Is there a preferred platinum and fluoropyrimidine regimen for advanced HER2-negative esophagogastric adenocarcinoma? Insights from 1293 patients in AGAMENON-SEOM registry.

BACKGROUND: The optimal chemotherapy backbone for HER2-negative advanced esophagogastric cancer, either in combination with targeted therapies or as a comparator in clinical trials, is uncertain. The subtle yet crucial differences in platinum-based regimens' safety and synergy with combination treatments need consideration. METHODS: We analyzed cases from the AGAMENON-SEOM Spanish registry of HER2-negative advanced esophagogastric adenocarcinoma treated with platinum and fluoropyrimidine from 2008 to 2021. This study focused exclusively on patients receiving one of the four regimens: FOLFOX (5-FU and oxaliplatin), CAPOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin), CP (capecitabine and cisplatin) and FP (5-FU and cisplatin). The aim was to determine the most effective and tolerable platinum and fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy regimen and to identify any prognostic factors. RESULTS: Among 1293 patients, 36% received either FOLFOX (n = 468) or CAPOX (n = 466), 20% CP (n = 252), and 8% FP (n = 107). FOLFOX significantly increased PFS (progression free survival) compared to CP, with a hazard ratio of 0.73 (95% CI 0.58-0.92, p = 0.009). The duration of treatment was similar across all groups. Survival outcomes among regimens were similar, but analysis revealed worse ECOG-PS (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-Performance Status), > 2 metastatic sites, bone metastases, hypoalbuminemia, higher NLR (neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio), and CP regimen as predictors of poor PFS. Fatigue was common in all treatments, with the highest incidence in FOLFOX (77%), followed by FP (72%), CAPOX (68%), and CP (60%). Other notable toxicities included neuropathy (FOLFOX 69%, CAPOX 62%), neutropenia (FOLFOX 52%, FP 55%), hand-foot syndrome in CP (46%), and thromboembolic events (FP 12%, CP 11%). CONCLUSIONS: FOLFOX shown better PFS than CP. Adverse effects varied: neuropathy was more common with oxaliplatin, while thromboembolism was more frequent with cisplatin.

Is advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma a distinct entity from intestinal subtype gastric cancer? Data from the AGAMENON-SEOM Registry.

BACKGROUND: Advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is generally treated similarly to advanced gastroesophageal junction (GEJ-AC) and gastric (GAC) adenocarcinomas, although GAC clinical trials rarely include EAC. This work sought to compare clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of advanced EAC with those of GEJ-AC and GAC and examine prognostic factors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Participants comprised patients with advanced EAC, intestinal GEJ-AC, and GAC treated with platin and fluoropyrimidine (plus trastuzumab when HER2 status was positive). Overall and progression-free survival were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards regression gauged the prognostic value of the AGAMENON model. RESULTS: Between 2008 and 2019, 971 participants from the AGAMENON-SEOM registry were recruited at 35 centers. The sample included 67.3% GAC, 13.3% GEJ-AC, and 19.4% EAC. Pulmonary metastases were most common in EAC and peritoneal metastases in GAC. Median PFS and OS were 7.7 (95% CI 7.3-8.0) and 13.9 months (12.9-14.7). There was no difference in PFS or OS between HER2- and HER2+ tumors from the three locations (p > 0.05). Five covariates were found to be prognostic for the entire sample: ECOG-PS, histological grade, number of metastatic sites, NLR, and HER2+ tumors treated with trastuzumab. In EAC, the same variables were prognostic except for grade. The favorable prognosis for HER2+ cancers treated with trastuzumab was homogenous for all three subgroups (p = 0.351) and, after adjusting for the remaining covariates, no evidence supported primary tumor localization as a prognostic factor (p = 0.331). CONCLUSION: Our study supports the hypothesis that EAC exhibits clinicopathological characteristics, prognostic factors, and treatment outcomes comparable to intestinal GEJ-AC and GAC.

External validity of docetaxel triplet trials in advanced gastric cancer: are there patients who still benefit?

BACKGROUND: The purpose of our study was to develop an online calculator to estimate the effect of docetaxel triplets (DPF) in first line of advanced gastric cancer (AGC), and to assess the external validity of docetaxel trials in individual patients. METHODS: The study includes patients with HER2(-) AGC treated with platin and fluoropyrimidine (PF) or with DPF in first line. Treatment effect and interactions were assessed using Bayesian accelerated failure time models. RESULT: The series comprises 1376 patients; 238 treated with DPF and 1138 with PF between 2008 and 2019. DPF was associated with increased progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with time ratio (TR) 1.27 (95% credible interval [CrI], 1.15-1.40), and TR 1.19 (95% CrI, 1.09-1.27), respectively. Serious adverse events were more common with DPF, particularly hematological effects (32% vs 22%). Younger participants received greater DPF dose density without achieving greater disease control, while severe toxicity was likewise higher. DPF yielded superior OS in Lauren intestinal (TR 1.27, 95% CrI, 1.08-1.11) vs diffuse subtype (TR 1.17, 95% CrI, 1.09-1.24) and the probability of increasing OS > 15% was 90% vs 67% in each subtype, respectively. The effect dwindles over time, which can be attributed to pathological changes and clinical practice changes. CONCLUSION: Our study confirms the effect of DPF is highly dependent on several clinical-pathological variables, with discreet and gradually declining benefit over platinum doublets in later years, at the expense of increased toxicity. These results may help to underpin the idea that external validity of AGC trials should be revised regularly.

Anemia hemolítica autoinmune, reacción adversa a venetoclax / Autoimmune hemolytic anemia, adverse event to venetoclax

No disponible