Chronological improvement of survival in patients with advanced gastric cancer over 15 years.

Background: Recent trials have reported a median overall survival (OS) of 11-17 months in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC). However, it is unclear how recently approved drugs contribute to patient prognosis. Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the characteristics and survival in patients with AGC over the past 15 years. Design: Retrospective study. Methods: We evaluated data of 1355 patients with AGC who received first-line chemotherapy between January 2005 and March 2019 at a single institution. We compared the characteristics and survival rates across four periods: January 2005-December 2007 (period A), January 2008-February 2011 (period B), March 2011-May 2015 (period C), and June 2015-March 2019 (period D). The median follow-up duration was 13.1 months, with 312, 333, 393, and 317 patients in periods A, B, C, and D, respectively. Results: There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between the four periods, except for the proportion of patients who underwent prior gastrectomy and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing. Patients in period D had significantly longer OS than those in period A [median: 15.7 versus 12.4 months; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 0.79; p = 0.02]. The mean OS in patients with liver metastasis (LM) in period D was remarkably longer than that in patients in period A (median: 19.3 versus 12.4 months; aHR: 0.61; p < 0.01), while that in patients with peritoneal metastasis showed limited improvement. Conclusion: Clinical strategy changes, including gastrectomy, HER2 testing, and approval of new drugs, may be associated with improved OS in patients with AGC. In the last 4 years, a remarkable improvement has been observed in patients with LM.

Trifluridine/Tipiracil Plus Bevacizumab for Vulnerable Patients With Pretreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Retrospective Study (WJOG14520G).

BACKGROUND: Trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) plus bevacizumab has shown clinical benefit for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) refractory to standard therapy. However, few data have been available for patients with pretreated mCRC who are intolerant of intensive therapy (vulnerable). METHODS: We performed a multicenter retrospective study (WJOG14520G; TWILIGHT) of FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab for vulnerable patients with pretreated mCRC. Eligibility criteria included previous chemotherapy (although patients treated with all key cytotoxic agents, a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan, were excluded) and intolerance of full-dose combination therapy with oxaliplatin or irinotecan at the start of FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab. RESULTS: The median age of 93 evaluable patients was 79 years (range, 21-90). Intolerance of intensive therapy was attributable to an older age in 60 (65%) patients, serious concomitant disease in 24 (26%) patients, and a poor performance status in 19 (20%) patients. FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab was administered as second-line treatment in 74 (80%) patients and as third- or fourth-line treatment in 19 (20%) patients. The objective response rate was 4.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4%-12.2%), and the disease control rate was 67.9% (95% CI, 56.6%-77.8%). With a median follow-up time of 21.6 months, median overall survival and progression-free survival were 18.6 months (95% CI, 12.1-23.2) and 6.3 months (95% CI, 5.0-8.3), respectively. Neutropenia of grade ≥3 developed in 50 (54%) patients, whereas 2 (2%) patients experienced febrile neutropenia, and no treatment-related death was observed. CONCLUSION: Our data show the potential efficacy and acceptable safety profile of FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab for vulnerable patients with pretreated mCRC.

Differential Efficacy of Targeted Monoclonal Antibodies in Left-Sided Colon and Rectal Metastatic Cancers.

BACKGROUND: The recommended first-line chemotherapy for RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is bevacizumab (BEV)-containing therapy for right-sided colon cancer (R) and antiepidermal growth factor receptor antibody (anti-EGFR)-containing therapy for left-sided colon cancer (L) or rectal cancer (RE). However, anatomical or biological heterogeneity reportedly exists between L and RE. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacies of anti-EGFR and BEV therapies for L and RE, respectively. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 265 patients with KRAS (RAS)/BRAF wild-type mCRC treated with fluoropyrimidine-based doublet chemotherapy plus anti-EGFR or BEV as the first-line treatment at a single institution. They were divided into 3 groups: R, L, and RE. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, and conversion surgery rate were analyzed. RESULTS: Forty-five patients had R (anti-EGFR/BEV: 6/39), 137 patients had L (45/92), and 83 patients had RE (25/58). In patients with R, both median (m) PFS and OS were superior with BEV therapy (mPFS, anti-EGFR vs. BEV: 8.7 vs. 13.0 months, hazard ratio [HR]: 3.90, P = .01; mOS, 17.1 vs. 33.9 months, HR: 1.54, P = .38). In patients with L, better mPFS and comparable mOS with anti-EGFR therapy were observed (mPFS, 20.0 vs. 13.4 months, HR: 0.68, P = .08; mOS, 44.8 vs. 36.0 months, HR: 0.87, P = .53), whereas, in patients with RE, comparable mPFS and worse mOS with anti-EGFR therapy were observed (mPFS, 17.2 vs. 17.8 months, HR: 1.08, P = .81; mOS, 29.1 vs. 42.2 months, HR: 1.53, P = .17). CONCLUSIONS: Efficacies of anti-EGFR and BEV therapies may differ between patients with L and RE.

