Dataset Information

Third-line systemic treatment in advanced/metastatic gastric cancer: a comprehensive review.

ABSTRACT: The management of advanced gastric cancer has improved over the past decade. There is more evidence to support the efficacy of systemic treatment in refractory gastric cancer beyond second-line treatment. Important randomized controlled trials of chemotherapies, targeted agents and immunotherapies have been reported. With the development of these novel therapies, clinicians can better individualize treatment for patients beyond progression on second-line therapy. However, there is no guideline on third-line therapy available for clinicians. This review discussed the efficacy and safety data from the pivotal trials of the agents proven to be effective in third-line settings, including the quality of study design, level of evidence and subgroup analysis, and how the data can help to guide clinicians on selecting the most appropriate third-line therapy for their patients.

SUBMITTER: Chan WL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6600493 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Third-line systemic treatment in advanced/metastatic gastric cancer: a comprehensive review.

Chan Wing-Lok WL Lam Ka-On KO So Tsz-Him TH Lee Victor Ho-Fun VH Kwong Lai-Wan Dora LD

Therapeutic advances in medical oncology 20190629

The management of advanced gastric cancer has improved over the past decade. There is more evidence to support the efficacy of systemic treatment in refractory gastric cancer beyond second-line treatment. Important randomized controlled trials of chemotherapies, targeted agents and immunotherapies have been reported. With the development of these novel therapies, clinicians can better individualize treatment for patients beyond progression on second-line therapy. However, there is no guideline o ...[more]

PMID: 31285759

Similar Datasets

Project description:There is no standard third-line or further systemic treatment for patients with inoperable locoregionally advanced recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Metronomic oral cyclophosphamide provides an acceptable and cheap option for these heavily pretreated patients who had limited choices. We conducted a prospective phase II single-arm open-label study of metronomic oral cyclophosphamide. Patients with locoregionally advanced recurrent inoperable (rT3/T4, rN2-N3b) or metastatic (rM1) NPC who had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) (0-2) and had progressed after at least 2 lines of palliative systemic chemotherapy were eligible. They received oral cyclophosphamide between 50 and 150 mg once daily until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. Objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), biochemical response (two consecutive declines of plasma EBV DNA after treatment), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety profiles were evaluated. A total of 56 patients were recruited. Thirty-three, 13, 6, 3, and 1 patients received cyclophosphamide as 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th line of therapy respectively. After a median follow-up of 9.95 months (range 1.76-59.51 months), the ORR was 8.9% and the DCR was 57.1%. The median PFS and OS were 4.47 and 9.20 months, respectively. Those with PS 1 had longer median PFS (5.49 months) compared to those with PS 2 (3.75 months, P = .011). Besides, those who had locoregionally recurrent disease had better PFS (8.97 months, 95% CI, 0.53-17.41 months) compared to those who had distant metastases (4.14 months, 95% CI, 2.53-5.75 months, P = .020). Multivariable analysis revealed that PS 1 (vs 2) (P = .020) and locoregional recurrence (vs metastasis) (P = .029) were the only significant independent prognostic factors of PFS. Around 16 (28.6%) patients developed grade ≥3 adverse events, including malaise (5.4%), hematological (8.9%), gastrointestinal (3.6%), feverish (3.6%), and hemorrhagic (1.8%) events. The median cost of the whole drug treatment was 51.65 US dollars (USD) (range 4.15-142.75 USD) (1 USD = 7.8 HK dollars [HKD]). Metronomic oral cyclophosphamide is an acceptable third-line or beyond systemic therapy for locoregionally advanced recurrent or metastatic NPC with acceptable toxicity and limited financial burden.

Project description:BackgroundSystemic therapy is the standard treatment against advanced gastric cancer. Fluoropyrimidine plus platinum doublet has been recommended as the preferred first-line strategy. However, there is still a lack of a comprehensive and hierarchical evidence that compares all eligible literature simultaneously.MethodsRecord retrieval was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, ASCO, and ESMO meeting library from inception to October 2018. Randomized controlled trials featuring comparisons between different first-line systemic treatments against advanced gastric cancer were eligible. Overall survival was utilized as the primary endpoint. Pairwise and network calculations were based on a random-effects model and the hierarchical ranking was numerically indicated by P-score. All procedures were conducted according to Cochrane Handbook 5.1 and PRISMA for Network Meta-analysis (Registration identifier: CRD42018084951).ResultsA total of 119 studies were eligible for our pooled analysis. Concerning general analysis, 'fluoropyrimidine plus platinum-based triplet' topped the overall survival hierarchy (HR 0.91 [0.83-0.99], P-score = 0.903, p = 0.04) while it ranked in second place for progression-free survival and objective response rate. However, it displayed worse tolerability against 'fluoropyrimidine plus platinum doublet'. More specifically, 'Capecitabine plus cisplatin-based triplet plus targeted medication' topped the ranking among all fluoropyrimidine plus platinum-based regimens in additional analysis. Nevertheless, it did not reach statistical advantage against fluoropyrimidine plus oxaliplatin doublet in terms of survival benefits, while still displaying significantly worse safety profile.ConclusionsTaken together, fluoropyrimidine plus oxaliplatin doublet (especially capecitabine or S-1) should still be considered as the preferred first-line regimen owing to its comparable survival benefits and lower toxicity.

Project description:AIMS:There is a controversy as to the relative efficacy of 177Lu prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) radioligand therapy (RLT) and third-line treatment for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The aim of our systematic review was to elucidate whether 177Lu-PSMA RLT and third-line treatment have similar effects and adverse effects (PROSPERO ID CRD42017067743). METHODS:The review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Searches in Pubmed and Embase selected articles up to September 2017. A search in ClinicalTrials.gov indicated ongoing studies. The meta-analysis used the random-effects model. RESULTS:Twelve studies including 669 patients reported 177Lu-PSMA RLT. Overall, 43% of the patients had a maximum decline of PSA of ?50% following treatment with 177Lu-PSMA RLT. The treatment with 177Lu-PSMA-617 and 177Lu-PSMA for imaging and therapy (I&T) had mainly transient adverse effects. Sixteen studies including 1338 patients reported third-line treatment. Overall, 21% of the patients had a best decline of PSA of ?50% following third-line treatment. After third-line treatment with enzalutamide and cabazitaxel, adverse effects caused discontinuation of treatment for 10% to 23% of the patients. 177Lu-PSMA RLT gave a best PSA decline ?50% more often than third-line treatment (mean 44% versus 22%, p?=?0.0002, t test). 177Lu-PSMA RLT gave objective remission more often than third-line treatment (overall 31 of 109 patients versus 43 of 275 patients, p?=?0.004, ?2 test). Median survival was longer after 177Lu-PSMA RLT than after third-line treatment, but the difference was not statistically significant (mean 14 months versus 12 months, p?=?0.32, t test). Adverse effects caused discontinuation of treatment more often for third-line treatment than for 177Lu-PSMA RLT (22 of 66 patients versus 0 of 469 patients, p?<?0.001, ?2 test). CONCLUSIONS:As for patients with mCRPC, treatment with 177Lu-PSMA-617 RTL and 177Lu-PSMA I&T gave better effects and caused fewer adverse effects than third-line treatment.

Dataset Information

Third-line systemic treatment in advanced/metastatic gastric cancer: a comprehensive review.

Publications

Third-line systemic treatment in advanced/metastatic gastric cancer: a comprehensive review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets