scholarly journals Profiling heterogenous sizes of circulating tumor microemboli to track therapeutic resistance and prognosis in advanced gastric cancer

Human Cell ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yang Chen ◽  
Jiajia Yuan ◽  
Yanyan Li ◽  
Xue Li ◽  
Ying Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Liver Metastasis ◽  
Advanced Gastric Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Therapeutic Resistance ◽  
Molecular Characteristics ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Size Heterogeneity ◽  
Single Ctcs ◽  
Circulating Tumor Microemboli

AbstractCirculating tumor microemboli (CTM) aggregated by ≥ 2 circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are more migratory than single CTCs. Aside from the plasticity in their molecular characteristics, which have been considered tumor migration, CTM also possesses high size heterogeneity. This study, therefore, systematically investigated the heterogeneous sizes of CTM and their involvement in therapeutic resistance in 114 patients with advanced gastric cancer (GC) using a pre-established surface molecule-independent subtraction enrichment (SE)-iFISH strategy. CTM, which was pre-therapeutically detected in 33.3% of GC patients, can further form in another 34.78% of patients following chemo-/targeted therapies. The presence of CTM is relevant to liver metastasis as well as higher CTC levels (≥ 5/6 mL). Further size-based profiling of GC-CTM revealed that CTM with 2 CTCs (CTM2) was the dominant subtype, accounting for 50.0% of all detected GC-CTMs. However, CTM with 3–4 CTCs (CTM3–4) specifically associates with chemo-/targeted therapeutic resistance and inferior prognosis. Patients with ≥ 1 CTM3–4/6 mL have shorter median progression-free survival and median overall survival. Unlike CTM2 and CTM3–4, which are detectable in pre-therapy and post-therapy, larger aggregated CTM≥5 (CTM with ≥ 5 CTCs) was only intra-therapeutically detected in four HER2+ GC patients, of which three experienced liver metastases. Obtained results suggested that the cluster size of GC-CTM should be dynamically profiled beyond pre-therapeutic whole CTM enumeration in terms of chemo-/targeted resistance or metastasis monitoring. GC-CTM3–4 could be a potential indicator of therapeutic resistance, while the dynamic presence of GC-CTM≥5 implies liver metastasis in HER2+ GC patients.

scholarly journals Hyperprogressive disease during nivolumab or irinotecan treatment in patients with advanced gastric cancer

ESMO Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. e000488 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masahiko Aoki ◽  
Hirokazu Shoji ◽  
Kengo Nagashima ◽  
Hiroshi Imazeki ◽  
Takahiro Miyamoto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Advanced Gastric Cancer ◽  
Survival Benefit ◽  
Poor Prognosis ◽  
Tumour Growth ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Prior Therapy ◽  
Hyperprogressive Disease

BackgroundNivolumab showed a survival benefit for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). However, an acceleration of tumour growth during immunotherapy, (hyperprogressive disease, HPD) has been reported in various cancers. This study reviewed the HPD in patients with AGC treated with nivolumab or irinotecan.MethodsThe subjects of this retrospective study were patients with AGC with measurable lesions, and their tumour growth rates (TGR) during nivolumab or irinotecan were compared with those during prior therapy. HPD was defined as an increase in TGR more than twofold.Results34 and 66 patients received nivolumab and irinotecan in third or later line between June 2009 and September 2018 at our hospital; 22 patients receiving nivolumab had prior treatment with irinotecan, and one patient received irinotecan after nivolumab. Nivolumab and irinotecan showed no differences in disease control rates (38.2% and 34.8%) and in progression-free survival (PFS) (HR 1.1, 95% CI 0.7 to 1.6, p=0.802). The incidence of HPD was slightly higher after nivolumab (29.4%) than after irinotecan (13.5%) (p=0.0656), showing no differences in background between the patients with and without HPD. Compared between HPD and PD other than HPD after nivolumab, the HRs for PFS and overall survival (OS) were 1.1 (95% CI 0.5 to 2.7; p=0.756), and 2.1 (95% CI 0.7 to 5.8; p=0.168), but such clear difference in OS was not observed after irinotecan.ConclusionsHPD was observed more frequently after nivolumab compared with irinotecan, which was associated with a poor prognosis after nivolumab but not so clearly after irinotecan.

