Search

Abstract The 2023 update of the Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO) Clinical Guidelines for Gastric Cancer focuses on standardizing cancer diagnosis and treatment in China, reflecting the latest advancements in evidence‐based medicine, healthcare resource availability, and precision medicine. These updates address the differences in epidemiological characteristics, clinicopathological features, tumor biology, treatment patterns, and drug selections between Eastern and Western gastric cancer patients. Key revisions include a structured template for imaging diagnosis reports, updated standards for molecular marker testing in pathological diagnosis, and an elevated recommendation for neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage III gastric cancer. For advanced metastatic gastric cancer, the guidelines introduce new recommendations for immunotherapy, anti‐angiogenic therapy and targeted drugs, along with updated management strategies for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)‐positive and deficient DNA mismatch repair (dMMR)/microsatellite instability‐high (MSI‐H) patients. Additionally, the guidelines offer detailed screening recommendations for hereditary gastric cancer and an appendix listing drug treatment regimens for various stages of gastric cancer. The 2023 CSCO Clinical Guidelines for Gastric Cancer updates are based on both Chinese and international clinical research and expert consensus to enhance their applicability and relevance in clinical practice, particularly in the heterogeneous healthcare landscape of China, while maintaining a commitment to scientific rigor, impartiality, and timely revisions.

Abstract There exist differences in the epidemiological characteristics, clinicopathological features, tumor biological characteristics, treatment patterns, and drug selections between gastric cancer patients from the Eastern and Western countries. The Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO) has organized a panel of senior experts specializing in all sub‐specialties of gastric cancer to compile a clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of gastric cancer since 2016 and renews it annually. Taking into account regional differences, giving full consideration to the accessibility of diagnosis and treatment resources, these experts have conducted expert consensus judgment on relevant evidence and made various grades of recommendations for the clinical diagnosis and treatment of gastric cancer to reflect the value of cancer treatment and meeting health economic indexes in China. The 2021 CSCO Clinical Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer covers the diagnosis, treatment, follow‐up, and screening of gastric cancer. Based on the 2020 version of the CSCO Chinese Gastric Cancer guidelines, this updated guideline integrates the results of major clinical studies from China and overseas for the past year, focused on the inclusion of research data from the Chinese population for more personalized and clinically relevant recommendations. For the comprehensive treatment of non‐metastatic gastric cancer, attentions were paid to neoadjuvant treatment. The value of perioperative chemotherapy is gradually becoming clearer and its recommendation level has been updated. For the comprehensive treatment of metastatic gastric cancer, recommendations for immunotherapy were included, and immune checkpoint inhibitors from third‐line to the first‐line of treatment for different patient groups with detailed notes are provided.

Abstract Background Several programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD‐L1)/programmed cell death protein 1 (PD‐1) antibodies have been approved for cancer treatment worldwide. Their pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics have been reported mainly in western countries, but related data in Chinese patients are limited. This study was conducted to investigate the safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of an anti‐PD‐1 antibody, toripalimab, in Chinese patients. Methods A single‐center phase I study was conducted in Sun Yat‐sen University Cancer Center. Eligible patients were adults with histologically confirmed, treatment‐refractory, advanced, solitary malignant tumors. Toripalimab was intravenously infused every 2 weeks in dose‐escalating cohorts at 0.3 mg/kg, 1 mg/kg, 3 mg/kg, 10 mg/kg, and 240 mg. The study followed standard 3 + 3 design. Results Between 15th March 2016 and 27th September 2016, 25 patients were enrolled, of whom 3 (12.0%), 7 (28.0%), 6 (24.0%), 6 (24.0%), 3 (12.0%) received 0.3 mg/kg, 1 mg/kg, 3 mg/kg, 10 mg/kg, and 240 mg toripalimab, respectively. After a median follow‐up time of 5.0 months (range: 1.5‐19.8 months), we observed that the commonest treatment‐related adverse events (TRAEs) were fatigue (64.0%) and rash (24.0%). No grade 3 or higher TRAEs were observed. No dose‐limiting toxicity, treatment‐related serious adverse events (SAEs), or treatment‐related death occurred. Objective response rate was 12.5%. The half‐life of toripalimab was 150‐222 h after a single dose infusion. Most patients, including those from the 0.3 mg/kg group, maintained complete PD‐1 receptor occupancy (> 80%) on activated T cells since receiving the first dose of toripalimab. Conclusions Toripalimab is a promising anti‐PD‐1 antibody, which was well tolerated and demonstrated anti‐tumor activity in treatment‐refractory advanced solitary malignant tumors. Further exploration in various tumors and combination therapies is warranted.

