The impact of sex on treatment and outcome in relation to histological subtype in patients with resectable gastric cancer: Results from the randomized CRITICS trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the impact of sex on outcome measures stratified by histological subtype in patients with resectable gastric cancer (GC). METHODS: A post-hoc analysis of the CRITICS-trial, in which patients with resectable GC were treated with perioperative therapy, was performed. Histopathological characteristics and survival were evaluated for males and females stratified for histological subtype (intestinal/diffuse). Additionally, therapy-related toxicity and compliance were compared. RESULTS: Data from 781 patients (523 males) were available for analyses. Female sex was associated with a distal tumor localization in intestinal (p = 0.014) and diffuse tumors (p < 0.001), and younger age in diffuse GC (p = 0.035). In diffuse GC, tumor-positive resection margins were also more common in females than males (21% vs. 10%; p = 0.020), specifically at the duodenal margin. During preoperative chemotherapy, severe toxicity occurred in 327 (63%) males and 184 (71%) females (p = 0.015). Notwithstanding this, relative dose intensities were not significantly different between sexes. CONCLUSIONS: Positive distal margin rates were higher in females with diffuse GC, predominantly at the duodenal site. Females also experience more toxicity, but this neither impacts dose intensities nor surgical resection rates. Clinicians should be aware of these different surgical outcomes when treating males and females with GC.

Triplet Chemotherapy with Cisplatin versus Oxaliplatin in the CRITICS Trial: Treatment Compliance, Toxicity, Outcomes and Quality of Life in Patients with Resectable Gastric Cancer.

(1) Background: Perioperative chemotherapy is the current standard treatment for patients with resectable gastric cancer. Based on studies in patients with metastatic gastric cancer, oxaliplatin has replaced cisplatin in the curative setting as well. However, evidence to prefer oxaliplatin over cisplatin in the curative setting is limited. (2) Methods: We compared patient-related and tumor-related outcomes for cisplatin versus oxaliplatin in patients with resectable gastric cancer treated with perioperative chemotherapy in the CRITICS trial. (3) Results: Preoperatively, 632 patients received cisplatin and 149 patients received oxaliplatin. Preoperative severe toxicity was encountered in 422 (67%) patients who received cisplatin versus 89 (60%) patients who received oxaliplatin (p = 0.105). Severe neuropathy was observed in 5 (1%) versus 6 (4%; p = 0.009) patients, respectively. Postoperative severe toxicity occurred in 109 (60%) versus 26 (51%) (p = 0.266) patients; severe neuropathy in 2 (1%) versus 2 (4%; p = 0.209) for patients who received cisplatin or oxaliplatin, respectively. Diarrhea impacted the quality of life more frequently in patients who received oxaliplatin compared to cisplatin. Complete or near-complete pathological response was achieved in 94 (21%) versus 16 (15%; p = 0.126) patients who received cisplatin or oxaliplatin, respectively. Overall survival was not significantly different in both groups (p = 0.300). (4) Conclusions: Both cisplatin and oxaliplatin are legitimate options as part of systemic treatment in patients with resectable gastric cancer.

Prognostic value of tumor markers and ctDNA in patients with resectable gastric cancer receiving perioperative treatment: results from the CRITICS trial.

AIM: To evaluate the prognostic value of tumor markers in a European cohort of patients with resectable gastric cancer. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of the CRITICS trial, in which 788 patients received perioperative therapy. Association between survival and pretreatment CEA, CA 19-9, alkaline phosphatase, neutrophils, hemoglobin and lactate dehydrogenase were explored in uni- and multivariable Cox regression analyses. Likelihoods to receive potentially curative surgery were investigated for patients without elevated tumor markers versus one of the tumor markers elevated versus both tumor markers elevated. The association between tumor markers and the presence of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) was explored in 50 patients with available ctDNA data. RESULTS: In multivariable analysis, in which we corrected for allocated treatment and other baseline characteristics, elevated pretreatment CEA (HR 1.43; 95% CI 1.11-1.85, p < 0.001) and CA 19-9 (HR 1.79; 95% CI 1.42-2.25, p < 0.001) were associated with worse OS. Likelihoods to receive potentially curative surgery were 86%, 77% and 60% for patients without elevated tumor marker versus either elevated CEA or CA 19-9 versus both elevated, respectively (p < 0.001). Although both preoperative presence of ctDNA and tumor markers were prognostic for survival, no association was found between these two parameters. CONCLUSION: CEA and CA 19-9 were independent prognostic factors for survival in a large cohort of European patients with resectable gastric cancer. No relationship was found between tumor markers and ctDNA. These factors could potentially guide treatment choices and should be included in future trials to determine their definitive position. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov identifier: NCT00407186. EudraCT number: 2006-00413032.

