Umbrella strategy with systemic and intraperitoneal chemotherapy versus systemic chemotherapy in patients with advanced gastric cancer: a multicenter, randomized Phase III clinical trial
-
Published:2023-12-06
Issue:1
Volume:2
Page:
-
ISSN:2791-3937
-
Container-title:Clinical Cancer Bulletin
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:CCB
Author:
Yang YangORCID, Wei JiaORCID, Du Juan, Zou Zhengyun, Wei Rongfu, Zhang Fenglin, Shen Weisheng, Lu Xiyan, Sun Sanyuan, Li Xiaoqin, Nie Chunlan, Chen Gang, Yu Lixia, Qian Hanqing, Yang Yan, Liu Qin, Shen Jie, Wang Lifeng, Xing Yajun, Cui Fangbo, Shi Jianmin, Xi Lei, Deng Lichun, Cao Xiangmin, Zhu Qing, Yuan Yuan, Cheng Meilian, Xu Hui, Yuan Ling, Guo Miaomiao, Wang Meng, Gao Changyan, Qian Xiaoping, Guan WenxianORCID, Liu BaoruiORCID
Abstract
Abstract
Background
We have developed a tridirectional regimen combining intraperitoneal, intravenous, and oral chemotherapy as a treatment for patients with advanced gastric cancer and individualized these chemotherapeutics according to mRNA expression. This multicenter Phase III umbrella study compared the efficacy and safety of individualized tridirectional intraperitoneal and systemic chemotherapy with that of standard systemic chemotherapy.
Methods
BRCA1/TOPO1 mRNA expression was examined in all enrolled patients. The patients were then randomized in a ratio of 3:1 to an individualized arm and a control arm. Patients in the control arm received systemic intravenous/oral chemotherapy, whereas those in the individualized arm received sensitive chemotherapeutics selected from oxaliplatin/cisplatin/docetaxel/irinotecan/S-1 according to their BRCA1/TOPO1 mRNA expression and received individualized tridirectional intraperitoneal/intravenous/oral chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival and the secondary endpoints were response rate, overall survival, and safety.
Results
Overall, 233 of 240 patients enrolled between August 2014 and December 2016 were included in the efficacy analysis. Baseline patient characteristics were balanced between the two arms. The objective response rate was 33.9% in the control arm and 49.1% in the individualized arm (P = 0.039). In the control and individualized arms, median progression-free survival was 5.9 months and 8.0 months, respectively (hazard ratio 0.521, 95% confidence interval 0.362–0.750, P = 0.0005) and median overall survival was 13.5 months and 16.4 months, respectively (hazard ratio 0.684, 95% confidence interval 0.474–0.988, P = 0.0430). Both regimens were tolerable.
Conclusion
The primary analysis demonstrated the statistical superiority of this tridirectional individualized regimen and suggests that this regimen has clinical efficacy in patients with advanced gastric cancer.
Trial registration
Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (chictr.org.cn) Identifier: ChiCTR-IPR-15006201.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference27 articles.
1. Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65:87–108. 2. Washington K. 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual: stomach. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:3077–9. 3. Ajani JA, Lee J, Sano T, Janjigian YY, Fan D, Song S. Gastric adenocarcinoma. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2017;3:17036. 4. Wei J, Yang Y, Du J, et al. Peritoneal metastasis in relation to outcome and herapeutic strategy in gastric cancer. Transl Cancer Res. 2017;6:149–56. 5. Sugarbaker PH, Yonemura Y. Clinical pathway for the management of resectable gastric cancer with peritoneal seeding: best palliation with a ray of hope for cure. Oncology. 2000;58:96–107.
|
|