Multicenter randomized phase II study of weekly docetaxel alone versus weekly docetaxel plus oxaliplatin as a second-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced gastric cancer: Preliminary response and safety results.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14570-e14570 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jin Young Kim ◽  
Young Rok Do ◽  
Keon Uk Park ◽  
Hun-Mo Ryoo ◽  
Sung Hwa Bae ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Advanced Gastric Cancer ◽  
Therapy Group ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Combination Group ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Weekly Docetaxel ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

e14570 Background: Gastric cancer is a frequent malignancy with worldwide estimated incidence of 990,000 cases, representing 7.8% of all cancers in 2008. There are limited data suggesting a benefit for doublet second-line chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer. Methods: The eligibility criteria were patients 1) with prior exposure to cisplatin based chemotherapy and advanced or recurrent stomach cancer 2) with pathologically proven gastric adenocarcinoma, 3) with an ECOG performance status 0 to 2, 4) with measurable lesions. Each treatment cycle was consisted of docetaxel 36 mg/m2 in docetaxel mono therapy group and docetaxel 36 mg/m2, oxaliplatin 80 mg/m2 in docetaxel/oxaliplatin doublet therapy group on days 1, 8. The primary end point of this study was response rate, and secondary end points included toxicity, progression free and overall survival. Results: Fifty two patients were enrolled; median age was 63 years; male (n=42) and female (n=10); docetaxel mono therapy (n=27) and docetaxel/oxalliplatin doublet therapy (n=25). The median number of cycles administered was 2.5 (range,1-9). Fourty eight patients were assessable for efficacy. Four partial responses, 7 stable diseases in mono therapy group (RR; 4/27, 14.8%) and 1 complete remission, 4 partial responses, 13 stable diseases in double therapy group (RR; 5/25, 20.0%) were confirmed (p=0.198). Median progression free survival was 1.97 months in the mono therapy group and 4.93 months in doublet therapy group (p=0.007). Median overall survival was 11.57 months in the mono therapy group and 8.13 months in doublet therapy group (p=0.650). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported in 11 of 52 patients; G3 pain were in 2 patients and G3 pneumonia was in 1 patient in mono group, G3/4 neutropenia were 5 patients in the combination group, G3 nausea, vomiting, general weakness was 1 patient each group in combination group. Conclusions: Weekly docetaxel/oxaliplatin doublet therapy showed superior progression free survival to monotherapy group as second line therapy in cisplatin pretreated advanced gastric cancer patients.

Salvage gastrectomy for unresectable advanced gastric cancer after combination chemotherapy with docetaxel, cisplatin, and S-1.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15113-e15113
Author(s):  
Kei Hosoda ◽  
Keishi Yamashita ◽  
Shinichi Sakuramoto ◽  
Hiroaki Mieno ◽  
Katsuhiko Higuchi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Lymph Node ◽  
Advanced Gastric Cancer ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Pancreatic Head ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Hematologic Toxicity ◽  
Primary Tumors ◽  
Free Survival

