Article

Is chemotherapy in elderly patients with metastatic or recurrent gastric cancer as tolerable and effective as in younger patients?

Divisions of Hematology-Oncology, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Asia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology (Impact Factor: 0.91). 06/2012; 8(2):194-200. DOI: 10.1111/j.1743-7563.2011.01501.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To analyze the chemotherapy regimens and outcomes of advanced gastric cancer (AGC) patients older than 70 years of age.
Between May 2001 and October 2009, 1135 patients with metastatic or recurrent gastric cancer received palliative chemotherapy. Of these patients 56 (4.9%) were ≥70 years old and were analyzed retrospectively.
The median age at the time of first-line chemotherapy was 73 years (range, 70-85) and the median Charlson comorbidity index was 0 (0-5). In all 17 patients (30%) received surgery with curative or palliative intent; 43 (77%) were treated by doublet or triplet first-line chemotherapy regimens and 13 patients (23%) received single agent chemotherapy. Median progression-free survival for first-line chemotherapy was 3.97 months (95% CI 2.05-5.89) with an overall response rate of 26%. After the first-line chemotherapy, only 18 of 56 (32%) patients received second-line chemotherapy. The median overall survival (OS) was 12.4 months (95% CI 2.81-21.99). In multivariate analysis, receiving surgery and disease control for first-line chemotherapy were independent prognostic factors for increased OS for all 56 patients.
Patients older ≥70 years with metastatic or recurrent gastric cancer might achieve clinical benefit from chemotherapy. Receiving surgery and response of over more stable disease for first-line chemotherapy were independent prognostic factors for increased OS.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
94 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite the importance of diversity of cancer trial participants with regard to race, ethnicity, age, and sex, there is little recent information about the representation of these groups in clinical trials. To characterize the representation of racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, and women in cancer trials sponsored by the National Cancer Institute. Cross-sectional population-based analysis of all participants in therapeutic nonsurgical National Cancer Institute Clinical Trial Cooperative Group breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer clinical trials in 2000 through 2002. In a separate analysis, the ethnic distribution of patients enrolled in 2000 through 2002 was compared with those enrolled in 1996 through 1998, using logistic regression models to estimate the relative risk ratio of enrollment for racial and ethnic minorities to that of white patients during these time periods. Enrollment fraction, defined as the number of trial enrollees divided by the estimated US cancer cases in each race and age subgroup. Cancer research participation varied significantly across racial/ethnic and age groups. Compared with a 1.8% enrollment fraction among white patients, lower enrollment fractions were noted in Hispanic (1.3%; odds ratio [OR] vs whites, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-0.77; P<.001) and black (1.3%; OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.68-0.74; P<.001) patients. There was a strong relationship between age and enrollment fraction, with trial participants 30 to 64 years of age representing 3.0% of incident cancer patients in that age group, in comparison to 1.3% of 65- to 74-year-old patients and 0.5% of patients 75 years of age and older. This inverse relationship between age and trial enrollment fraction was consistent across racial and ethnic groups. Although the total number of trial participants increased during our study period, the representation of racial and ethnic minorities decreased. In comparison to whites, after adjusting for age, cancer type, and sex, patients enrolled in 2000 through 2002 were 24% less likely to be black (adjusted relative risk ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.65-0.89; P<.001). Men were more likely than women to enroll in colorectal cancer trials (enrollment fractions: 2.1% vs 1.6%, respectively; OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.24-1.35; P<.001) and lung cancer trials (enrollment fractions: 0.9% vs 0.7%, respectively; OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.16-1.31; P<.001). Enrollment in cancer trials is low for all patient groups. Racial and ethnic minorities, women, and the elderly were less likely to enroll in cooperative group cancer trials than were whites, men, and younger patients, respectively. The proportion of trial participants who are black has declined in recent years.
    JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 06/2004; 291(22):2720-6. · 29.98 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To compare capecitabine/cisplatin with 5-fluorouracil/cisplatin as first-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). In this randomised, open-label, phase III study, patients received cisplatin (80 mg/m(2) i.v. day 1) plus oral capecitabine (1000 mg/m(2) b.i.d., days 1-14) (XP) or 5-FU (800 mg/m(2)/day by continuous infusion, days 1-5) (FP) every 3 weeks. The primary end point was to confirm noninferiority of XP versus FP for progression-free survival (PFS). A total of 316 patients were randomised to XP (n = 160) or FP (n = 156). In the per-protocol population, median PFS for XP (n = 139) versus FP (n = 137) was 5.6 versus 5.0 months. The primary end point was met with an unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.81 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63-1.04, P < 0.001 versus noninferiority margin of 1.25]. Median overall survival was 10.5 versus 9.3 months for XP versus FP (unadjusted HR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.64-1.13, P = 0.008 versus noninferiority margin of 1.25). The most common treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events in XP versus FP patients were as follows: neutropenia (16% versus 19%), vomiting (7% versus 8%), and stomatitis (2% versus 6%). XP showed significant noninferiority for PFS versus FP in the first-line treatment of AGC. XP can be considered an effective alternative to FP.
    Annals of Oncology 01/2009; 20(4):666-73. · 7.38 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of chemotherapy in patients with advanced gastric cancer. Randomized phase II and III clinical trials on first-line chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer were identified by electronic searches of Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and Cancerlit; hand searches of relevant abstract books and reference lists; and contact to experts. Meta-analysis was performed using the fixed-effect model. Overall survival, reported as hazard ratio (HR) with 95% CI, was the primary outcome measure. Analysis of chemotherapy versus best supportive care (HR = 0.39; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.52) and combination versus single agent, mainly fluorouracil (FU) -based chemotherapy (HR = 0.83; 95% CI = 0.74 to 0.93) showed significant overall survival benefits in favor of chemotherapy and combination chemotherapy, respectively. In addition, comparisons of FU/cisplatin-containing regimens with versus without anthracyclines (HR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.95) and FU/anthracycline-containing combinations with versus without cisplatin (HR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.91) both demonstrated a significant survival benefit for the three-drug combination. Comparing irinotecan-containing versus nonirinotecan-containing combinations (mainly FU/cisplatin) resulted in a nonsignificant survival benefit in favor of the irinotecan-containing regimens (HR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.06), but they have never been compared against a three-drug combination. Best survival results are achieved with three-drug regimens containing FU, an anthracycline, and cisplatin. Among these, regimens including FU as bolus exhibit a higher rate of toxic deaths than regimens using a continuous infusion of FU, such as epirubicin, cisplatin, and continuous-infusion FU.
    Journal of Clinical Oncology 07/2006; 24(18):2903-9. · 18.04 Impact Factor