Efficacy and activity of PD-1 blockade in patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis with focus on the value of PD-L1 combined positive score.

BACKGROUND: Recently, several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigated immunotherapy-based regimens versus chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Here we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy and activity of programmed cell death protein 1 blockade in these patients, with focus on the value of programmed death-ligand 1 combined positive score (CPS) for selecting patients who may benefit the most. METHODS: RCTs investigating treatment with or without immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced ESCC were selected. The hazard ratio (HR) and the odds ratio were used to compare the treatment effect on survival outcomes and tumor response, respectively, for immunotherapy-based regimens compared with standard chemotherapy, overall and according to geographic region or treatment line. We carried out a subgroup analysis comparing patients with CPS ≥10 or <10 and the evidence for treatment effect was evaluated by interaction test. RESULTS: A total of 5257 patients and 10 RCTs were included. Overall, the HR for overall survival benefit with immunotherapy-based regimens was 0.71 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66-0.76] compared with chemotherapy alone; such effect was independent from geographical region (Asia versus rest of the world) and treatment line (upfront versus second/further lines). The HR for progression-free survival benefit and the odds ratio for overall response rate increase were 0.78 (95% CI 0.66-0.93) and 1.50 (95% CI 1.22-1.83), respectively. The HR for overall survival benefit with immunotherapy-based treatment was 0.60 (95% CI 0.51-0.70) for CPS ≥10 subgroup versus 0.83 (95% CI 0.69-1.00) for CPS <10 (P for interaction 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Immune checkpoint inhibitors have a consistent benefit in reducing the risk of death for ESCC patients which is dependent on programmed death-ligand 1 CPS status. Further investigations of biomarkers for immunotherapy in the subgroup of patients with CPS <10 are needed.

Checkpoint inhibitors for gastroesophageal cancers: dissecting heterogeneity to better understand their role in first-line and adjuvant therapy.

Gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (GEA) and squamous esophageal cancer (ESCC) are responsible for >1 million deaths annually globally. Until now, patients with metastatic GEA and ESCC could anticipate survival of <1 year. Anti- programmed cell death protein 1 (anti-PD-1) monotherapy has demonstrated modest efficacy in previously treated GEA and ESCC. In 2020, four pivotal trials have established anti-PD-1 therapy as a new standard of care for selected GEA and ESCC patients as first-line advanced and adjuvant therapy. In this review, we discuss the recent results of the CheckMate 649, ATTRACTION-4, KEYNOTE-590 and CheckMate 577 trials. We consider these results in the context of current standards of care and historical trials of immune checkpoint blockade in GEA and ESCC. We explore biomarker selection for anti-PD-1 therapy and appraise the future of combination therapies. In CheckMate 649, treatment with oxaliplatin-fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy plus nivolumab in patients with combined positive score ≥5 GEA tumors provided a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in overall survival. The ATTRACTION-4 trial did not see a similar overall survival benefit, despite a clear improvement in progression-free survival. We review potential explanations for this result. KEYNOTE-590 showed profoundly improved survival when pembrolizumab was added to cisplatin-fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy in ESCC patients with combined positive score ≥10 tumors; this benefit was less convincing in unselected ESCC. Finally, CheckMate 577 provides proof-of-concept for the improvement in disease-free survival with adjuvant nivolumab in high-risk resected GEA and ESCC following trimodality therapy. Immune checkpoint blockade has come of age in GEA and ESCC, and will now be integrated into first-line and earlier lines of therapy, providing benefit for a larger proportion of patients. Biomarker standardization will be critical to select the patients most likely to benefit from treatment. For patients with immune evasive tumors, novel combinations under development show promise; however, global trials are needed.

Predictive role of microsatellite instability for PD-1 blockade in patients with advanced gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Several post hoc analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggested the importance of microsatellite instability (MSI) as a positive predictive factor to immunotherapy in patients with advanced gastric cancer (GC); however, individually these have low statistical power. METHODS: RCTs investigating treatment with or without an anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) agent for advanced GC and providing outcome according to MSI status were selected. The hazard ratio (HR) and the odds ratio were used to compare the treatment effect on survival outcomes and tumor response, respectively, for anti-PD-1-based therapy compared with standard therapy. Evidence for treatment effect by MSI status was evaluated by a test of interaction. RESULTS: The phase III KEYNOTE-062, CheckMate-649, JAVELIN Gastric 100 and KEYNOTE-061 trials were included. A total of 2545 patients with evaluable MSI status were included and 123 (4.8%) had MSI-high cancers. The HR for overall survival benefit with anti-PD-1-based regimens was 0.34 (95% CI: 0.21-0.54) for MSI-high cancers versus 0.85 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.71-1.00] for microsatellite stable. The treatment effect was significantly different in the two subgroups (P for interaction 0.003). In the MSI-high subgroup, the HR for progression-free survival was 0.57 (95% CI: 0.33-0.97; P = 0.04) and the odds ratio for response was 1.76 (95% CI: 1.10-2.83; P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with MSI-high GC should be regarded as a specific and highly immunosensitive population worthy of dedicated clinical trials.

