Optimal indications for second-line chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer.
ABSTRACT As it remains uncertain whether patients with advanced gastric cancer who progress after first-line chemotherapy should receive second-line chemotherapy, we attempted to identify the optimal indications for second-line chemotherapy. In this retrospective study, 101 patients were included in univariate and multivariate analyses to identify clinicopathological variables independently associated with longer survival postprogression (SPP), defined as the time from recognition of disease progression on first-line chemotherapy to death from any cause or last follow-up. The median SPP was 340 days. On multivariate analysis, performance status 2 [hazard ratio (HR), 14.234; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.766-73.258], serum albumin level less than 3.5 g/dl (HR, 2.088; 95% CI, 1.047-4.060) at initiation of second-line chemotherapy, and time to progression less than 170 days on first-line chemotherapy (HR, 2.497; 95% CI, 1.227-5.083) were identified as independent prognostic factors associated with shorter SPP. The median SPP was 496, 375, and 232 days in patients with 0, 1, and 2 of these 3 negative prognostic factors, respectively (P=0.0002). The present study suggests that second-line chemotherapy would not be beneficial in patients with two or more of the following three negative prognostic factors: performance status 2, serum albumin less than 3.5 g/dl at initiation of second-line chemotherapy and time to progression less than 170 days on first-line chemotherapy.
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Anticancer cytotoxic agents go through a process by which their antitumor activity-on the basis of the amount of tumor shrinkage they could generate-has been investigated. In the late 1970s, the International Union Against Cancer and the World Health Organization introduced specific criteria for the codification of tumor response evaluation. In 1994, several organizations involved in clinical research combined forces to tackle the review of these criteria on the basis of the experience and knowledge acquired since then. After several years of intensive discussions, a new set of guidelines is ready that will supersede the former criteria. In parallel to this initiative, one of the participating groups developed a model by which response rates could be derived from unidimensional measurement of tumor lesions instead of the usual bidimensional approach. This new concept has been largely validated by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Group and integrated into the present guidelines. This special article also provides some philosophic background to clarify the various purposes of response evaluation. It proposes a model by which a combined assessment of all existing lesions, characterized by target lesions (to be measured) and nontarget lesions, is used to extrapolate an overall response to treatment. Methods of assessing tumor lesions are better codified, briefly within the guidelines and in more detail in Appendix I. All other aspects of response evaluation have been discussed, reviewed, and amended whenever appropriate.JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 03/2000; 92(3):205-16. · 14.34 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We prospectively evaluated the predictive value of positron emission tomography using fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET) for in vivo testing of chemosensitivity in locally advanced gastric cancer using an a priori definition of metabolic response (a decrease of >35% of the standard uptake value). The goal of the study was the definition of biologically different groups of patients prior to or early during induction therapy, with special emphasis on FDG non-avid tumors. Based on our data, which was published in 2003, at least 36 patients with metabolic response or FDG non-avid tumors had to be recruited for an analysis of the group of FDG non-avid tumors with sufficient statistical power. Seventy-one patients (32 metabolic nonresponders, 17 metabolic responders, and 22 patients with FDG non-avid tumors) underwent FDG-PET at baseline. In FDG-avid tumors, FDG-PET was repeated 14 days after the initiation of chemotherapy. Metabolic responders (17 of 49) showed a high histopathologic response rate (69%) and a favorable prognosis (median survival not reached), whereas metabolic nonresponders (32 of 49) had a poor prognosis (median survival, 24.1 months) and showed a histopathologic response in 17%. The histopathologic response rate (24%) for FDG-PET non-avid patients showed no significant difference compared with FDG-avid nonresponders (P=0.72). Survival of FDG non-avid patients was 36.7 months (not significantly different from FDG-avid nonresponders, 24.1 months, P=0.46). In locally advanced gastric cancer, three different metabolic groups exist. Response and survival was predicted by PET in FDG-avid tumors. Metabolic response assessment was not possible in FDG non-avid tumors; however, due to unfavorable outcome, therapy modification might also be considered in FDG non-avid tumors.Clinical Cancer Research 04/2008; 14(7):2012-8. · 7.84 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To identify baseline prognostic factors and assess whether pretreatment quality of life (QoL) predicts survival in patients with locally advanced or metastatic esophago-gastric cancer. Between 1992 and 2001, 1,080 patients were enrolled into three randomized, controlled trials assessing fluorouracil-based combination chemotherapy. All patients were required to complete the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer core QoL questionnaire before random assignment. Of the 1080 patients randomly assigned, 979 (91%) died. Four independent poor prognostic factors were identified by multivariate analysis: performance status >or= 2 (hazard ratio [HR], 1.58; 99% CI, 1.25 to 1.98), liver metastases (HR, 1.41; 99%CI, 1.14 to 1.74), peritoneal metastases (HR, 1.33; 99%CI, 1.01 to 1.74) and alkaline phosphatase >or= 100 U/L (HR, 1.41; 99% CI, 1.14 to 1.76). A prognostic index was constructed dividing patients into good (no risk factor), moderate (one or two risk factors) or poor (three or four risk factors) risk groups. One-year survival for good, moderate, and poor risk groups were 48.5%, 25.7%, and 11%, respectively, and the survival differences among these groups were highly significant (P <.00001). Compared with the good risk group, the moderate risk group had nearly twice the risk of death, and the poor risk group had 3.5-fold increased risk of death. Pretreatment physical (P =.003), role functioning (P <.001), and global QoL (P <.001) predicted survival. Four poor prognostic factors were identified and a simple prognostic index was devised. Information from this analysis can be used to aid clinical decision-making, help individual patient risk stratification, and serve as benchmark for the planning for future phase III trials.Journal of Clinical Oncology 06/2004; 22(12):2395-403. · 18.04 Impact Factor