Search

The KEYNOTE-659 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of first-line pembrolizumab plus S-1 and oxaliplatin (SOX) (cohort 1) or S-1 and cisplatin (SP) (cohort 2) for advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) cancer in Japan. Herein, we update the results of cohort 1 and describe the results of cohort 2. This open-label phase IIb study enrolled patients with advanced programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive (combined positive score ≥ 1) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative G/GEJ adenocarcinoma. The primary end-point was the objective response rate (ORR). Other end-points were duration of response (DOR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. One hundred patients were enrolled. In cohorts 1 and 2, median follow-up time was 16.9 and 17.1 months; ORR (central review), 72.2% and 80.4%; DOR, 10.6 and 9.5 months; DCR (central review), 96.3% and 97.8%; median PFS (central review), 9.4 and 8.3 months; and median OS, 16.9 and 17.1 months, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in all patients, including peripheral sensory neuropathy (94.4%, cohort 1), decreased neutrophil count (82.6%, cohort 2), nausea (59.3% and 60.9% in cohorts 1 and 2), and decreased appetite (61.1% and 60.9% in cohorts 1 and 2). Grade 3 or higher TRAEs were reported by 59.3% (cohort 1) and 78.3% (cohort 2), including decreased platelet count (14.8%, cohort 1) and decreased neutrophil count (52.2%, cohort 2). Pembrolizumab in combination with SOX or SP showed favorable efficacy and safety in patients with PD-L1-positive, HER2-negative G/GEJ adenocarcinoma., (© 2022 The Authors. Cancer Science published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Japanese Cancer Association.)

Background/aim: In later-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), trifluridine/tipiracil is often selected because regorafenib is difficult to use in patients with comorbidities such as thrombosis, hemorrhage, or cardiac events. However, the safety and efficacy of trifluridine/tipiracil in these patients is not clear., Patients and Methods: The clinical outcomes of trifluridine/tipiracil were retrospectively investigated in patients who were ineligible for regorafenib because of comorbidities., Results: Among the 27 patients who received trifluridine/tipiracil, many had comorbidities of deep venous thrombosis or hemorrhage. The median overall survival was 12.4 months, and the median progression-free survival was 2.8 months. The median overall survival was 7.7 months in 19 patients without subsequent regorafenib. Grade 3 or higher toxicities were found in 51% of patients. No treatment discontinuation because of comorbidities was observed., Conclusion: Trifluridine/tipiracil can be safely administered while maintaining efficacy in patients who were ineligible for regorafenib., (Copyright © 2021 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3) plays a key role in hematopoiesis. However, the oncogenic role of FLT3 amplification in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remains unclear. Here, we aimed to evaluate the characteristics, prognosis, and treatment efficacy of an FLT3 inhibitor (regorafenib) in patients with mCRC with FLT3 amplifications. Tumor tissue samples from 2329 patients were sequenced using NGS in the Nationwide Cancer Genome Screening Project in Japan. The effects of clinicopathological features, co-altered genes, prognosis, and efficacy of regorafenib were investigated. Between April 2015 and June 2018, 85 patients with mCRC with FLT3 amplification were observed. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between patients with or without FLT3 amplification. The frequency of RAS or other gene co-alterations was inversely correlated with the copy number status. Median survival time in patients with FLT3 amplification was significantly shorter compared with those with non-FLT3 amplification. Further investigations of FLT3 amplification as a potential treatment target in mCRC are warranted., (© 2020 The Authors. Cancer Science published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Japanese Cancer Association.)