Adjuvant therapy following oesophagectomy for adenocarcinoma in patients with a positive resection margin.

BACKGROUND: The role of adjuvant therapy in patients with oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy is contentious. In UK practice, surgical resection margin status is often used to classify patients for receiving adjuvant treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the survival benefit of adjuvant therapy in patients with positive (R1) resection margins. METHODS: Two prospectively collected UK institutional databases were combined to identify eligible patients. Adjusted Cox regression analyses were used to compare overall and recurrence-free survival according to adjuvant treatment. Recurrence patterns were assessed as a secondary outcome. Propensity score-matched analysis was also performed. RESULTS: Of 616 patients included in the combined database, 242 patients who had an R1 resection were included in the study. Of these, 112 patients (46·3 per cent) received adjuvant chemoradiotherapy, 46 (19·0 per cent) were treated with adjuvant chemotherapy and 84 (34·7 per cent) had no adjuvant treatment. In adjusted analysis, adjuvant chemoradiotherapy improved recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0·59, 95 per cent c.i. 0·38 to 0·94; P = 0·026), with a benefit in terms of both local (HR 0·48, 0·24 to 0·99; P = 0·047) and systemic (HR 0·56, 0·33 to 0·94; P = 0·027) recurrence. In analyses stratified by tumour response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, non-responders (Mandard tumour regression grade 4-5) treated with adjuvant chemoradiotherapy had an overall survival benefit (HR 0·61, 0·38 to 0·97; P = 0·037). In propensity score-matched analysis, an overall survival benefit (HR 0·62, 0·39 to 0·98; P = 0·042) and recurrence-free survival benefit (HR 0·51, 0·30 to 0·87; P = 0·004) were observed for adjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus no adjuvant treatment. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant therapy may improve overall survival and recurrence-free survival after margin-positive resection. This pattern seems most pronounced with adjuvant chemoradiotherapy in non-responders to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

ANTECEDENTES: El papel del tratamiento adyuvante en pacientes con adenocarcinoma esofagogástrico tratados con quimioterapia neoadyuvante es polémico. En la práctica del Reino Unido, el estado del margen de resección quirúrgico se utiliza a menudo para identificar a los pacientes que reciben tratamiento adyuvante. El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar el beneficio en la supervivencia del tratamiento adyuvante en pacientes con márgenes de resección positivos (R1). MÉTODOS: Se combinaron dos bases de datos de instituciones del Reino Unido que recogen información de forma prospectiva para identificar pacientes elegibles. Se utilizaron análisis de regresión de Cox ajustados para comparar la supervivencia global y la supervivencia libre de recidiva según el tratamiento adyuvante. Los patrones de recidiva se evaluaron como resultado secundario. También se realizó un análisis de emparejamiento por puntaje de propensión. RESULTADOS: De 616 pacientes incluidos en la base de datos combinada, se incluyeron en el estudio 242 pacientes con resección R1. De estos pacientes, 112 (46%) recibieron quimiorradioterapia adyuvante, 46 (19%) pacientes fueron tratados con quimioterapia adyuvante y 84 (35%) pacientes no recibieron ningún tratamiento. En el análisis ajustado, la quimiorradioterapia adyuvante mejoró la supervivencia libre de recidiva (cociente de riesgos instantáneos, hazard ratio, HR 0,59, i.c. del 95% 0,38-0,94; P = 0,026) con un beneficio tanto para la recidiva local (HR 0,48, i.c. del 95% 0,24-0,99; P = 0,047) como para la sistémica (HR 0,56, i.c. del 95% 0,33-0,94; P = 0,027). Cuando los pacientes se clasificaron según la respuesta tumoral a la quimioterapia neoadyuvante, los no respondedores (Mandard Grado 4/5) tratados con quimiorradioterapia adyuvante obtuvieron un beneficio en la supervivencia (HR 0,61, i.c. del 95% 0,38-0,97; P = 0,037). En el análisis por emparejamiento por puntaje de propensión, se observó un beneficio en la supervivencia global (HR 0,62, i.c. del 95% 0,39-0,98; P = 0,042) y en la supervivencia libre de recidiva (HR 0,51.i.c. del 95% 0,30-0,87; P = 0,004) con la quimiorradioterapia adyuvante frente a no recibir tratamiento adyuvante. CONCLUSIÓN: El tratamiento adyuvante puede mejorar la supervivencia global y la supervivencia libre de recidiva en pacientes con margen de resección positivo. Este patrón parece más pronunciado con la quimiorradioterapia adyuvante en pacientes que no responden a la quimioterapia.

