Quality of Life During Palliative Systemic Therapy for Esophagogastric Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Palliative systemic therapy can prolong life and reduce tumor-related symptoms for patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer. However, side effects of treatment could negatively affect health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Our aim was to review the literature and conduct a meta-analysis to examine the effect of palliative systemic therapy on HRQoL. METHODS: EMBASE, Medline, and Central were searched for phase II/III randomized controlled trials until April 2018 investigating palliative systemic therapy and HRQoL. Meta-analysis was performed on baseline and follow-up summary values of global health status (GHS) and other European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer scales. A clinically relevant change and difference of 10 points (scale 0-100) was set to assess the course of HRQoL over time within treatment arms as well as between arms. RESULTS: We included 43 randomized controlled trials (N = 13 727 patients). In the first-line and beyond first-line treatment setting, pooled baseline GHS mean estimates were 54.6 (95% confidence interval = 51.9 to 57.3) and 57.9 (95% confidence interval = 55.7 to 60.1), respectively. Thirty-nine (81.3%) treatment arms showed a stable GHS over the course of time. Anthracycline-based triplets, fluoropyrimidine-based doublets without cisplatin, and the addition of trastuzumab to chemotherapy were found to have favorable HRQoL outcomes. HRQoL benefit was observed for taxane monotherapy and several targeted agents over best supportive care beyond first line. CONCLUSIONS: Patients reported impaired GHS at baseline and generally remained stable over time. Anthracycline-based triplets and fluoropyrimidine-based doublets without cisplatin may be preferable first-line treatment options regarding HRQoL for HER2-negative disease. Taxanes and targeted agents could provide HRQoL benefit beyond first line compared with best supportive care.

The Use of (Network) Meta-Analysis in Clinical Oncology.

Meta-analysis is important in oncological research to provide a more reliable answer to a clinical research question that was assessed in multiple studies but with inconsistent results. Pair-wise meta-analysis can be applied when comparing two treatments at once, whereas it is possible to compare multiple treatments at once with network meta-analysis (NMA). After careful systematic review of the literature and quality assessment of the identified studies, there are several assumptions in the use of meta-analysis. First, the added value of meta-analysis should be evaluated by examining the comparability of study populations. Second, the appropriate comparator in meta-analysis should be chosen according to the types of comparisons made in individual studies: (1) Experimental and comparator arms are different treatments (A vs. B); (2) Substitution of a conventional treatment by an experimental treatment (A+B vs. A+C); or (3) Addition of an experimental treatment (A+B vs. B). Ideally there is one common comparator treatment, but when there are multiple common comparators, the most efficacious comparator is preferable. Third, treatments can only be adequately pooled in meta-analysis or merged into one treatment node in NMA when considering likewise mechanism of action and similar setting in which treatment is indicated. Fourth, for both pair-wise meta-analysis and NMA, adequate assessment of heterogeneity should be performed and sub-analysis and sensitivity analysis can be applied to objectify a possible confounding factor. Network inconsistency, as statistical manifestation of violating the transitivity assumption, can best be evaluated by node-split modeling. NMA has advantages over pair-wise meta-analysis, such as clarification of inconsistent outcomes from multiple studies including multiple common comparators and indirect effect calculation of missing direct comparisons between important treatments. Also, NMA can provide increased statistical power and cross-validation of the observed treatment effect of weak connections with reasonable network connectivity and sufficient sample-sizes. However, inappropriate use of NMA can cause misleading results, and may emerge when there is low network connectivity, and therefore low statistical power. Furthermore, indirect evidence is still observational and should be interpreted with caution. NMA should therefore preferably be conducted and interpreted by both expert clinicians in the field and an experienced statistician. Finally, the use of meta-analysis can be extended to other areas, for example the identification of prognostic and predictive factors. Also, the integration of evidence from both meta-analysis and expert opinion can improve the construction of prognostic models in real-world databases.

