Toward molecularly selected chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer: state of the art and future perspectives.

Clinica di Oncologia Medica, AO Ospedali Riuniti-Ancona, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Cancer Treatment Reviews (Impact Factor: 6.47). 06/2009; 35(5):451-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2009.04.008
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In the last few years therapeutic options for gastric cancer patients have slowly, but constantly expanded following the introduction of both new chemotherapy agents and innovative indications for treatment. Along with the medical therapy also our knowledge of the molecular mechanisms underlying this disease has progressively improved. However although the available treatment options have undoubtedly increased no clear definitive indications can be made for a standard chemotherapy regimen and we are still unable to accurately select the appropriate treatment for the appropriate patient. Many molecular determinants of response/toxicity to chemotherapy agents have been identified, but only few of them seem to possess the necessary potential for a subsequent application in the clinical practice. Some of these factors have also been indicated as a therapeutic target for a novel class of anti-cancer compounds. This systematic review will analyse available data about these factors with the aim to constitute a starting point for future research.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: With a median overall survival of only 9-13 months in patients with advanced gastric cancer (GC), the quality of life (QoL) during the palliative treatment remains a key issue. Furthermore, when combinations of two or three drugs are used, the impact on QoL should be carefully evaluated. This was studied within the GATAC trial in patients sequentially treated with docetaxel and irinotecan with 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (5-Fu/Lv). Patients with previously untreated advanced GC were randomly assigned to start with docetaxel 45 mg/m(2) (arm T) or irinotecan 180 mg/m(2) (arm C) with bolus and 44 h infusion of 5-Fu/Lv (D1, q2 weeks). After four courses, there was a prescheduled crossover to the alternative regimen for four additional courses. QoL was measured with the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire at the start of the treatment, at crossover and after completing treatment with both regimens. Eighty-one patients were randomized, and 78 patients started treatment. A total of 191 completed QoL questionnaires were collected. There were no statistically significant differences in QoL scores between the two treatment groups and no changes in mean scores during the 16 weeks of treatment. During the last 8 weeks of treatment, a significantly larger portion of patients with radiological response reported sustained or better QoL scores than those with no radiological response (82 vs. 50 %, p = 0.007). Chemotherapy in advanced GC did not affect QoL average scores. Patients with non-responding tumours reported more often a decline in the global QoL score. The concept of the pre-scheduled switch of chemotherapy regimens prior to progression should be further studied in this disease, as it appears effective, tolerable and not to negatively affect QoL.
    Medical Oncology 04/2014; 31(4):906. DOI:10.1007/s12032-014-0906-7 · 2.06 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background and objective: miR-132 plays a role in regulating neuronal morphology and cellular excitability. Little is known about the effects of miR-132 in cancer. The aim of this study is to evaluate the expression of miR-132 and its clinical significance in gastric cancer. Cancerous tissues and corresponding normal tissues from 79 patients with gastric cancer were examined for the expression of miR-132 using quantitative PCR and the association between miR-132 expression levels and clinicopathological factors and prognosis was analyzed. In 79 clinical samples of gastric cancer patients, miR-132 expression levels in cancer tissues were significantly higher than those in the corresponding normal tissues (P =0.001). Higher expression levels of miR-132 were associated with more frequent lymph node metastasis (P =0.033), more lymphatic tumor emboli (P =0.007), and more advanced stage (P =0.016). Additionally, expression of miR-132 was an independent prognostic factor for overall survival (P =0.020). miR-132 could serve as an efficient prognostic factor for gastric cancer patients.Virtual slides: The virtual slide(s) for this article can be found here:
    Diagnostic Pathology 03/2014; 9(1):57. DOI:10.1186/1746-1596-9-57 · 2.41 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recently, a new classification for gastric cancer (GC) has been proposed, based on Lauren's histology and on anatomic tumour location, identifying three subtypes of disease: type 1 (proximal non diffuse GC), type 2 (diffuse GC) and type 3 (distal non diffuse GC). Aim of our analysis was to compare clinical outcome according to different GC subtypes (1,2,3) in metastatic GC patients receiving first-line chemotherapy. Advanced GC pts treated with a first-line combination chemotherapy were included in our analysis. Pts were divided in three subgroups (type 1, type 2 and type 3) as previously defined. A total of 248 advanced GC pts were included: 45.2% belonged to type 2, 43.6% to type 3 and 11.2% to type 1. Patients received a fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy doublet or three drugs regimens including a platinum derivate and a fluoropyrimidine with the addition of an anthracycline, a taxane or mytomicin C. RR was higher in type 1 pts (RR = 46.1%) and type 3 (34,3%) compared to type 2 (20,4%), (p = 0.015). Type 2 presented a shorter PFS, median PFS = 4.2 months, compared to type 1, mPFS = 7.2 months, and type 3, mPFS = 5.9 months (p = 0.011) and also a shorter OS (p = 0.022). Our analysis suggests that GC subtypes may be important predictors of benefit from chemotherapy in advanced GC patients. Future clinical trials should take in account these differences for a better stratification of patients.
    PLoS ONE 11/2013; 8(11):e78544. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0078544 · 3.53 Impact Factor