Quality assurance of surgery in the randomized ST03 trial of perioperative chemotherapy in carcinoma of the stomach and gastro-oesophageal junction.

BACKGROUND: The UK Medical Research Council ST03 trial compared perioperative epirubicin, cisplatin and capecitabine (ECX) chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab (B) in gastric and oesophagogastric junctional cancer. No difference in survival was noted between the arms of the trial. The present study reviewed the standards and performance of surgery in the context of the protocol-specified surgical criteria. METHODS: Surgical and pathological clinical report forms were reviewed to determine adherence to the surgical protocols, perioperative morbidity and mortality, and final histopathological stage for all patients treated in the study. RESULTS: Of 1063 patients randomized, 895 (84·2 per cent) underwent resection; surgical details were available for 880 (98·3 per cent). Postoperative assessment data were available for 873 patients; complications occurred in 458 (52·5 per cent) overall, of whom 71 (8·1 per cent) developed complications deemed to be life-threatening by the responsible clinician. The most common complications were respiratory (211 patients, 24·2 per cent). The anastomotic leak rate was 118 of 873 (13·5 per cent) overall; among those who underwent oesophagogastrectomy, the rate was higher in the group receiving ECX-B (23·6 per cent versus 9·9 per cent in the ECX group). Pathological assessment data were available for 845 patients. At least 15 nodes were removed in 82·5 per cent of resections and the median lymph node harvest was 24 (i.q.r. 17-34). Twenty-five or more nodes were removed in 49·0 per cent of patients. Histopathologically, the R1 rate was 24·9 per cent (208 of 834 patients). An R1 resection was more common for proximal tumours. CONCLUSION: In the ST03 trial, the performance of surgery met the protocol-stipulated criteria. Registration number: NCT00450203 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Pan-Asian adapted ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic oesophageal cancer: a JSMO-ESMO initiative endorsed by CSCO, KSMO, MOS, SSO and TOS.

The most recent version of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of oesophageal cancer was published in 2016, and covered the management and treatment of local/locoregional disease, limited disease, locally advanced disease and the management of advanced/metastatic disease. At the ESMO Asia Meeting in November 2017 it was decided by both ESMO and the Japanese Society of Medical Oncology (JSMO) to convene a special guidelines meeting immediately after the JSMO Annual Meeting in 2018. The aim was to adapt the ESMO 2016 guidelines to take into account the ethnic differences associated with the treatment of metastatic oesophageal cancer in Asian patients. These guidelines represent the consensus opinions reached by experts in the treatment of patients with metastatic oesophageal cancer representing the oncological societies of Japan (JSMO), China (CSCO), Korea (KSMO), Malaysia (MOS), Singapore (SSO) and Taiwan (TOS). The voting was based on scientific evidence, and was independent of both the current treatment practices and the drug availability and reimbursement situations in the individual participating Asian countries.

Pan-Asian adapted ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic gastric cancer: a JSMO-ESMO initiative endorsed by CSCO, KSMO, MOS, SSO and TOS.

The most recent version of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of gastric cancer (GC) was published in 2016, and covered the management and treatment of local, locoregional, locally advanced and metastatic disease. At the ESMO Asia Meeting in November 2017 it was decided by both ESMO and The Japanese Society of Medical Oncology (JSMO) to convene a special guidelines meeting immediately after the JSMO Annual Meeting in 2018. The aim was to adapt the ESMO 2016 guidelines to take into account the ethnic differences associated with the treatment of metastatic GC in Asian patients. These guidelines represent the consensus opinions reached by experts in the treatment of patients with metastatic GC representing the oncological societies of Japan (JSMO), China (CSCO), Korea (KSMO), Malaysia (MOS), Singapore (SSO) and Taiwan (TOS). The voting was based on scientific evidence and was independent of both the current treatment practices and the drug availability and reimbursement situations in the individual participating Asian countries.

A seven-Gene Signature assay improves prognostic risk stratification of perioperative chemotherapy treated gastroesophageal cancer patients from the MAGIC trial.