Risk Factors for Metachronous Isolated Peritoneal Metastasis after Preoperative Chemotherapy and Potentially Curative Gastric Cancer Resection: Results from the CRITICS Trial.

Gastric cancer (GC) patients at high risk of developing peritoneal metastasis (PM) as a single site of metastasis after curative treatment may be candidates for adjuvant prophylactic strategies. Here we investigated risk factors for metachronous isolated PM in patients who were treated in the CRITICS trial (NCT00407186). Univariable and multivariable analyses on both metachronous isolated PM and 'other events', i.e., (concurrent) distant metastasis, locoregional recurrence or death, were performed using a competing risk model and summarized by cumulative incidences. Isolated PM occurred in 64 of the 606 (11%) included patients. Diffuse or mixed histological subtype, ypT4 tumor stage and LNhigh (ypN3 lymph node stage or a lymph node ratio >20%) were independent risk factors for isolated PM in both univariable and multivariable analyses. Likewise, LNhigh was an independent risk factor for 'other events'. Patients with tumors who were positive for all three independent risk factors had the highest two-year cumulative incidence of 43% for isolated PM development. In conclusion, diffuse or mixed histological subtype, ypT4 and LNhigh were identified as independent risk factors for isolated PM in patients treated with preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgical resection. The combination of these factors may identify a subgroup that may benefit from PM-preventing treatment strategies.

Towards Personalization in the Curative Treatment of Gastric Cancer.

Gastric cancer is the fifth most common cancer worldwide and has a high mortality rate. In the last decades, treatment strategy has shifted from an exclusive surgical approach to a multidisciplinary strategy. Treatment options for patients with resectable gastric cancer as recommended by different worldwide guidelines, include perioperative chemotherapy, pre- or postoperative chemoradiotherapy and postoperative chemotherapy. Although gastric cancer is a heterogeneous disease with respect to patient-, tumor-, and molecular characteristics, the current standard of care is still according to a one-size-fits-all approach. In this review, we discuss the background of the different treatment strategies in resectable gastric cancer including the current standard, the specific role of radiotherapy, and describe the current areas of research and potential strategies for personalization of therapy.

Venous thromboembolism during preoperative chemotherapy in the CRITICS gastric cancer trial.

BACKGROUND: The occurrence of a venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in patients with cancer. Gastric cancer has been associated with one of the highest risks for VTE. Chemotherapy, especially cisplatin has been associated with a high VTE risk. In this study, risk factors for VTE occurrence and their potential impact on subsequent therapeutic interventions were investigated in patients who underwent preoperative chemotherapy, in the CRITICS gastric cancer trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with resectable gastric cancer were preoperatively treated with three cycles of 3-weekly epirubicin, cisplatin or oxaliplatin, and capecitabine (ECC/EOC). VTE was defined as any thrombus in the venous system, excluding superficial and/or device related VTEs. Potential risk factors were analyzed in a multivariable regression model with age, gender, Body Mass Index (BMI), tumor localization, Lauren classification, type of chemotherapy (ECC/EOC), (cardiovascular) comorbidity, and previous VTE as independent risk factors. The impact of VTE on completion rate of preoperative chemotherapy, surgical resection rate, postoperative complications, and start of postoperative therapy were investigated. RESULTS: Of 781 patients, 78 (10%) of 781 patients developed a VTE during preoperative chemotherapy. On multivariable analysis, BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 and previous VTE were associated with VTE occurrence (reference BMI < 25 kg/m2 ; OR 2.190; 95% CI 1.152-4.164; P = .017/previous VTE; OR 3.617; 95% CI 1.201-10.890; P = .022). Treatment with cisplatin was, compared to oxaliplatin, not significantly associated with VTE occurrence (OR 1.535; 95% CI 0.761-3.094; P = .231). VTE occurrence did not affect completion of preoperative chemotherapy, surgical resection rate, postoperative complications, or start of postoperative therapy. CONCLUSION: High BMI and previous VTE were independent risk factors for VTE occurrence during preoperative chemotherapy in patients with resectable gastric cancer. VTE occurrence in the preoperative setting did not affect receipt of further treatment.

Older versus younger adults with gastric cancer receiving perioperative treatment: Results from the CRITICS trial.