Nivolumab versus irinotecan as third- or later-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer: a multi-center retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: The present study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of nivolumab (NIVO) and irinotecan (IRI) and to identify clinical factors that facilitate treatment selection. METHODS: Patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) who underwent NIVO or IRI treatment between November 2016 and June 2018 at three institutions were retrospectively reviewed. The inclusion criteria were histologically confirmed gastric/gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma pretreated with fluoropyrimidines and taxanes, no previous NIVO or IRI treatment, and adequate organ function. Main outcome measures were objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events. Interaction between treatment groups and clinical factors regarding OS were tested using a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for relevant variables. RESULTS: Both NIVO (n = 71) and IRI (n = 61) groups had similar baseline characteristics, except for sex distribution. NIVO and IRI groups had ORR of 20% and 6%, median PFS of 1.6 and 1.8 months, and median OS of 6.4 and 6.4 months, respectively. Interaction analysis did not reveal any significant interaction between NIVO and IRI related to OS for various factors. NIVO group tended to have fewer ≥ grade 3 adverse events than IRI group, especially neutropenia (3% vs. 28%) and febrile neutropenia (1% vs. 8%). In the NIVO group, one patient developed pneumonitis, and four patients developed skin reactions. CONCLUSIONS: Although no remarkable differences in efficacy were found between IRI and NIVO for AGC, NIVO had a better safety profile compared to IRI. We found no clinical markers that can assist treatment decisions.

Clinical outcomes of patients diagnosed with cancer of unknown primary or malignancy of undefined primary origin who were referred to a regional cancer center.

BACKGROUND: A regional cancer hospital has been identified to be crucial in the management of malignancies of undefined primary origin (MUO) and cancer of unknown primary (CUP). This hospital primarily consists of oncologists with expertise in CUP, pathologists, and interventional radiologists. Early consultation or referral of MUO and CUP to a cancer hospital is deemed important. METHODS: This study retrospectively collected and analyzed the clinical, pathological, and outcome data of all patients (n = 407) referred to the Aichi Cancer Center Hospital (ACCH) in Japan over an 8-year period. RESULTS: In total, 30% of patients were referred for a second opinion. Among 285 patients, 13% had non-neoplastic disease or confirmed primary site and 76% had confirmed CUP (cCUP), with 29% of cCUP being identified as favorable risk. In 155 patients with unfavorable-risk CUP, 73% had primary sites predicted by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and distribution of metastatic sites, whereas 66% of them received site-specific therapies based on the predicted primary sites. The median overall survival (OS) was found to be poor in patients with MUO (1 month) and provisional CUP (6 months). In addition, the median OS of 206 patients with cCUP treated at the ACCH was 16 months (favorable risk, 27 months; unfavorable risk, 12 months). No significant difference was noted in OS between patients with non-predictable and predictable primary-sites (13 vs 12 months, p = 0.411). CONCLUSION: The outcome of patients with unfavorable-risk CUP remains to be poor. Site-specific therapy based on IHC is not recommended for all patients with unfavorable-risk CUP.

Complete response to definitive chemoradiotherapy in unresectable locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Although definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is the standard therapy for patients with unresectable locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), poor survival has been reported. Although the complete response (CR) rate is strongly correlated with good prognosis, the predictive factors for CR have not been elucidated. METHODS: This registry study aimed to identify predictors of CR to definitive CRT in patients with unresectable locally advanced ESCC. "Unresectable" was defined as the primary lesion invading unresectable adjacent structures such as the aorta, vertebral body, and trachea (T4b), or the regional and/or supraclavicular lymph nodes invading unresectable adjacent structures (LNT4b). RESULTS: Overall, 175 patients who started definitive CRT between January 2013 and March 2020 were included. The confirmed CR (cCR) rate was 24% (42/175). The 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates of cCR cases vs. non-cCR cases were 59% vs. 2% (log-rank p < 0.001) and 90% vs. 31% (log-rank p < 0.001), with a median follow-up period of 18.5 and 40.5 months, respectively. Multivariate analysis of clinicopathological factors revealed that tumor length ≥ 6 cm [odds ratio (OR) 0.446; 95% CI 0.220-0.905; p = 0.025] was a predictor of cCR. CONCLUSIONS: Favorable PFS and OS rates were observed in patients with cCR. Tumor length was a predictive factor for cCR.