COMplot, A Graphical Presentation of Complication Profiles and Adverse Effects for the Curative Treatment of Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: For the curative treatment of gastric cancer, several neoadjuvant, and adjuvant treatment-regimens are available which have shown to improve overall survival. No overview is available regarding toxicity and surgery related outcomes. Our aim was to construct a novel graphical method concerning adverse events (AEs) associated with multimodality treatment and perform a meta-analysis to compare different clinically relevant cytotoxic regimens with each other. Methods: The PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and ASCO/ESMO databases were searched up to May 2019 for randomized controlled trials investigating curative treatment regimens for gastric cancer. To construct single and bidirectional bar-charts (COMplots), grade 1-2 and grade 3-5 AEs were extracted per cytotoxic regimen. For surgery-related outcomes a pre-specified set of complications was used. Thereafter, treatment-arms comparing the same regimens were combined in a single-arm random-effects meta-analysis and pooled-proportions were calculated with 95% confidence-intervals. Comparative meta-analyses were performed based on clinical relevance and compound similarity. Results: In total 16 RCTs (n = 4,526 patients) were included investigating pre-operative-therapy and 39 RCTs investigating adjuvant-therapy (n = 13,732 patients). Pre-operative COMplots were created for among others; 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin-oxaliplatin-docetaxel (FLOT), epirubicin-cisplatin-fluoropyrimidine (ECF), cisplatin-fluoropyrimidine (CF), and oxaliplatin-fluoropyrimidine (FOx). Pre-operative FLOT showed a minor increase in grade 1-2 and grade 3-4 AEs compared to pre-operative ECF, CF, and FOx. A pooled analysis of patients who had received pre-operative therapy compared to patients who underwent direct surgery did not reveal any significant difference in surgery related morbidity/mortality. When we compared three commonly used adjuvant regimens; S-1 had the lowest amount of grade 3-4 AEs compared to capecitabine with oxaliplatin (CAPOX) and 5-FU with radiotherapy (5-FU+RT). Conclusion: COMplot provides a novel tool to visualize and compare treatment related AEs for gastric cancer. Based on our comparisons, pre-operative FLOT had a manageable toxicity profile compared to other pre-operative doublet or triplet regimens. We found no evidence indicating surgical outcomes might be hampered by pre-operative therapy. Adjuvant S-1 had a more favorable toxicity profile compared to CAPOX and 5-FU+RT.

TOXview: a novel graphical presentation of cancer treatment toxicity profiles.

Background: Toxicity profiles play a crucial role in the choice between specific palliative chemotherapy regimens. To optimize the quality of life for cancer patients, patients should be adequately informed about potential toxicities before undergoing chemotherapy. Therefore, we constructed TOXviews, a novel graphical presentation and overview of toxicity profiles to improve information provision about adverse events. As an example, we analyzed first-line chemotherapy regimens for advanced esophagogastric cancer (AEGC). Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ASCO and ESMO for prospective phase II or III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on palliative first-line systemic treatment for AEGC until February 2017. We extracted proportions of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 1-2 (mild) and 3-4 (severe) adverse events from each chemotherapy arm and pooled these by using single-arm meta-analysis. Toxicity profiles per chemotherapy regimen were visualized in bidirectional bar charts with pooled proportions plus 95% confidence intervals. For comparative analysis, chemotherapy regimens were grouped in singlets, doublets and triplets. Results: We included 92 RCTs with a total of 16,963 patients. TOXviews for 3 fluoropyrimidine singlets, 5 cisplatin-containing doublets (C-doublets), 10 fluoropyrimidine non-cisplatin containing doublets (F-doublets), 4 anthracycline-containing triplets (A-triplets) and 5 taxane-containing triplets (T-triplets) were constructed. C-doublets, A-triplets and T-triplets all showed an increased incidence of grade 3-4 adverse events and clinically relevant grade 1-2 adverse events compared to F-doublets. Conclusion: TOXview provides a new graphical presentation and overview of chemotherapy toxicities. TOXviews can be used to educate physicians about the incidences of AEs of systemic therapy and improve informed decision-making.

