Impact of tumor growth rate during preceding treatment on tumor response to nivolumab or irinotecan in advanced gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab (NIVO) and irinotecan (IRI) are standard treatments for refractory advanced gastric cancer (AGC); however, it is unclear which drug should be administered first or in which cases. The tumor growth rate (TGR) during preceding treatment is reported to be associated with tumor response in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with regorafenib or trifluridine/tipiracil, suggesting that TGR may be useful for drug selection. Therefore, we evaluated the association between TGR during preceding treatment and the tumor response to NIVO or IRI. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated consecutive AGC patients treated with NIVO or IRI and divided them into slow-growing (Slow) and rapid-growing (Rapid) groups according to TGR and the presence or absence of new lesions (NL+/NL-, respectively) during preceding treatment (Slow group: NL- with low TGR <0.30%/day; Rapid group: NL+ or high TGR ≥0.30%/day). RESULTS: A total of 117 patients (Rapid/Slow groups, 72/45; NIVO/IRI groups, 32/85) were eligible. All baseline characteristics except peritoneal metastases were similar between patients treated with NIVO and IRI in the Rapid and Slow groups. The response rate was significantly higher in patients treated with NIVO compared with IRI [31%/3%; odds ratio (OR), 13.8; P = 0.01; adjusted OR, 52; P = 0.002] in the Slow group, but there was no difference between patients treated with NIVO and IRI (5%/8%; OR, 0.68; P = 0.73; adjusted OR, 0.94; P = 0.96) in the Rapid group. Disease control rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival were consistent with these results. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that NIVO treatment is a more favorable option for patients with slow-growing tumors, and NIVO and IRI are similarly recommended for patients with rapid-growing tumors in refractory AGC. TGR and NL emergence during preceding treatment may be helpful for drug selection and warrant further investigation.

Impact of the 12-gene recurrence score assay on deciding adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II and IIIA/B colon cancer: the SUNRISE-DI study.

BACKGROUND: Recent advances in adjuvant chemotherapy for early colon cancer have widened physicians' recommendations on the regimen and duration (3 or 6 months) of the treatment. We conducted this prospective study to evaluate whether the 12-gene recurrence score (12-RS) assay affected physicians' recommendations on adjuvant treatment selection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage IIIA/IIIB or stage II colon cancer were enrolled. After the patients discussed adjuvant treatment with their treating physicians, the physicians filled in the questionnaire before assay indicating the treatment recommendation. When the 12-RS assay results were available, the physicians again filled in the questionnaire after assay. The primary endpoint was the rate of change in treatment recommendations from before to after the assay, with a threshold rate of change being 20%. Patients with stage IIIA/B to II were enrolled in a ratio of 2 : 1. RESULTS: Overall, the treatment recommendations changed in 40% of cases after obtaining 12-RS assay results. Recommendations were changed in 45% (80/178; 95% confidence interval, 37% to 53%; P < 0.001) and 30% (29/97; 95% confidence interval, 21% to 40%; P < 0.001) of patients with stage IIIA/B and II colon cancer, respectively. Patients with stage IIIA/B cancer had significantly more change than those with stage II cancer (P = 0.0148). From before to after the 12-RS assay, the percentage of patients whose physicians reported being confident in their treatment recommendations significantly increased from 54% to 81% in stage IIIA/B (P < 0.001) and from 65% to 83% in stage II (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our study confirmed the usefulness of the 12-RS assay in aiding the physician-patient decision-making process for tailoring adjuvant chemotherapy for stage IIIA/B colon cancer.

Site-specific Chemotherapy Based on Predicted Primary Site by Pathological Profile for Carcinoma of Unknown Primary Site.

AIMS: Although platinum-based combination chemotherapies are commonly used for unfavourable subsets of cancer of unknown primary (CUP), the prognosis remains poor. Several studies have suggested that gene expression profiling or immunohistochemistry was useful for the prediction of primary sites in CUP, and site-specific therapy based on predicted primary sites might improve overall outcomes. In Japan, to identify primary sites, immunohistochemical tests were commonly used for CUP in clinical practice. However, it is unclear whether site-specific therapy based on predicted primary sites by pathological examination contributes survival benefit for unfavourable CUP subsets. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this study, 122 patients with unfavourable subsets of CUP were retrospectively reviewed. Ninety patients assigned to cohort A after July 2012 had received chemotherapy according to predicted primary sites; 32 patients assigned to cohort B before June 2012 had received platinum-based empiric chemotherapy. RESULTS: In cohort A, 56 patients (62.2%) with predicted primary sites by pathological examination received site-specific therapy; 34 patients (37.8%) with unpredictable primary sites received platinum-based empiric chemotherapy, the same as cohort B. The median overall survival was 20.3 months in patients with predictable primary sites in cohort A and 10.7 months in those of cohort B, with a significant difference between these cohorts (P = 0.03, adjusted hazard ratio = 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.34-0.94). CONCLUSION: Site-specific therapy based on predicted primary sites by pathological examination could improve prognosis in patients with an unfavourable subset of CUP.