The survival benefit of increasing the number of active drugs for metastatic colorectal cancer: A multicenter retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: The development of chemotherapy and treatment strategies for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) have provided patients with significant survival benefits. Currently, molecular targeting agents and late-line treatment with regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) are available. However, the impact of this increase in drug availability on overall survival (OS) in mCRC remains a clinical question. METHODS: We retrospectively collected data on consecutive mCRC patients who were treated at three institutions in Japan. We divided the patients into three cohorts: patients who initiated first-line treatment from Jan 2005 to Dec 2006 (cohort A: only cytotoxic drugs available), Jan 2007 to Dec 2011 (cohort B: molecular targeting drugs available), and Jan 2012 to Sep 2016 (cohort C: late-line treatment available). RESULTS: A total of 1409 consecutive patients were analyzed. The median survival time (MST) in cohorts A, B, and C was 18.6, 25.4, and 26.4 months, respectively. The hazard ratio (HR) for cohort B versus A was 0.81 (95% CI 0.68-0.97), for cohort C versus A was 0.74 (95% CI 0.61-0.89), and for cohort C versus B was 0.92 (0.81-1.03). The median number of administered drugs (range) was 3 (1-5) in cohort A, 4 (1-7) in cohort B, and 4 (1-7) in cohort C. The increase in drug availability extended the MST from 15.5 months in patients treated with ≤3 drugs to 36.0-37.3 months in patients treated with six to seven drugs. CONCLUSION: The development of chemotherapy including late-line treatments could improve the prognosis of mCRC patients.

Second-line Chemotherapy for Previously Treated Metastatic Small Bowel Adenocarcinoma: A Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Metastatic small bowel adenocarcinoma (SBA) is a rare disease with poor prognosis. This study aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of second-line chemotherapy for patients with SBA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical characteristics of 27 metastatic patients with SBA after progression on first-line chemotherapy. The patients were divided into Cohort A, receiving second-line chemotherapy, and Cohort B, receiving best supportive care. RESULTS: Patients in Cohort B had higher age, worse performance status, and higher neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio compared with those in Cohort A. Cohort A showed significantly better overall survival (OS) compared with Cohort B (median OS, 15.6 vs. 3.4 months; p=0.002). Objective response rate, disease control rate, and median progression-free survival (PFS) for Cohort A were 7%, 74%, and 5.0 months, respectively. Patients who underwent irinotecan-based chemotherapy showed longer PFS and OS compared with those who underwent taxane-based chemotherapy. No significant adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Second-line chemotherapy for metastatic SBA demonstrated clinical activity with acceptable toxicities.

The Prognostic Impact of KRAS G12C Mutation in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Multicenter Retrospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: KRAS is one of the most frequently mutated oncogenes in colorectal cancer (CRC). Recently, a novel therapy targeting KRAS G12C mutation has demonstrated promising activities for corresponding advanced solid tumors, including metastatic CRC (mCRC). However, the prognostic impact of the KRAS G12C mutation remains unclear in patients with mCRC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed medical records of patients with mCRC who received first-line chemotherapy between January 2005 and December 2017 at four large oncology facilities in Japan. Survival outcomes were compared between patients with KRAS G12C and those with non-G12C mutations. RESULTS: Among 2,457 patients with mCRC, 1,632 met selection criteria, and of these, 696 had KRAS exon 2 mutations, including 45 with KRAS G12C mutation tumors. Patient characteristics were not significantly different between the KRAS G12C and non-G12C groups. At a median follow-up of 64.8 months, patients with the KRAS G12C mutation showed significantly shorter first-line progression-free survival (PFS; median, 9.4 vs. 10.8 months; p = .015) and overall survival (OS; median, 21.1 vs. 27.3 months; p = .015) than those with non-G12C mutations. Multivariate analysis also showed that KRAS G12C mutation was significantly associated with shorter PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.96, p = .030) and OS (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.01-2.00; p = .044). CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that, compared with non-G12C mutations, KRAS G12C mutation is significantly correlated with shorter first-line PFS and OS. These findings indicate the relevance of a stratified treatment targeting KRAS G12C mutation in mCRC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Among patients with KRAS exon 2 mutated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 9.4 and 21.1 months, respectively, for G12C mutation and 10.8 and 27.3 months, respectively, for patients with non-G12C mutations, indicating significantly shorter PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-2.01; p = .015) and OS (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.08-2.08; p = .015) in patients with G12C mutation than in those with non-G12C mutations. Furthermore, multivariate analysis showed that KRAS G12C mutation was independently associated with shorter first-line PFS and OS. Thus, these findings underscore the relevance of a stratified treatment targeting KRAS G12C mutation in mCRC.