e15113 Background: The prognosis for patients with unresectable advanced gastric cancer treated with chemotherapy alone is extremely poor. We have evaluated the safety and efficacy of salvage gastrectomy following chemotherapy with docetaxel, cisplatin, and S-1 (DCS) in patients with unresectable advanced gastric cancer. Methods: We evaluated 30 patients with unresectable advanced gastric adenocarcinoma whose lesions were down-staged by DCS chemotherapy and who underwent salvage gastrectomy with lymph node dissection from 2006 to 2012, when visible lesions were judged resectable. We retrospectively reviewed their medical records to identify factors that would influence overall survival. Results: Of the 30 patients, 17 had extra-regional lymph node metastases, 5 had liver metastases, 9 had peritoneal dissemination and 6 had pancreatic head invasion prior to DCS chemotherapy. Of the 30 patients, 23, 3, and 4 underwent R0, R1, and R2 resection, respectively. No in-hospital deaths or reoperations occurred. Pathological evaluation of primary tumors revealed grades 3, 2, 1b, 1a, and 0 tumor regression in 4, 9, 7, 7, and 2 patients, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 19 months.Two-year progression-free survival and overall survival rates were 45% and 65%, respectively. Of 17 patients with target tumors, 15 had partial responses, making the overall response rate 88%. The most common grade 3/4 hematologic toxicity was neutropenia (56%); all treatment-related toxicities were resolved, and no patient died of toxicity-related causes. Univariate analysis showed that R1/2 surgery (p<0.001), diffuse type histology (p=0.054), histological grade 0/1a/1b following chemotherapy (p<0.033), ypN3 (p<0.001) and yply2/3 (p=0.003), were significantly prognostic of reduced overall survival. A multivariate proportional hazard model found that ypN3 (p=0.003) was the sole independent prognostic factor. Conclusions: Salvage gastrectomy after DCS chemotherapy was safe and effective in patients with unresectable advanced gastric cancer. Lymph node metastasis after chemotherapy was significantly prognostic of poor prognosis, suggesting the need for further treatment.

Pharmacogenetic Profiling and Clinical Outcome of Patients With Advanced Gastric Cancer Treated With Palliative Chemotherapy

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (12) ◽  
pp. 1883-1891 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annamaria Ruzzo ◽  
Francesco Graziano ◽  
Kazuyuki Kawakami ◽  
Go Watanabe ◽  
Daniele Santini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Advanced Gastric Cancer ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Palliative Chemotherapy ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Innovative Strategy ◽  
Homozygous Genotype ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Group 1

Purpose To investigate whether polymorphisms with putative influence on fluorouracil/cisplatin activity are associated with clinical outcomes of patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Patients and Methods Peripheral blood samples from 175 prospectively enrolled AGC patients treated with fluorouracil/cisplatin palliative chemotherapy were used for genotyping 13 polymorphisms in nine genes (TS, MTHFR, XPD, ERCC1, XRCC1, XRCC3, GSTPI, GSTTI, GSTMI). Genotypes were correlated to response and survival. Results The overall response rate was 41%, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 24 weeks (range, 4 to 50 weeks), and the median overall survival (OS) was 39 weeks (range, 8 to 72+ weeks). Chemoresistance and poor survival were significantly associated with TS 5′-UTR 3G-genotype (2R/3G, 3C/3G, 3G/3G) and GSTP1 105 A/A homozygous genotype. Sixty-one patients (35%) did not show any of these risk genotypes (group 0), 57 patients (32.5%) showed one of the two risk genotypes (group 1), and 57 patients (32.5%) showed both risk genotypes (group 2). Median PFS and OS in group 0 patients were 32 weeks (range, 8 to 50 weeks) and 49 weeks (range, 18 to 72+ weeks), respectively. Group 1 and group 2 patients showed significantly worse PFS (median, 26 weeks [range, 6 to 44 weeks] and 14 weeks [range, 4 to 38 weeks], respectively) and worse OS (median, 39 weeks [range, 10 to 58 weeks] and 28 weeks [range, 8 to 56 weeks]), respectively, than group 0 patients. This adverse effect was retained in multivariate analysis. Conclusion Specific polymorphisms may influence clinical outcomes of AGC patients. Selecting palliative chemotherapy on the basis of pretreatment genotyping may represent an innovative strategy that warrants prospective studies.