Abstract Gastric carcinoma is the third major cause of cancer‐related death in China. Bcl‐2 and other BH3 family proteins are critically important in the process of apoptosis pathway, which may be a promising target. APG‐1252‐M1 specifically connects to Bcl‐2 and Bcl‐xl. The antitumor effect of APG‐1252‐M1 in six gastric cancer cells was identified by the Cell Counting Kit‐8 assay. The expression level of proapoptotic proteins was evaluated by Western blot. Meanwhile, the cell cycle and apoptosis distributions were analyzed by flow cytometry and JC‐1. Xenograft models were used to investigate the roles of APG‐1252‐M1 in suppressing the growth of tumors and enhancing the chemotherapy antitumor effect. The antitumor effect of APG‐1252‐M1 was time‐ and dose‐dependent and acted by initiating apoptosis. The change of cell cycle distribution was not discovered in gastric cancer cells treated with APG‐1252‐M1. APG‐1252‐M1 also exhibited synergy with chemotherapy in vivo. The combined group inhibited xenograft tumor growth more obviously than the other groups. Moreover, Ki‐67 was remarkably decreased in the combination group compared to other groups. In conclusion, APG‐1252‐M1 had a strong antitumor effect by inducing apoptosis and was synergistic with chemotherapy.

Abstract Purpose To identify how Epstein‐Barr virus (EBV) status combined with molecular profiling predicts the prognosis of gastric cancer patients and their associated clinical actionable biomarkers. Experimental Design A next‐generation sequencing assay targeting 295 cancer‐related genes was performed in 73 EBV‐associated gastric cancer (EBVaGC) and 75 EBV‐negative gastric cancer (EBVnGC) specimens and these results were compared with overall survival (OS). Results PIK3CA, ARID1A, SMAD4, and PIK3R1 mutated significantly more frequently in EBVaGC compared with their corresponding mutation rate in EBVnGC. As the most frequently mutated gene in EBVnGC (62.7%), TP53 also displayed a mutation rate of 15.1% in EBVaGC. PIK3R1 was revealed as a novel mutated gene (11.0%) associated almost exclusively with EBVaGC. PIK3CA, SMAD4, PIK3R1, and BCOR were revealed to be unique driver genes in EBVaGC. ARID1A displayed a significantly large proportion of inactivated variants in EBVaGC. A notable finding was that integrating the EBV status with tumor mutation burden (TMB) and large genomic instability (LGI) categorized the tumors into four distinct molecular subtypes and optimally predicted patient prognosis. The corresponding median OSs for the EBV+/TMB‐high, EBV+/TMB‐low, EBV‐/LGI‐, and EBV‐/LGI+ subtypes were 96.2, 75.3, 44.4, and 20.2 months, respectively. The different subtypes were significantly segregated according to distinct mutational profiles and pathways. Conclusions Novel mutations in PIK3R1 and TP53 genes, driver genes such as PIK3CA, SMAD4, PIK3R1, BCOR, and ARID1A, and distinguished genomic profiles from EBVnGC were identified in EBVaGC tumors. The classification of gastric cancer by EBV, TMB, and LGI could be a good prognostic indicator, and provides distinguishing, targetable markers for treatment.

Abstract Background Gene mutations may play an important role in the development, response to treatment and prognosis of colorectal cancer (CRC). This retrospective study aimed to investigate the mutation profiling of Chinese patients with CRC, and its correlation with clinicopathological features and prognosis. Methods This study included 1190 Chinese CRC patients who were diagnosed between May 1998 and December 2018 and received clinical genetic testing. The OncoCarta Panel was used to test a total of 238 possible mutations in 19 common oncogenes. Results Five hundred and eighty‐two (48.9%) cases were detected with gene mutations. Of the 582 cases, there were 111 cases (19.7%) with two concurrent mutations, and six cases (1.0%) with three concurrent mutations. KRAS was the most common gene mutation that occurred in all cases (429, 36.1%), followed by PIK3CA (121, 10.2%), NRAS (47, 3.9%), BRAF (35, 2.9%), HRAS (11, 0.9%) and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) (11, 0.9%). AKT1, KIT, FGFR1, FGFR3, FLT3, CDK, ERBB2, ABL1, MET, RET and PDGFRA mutations were also detected in several cases. When it came to prognosis, we found that KRAS/NRAS/PIK3CA/BRAF mutation was not associated with prognosis. But BRAF mutation was associated with poor prognosis in patients who accepted anti‐EGFR therapy. Conclusions The molecular testing offered the clinical data and mutation profile of Chinese CRC patients. The information of these mutated genes may help to find out the correlation between mutated genes and the development or prognosis of CRC.

Abstract Mountain of studies has showed that right‐sided colon cancer (RSCC) and left‐sided colon cancer (LSCC) have different clinical presentation and biologic features and should be considered as two distinct disease entities. The survival difference between RSCC and LSCC remains controversial. Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, we identified colon adenocarcinoma patients from 2004 to 2013. The 5‐year cause‐specific survival (CSS) was our primary endpoint. All statistical analyses were performed using the Intercooled Stata 13.0. All statistical tests were two‐sided. The study included 95,847 (58.72%) RSCC and 67,385 (41.28%) LSCC patients. RSCC patients were older, more often females, more Caucasian, more unmarried, more advanced T and N stage, larger tumor sizes, and more poorly differentiated tumor, while LSCC patients had more stage IV diseases. Location was an independent prognostic factor in the multivariable analysis. Compared with RSCC patients, the hazard ratio for LSCC was 0.87, 95% CI: 0.85–0.89 P