Clinical Impact of Oral Intake in Second-line or Third-line Chemotherapy for 589 Patients With Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: Insufficient oral intake in advanced gastric cancer (AGC) limits the use of several drugs. We aimed to determine the oral intake status of patients with AGC during later-line chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated data of patients with AGC who experienced disease progression during first-line chemotherapy administered from January 2012 to December 2018 in a single institution. We defined "insufficient oral intake" as requiring daily intravenous fluids or hyperalimentation. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify oral intake-related factors. RESULTS: Among 589 included patients, at disease progression during first-line, second-line, and third-line chemotherapy, 78.3% (461), 53.3% (314), and 30.4% (179) of patients, respectively, exhibited sufficient oral intake. Fourth-line chemotherapy was initiated for 22.2% (131) of patients, with 20.0% (118) exhibiting sufficient oral intake. During second-line and third-line chemotherapy, 11/67 (16%) and 2/39 (5%) patients, respectively, exhibited improvements in oral intake; 85/428 (19.9%) and 70/259 (27.0%), respectively, exhibited deteriorations in oral intake. Factors correlated to deterioration in oral intake during second-line chemotherapy were poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (odds ratio, 4.32; P<0.001), moderate or severe ascites (1.96; P=0.045), peritoneal metastasis (2.12; P=0.029), prior palliative surgery (3.41; P=0.003), and high neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (3.09; P<0.001); those correlated to deterioration in oral intake during third-line chemotherapy were poorly differentiated pathology (2.52; P=0.025) and high neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (2.65; P=0.006). CONCLUSION: As later-line chemotherapy is ineffective in improving oral intake in patients with AGC, careful adaptation of regimens is required for patients at risk for impaired oral intake.

Prospective Survey of Financial Toxicity Measured by the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity in Japanese Patients With Cancer.

PURPOSE: We previously reported on the pilot study assessing the feasibility of using the Japanese translation of the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool to measure financial toxicity (FT) among Japanese patients with cancer. In this study, we report the results of the prospective survey assessing FT in Japanese patients with cancer using the same tool. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were receiving chemotherapy for a solid tumor for at least 2 months. In addition to the COST survey, socioeconomic characteristics were collected by using a questionnaire and medical records. RESULTS: Of the 191 patients approached, 156 (82%) responded to the questionnaire. Primary tumor sites were colorectal (n = 77; 49%), gastric (n = 39; 25%), esophageal (n = 16; 10%), thyroid (n = 9; 6%), head and neck (n = 4; 3%), and other (n = 11; 7%). Median COST score was 21 (range, 0 to 41; mean ± standard deviation, 12.1 ± 8.45), with lower COST scores indicating more severe FT. On multivariable analyses using linear regression, older age (ß, 0.15 per year; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.28; P = .02) and higher household savings (ß, 8.24 per ¥15 million; 95% CI, 4.06 to 12.42; P < .001) were positively associated with COST score; nonregular employment (ß, -5.37; 95% CI, -10.16 to -0.57; P = .03), retirement because of cancer (ß, -5.42; 95% CI, -8.62 to -1.37; P = .009), and use of strategies to cope with the cost of cancer care (ß, -5.09; 95% CI, -7.87 to -2.30; P < .001) were negatively associated with COST score. CONCLUSION: Using the Japanese version of the COST tool, we identified various factors associated with FT in Japanese patients with cancer. These findings will have important implications for cancer policy planning in Japan.