Norisuke Nakayama

Biweekly irinotecan plus cisplatin versus irinotecan alone as second-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer: a randomised phase III trial (TCOG GI-0801/BIRIP trial).

PURPOSE We compared biweekly irinotecan plus cisplatin (BIRIP) with irinotecan alone as the second-line chemotherapy (SLC) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). METHODS Patients with metastatic or recurrent gastric cancer refractory to S-1-based first-line chemotherapy were randomly assigned to receive BIRIP (irinotecan 60mg/m(2) plus cisplatin 30mg/m(2), every 2weeks) or irinotecan alone (irinotecan 150mg/m(2), every 2weeks). The primary end-point was to show the superiority of BIRIP to irinotecan in terms of progression free survival (PFS). RESULTS 130 patients were enrolled. PFS was significantly longer in the BIRIP group (3.8months [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.0-4.7]) than in the irinotecan group (2.8months [2.1-3.3]; hazard ratio 0.68, 95% CI 0.47-0.98; P=0.0398). Median overall survival was 10.7months in the BIRIP group and 10.1months in the irinotecan group (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.69-1.44, P=0.9823). The objective response rate was 22% in the BIRIP group and 16% in the irinotecan group (P=0.4975). However, the disease control rate was significantly better in the BIRIP group (75%) than in the irinotecan group (54%, P=0.0162). The incidences of grade 3 or worse adverse events did not differ between the two groups. Any grade elevation of serum creatinine was more common in the BIRIP group (25% versus 8%, P=0.009), but any grade diarrhoea (17% versus 42%, P=0.002) was more common in the irinotecan group. CONCLUSION BIRIP significantly prolonged PFS as compared with irinotecan alone and was tolerated as SLC, but did not demonstrate the survival benefit in this trial.

Impacts of fluorouracil-metabolizing enzymes on the outcomes of patients treated with S-1 alone or S-1 plus cisplatin for first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer†‡

A phase III trial of S‐1 plus cisplatin (SP) versus S‐1 alone, for first‐line treatment of advanced gastric cancer (SPIRITS trial), has shown that overall survival was better in patients treated with SP than with S‐1 alone. In the present retrospective biomarker study, we aimed to develop a methodology to identify the patients with advanced gastric cancer who would respond better to S‐1 alone than SP. We studied 120 patients who received S‐1 alone or SP for first‐line chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer, and quantitatively evaluated mRNA levels of thymidylate synthase (TS), thymidine phosphorylase (TP), orotate phosphoribosyltransferase (OPRT), dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase, vascular endothelial growth factor‐A, and epidermal growth factor receptor in paraffin‐embedded specimens of primary tumors. Multivariate survival analysis in patients who received S‐1 monotherapy (66 patients) demonstrated that low TP expression (hazard ratio: 2.55 (95% CI: (1.33 to 4.89)), low TS (2.71 (1.36 to 5.37)), and high OPRT (0.33 (0.13 to 0.86)) were significant predictors of long overall survival. In patients with lower expression of both TP and TS (n = 23) than their cutoff values, the S‐1 alone group (n = 15) had longer overall survival than the SP group (n = 8; median overall survival, 18.2 months vs. 9.4 months), whereas the frequency of overall adverse events in the S‐1 alone group tended to be lower than that in SP group. Our results suggest that these biomarkers are useful for selection of patients with advanced gastric cancer in whom treatment with S‐1 alone will yield survival benefit.

Second-line Chemotherapy with Biweekly Paclitaxel after Failure of Fluoropyrimidine-based Treatment in Patients with Advanced or Recurrent Gastric Cancer: a Report from the Gastrointestinal Oncology Group of the Tokyo Cooperative Oncology Group, TCOG GC-0501 Trial