Prognostic and Predictive Factors for the Curative Treatment of Esophageal and Gastric Cancer in Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: An overview of promising prognostic variables and predictive subgroups concerning the curative treatment of esophageal and gastric cancer from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is lacking. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and ASCO/ESMO conferences were searched up to March 2019 for RCTs on the curative treatment of esophageal or gastric cancer with data on prognostic and/or predictive factors for overall survival. Prognostic factors were deemed potentially clinically relevant according to the following criteria; (1) statistically significant (p < 0.05) in a multivariate analysis, (2) reported in at least 250 patients, and (3) p < 0.05, in ≥ 33% of the total number of patients in RCTs reporting this factor. Predictive factors were potentially clinically-relevant if (1) the p-value for interaction between subgroups was <0.20 and (2) the hazard ratio in one of the subgroups was significant (p < 0.05). RESULTS: For gastric cancer, 39 RCTs were identified (n = 13,530 patients) and, for esophageal cancer, 33 RCTs were identified (n = 8618 patients). In total, we identified 23 potentially clinically relevant prognostic factors for gastric cancer and 16 for esophageal cancer. There were 15 potentially clinically relevant predictive factors for gastric cancer and 10 for esophageal cancer. CONCLUSION: The identified prognostic and predictive factors can be included and analyzed in future RCTs and be of guidance for nomograms. Further validation should be performed in large patient cohorts.

SOURCE: A Registry-Based Prediction Model for Overall Survival in Patients with Metastatic Oesophageal or Gastric Cancer.

Prediction models are only sparsely available for metastatic oesophagogastric cancer. Because treatment in this setting is often preference-based, decision-making with the aid of a prediction model is wanted. The aim of this study is to construct a prediction model, called SOURCE, for the overall survival in patients with metastatic oesophagogastric cancer. Data from patients with metastatic oesophageal (n = 8010) or gastric (n = 4763) cancer diagnosed during 2005⁻2015 were retrieved from the nationwide Netherlands cancer registry. A multivariate Cox regression model was created to predict overall survival for various treatments. Predictor selection was performed via the Akaike Information Criterion and a Delphi consensus among experts in palliative oesophagogastric cancer. Validation was performed according to a temporal internal-external scheme. The predictive quality was assessed with the concordance-index (c-index) and calibration. The model c-indices showed consistent discriminative ability during validation: 0.71 for oesophageal cancer and 0.68 for gastric cancer. The calibration showed an average slope of 1.0 and intercept of 0.0 for both tumour locations, indicating a close agreement between predicted and observed survival. With a fair c-index and good calibration, SOURCE provides a solid foundation for further investigation in clinical practice to determine its added value in shared decision making.

The Efficacy and Safety of (Neo)Adjuvant Therapy for Gastric Cancer: A Network Meta-analysis.

Background: Alternatives in treatment-strategies exist for resectable gastric cancer. Our aims were: (1) to assess the benefit of perioperative, neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment-strategies and (2) to determine the optimal adjuvant regimen for gastric cancer treated with curative intent. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and ASCO/ESMO conferences were searched up to August 2017 for randomized-controlled-trials on the curative treatment of resectable gastric cancer. We performed two network-meta-analyses (NMA). NMA-1 compared perioperative, neoadjuvant and adjuvant strategies only if there was a direct comparison. NMA-2 compared different adjuvant chemo(radio)therapy regimens, after curative resection. Overall-survival (OS) and disease-free-survival (DFS) were analyzed using random-effects NMA on the hazard ratio (HR)-scale and calculated as combined HRs and 95% credible intervals (95% CrIs). Results: NMA-1 consisted of 9 direct comparisons between strategies for OS (14 studies, n = 4187 patients). NMA-2 consisted of 16 direct comparisons between adjuvant chemotherapy/chemoradiotherapy regimens for OS (37 studies, n = 10,761) and 14 for DFS (30 studies, n = 9714 patients). Compared to taxane-based-perioperative-chemotherapy, surgery-alone (HR = 0.58, 95% CrI = 0.38⁻0.91) and perioperative-chemotherapy regimens without a taxane (HR = 0.79, 95% CrI = 0.58⁻1.15) were inferior in OS. After curative-resection, the doublet oxaliplatin-fluoropyrimidine (for one-year) was the most efficacious adjuvant regimen in OS (HR = 0.47, 95% CrI = 0.28⁻0.80). Conclusions: For resectable gastric cancer, (1) taxane-based perioperative-chemotherapy was the most promising treatment strategy; and (2) adjuvant oxaliplatin-fluoropyrimidine was the most promising regimen after curative resection. More research is warranted to confirm or reproach these findings.