Randomized Phase III Trial of Fluorouracil Alone Versus Fluorouracil Plus Cisplatin Versus Uracil and Tegafur Plus Mitomycin in Patients With Unresectable, Advanced Gastric Cancer: The Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study (JCOG9205)

2003 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Atsushi Ohtsu ◽  
Yasuhiro Shimada ◽  
Kuniaki Shirao ◽  
Narikazu Boku ◽  
Ichinosuke Hyodo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Advanced Gastric Cancer ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Toxic Effects ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Survival Times ◽  
Free Survival

Purpose: To compare fluorouracil (FU) alone with FU plus cisplatin (FP) and with uracil and tegafur plus mitomycin (UFTM) for patients with advanced gastric cancer in a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Patients and Methods: A total of 280 patients with advanced gastric cancer were randomly allocated and analyzed for survival, response, and toxicity. The survival curves were compared between groups by log-rank test on an intent-to-treat basis. Results: At the interim analysis, the UFTM arm showed a significantly inferior survival with higher incidences of hematologic toxic effects than did control arm FU alone, and the registration to UFTM was terminated. Both investigational regimens, FP and UFTM, had a significantly higher incidence of hematologic toxic effects than FU alone, although the effects were manageable. The overall response rates of the FU-alone, FP, and UFTM arms were 11%, 34%, and 9%, respectively. The median progression-free survival was 1.9 months with FU alone, 3.9 months with FP, and 2.4 months with UFTM, respectively. Although FP demonstrated a higher response rate (P < .001) and longer progression-free survival than did FU alone (P < .001), no differences in overall survival were observed between the arms. The median survival times and 1-year survival rates were 7.1 months and 28% with FU, 7.3 months and 29% with FP, and 6.0 months and 16% with UFTM, respectively. Conclusion: Neither investigational regimen, FP nor UFTM, showed a survival advantage as compared with FU alone. FU alone will remain a reference arm in our future trial for advanced gastric cancer.

Analysis of predictive factors of ramucirumab plus paclitaxel for advanced gastric cancer.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 185-185
Author(s):  
Naoki Fukuda ◽  
Daisuke Takahari ◽  
Hiroki Osumi ◽  
Tomohiro Matsushima ◽  
Izuma Nakayama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Advanced Gastric Cancer ◽  
Predictive Factors ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Independent Factor ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Gastric Cancer Patients

185 Background: Ramucirumab (RAM) is a novel anti-VEGF antibody approved in 2015 in Japan. Predictive factors for RAM in combination with paclitaxel (PTX) remain largely unknown. Methods: We reviewed 77 consecutive advanced gastric cancer patients who were treated with RAM plus PTX between June 2015 and June 2016 in our institution. We evaluated treatment outcome and analyzed potential predictive factors by univariate and multivariate analyses. Results: Median age was 67 years (range 35-83) and 51 % of the patients were male. The ECOG performance status (PS) was ≥ 2 in 8 patients. 89% (69/77) patients were treated as second line chemotherapy. Objective response rate (ORR) in patients who have measurable disease was 52 % (17/33). Median progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) and was 6.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.3-7.1) and 10.4 months (95% CI 6.8-13.6), respectively. The most frequent adverse events were peripheral neuropathy (44%), G3 ≥ neutropenia (34%), hypertension (32%) and bleeding (27%). At multivariate analysis, hypertension was independent factor for OS (Hazard ratio [HR] = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.14-0.90, P = 0.03). Also, bleeding (HR = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.09-0.55, P = 0.001) was independent factor for PFS and hypertension (HR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.22-1.02, P = 0.06) had trend toward to show better PFS. Conclusions: RAM plus PTX showed promising efficacy for advanced gastric cancer. RAM related toxicities such as hypertension and bleeding/hemorrhage were independent factors for better outcome. Further investigation is warranted to verify our analysis.

Combined analysis of three randomized phase III trials comparing S-1 monotherapy and S-1 combination therapy for first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 49-49
Author(s):  
Madoka Takeuchi ◽  
Wataru Ichikawa ◽  
Kohei Shitara ◽  
Yu Sunakawa ◽  
Koji Oba ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Advanced Gastric Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
First Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

