Sex and gender disparities in patients with advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma: data from the AGAMENON-SEOM registry.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations for research articles include the use of the term sex when reporting biological factors and gender for identities or psychosocial or cultural factors. There is an increasing awareness of incorporating the effect of sex and gender on cancer outcomes. Thus, these types of analyses for advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma are relevant. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma from the Spanish AGAMENON-SEOM registry treated with first-line combination chemotherapy were selected. Epidemiology, characteristics of the disease, treatment selection, and results were examined according to sex. RESULTS: This analysis included 3274 advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma patients treated with combination chemotherapy between 2008 and 2021: 2313 (70.7%) men and 961 (29.3%) women. Tumors in females were more frequently HER2-negative (67.8% versus 60.8%; P < 0.0001), grade 3 (45.4% versus 36.8%; P < 0.001), diffuse (43.3% versus 26.5%; P < 0.0001), and signet ring cell histology (40.5 versus 23.9%; P < 0.0001). Peritoneal spread was more common in women (58.6% versus 38.9%; P < 0.0001), while liver burden was lower (58.9% versus 71.1%; P < 0.0001). There were no significant differences in treatment recommendation. Treatment doses, density, and duration were comparable between sexes. Women experienced more diarrhea (46% versus 37%; P < 0.0001), neutropenia (51% versus 43%; P < 0.0001), and anemia (62% versus 57%; P < 0.0001). After a median 59.6-month follow-up [95% confidence interval (CI) 54.5-70.8], there were no statistically significant differences between the sexes in progression-free survival [6.21 months (95% CI 5.8-6.5 months) versus 6.08 months (95% CI 5.8-6.3 months); log-rank test, χ2 = 0.1, 1 df, P = 0.8] or in overall survival [10.6 months (95% CI 9.8-11.1 months) versus 10.9 months (95% CI 10.4-11.4 months); log-rank test: χ2 = 0.6, 1 df, P = 0.5]. CONCLUSION: This sex analysis of patients with advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma from the AGAMENON-SEOM registry receiving first-line polychemotherapy found no differences in survival. Although women had worse prognostic histopathology, metastatic disease pattern, and greater toxicity, treatment allocation and compliance were equivalent.

Optimal duration of first-line chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer: data from the AGAMENON registry.

BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of first-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced gastric cancer is unknown. Diverse clinical trials have proposed different strategies including limited treatment, maintenance of some drugs, or treatment until progression. METHOD: The sample comprises patients from the AGAMENON multicenter registry without progression after second evaluation of response. The objective was to explore the optimal duration of first-line chemotherapy. A frailty multi-state model was conducted. RESULTS: 415 patients were divided into three strata: discontinuation of platinum and maintenance with fluoropyrimidine until progression (30%, n = 123), complete treatment withdrawal prior to progression (52%, n = 216), and full treatment until progression (18%, n = 76). The hazard of tumor progression decreased by 19% per month with the full treatment regimen. However, we found no evidence that fluoropyrimidine maintenance (hazard ratio [HR] 1.07, confidence interval [CI] 95%, 0.69-1.65) worsened progression-free survival (PFS) with respect to treatment until progression. Predictive factors for PFS were ECOG performance status, ≥ 3 metastatic sites, prior tumor response, and bone metastases. Toxicity grade 3/4 was more common in those who continued the full treatment until progression vs fluoropyrimidine maintenance (16% vs 6%). CONCLUSION: The longer duration of the full initial regimen exerted a protective effect on the patients of this registry. Platinum discontinuation followed by fluoropyrimidine maintenance yields comparable efficacy to treatment up to PD, with a lower rate of serious adverse events.

Key points to optimizing management and research on cancer-associated thrombosis

Despite the fact that thromboembolism is relatively common in oncology patients and that the interrelationship between thrombotic risk and specific mechanisms of tumorigenesis has long been known, many cardinal elements of prevention and treatment remain unresolved. Among the existing knowledge gaps, the need to validate the Ay scale and compare it to the Khorana index, develop, and standardize the use of predictive biomarkers for thrombotic risk, conduct clinical trials in thromboprophylaxis adapted to thrombotic risk, evaluate the efficacy and safety of direct anticoagulants, select patients who can benefit from anticoagulants for antitumor treatment, validate the EPIPHANY study decision tree to choose patients with low-risk pulmonary embolism, and accumulate more practical experience in special situations (rethrombosis, prolonged therapy beyond 6 months, etc.) are especially remarkable. These gray areas surrounding cancer-related thromboembolism explain why it continues to be a relatively common cause of serious events, at times interfering significantly with the development of new tumor-fighting strategies (AU)

No disponible

Key points to optimizing management and research on cancer-associated thrombosis.

Despite the fact that thromboembolism is relatively common in oncology patients and that the interrelationship between thrombotic risk and specific mechanisms of tumorigenesis has long been known, many cardinal elements of prevention and treatment remain unresolved. Among the existing knowledge gaps, the need to validate the Ay scale and compare it to the Khorana index, develop, and standardize the use of predictive biomarkers for thrombotic risk, conduct clinical trials in thromboprophylaxis adapted to thrombotic risk, evaluate the efficacy and safety of direct anticoagulants, select patients who can benefit from anticoagulants for antitumor treatment, validate the EPIPHANY study decision tree to choose patients with low-risk pulmonary embolism, and accumulate more practical experience in special situations (rethrombosis, prolonged therapy beyond 6 months, etc.) are especially remarkable. These gray areas surrounding cancer-related thromboembolism explain why it continues to be a relatively common cause of serious events, at times interfering significantly with the development of new tumor-fighting strategies.