AIM: To evaluate treatment-related toxicity, treatment compliance, surgical complications and event-free survival (EFS) in older (≥70 years) versus younger (<70 years) adults who underwent perioperative treatment for gastric cancer. METHODS: In the CRITICS trial, 788 patients with resectable gastric cancer were randomised before start of any treatment and received preoperative chemotherapy (3 cycles of epirubicin, cisplatin or oxaliplatin and capecitabine), followed by surgery, followed by either postoperative chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy (45Gy + cisplatin + capecitabine). RESULTS: 172 (22%) patients were older adults. During preoperative chemotherapy, 131 (77%) older adults versus 380 (62%) younger adults experienced severe toxicity (p < 0.001); older adults received significantly lower relative dose intensities (RDIs) for all chemotherapeutic drugs. Equal proportions of older versus younger adults underwent curative surgery: 137 (80%) versus 499 (81%), with comparable postoperative complications and postoperative mortality. Postoperative therapy after curative surgery started in 87 (64%) older adults versus 391 (78%) younger adults (p < 0.001). Incidence of severe toxicity during postoperative chemotherapy was 22 (54%) in older adults versus 113 (59%) in younger adults (p = 0.541); older adults received significantly lower RDIs for all chemotherapeutic drugs. Severe toxicity rates for postoperative chemoradiotherapy were 22 (48%) older adults versus 89 (45%) for younger adults (p = 0.703), with comparable chemotherapy RDIs and radiotherapy dose. Two-year EFS was 53% for older adults versus 51% for younger adults. CONCLUSION: Perioperative treatment compliance, especially in the postoperative phase, was poorer in older adults compared with younger adults. As comparable proportions of patients underwent curative surgery, future studies should focus on neo-adjuvant treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00407186. EudraCT number: 2006-00413032.

Sorafenib as first-line therapy in patients with advanced Child-Pugh B hepatocellular carcinoma-a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sorafenib has demonstrated survival benefit in first-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); utility of sorafenib in patients with advanced HCC and Child-Pugh B (CP-B) liver function remains a subject of debate. METHODS: A systematic review identified studies using first-line sorafenib in patients with advanced HCC and CP-A/B liver function. Meta-regression analysis comprising linear regression was conducted to explore the association between the baseline factors and overall survival (OS). Differences between efficacy/safety and tolerability parameters were explored using meta-analysis. RESULTS: Thirty studies (12 Asian) comprising 8678 patients (August 2002 - September 2012) were included (four randomised controlled trials, 26 cohort studies). Median age was 61 years and 83% were men. Hepatitis B/C status was positive in 35%/22%, respectively. The CP status was available for 8577 patients (99%); CP-A, 79% and CP-B, 19%. Median OS on sorafenib for entire cohort was 7.2 months; 8.8 months in CP-A and 4.6 months in CP-B. Multivariable meta-regression analysis showed significant negative association between OS and proportion of patients with the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 2 (P = 0.04) and CP-B liver function (P = 0.001). Among four studies reporting multivariable comparison of the CP status, CP-B was associated with significantly worse OS (P < 0.001). There were no differences in the response rate to sorafenib between patients with CP-A (4.6%) and CP-B (4.2%) liver function. Safety and tolerability were similar; 35% of patients with CP-A/B liver function developed grade III/IV adverse events (P = 0.7). Meta-regression analysis showed similar rates of treatment discontinuation without progression (P = 0.31) and treatment-related death (P = 0.94) in patients with CP-B liver function. CONCLUSION: CP-B liver function (versus CP-A) is associated with worse OS (but the similar response rate, safety and tolerability of first-line sorafenib, is unlikely to be clinically meaningful).

CRITICS-II: a multicentre randomised phase II trial of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery versus neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and subsequent chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery versus neo-adjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery in resectable gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Although radical surgery remains the cornerstone of cure in resectable gastric cancer, survival remains poor. Current evidence-based (neo)adjuvant strategies have shown to improve outcome, including perioperative chemotherapy, postoperative chemoradiotherapy and postoperative chemotherapy. However, these regimens suffer from poor patient compliance, particularly in the postoperative phase of treatment. The CRITICS-II trial aims to optimize preoperative treatment by comparing three treatment regimens: (1) chemotherapy, (2) chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy and (3) chemoradiotherapy. METHODS: In this multicentre phase II non-comparative study, patients with clinical stage IB-IIIC (TNM 8th edition) resectable gastric adenocarcinoma are randomised between: (1) 4 cycles of docetaxel+oxaliplatin+capecitabine (DOC), (2) 2 cycles of DOC followed by chemoradiotherapy (45Gy in combination with weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin) or (3) chemoradiotherapy. Primary endpoint is event-free survival, 1 year after randomisation (events are local and/or regional recurrence or progression, distant recurrence, or death from any cause). Secondary endpoints include: toxicity, surgical outcomes, percentage radical (R0) resections, pathological tumour response, disease recurrence, overall survival, and health related quality of life. Exploratory endpoints include translational studies on predictive and prognostic biomarkers. DISCUSSION: The aim of this study is to select the most promising among three preoperative treatment arms in patients with resectable gastric adenocarcinoma. This treatment regimen will subsequently be compared with the standard therapy in a phase III trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT02931890 ; registered 13 October 2016. Date of first enrolment: 21 December 2017.