond traditional clinicopathologic factors such as tumor size, grade, and nodal status, which can enable clinicians to more accurately risk stratify patients for recurrence. Lastly, in the setting of resected CRC, tests are now available that can detect circulating tumor DNA as a means for noninvasive minimal/molecular residual disease monitoring, thereby potentially guiding the use of adjuvant chemotherapy and/or escalating or de-escalating therapy. The Gastrointestinal Cancer Therapy Expert Group (GICTEG) recently convened a virtual meeting to discuss current issues related to genomic testing in GI cancer, with the goal of providing guidance on the use of these tests for the practicing community oncologist, for whom GI cancer may be only one of many tumor types encountered. This article provides a summary of the discussion and highlights the key opinions of the GICTEG on this topic. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The Gastrointestinal Cancer Therapy Expert Group seeks to provide practical guidance and opinion on the treatment of gastrointestinal malignancies, including colorectal cancer (CRC), for the practicing community oncologist in situations for which guidelines from established bodies, such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American Society of Clinical Oncology, may be less clear. In the present report, clinical guidance on the use of molecular assays for a range of clinical indications in CRC is presented, including the use of circulating tumor DNA to detect minimal/molecular residual disease in patients with successfully resected early-stage CRC.

Development of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Carcinoid Syndrome Symptom Index.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a symptom-focused index to evaluate representative symptoms, treatment side effects, and emotional and functional well-being of patients with carcinoid syndrome (CS). METHODS: The development of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Carcinoid Syndrome Symptom Index (FACT-CSI) followed US Food and Drug Administration guidelines for the development of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures and involved the following: (a) literature review; (b) interviews with 14 CS patients; (c) interviews with 9 clinicians; and (d) instrument development involving input from a range of PRO measure development and CS experts. The resulting draft instrument underwent cognitive interviews with 7 CS patients. RESULTS: Forty-six CS sources were reviewed. Analysis of patient interviews produced 23 patient-reported symptoms. The most frequently endorsed physical symptoms were flushing, diarrhea, abdominal pain, fatigue, and food sensitivity/triggers. Seven priority CS emotional and functional themes were also identified by patients. Expert interviews revealed 12 unique priority symptoms - the most common being diarrhea, flushing, wheezing, edema, abdominal pain/cramping, fatigue, and 8 emotional and functional concerns. Through an iterative process of team and clinical collaborator meetings, data review, item reduction and measure revision, 24 items were selected for the draft symptom index representing symptoms, emotional concerns, global assessment of treatment side effects, and functional well-being. Cognitive interview results demonstrated strong content validity, including positive endorsement of item clarity (>86% across items), symptom relevance (>70% for most items), and overall measure content (86%). CONCLUSIONS: The FACT-CSI is a content-relevant, symptom-focused index reflecting the highest priority and clinically relevant symptoms and concerns of people with CS.

Neuroendocrine and Adrenal Tumors, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Neuroendocrine and Adrenal Gland Tumors focus on the diagnosis, treatment, and management of patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), adrenal tumors, pheochromocytomas, paragangliomas, and multiple endocrine neoplasia. NETs are generally subclassified by site of origin, stage, and histologic characteristics. Appropriate diagnosis and treatment of NETs often involves collaboration between specialists in multiple disciplines, using specific biochemical, radiologic, and surgical methods. Specialists include pathologists, endocrinologists, radiologists (including nuclear medicine specialists), and medical, radiation, and surgical oncologists. These guidelines discuss the diagnosis and management of both sporadic and hereditary neuroendocrine and adrenal tumors and are intended to assist with clinical decision-making. This article is focused on the 2021 NCCN Guidelines principles of genetic risk assessment and counseling and recommendations for well-differentiated grade 3 NETs, poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas, adrenal tumors, pheochromocytomas, and paragangliomas.

Hepatobiliary Cancers, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Guidelines for Hepatobiliary Cancers focus on the screening, diagnosis, staging, treatment, and management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), gallbladder cancer, and cancer of the bile ducts (intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma). Due to the multiple modalities that can be used to treat the disease and the complications that can arise from comorbid liver dysfunction, a multidisciplinary evaluation is essential for determining an optimal treatment strategy. A multidisciplinary team should include hepatologists, diagnostic radiologists, interventional radiologists, surgeons, medical oncologists, and pathologists with hepatobiliary cancer expertise. In addition to surgery, transplant, and intra-arterial therapies, there have been great advances in the systemic treatment of HCC. Until recently, sorafenib was the only systemic therapy option for patients with advanced HCC. In 2020, the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab became the first regimen to show superior survival to sorafenib, gaining it FDA approval as a new frontline standard regimen for unresectable or metastatic HCC. This article discusses the NCCN Guidelines recommendations for HCC.

Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death among men and women in the United States. A major challenge in treatment remains patients' advanced disease at diagnosis. The NCCN Guidelines for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma provides recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up for patients with pancreatic cancer. Although survival rates remain relatively unchanged, newer modalities of treatment, including targeted therapies, provide hope for improving patient outcomes. Sections of the manuscript have been updated to be concordant with the most recent update to the guidelines. This manuscript focuses on the available systemic therapy approaches, specifically the treatment options for locally advanced and metastatic disease.

Colon Cancer, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Colon Cancer focuses on systemic therapy options for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), because important updates have recently been made to this section. These updates include recommendations for first-line use of checkpoint inhibitors for mCRC, that is deficient mismatch repair/microsatellite instability-high, recommendations related to the use of biosimilars, and expanded recommendations for biomarker testing. The systemic therapy recommendations now include targeted therapy options for patients with mCRC that is HER2-amplified, or BRAF V600E mutation-positive. Treatment and management of nonmetastatic or resectable/ablatable metastatic disease are discussed in the complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Colon Cancer available at NCCN.org. Additional topics covered in the complete version include risk assessment, staging, pathology, posttreatment surveillance, and survivorship.

Health-related quality of life in advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer with second-line pembrolizumab in KEYNOTE-061.

BACKGROUND: In the primary analysis population (i.e., PD-L1 combined positive score [CPS] ≥ 1) of the phase 3 KEYNOTE-061 study (NCT02370498), pembrolizumab did not significantly prolong overall survival or progression-free survival. Pembrolizumab had a favorable safety profile in the all-patient population. We present results of prespecified health-related quality of life (HRQoL) analyses. METHODS: HRQoL was measured using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30), EORTC QLQ gastric cancer questionnaire (QLQ-STO22), and EuroQol 5-dimension, 3-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L). Data were analyzed from patients who received ≥ 1 dose of study treatment and who completed ≥ 1 HRQoL assessment. Key analyses included baseline to week 12 least-squares mean (LSM) change in global health status (GHS)/QoL, functional/symptom subscales, and time to deterioration (TTD; ≥ 10-point decrease from baseline) for specific subscales. RESULTS: The HRQoL population included 371 patients (pembrolizumab, n = 188; paclitaxel, n = 183). Compliance and completion rates for all 3 questionnaires were similar in both groups at baseline and week 12. There was no difference in LSM change between groups (- 3.54; 95% CI - 8.92 to 1.84) in GHS/QoL at week 12. LSM change from baseline to week 12 for most QLQ-C30, QLQ-STO22, and EQ-5D-3L subscales indicated some worsening of QoL in both groups. TTD for GHS/QoL, nausea/vomiting, and appetite loss subscales in QLQ-C30 and the pain subscales in QLQ-STO22 were similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this population with advanced gastric and GEJ cancer receiving second-line treatment, HRQoL was similar in patients receiving pembrolizumab and those receiving paclitaxel. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY AND NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02370498.