Background: Following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for operable gastroesophageal cancer, lymph node metastasis is the only validated prognostic variable; however, within lymph node groups there is still heterogeneity with risk of relapse. We hypothesized that gene profiles from neoadjuvant chemotherapy treated resection specimens from gastroesophageal cancer patients can be used to define prognostic risk groups to identify patients at risk for relapse. Patients and methods: The Medical Research Council Adjuvant Gastric Infusional Chemotherapy (MAGIC) trial (n = 202 with high quality RNA) samples treated with perioperative chemotherapy were profiled for a custom gastric cancer gene panel using the NanoString platform. Genes associated with overall survival (OS) were identified using penalized and standard Cox regression, followed by generation of risk scores and development of a NanoString biomarker assay to stratify patients into risk groups associated with OS. An independent dataset served as a validation cohort. Results: Regression and clustering analysis of MAGIC patients defined a seven-Gene Signature and two risk groups with different OS [hazard ratio (HR) 5.1; P < 0.0001]. The median OS of high- and low-risk groups were 10.2 [95% confidence interval (CI) of 6.5 and 13.2 months] and 80.9 months (CI: 43.0 months and not assessable), respectively. Risk groups were independently prognostic of lymph node metastasis by multivariate analysis (HR 3.6 in node positive group, P = 0.02; HR 3.6 in high-risk group, P = 0.0002), and not prognostic in surgery only patients (n = 118; log rank P = 0.2). A validation cohort independently confirmed these findings. Conclusions: These results suggest that gene-based risk groups can independently predict prognosis in gastroesophageal cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This signature and associated assay may help risk stratify these patients for post-surgery chemotherapy in future perioperative chemotherapy-based clinical trials.

Peri-operative therapy for operable gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma: past, present and future.

Surgery represents the only chance of cure for patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma; however, surgery alone does not cure most patients. Over the past decade, several multimodality adjunctive treatments have improved survival for patients with operable gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma who are undergoing surgical resection; these include peri-operative chemotherapy, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, adjuvant chemotherapy and adjuvant chemoradiotherapy. More recently, the results of several large randomised trials are leading to a shift in the peri-operative treatment of gastroesophageal cancer, away from anthracycline-based and towards taxane-based chemotherapy regimens. Emerging data support an increased focus on patients who are at high risk for poor operative outcomes such as R1 resection, and on patients who are at high risk for relapse following surgery such as those with lymph node metastases (N1+). Future developments may include use of fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography to inform a switch to non-cross resistant chemotherapy pre-operatively and substitution of alternative treatments for chemotherapy in high risk post-operative node positive patients. Conversely, in molecularly selected subgroups such as microsatellite unstable gastroesophageal cancer, peri-operative or adjuvant chemotherapy may not be helpful, and treatments such as immunotherapy may be considered. In this review, the most up-to-date clinical trials and translational research in the field of operable gastroesophageal cancer are discussed; with a focus on how best to risk stratify patients with operable disease for peri-operative treatment plus surgery, and how novel therapies might be integrated into standard treatments in order to improve survival outcomes in this patient group.

Tobacco use is associated with increased recurrence and death from gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco use increases the risk of developing gastric cancer. We examined the hypothesis that gastric cancer developing in patients with a history of tobacco use may be associated with increased risk of cancer-specific death after curative surgical resection. METHODS: From the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Gastric Cancer prospective surgical database, we collected baseline demographic data and tumor characteristics from all patients who had undergone curative resection for gastric cancer between 1995 and 2009 and who had not received pre- or postoperative chemo- or radiotherapy. A smoking history was defined as >100 cigarettes' lifetime use. The primary end point was gastric cancer disease-specific survival (DSS); secondary end points were 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Gastric cancer-specific hazard was modeled by Cox regression. RESULTS: A total of 699 eligible patients were identified with a median age of 70 years (range 25-96 years); 410 (59%) were current or previous smokers. Smoking was associated with gastroesophageal junction/cardia tumors and white non-Hispanic ethnicity. Multivariate analysis included the following variables: tumor stage, age, performance status, diabetes mellitus, gender, and tumor location. In this analysis, the hazard ratio for gastric cancer DSS in smokers was 1.43 (95% confidence interval 1.08-1.91, P=0.01). Smoking was also an independent significant risk factor for worse 5-year DFS (hazard ratio 1.46, P=0.007) and OS (hazard ratio 1.48, P=0.003). Among 516 patients for whom tobacco pack-year usage was available, both heavy (≥20 pack-years) and light (<20 pack-years) tobacco use was significantly associated with DSS, DFS, and OS. CONCLUSIONS: Smoking history appears to be an independent risk factor for death from gastric cancer in patients who have undergone curative surgical resection.