OBJECTIVE A multicenter trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of paclitaxel every 2 weeks in patients with advanced or recurrent gastric cancer who had previously received fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy. METHODS The subjects were patients with gastric cancer who had disease progression or recurrence while receiving fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy. All patients had adequate major organ functions with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) of 0-2. Paclitaxel 140 mg/m(2) was administered intravenously on days 1 and 15 of a 4-week cycle. The primary endpoint was the response rate. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival and safety. RESULTS Response was assessable in 40 of 41 enrolled patients. Their median age was 63 (range: 48-77) years, and PS was 0 in 22 patients, 1 in 13 and 2 in 5. Previous treatment included S-1 (1 M tegafur-0.4 M gimestat-1 M otastat potassium) monotherapy in 32 patients and S-1-based combination therapy in 5. The median number of administered courses of paclitaxel was 3.5 (1-14). The response rate was 17.5% (95% confidence interval: 7.3-32.8%, partial response: 7, stable disease: 21, progressive disease: 10 and not evaluable: 2). The disease control rate was 70.0%, the median PFS was 111 days and the median overall survival was 254 days. Major adverse events of Grade 3 or 4 were neutropenia (27.5%), anemia (12.5%), diarrhea (2.5%) and sensory neuropathy (2.5%). CONCLUSIONS Biweekly paclitaxel seemed to be one of the useful chemotherapies after failure of fluoropyrimidine-based treatment in patients with advanced or recurrent gastric cancer.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (two-point fixed ESD) for early esophageal cancer.

Background:  We have been attempting to improve the safety, reliability and simplicity of endoscopic submucosal dissection for the treatment of early esophageal cancer and to shorten the time needed for this operation.

A multicenter, phase I dose-escalating study of docetaxel, cisplatin and S-1 for advanced gastric cancer (KDOG0601).

Objective: This dose-escalation study of a combination of docetaxel, cisplatin and S-1 investigated the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), recommended dose (RD) and antitumor activity in advanced gastric cancer. Patients and Methods: Patients received docetaxel (40 mg/m2), cisplatin (DIV on day 1) and S-1 (40 mg/m2 p.o., twice daily, on days 1–14 every 28 days). The starting dose of cisplatin was 60 mg/m2 (level 1); the dose was escalated to 70 (level 2) and 80 mg/m2 (level 3) in a stepwise fashion. Results: Fourteen patients were enrolled. The MTD of cisplatin was 80 mg/m2 (level 3). DLT was grade 3 diarrhea, febrile neutropenia and delayed resumption of treatment. The RD of cisplatin was considered to be 70 mg/m2 (level 2). DLT was liver dysfunction, occurring in only 1 patient at level 2. The response rate was 69.2% (9/13). Conclusions: For combined treatment with docetaxel, cisplatin and S-1 in patients with advanced gastric cancer, RD were docetaxel 40 mg/m2, cisplatin 70 mg/m2 and S-1 80 mg/m2/day. This regimen yields a high rate of tumor response and can be administered safely. Phase II studies of this regimen are under way.

Usefulness of EMR with an oblique aspiration mucosectomy device compared with strip biopsy in patients with superficial esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND EMR is now widely accepted as a treatment option for superficial esophageal cancer. Endoscopic oblique aspiration mucosectomy with an oblique aspiration mucosectomy device was performed, and the results were compared retrospectively with those of conventional strip biopsy. METHODS Strip biopsy (April 1991 through October 1999) or endoscopic oblique aspiration mucosectomy (November 1999 through December 2002) was performed in a consecutive series of patients with superficial esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma. Variables assessed were size of resection specimens, rate of complete resection, and complications. RESULTS Of the consecutive series of 66 patients with superficial esophageal cancer, 27 underwent strip biopsy and 39 had endoscopic oblique aspiration mucosectomy. The two groups were similar with respect to age, gender, and lesion macroscopic appearance. The endoscopic oblique aspiration mucosectomy group had a significantly greater mean depth of tumor invasion and had significantly more large lesions vs. the strip biopsy group. The mean longest diameter of resection specimens was significantly greater with endoscopic oblique aspiration mucosectomy (23.9 [5.2] mm) than with strip biopsy (15.2 [4.9] mm) (p<0.001). The en bloc resection rate was 33.3% (9/27) in the strip biopsy group and 46.2% (18/39) in the endoscopic oblique aspiration mucosectomy group (p=0.322). Despite larger lesion size in the endoscopic oblique aspiration mucosectomy group, the complete resection rate was similar between the strip biopsy (70.4%) and endoscopic oblique aspiration mucosectomy (74.4%) groups (p=0.783). The complete resection rate for lesions 30 mm or greater in diameter was slightly but not significantly higher in the endoscopic oblique aspiration mucosectomy group (84.4%) compared with the strip biopsy group (70.4%) (p>0.999). With respect to complications, the rates of bleeding and submucosal hematoma were similar. Esophageal stenosis occurred after the procedure in 3 patients in the endoscopic oblique aspiration mucosectomy group. All were managed by endoscopic dilation, and symptoms improved. CONCLUSIONS Endoscopic oblique aspiration mucosectomy is safe and effective for the treatment of superficial esophageal cancer.