Prognostic and predictive factors for overall survival in metastatic oesophagogastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Consistent evidence on prognostic and predictive factors for advanced oesophagogastric cancer is lacking. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases for phase II/III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) until February 2017 on palliative systemic therapy for advanced oesophagogastric cancer that reported prognostic or predictive factors for overall survival (PROSPERO-CRD42014015177). Prognostic factors were identified from multivariate regression analyses in study reports. Factors were considered potentially clinically relevant if statistically significant (P ≤ 0.05) in multivariate analysis in ≥50% of the total number of patients in the pooled sample of the RCTs and were reported with a pooled sample size of ≥600 patients in the first-line or ≥300 patients in the beyond first-line setting. Predictive factors were identified from time-to-event stratified treatment comparisons and deemed potentially clinically relevant if the P-value for interaction between subgroups was ≤0.20 and the hazard ratio in one of the subgroups was significant (P ≤ 0.05). RESULTS: Forty-six original RCTs were included (n = 15,392 patients) reporting on first-line (n = 33) and beyond first-line therapy (n = 13). Seventeen prognostic factors for overall survival in the first-line and four in the beyond first-line treatment setting were potentially clinically relevant. Twenty-one predictive factors in first-line and nine in beyond first-line treatment setting were potentially relevant regarding treatment efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: The prognostic and predictive factors identified in this systematic review can be used to characterise patients in clinical practice, be included in future trial designs, enrich prognostic tools and generate hypotheses to be tested in future research to promote patient-centred treatment.

Continuation of trastuzumab beyond progression in HER2-positive advanced esophagogastric cancer: a meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: After progression on first-line trastuzumab-based therapy, no HER2-targeted agent is available for patients with HER2-positive esophagogastric cancer. However, continuation of trastuzumab after progression is an established strategy in HER2-positive breast cancer. We conducted a meta-analysis to investigate whether continuation of trastuzumab beyond first-line therapy in combination with chemotherapy is more effective compared to chemotherapy-alone. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL and meeting abstracts from ASCO and ESMO were searched up to June 2018 for studies (any design) investigating second-line trastuzumab plus chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy-alone for patients with HER2-positive esophagogastric cancer that progressed on first-line trastuzumab-based therapy. Meta-analysis was performed on the primary outcome, overall survival (OS), and on secondary outcomes progression-free survival (PFS), objective-response rate (ORR), and adverse events. RESULTS: Four cohort studies and one randomized controlled trial (RCT) were included with n = 200 patients who received second-line trastuzumab plus chemotherapy and n = 183 who received chemotherapy-alone. Meta-analysis showed that trastuzumab plus chemotherapy did not prolonged OS [HR = 0.72, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 0.47-1.08, p=.11). PFS was longer with trastzumab plus chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy-alone (HR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.45-0.91, p<.05). There was no significant difference in ORR between the trastuzumab plus chemotherapy-group and the chemotherapy-alone group (ORR = 19.1% versus ORR = 13.4%, p=.13) and no significant differences in grade 3/4 and grade 1/2 adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis showed that patients who progressed on first-line trastuzumab-based therapy but of whom trastuzumab was continued in second-line and added to chemotherapy did not show longer OS or a higher ORR compared to patients receiving second-line chemotherapy-alone. However, PFS was prolonged and trastuzumab was not associated with additional safety concerns. In absence of available second-line HER2-targeted agents, a large prospective RCT should investigate if continuation of trastuzumab might be an attractive strategy, as this meta-analysis was mostly based on non-randomized studies and a RCT with a small sample size.

Interferon Gamma-Induced Protein (IP-10) as Potential Biomarker for Cancer-Related-Fatigue: Results from a 6-month Randomized Controlled Trial.

We examined if serum concentrations Interferon gamma-induced protein (IP-10) is a potential clinical biomarker for cancer-related-fatigue (CRF). Fatigue scores and IP-10 concentrations were measured from curatively treated fatigued cancer patients randomized to either cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT, n = 26) or waiting-list (WL, n = 13). No correlation was found between baseline IP-10 level and fatigue severity and no significant differences in IP-10 serum levels were observed between fatigued and matched non-fatigued patients (n = 22). Relative changes in IP-10 concentrations from baseline to six-month follow-up were not significantly different between the CBT and WL conditions. In this study, IP-10 showed low potential as clinical CRF biomarker. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01096641).