49 Background: S-1 is the gold standard for first line therapy of advanced gastric cancer in Asia. There have been multiple meta-analyses published researching and comparing the efficacy and safety of S-1 monotherapy versus combination1,2. However there has been no analysis using actual trial data. Methods: Actual data from three randomized Phase III trials were combined to compare the efficacy of S-1 Monotherapy and S-1 combination therapy. The START trial, comparing S-1 and combination S-1 with docetaxel, SPIRITS, comparing S-1 and combination S-1 with cisplatin and TOP-002, comparing S-1 and S-1 combination with irinotecan, were merged and combined. For this analysis, the three S-1 arms were combined (n = 642) and the different S-1 combination therapy were combined (n = 617) creating two new treatment arms. The primary efficacy outcome of overall survival, progression free survival and subset analysis of overall survival stratified by baseline characteristics were performed. Results: A total of 1248 patients, including 210 Korean patients from the START were used in the analysis. The median overall survival days for S-1 combination and monotherapy was 382 [209, 648] and 321 [177, 597] and median progression free survival days for S-1 combination and monotherapy was 153 [81, 267] and 122 [61, 204]. Both overall survival (p = 0.0088 HR = 0.85 (0.76,0.96)) and progression free survival ( p = < 0.001 HR = 0.75 (0.67,0.85)) was significantly longer in the combination therapy arm compared to the monotherapy arm. Conclusions:Although there are limitations, the analysis re-confirms that S-1 combination therapy shows to be more efficacious compared to S-1 monotherapy for advanced gastric cancer patients. It must be noted that heterogeneity of the S-1 arm was not carefully considered when combining the S-1 data for the trials. In addition, the results are limited to the Asian (Japanese and Korean) population.

Clinical impact of oral intake on second-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16560-e16560
Author(s):  
Takatsugu Ogata ◽  
Yukiya Narita ◽  
Ryosuke Kumanishi ◽  
Taiko Nakazawa ◽  
Yuki Matsubara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Advanced Gastric Cancer ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Oral Intake ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Oral Drug ◽  
Poor Prognostic Factor ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Ecog Ps

e16560 Background: Trifluridine/tipiracil, an oral drug, was approved in Japan for patients (pts) with advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Insufficient oral intake (INSUF) is one of the most common complications. We evaluated the clinical characteristics and impact of oral intake during 2nd line chemotherapy (CT). Methods: We retrospectively evaluated AGC pts receiving 2nd line CT from January 2012 to December 2018 at a single institution. We defined “INSUF” as a requirement for daily intravenous fluids or hyperalimentation and “improvement of oral intake (IMP)” as no such requirement for > 1 week. Exacerbation (EXA) was defined as a change from “sufficient oral intake (SUF)” to INSUF. Results: We enrolled 495 pts, of which 67 (13%) and 428 (87%) pts had INSUF and SUF at the start of 2nd line CT, respectively. Patient characteristics are summarized in the Table. There was no difference in the cytotoxic drugs of 2nd line CT. The causes of INSUF were peritoneal metastases (79%), cachexia (15%), and primary complications (3%). The objective response rates of INSUF and SUF pts were 9% and 26%, respectively. INSUF pts had poorer progression-free survival (PFS) (1.7 vs. 3.7 months [M]; adjusted HR [aHR], 1.51; p < 0.001) and overall survival (3.2 vs. 10.1 M; aHR, 2.01; p < 0.001) than SUF pts. At the end of 2nd line CT, 147 (32%) and 314 (68%) pts had INSUF and SUF, respectively. In SUF pts, the factors correlated with EXA were poor ECOG PS (odds ratio [OR], 5.26; p < 0.001), massive or moderate ascites (OR, 2.04; p = 0.031), palliative operation history (OR, 2.90; p = 0.007), and ramucirumab use (OR, 0.50; p = 0.034). Median PFS was shorter after CT in pts with EXA than in those without (1.7 vs. 4.2 M; aHR, 2.05; p < 0.001). Among INSUF pts, 11 pts (16%) achieved IMP; the rate of IMP did not differ according to regimen. Median PFS was shorter in pts without IMP than in pts with IMP (1.1 vs. 3.3 M; aHR, 4.97; p = 0.001). Subsequent CT was administered to 29% and 71% of INSUF and SUF pts, respectively. Conclusions: INSUF at the start of 2nd line CT was a poor prognostic factor. For appropriate use of oral drugs, CT should be changed in SUF pts with factors associated with EXA. [Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document