A Double-Blind, Crossover, Randomized Comparison of Granisetron and Ramosetron for the Prevention of Acute and Delayed Cisplatin-Induced Emesis in Patients with Gastrointestinal Cancer: Is Patient Preference a Better Primary Endpoint?

Background: Serotonin receptor antagonists are recommended by the American Society of Clinical Oncology for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced emesis. However, the most effective agent in this class of antiemetic drugs for preventing emesis has not been clearly defined. We therefore performed a double-blind, crossover, randomized, controlled trial comparing the efficacy of granisetron and ramosetron, using patient preference as the primary endpoint. Methods: Thirty patients receiving two courses of combined chemotherapy (including ≧60 mg/m2 cisplatin) for gastric or esophageal cancer were randomly assigned to the granisetron-ramosetron group (treatment phase 1: granisetron, 3 mg; treatment phase 2: ramosetron, 0.3 mg) or the ramosetron-granisetron group (treatment phase 1: ramosetron, 0.3 mg; treatment phase 2: granisetron, 3 mg). All patients received methylprednisolone sodium, 250 mg i.v., during each treatment phase. Results: The efficacy of granisetron and ramosetron was similar in terms of the suppression of emesis and appetite status. However, the majority of patients (19/30, 63.3%) expressed a preference for granisetron, as compared with 9 patients (30.0%) who preferred ramosetron; 2 patients (6.7%) had no preference (χ2 test: p = 0.008; Fisher’s exact test: p = 0.015). Conclusions: (1) A significant proportion of patients prefer granisetron over ramosetron for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced emesis. (2) Granisetron and ramosetron possess similar effectiveness for the suppression of emesis. (3) The variable of ‘patient preference’ should be accepted as a primary endpoint of antiemetic drug efficacy.