Consensus statement on mandatory measurements in pancreatic cancer trials (COMM-PACT) for systemic treatment of unresectable disease.

Variations in the reporting of potentially confounding variables in studies investigating systemic treatments for unresectable pancreatic cancer pose challenges in drawing accurate comparisons between findings. In this Review, we establish the first international consensus on mandatory baseline and prognostic characteristics in future trials for the treatment of unresectable pancreatic cancer. We did a systematic literature search to find phase 3 trials investigating first-line systemic treatment for locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer to identify baseline characteristics and prognostic variables. We created a structured overview showing the reporting frequencies of baseline characteristics and the prognostic relevance of identified variables. We used a modified Delphi panel of two rounds involving an international panel of 23 leading medical oncologists in the field of pancreatic cancer to develop a consensus on the various variables identified. In total, 39 randomised controlled trials that had data on 15 863 patients were included, of which 32 baseline characteristics and 26 prognostic characteristics were identified. After two consensus rounds, 23 baseline characteristics and 12 prognostic characteristics were designated as mandatory for future pancreatic cancer trials. The COnsensus statement on Mandatory Measurements in unresectable PAncreatic Cancer Trials (COMM-PACT) identifies a mandatory set of baseline and prognostic characteristics to allow adequate comparison of outcomes between pancreatic cancer studies.

Comparing cytotoxic backbones for first-line trastuzumab-containing regimens in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive advanced oesophagogastric cancer: A meta-analysis.

According to the Trastuzumab for Gastric Cancer (ToGA) study, trastuzumab plus cisplatin and capecitabine/5-fluorouracil (5-FU) is standard first-line treatment for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive advanced oesophagogastric cancer. We examined the relative efficacy and safety of alternative trastuzumab-based cytotoxic backbone regimens compared to the standard ToGA regimen using meta-analysis. We searched Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL and ASCO and ESMO up to March 2017 for studies investigating alternative first-line trastuzumab-based regimens for HER2-positive oesophagogastric cancer, defined as high protein expression IHC3+ or IHC2+ and gene amplification by in situ hybridisation. We compared primary outcome overall survival (OS) of alternative trastuzumab-based regimens to the ToGA regimen. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were calculated by extraction of the published Kaplan-Meier curves. Incidence counts and toxicity sample-sizes were extracted for adverse events and compared using single-arm proportion meta-analysis in R. Fifteen studies (N = 557 patients) were included. OS was significantly longer with regimen trastuzumab plus doublet oxaliplatin and capecitabine/5-FU (median OS = 20.7 months) versus ToGA (16.0 months, HR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.59-0.99) and was less toxic. Trastuzumab plus doublet cisplatin and S-1 showed no OS difference versus ToGA, but showed a different toxicity profile, including less hand-foot syndrome. Trastuzumab plus cisplatin or capecitabine as singlet backbone showed significantly worse survival and more toxicity versus ToGA regimen. Trastuzumab with triplet cytotoxic backbones or with bevacizumab and doublet cytotoxic backbone showed no survival benefit and more toxicity. In conclusion, trastuzumab plus doublet cytotoxic backbone containing oxaliplatin is preferable over the ToGA regimen with cisplatin. S-1 can substitute capecitabine or 5-FU when specific toxicities are encountered.

Reporting of health-related quality of life in randomized controlled trials involving palliative systemic therapy for esophagogastric cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessments are increasingly incorporated into oncological randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The quality of HRQoL reporting in RCTs concerning palliative systemic treatment for advanced esophagogastric cancer is currently unknown. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to investigate the quality of HRQoL reporting over time. METHODS: PubMed, CENTRAL and EMBASE were searched for RCTs concerning systemic treatment for advanced esophagogastric cancer up to February 2017. The Minimum Standard Checklist for Evaluating HRQoL Outcomes in Cancer Clinical Trials was used to rate the quality of HRQoL reporting. Univariate and multivariate generalized linear regression analysis was used to investigate factors affecting the quality of reporting over time. RESULTS: In total, 37 original RCTs (N = 10,887 patients) were included. The quality of reporting was classified as 'very limited' in 4 studies (11%), 'limited' in 24 studies (65%), and 'probably robust' in 9 studies (24%). HRQoL reporting did not improve over time, and it did not improve following the publication of the CONSORT-PRO statement in 2013. The publication of HRQoL findings in a separate article and second-line treatment were associated with better reporting. CONCLUSIONS: HRQoL reporting in RCTs concerning palliative systemic therapy for advanced esophagogastric cancer is limited and has not improved over time. This systematic review provides specific recommendations for authors to improve HRQoL reporting: formulate hypotheses a priori, clearly describe instrument administration, and handle missing data and interpret findings appropriately.

