Anti-Helicobacter pylori Treatment in Patients With Gastric Cancer After Radical Gastrectomy.

Importance: Whether anti-Helicobacter pylori treatment can provide survival benefits for patients with gastric cancer who are diagnosed with H pylori infection is an area with limited research. Objective: To explore the potential survival benefits of anti-H pylori treatment after radical gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer and presurgical confirmation of H pylori infection. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from patients with gastric cancer treated between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2018, and followed up for outcome ascertainment until May 19, 2021. Propensity score matching was performed in patients treated with or without anti-H pylori treatment. This study involved a single institute in a comprehensive cancer treatment and research center located in Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, China. The study included patients with gastric or esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma who underwent curative gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy and tested positive for H pylori infection. Data were analyzed from March to June 2023. Exposure: Anti-H pylori treatment, which primarily includes triple therapy regimens consisting of amoxicillin, clarithromycin, and omeprazole for 14 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinical outcomes, including overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazards regression model. Subgroup analysis based on crucial clinical information was also conducted. Results: All 1293 patients (median [IQR] age, 59 [50-65] years; 860 [66.5%] male) were divided into 2 groups, with 125 patients in the anti-H pylori treatment group and 1168 patients in the non-anti-H pylori treatment group based on whether they received anti-H pylori treatment during the perioperative period and the follow-up. Survival analysis showed that the 5-year OS rates were 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3%-99.2%) in the anti-H pylori group and 73.8% (95% CI, 70.7%-77.0%) in the non-anti-H pylori group, and the hazard ratio (HR) of these 2 groups was 0.33 (95% CI, 0.18-0.60; P < .001). The survival benefit remained after propensity score matching (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.26-0.99; P = .048). Multivariable analysis for OS and DFS further showed the survival benefit of anti-H pylori treatment, with HRs of 0.38 (95% CI, 0.17-0.87; P = .02) and 0.48 (95% CI, 0.28-0.83; P = .008), respectively. Among patients with TNM stage II/III disease who received adjuvant chemotherapy, anti-H pylori treatment was associated with survival benefits (OS: HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.24-0.99; P = .046), whereas among those who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy, anti-H pylori treatment was not associated with survival benefits (OS: HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.04-2.08; P = .22). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study indicates that anti-H pylori treatment may be associated with improved survival in patients with gastric cancer who have H pylori infections. The study reinforces the importance of including H pylori screening and treatment in the surgical treatment of these patients.

Combined Use of Tumor Markers in Gastric Cancer: A Novel Method with Promising Prognostic Accuracy and Practicality.

BACKGROUND: The effect of a single tumor marker on the prognosis of gastric cancer patients is not ideal. This study explored a novel prognostic assessment method for gastric cancer (GC) patients using a combination of three important tumor markers (CEA, CA72-4, and CA19-9). METHOD: Data from 1966 GC patients who underwent curative gastrectomy at Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center (Guangzhou, China) were included. Hazard ratios (HR) for all factors for overall survival (OS) were analyzed by Cox regression. A nomogram and calibration curve were used to establish the survival prediction model. The prediction accuracy was evaluated with the concordance index (C-index). RESULTS: All patients were divided into four groups (C0-C3) according to the number of elevated tumor markers. The 5-year OS rates of the patients in preoperative groups C0-C3 were 83.8% (81.3-86.4%), 72.8% (68.5-77.4%), 58.9% (50.4-68.9%), and 18.5% (4.0-33.0%), respectively, and those in postoperative groups C0-C3 were 82.1% (79.4-84.8%), 76.1% (72.2-80.3%), 57.6% (48.4-68.5%), and 16.8% (5.1-28.5%), respectively, with significant differences between each C0-C3 subgroup in both preoperative and postoperative cohorts. Multivariate analysis showed that preoperative (HR: 6.001, 95% CI: 3.523-10.221) and postoperative (HR: 8.149, 95% CI: 4.962-13.528) elevated tumor markers were independent risk factors for GC patients. The C-index for the combined use of tumor markers was 0.65-0.66, which was higher than that for using a single tumor marker (0.53-0.56). CONCLUSION: The combined use of tumor markers significantly improved the prognostic value compared with using a single tumor marker. The survival prediction model including the combined tumor markers was accurate and effective.

Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Patients with Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagogastric Junction: A Retrospective, Multicenter, Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Although the incidence of adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) has been increasing since the past decade, the proportion of AEG cases in two previous clinical trials (ACTS-GC and CLASSIC) that investigated the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy was relatively small. Therefore, whether AEG patients can benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy remains unclear. METHODS: Patients who were diagnosed with pathological stage II/III, Siewert II/III AEG, and underwent curative surgery at three high-volume institutions were assessed. Clinical outcomes were analyzed by using Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank test, and Cox regression model. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to reduce the selection bias. RESULTS: A total of 927 patients were included (the chemotherapy group: 696 patients; the surgery-only group: 231 patients). The median follow-up was 39.0 months. The 5-year overall survival was 63.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 59.0-67.6%) for the chemotherapy group and 50.2% in the surgery-only group (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.54-0.88; p = 0.003). The 5-year, disease-free survival was 35.4% for the chemotherapy group and 16.6% for the surgery-only group (HR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.53-0.83; p < 0.001). After PSM, the survival benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for AEG was maintained. Multivariate analysis for overall survival and disease-free survival further demonstrated the survival benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy, with HRs of 0.63 (p < 0.001) and 0.52 (p < 0.001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved overall survival and disease-free survival in patients with operable stage II or III AEG after D2 gastrectomy.

LAG3-PD1 or CTLA4-PD1 Inhibition in Advanced Melanoma: Indirect Cross Comparisons of the CheckMate-067 and RELATIVITY-047 Trials.

Objective: To compare the inhibition of LAG3-PD1 versus the inhibition of CTLA-4-PD1 in patients with previously untreated advanced melanoma. Methods: The individual participant data (IPD) were extracted from the KM plots using a graphical reconstructive algorithm. Log-rank, Cox proportional hazard model, Bayesian hierarchical model with time-varying hazard ratio (HR) effect, and restricted mean survival time (RMST) were performed to estimate survival benefits. Results: The CheckMate-067 (n = 630) and RELATIVITY-047 (n = 714) trials were included for analysis. The graphical reconstructive algorithm showed that IPD had similar HRs and log-rank values as the original plots. The HR of nivolumab plus relatlimab (LAG3 inhibitor) versus nivolumab plus ipilimumab (CTLA4 inhibitor) was 1.19 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96 to1.48). The 24-months RMST of nivolumab plus relatlimab versus nivolumab was 2.35 (95% CI 0.77-3.94) months, compared with 1.87 (95% CI, 0.25-3.49) months for nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab. The Bayesian hierarchical model showed that patients treated with nivolumab plus relatlimab had earlier PFS benefits than those with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 18.9% of patients using nivolumab plus relatlimab and 55.0% of patients using nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Conclusions: These findings suggest that the PFS of LAG3-PD1 and CTLA4-PD1 inhibition were similar and LAG3-PD1 inhibition exhibited earlier survival benefit and lesser TRAEs.

Palliative Gastrectomy versus Gastrojejunostomy for advanced Gastric cancer with outlet obstruction: a propensity score matching analysis.

BACKGROUND: Gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is a late complication of advanced gastric cancer, and it is controversial how to select the therapeutic strategies: gastrojejunostomy and palliative gastrectomy? Therefore, this study was to compare the surgical and survival outcomes of gastrojejunostomy and palliative gastrectomy. METHODS: In total, 199 gastric cancer patients with outlet obstruction treated by surgery between January 2000 and December 2015 at Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into gastrojejunostomy group and palliative gastrectomy group. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to balance the selection bias. RESULTS: After 1:1 PSM, a total of 104 patients were included for final analysis. The median overall survival (OS) times in the gastrojejunostomy group and palliative gastrectomy group were 8.50 and 11.87 months, respectively (P = 0.243). The postoperative complication rates in the gastrojejunostomy group and palliative gastrectomy group were 19.23% (10/52) and 17.31% (9/52), respectively (P = 0.800), and no treatment-related death was observed. Multivariate analysis showed that periton0eal seeding (P = 0.014) and chemotherapy (P < 0.001) were independent prognostic factors. Among them, peritoneal seeding was a risk factor and postoperative chemotherapy was a protective factor. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicated that although the surgical complications of palliative gastrectomy were manageable, it showed no survival benefit. Therefore, relieving obstruction symptom, improving patients' quality of life and creating better conditions for chemotherapy appear to be the main therapeutic strategies for advanced gastric cancer with GOO.