Nab-paclitaxel versus solvent-based paclitaxel in patients with previously treated advanced gastric cancer (ABSOLUTE): an open-label, randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND Weekly administration of solvent-based paclitaxel is one of the standard second-line chemotherapy regimens for advanced gastric cancer. Nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) was developed to improve the solubility of paclitaxel and does not need premedication to avoid infusion-related reactions associated with solvent-based paclitaxel. Additionally, higher doses of nab-paclitaxel can be administered over a shorter infusion time and at higher drug concentrations compared with solvent-based paclitaxel. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of nab-paclitaxel versus solvent-based paclitaxel in patients with previously treated advanced gastric cancer. METHODS We did a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial at 72 institutions in Japan. Patients aged 20 years or older with advanced gastric adenocarcinoma refractory to a fluoropyrimidine-containing first-line chemotherapy regimen, with progressive disease or a relapse fewer than 24 weeks after the final dose of adjuvant chemotherapy were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive intravenous nab-paclitaxel (260 mg/m2) every 3 weeks (on day 1 of a 21-day cycle), weekly nab-paclitaxel (100 mg/m2, on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle), or weekly solvent-based paclitaxel (80 mg/m2, on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle). Randomisation was done with the minimisation method, with stratification for previous use of docetaxel, presence of peritoneal metastases, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the full analysis set, which included all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug, with a non-inferiority margin of 1·25 for the hazard ratio. This trial is registered with Japan Pharmaceutical Information Center Clinical Trial, number JapicCTI-132059, and has been completed. FINDINGS Between March 13, 2013, and May 14, 2015, 741 patients were randomly assigned to nab-paclitaxel every 3 weeks (n=247), weekly nab-paclitaxel (n=246), or weekly solvent-based paclitaxel (n=248). Median follow-up for overall survival was 9·99 months (IQR 6·05-15·05). Median overall survival was 10·3 months (95% CI 8·7-11·4) in the group that received in the nab-paclitaxel every 3 weeks, 11·1 months (9·9-13·0) in the weekly nab-paclitaxel group, and 10·9 months (9·4-11·8) in the weekly solvent-based paclitaxel group. Weekly nab-paclitaxel was non-inferior to weekly solvent-based paclitaxel (hazard ratio 0·97, 97·5% CI 0·76-1·23; non-inferiority one-sided p=0·0085), whereas nab-paclitaxel every 3 weeks was not non-inferior to solvent-based paclitaxel (1·06, 95% CI 0·87-1·31; non-inferiority one-sided p=0·062). The main grade 3 or worse adverse drug reactions were neutropenia (158 [65%] of 244 patients in the group that received nab-paclitaxel every 3 weeks vs 99 [41%] of 241 patients in the weekly nab-paclitaxel group vs 71 [29%] of 243 patients in the weekly solvent-based paclitaxel group), peripheral sensory neuropathy (49 [20%] vs six [2%] vs six [2%]), and febrile neutropenia (30 [12%] vs seven [3%] vs two [1%]). Hypersensitivity reactions were less frequent with nab-paclitaxel every 3 weeks (two [1%] patients) and weekly nab-paclitaxel (three [1%] patients) than with weekly solvent-based paclitaxel (13 [5%] patients). Four treatment-related deaths were reported overall (pneumonia in one patient in the group that received nab-paclitaxel every 3 weeks, febrile neutropenia/pneumonia in one patient, and septic shock in one patient in the weekly nab-paclitaxel group, and respiratory disease/interstitial lung disease in one patient in the weekly solvent-based paclitaxel group). INTERPRETATION As the trial showed that weekly nab-paclitaxel was non-inferior to weekly solvent-based paclitaxel in terms of overall survival, the advantages of the nab-paclitaxel formulation make it a potential regimen for second-line treatment of gastric cancer. FUNDING Taiho Pharmaceutical.

A Phase I/II Study of XELIRI Plus Bevacizumab as Second-Line Chemotherapy for Japanese Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (BIX Study)

BACKGROUND Capecitabine is used mainly with oxaliplatin to treat metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Results from capecitabine plus irinotecan (XELIRI) with or without bevacizumab (BV) have been reported in Europe but not in Japan. Consequently, the safety and efficacy of XELIRI plus BV in Japanese patients with mCRC were assessed in a single-arm phase II study. METHODS Eligible patients had had prior chemotherapy containing BV for mCRC and wild-type or heterozygous UGT1A1. Therapy in each 21-day treatment cycle consisted of capecitabine (800 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-15), irinotecan (200 mg/m(2) on day 1), and BV (7.5 mg/kg on day 1). The primary endpoint was dose-limiting toxicity in phase I and progression-free survival (PFS) in phase II. RESULTS A total of 34 patients (6 in phase I, 28 in phase II) were enrolled from May 2010 to June 2011. Baseline characteristics included a median age of 60 years (range: 22-74 years) for 24 men and 10 women. No dose-limiting toxicities appeared in phase I. Median PFS was 240 days (95% confidence interval: 179-311 days). Overall response rate was 18.1%, and the disease-control rate was 90.9%. The incidence of adverse events frequently associated with irinotecan and capecitabine were neutropenia (any grade, 55.9%; grade 3 or 4, 11.8%), diarrhea (any grade, 50%; grade 3 or 4, 5.9%), and hand-foot syndrome (any grade, 61.8%; grade 3 or 4, 5.9%). CONCLUSION Our results suggest that XELIRI plus BV is well tolerated and effective as a second-line treatment for mCRC in Japanese patients. This regimen could be especially appropriate for patients resistant to oxaliplatin-based regimens.

Quadruple therapy with ecabet sodium, omeprazole, amoxicillin and metronidazole is effective for eradication of Helicobacter pylori after failure of first-line therapy (KDOG0201 Study).

Background and object:  An antiulcer agent, ecabet sodium, is active against Helicobacter pylori. The aim of the present study was to clinically examine whether eradication therapy, which includes ecabet sodium, is effective in eradication of H. pylori after failure of first‐line therapy.