Capecitabine, 5-fluorouracil and S-1 based regimens for previously untreated advanced oesophagogastric cancer: A network meta-analysis.

As evidence is inconsistent and based on either isolated Asian or Western studies, we conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to examine efficacy and safety of 5-FU (5-fluorouracil), capecitabine and S-1-based first-line treatment of advanced esophagogastric cancer in Asian and Western patients. Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL and conferences ASCO and ESMO were searched up to January 2016 for randomized-controlled-trials comparing 5-FU, capecitabine or S-1-based regimens with equal chemotherapy backbones. Direct and indirect data for overall survival (OS) and progression-free-survival (PFS) were combined on the Hazard Ratio (HR)-scale using random-effects NMA and calculated as combined HRs and 95%credible intervals (95%CrI). Grade 1-2 and grade 3-4 adverse events were compared with pair-wise meta-analysis. Fifteen studies were identified including capecitabine (n = 945), 5-FU (n = 2,132) or S-1 (n = 1,636). No differences were found in respectively OS and PFS for capecitabine-based versus 5-FU-based regimens (HR = 0.89, 95%CrI = 0.76-1.04 and HR = 0.98, 95%CrI = 0.75-1.32), S-1-based versus 5-FU-based regimens (HR = 0.92, 95%CrI = 0.82-1.04 and HR = 0.88, 95%CrI = 0.70-1.11) and S-1-based versus capecitabine-based regimens (HR = 1.03, 95%CrI = 0.87-1.22 and HR = 0.89, 95%CrI = 0.65-1.20). Effects were similar in Asian and Western subgroups. Toxicity profiles were different but a lower frequency of relevant adverse events was observed with S-1 In conclusion, as efficacy was similar, choosing fluoropyrimidines should be based on their individual toxicity profiles.

The Efficacy and Safety of First-line Chemotherapy in Advanced Esophagogastric Cancer: A Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A globally accepted standard first-line chemotherapy regimen in advanced esophagogastric cancer (AEGC) is not clearly established. We conducted a systematic review to investigate the efficacy and safety of first-line chemotherapy using Network meta-analysis (NMA). METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and conferences were searched until June 2015 for randomized controlled trials that compared regimens containing: fluoropyrimidine (F), platinum (cisplatin [C] and oxaliplatin [Ox]), taxane (T), anthracycline (A), irinotecan (I), or methotrexate (M). Direct and indirect evidence for overall survival (OS) and progression-free-survival (PFS) were combined using random-effects NMA on the hazard ratio (HR) scale and calculated as combined hazard ratios and 95% credible intervals (CrIs). RESULTS: The NMA incorporated 17 chemotherapy regimens with 37 direct comparisons between regimens for OS (50 studies, n = 10 249) and 29 direct comparisons for PFS (34 studies, n = 7795). Combining direct and indirect effects showed increased efficacy for fluoropyrimidine noncisplatin doublets (F-doublets) over cisplatin doublets (C-doublets): FI vs CF (combined HR = 0.85, 95% CrI = 0.71 to 0.99), FOx vs CF (combined HR = 0.83, 95% CrI = 0.71 to 0.98) in OS and FOx vs CF (combined HR = 0.82, 95% CrI = 0.66 to 0.99) in PFS. Anthracycline-containing triplets (A-triplets: ACF, AFOx, AFM) and TCF triplet showed no benefit over F-doublets in OS and PFS. The triplet FOxT showed increased PFS vs F-doublets FT (combined HR = 0.61, 95% CrI = 0.38 to 0.99), FI (combined HR = 0.62, 95% CrI = 0.38 to 0.99), and FOx (combined HR = 0.67, 95% CrI = 0.44 to 0.99). Increased grade 3 to 4 toxicity was found for CF vs F-doublets, for ACF vs FI for TCF vs CF, and for FOxT vs FOx. CONCLUSIONS: Based on efficacy and toxicity, F-doublets FOx, FI, and FT are preferred as first-line treatment for AEGC compared with C-doublets, A-triplets, and TCF. FOxT is the most promising triplet.

Second- and third-line systemic therapy in patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer: a systematic review of the literature.

The optimal second- and third-line chemotherapy and targeted therapy for patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer is still a matter of debate. Therefore, a literature search was carried out in Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and oncology conferences until January 2016 for randomized controlled trials that compared second- or third-line therapy. We included 28 studies with 4810 patients. Second-line, single-agent taxane/irinotecan showed increased survival compared to best supportive care (BSC) (hazard ratio 0.65, 95 % confidence interval 0.53-0.79). Median survival gain ranged from 1.4 to 2.7 months among individual studies. Taxane- and irinotecan-based regimens showed equal survival benefit. Doublet chemotherapy taxane/irinotecan plus platinum and fluoropyrimidine was not different in survival, but showed increased toxicity vs. taxane/irinotecan monotherapy. Compared to BSC, second-line ramucirumab and second- or third-line everolimus and regorafenib showed limited median survival gain ranging from 1.1 to 1.4 months, and progression-free survival gain, ranging from 0.3 to 1.6 months. Third- or later-line apatinib showed increased survival benefit over BSC (HR 0.50, 0.32-0.79). Median survival gain ranged from 1.8 to 2.3 months. Compared to taxane-alone, survival was superior for second-line ramucirumab plus taxane (HR 0.81, 0.68-0.96), and olaparib plus taxane (HR 0.56, 0.35-0.87), with median survival gains of 2.2 and 4.8 months respectively. Targeted agents, either in monotherapy or combined with chemotherapy showed increased toxicity compared to BSC and chemotherapy-alone. This review indicates that, given the survival benefit in a phase III study setting, ramucirumab plus taxane is the preferred second-line treatment. Taxane or irinotecan monotherapy are alternatives, although the absolute survival benefit was limited. In third-line setting, apatinib monotherapy is preferred.

The efficacy and safety of S-1-based regimens in the first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: S-1 is first-line therapy for advanced gastric cancer in Asia and is used with increased frequency in Western counties. We conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and toxicity of S-1-based therapy compared with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/capecitabine-based therapy and S-1-based combination therapy compared with S-1 monotherapy. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting abstracts, European Society for Medical Oncology meeting abstracts and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for randomized clinical trials until May 2015. Data were extracted for overall survival (OS), progression-free-survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and grade 1-2 and grade 3-4 adverse events. Stratified OS data for subgroups were extracted. RESULTS: S-1 was not different from 5-FU (eight studies, n = 2788) in terms of OS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.93, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.85-1.01] and PFS (HR 0.87, 95 % CI 0.73-1.04), whereas ORR was higher (risk ratio 1.43, 95 % CI 1.05-1.96). There was no subgroup difference in efficacy among Asian and Western patients, but in Western patients S-1 was associated with a lower rate of febrile neutropenia, toxicity-related deaths and grade 3-4 stomatitis and mucositis compared with 5-FU. S-1 showed no difference in efficacy compared with capecitabine (three studies, n = 329), but was associated with a lower rate of grade 3-4 neutropenia and grade 1-2 hand-foot syndrome. S-1-combination therapy was superior to S-1 monotherapy (eight studies, n = 1808) in terms of OS (HR 0.76, 95 % CI 0.65-0.90), PFS (HR 0.68, 95 % CI 0.56-0.82) and ORR (risk ratio 1.20, 95 % CI 1.04-1.38) but was more toxic. Survival benefit of S-1 combination therapy over S-1 monotherapy was most pronounced in patients with non-measurable disease, diffuse-type histological features and peritoneal metastasis. CONCLUSIONS: S-1 is effective and tolerable as first-line therapy for advanced gastric cancer in both Asian and Western countries.