Background: Cetuximab has been shown to be clinically active when given in combination with irinotecan in patients with irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, it has remained unclear whether panitumumab is effective when combined with irinotecan. We compared efficacies of both regimens in this randomised phase II study., Patients and Methods: Patients with wild-type KRAS exon 2 mCRC previously treated with fluorouracil-, oxaliplatin- and irinotecan-based chemotherapies were randomised (1:1) to either panitumumab plus irinotecan (panitumumab arm) or cetuximab plus irinotecan (cetuximab arm). The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). The planned sample size was 120, expecting a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.0 with non-inferiority margin of 1.3 (one-sided alpha error 0.2 and power 0.7). Major secondary end-points were overall survival (OS), response rate and safety., Results: From December 2011 to September 2014, 121 patients were enrolled, and 61 and 59 patients were randomised to the panitumumab and cetuximab arms, respectively (1 patient excluded). Most patients (97%) had received prior chemotherapies containing bevacizumab. The median PFS was 5.42 months in the panitumumab arm and 4.27 months in the cetuximab arm (HR = 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.44-0.94, P < 0.001 for non-inferiority, P = 0.058 for superiority), and median OS was 14.85 and 11.53 months (HR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.44-1.00, P = 0.050 for superiority), respectively. The incidence of grade 3 or 4 hypomagnesaemia was higher in the panitumumab arm than that in the cetuximab arm (17% vs. 7%)., Conclusion: Panitumumab may be non-inferior to cetuximab in combination with irinotecan in survival of patients with irinotecan-refractory mCRC., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement DS reports grants from Yakult Honsha, Chugai, Ono, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Incyte and Taiho, and personal fee from Chugai, outside the submitted work. T.T. reports receiving personal fees from Merck Serono Co., Ltd, and Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., during the conduct of the study, and receiving grants from Ono Pharmaceutical, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Japan AMED, outside the submitted work. N.S. reports receiving personal fees from Merck-Biopharm and Takeda Pharmaceutical Co.Ltd. , and ONO Pharmaceutical Co.,Ltd., MSD, Sanofi, Daiichi Sankyo, Parexel International, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Solasia Pharma, Chugai Parmaceutical, Taiho Pharmaceutical and Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work. T.N. reports grants and personal fees from Taiho pharma, grants and personal fees from Chugai pharma, grants from Daiichi sankyo pharma, grants from MSD, grants and personal fees from Ono pharma, grants and personal fees from Bristol myers squibb, grants and personal fees from Lilly pharma, grants from Dainippon sumitomo pharma, outside the submitted work. H.H. reports paid consulting or advisory roles for MSD and Ono; honoraria from Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Lilly, Merck Biopharma, MSD, Ono, Sanofi, Taiho, Takeda and Yakult; and research funding from Astellas, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Dainippon Sumitomo, Eisai, Incyte, LSK BioPharma, Merck Biopharma, MSD, Ono, Pfizer, and Taiho, outside the submitted work. T.E. reports research funding from Taiho, MSD, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Ono, Bayer, Novartis, Astellas, Astellas Amgen Biopharma, BeiGene, Pierre Fabre Medicament, Ignyta, Array BioPharma, Dainippon Sumitomo, and honoraria from Taiho, MSD, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Ono, Bayer, Chugai, Nihon Kayaku, Sanofi, Takeda, Merck Serono, Bristol, Eisai. T.D. reports personal fees from SAWAI Pharmaceutical Co, personal fees from Sysmex, grants from MSD, grants from ONO Pharmaceutical, outside the submitted work. T.S. reports receiving personal fees from Merck-BioPharm and Takeda Pharmaceutical and grants and personal fees from Yakult Honsha and Daiichi-Sankyo, outside the submitted work. A.M. reports receiving personal fees from Lily, Chugai and Takeda, outside the submitted work. A.H. reports receiving personal fees from Taiho Pharmaceutical, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Ono Pharmaceutical, Novartis, Eisai, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Teijin Pharma, Sanofi and Merck Biopharma and grants from Chugai Pharmaceutical, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Ono Pharmaceutical, Eisai and Yakult Honsha, outside the submitted work.T.M. reports receiving grants and personal fees from Taiho Pharmaceutical, Yakult Honsha and Takeda Pharmaceutical; receiving personal fees from Chugai Pharmaceutical, Novelpharma, Merck Serono and Sanofi and receiving grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and Eisai, outside the submitted work. H.Y. reports research funding from MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, and Ono Pharmaceutical, personal fees from Taiho Pharmaceutical, honoraria from Chugai Pharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan, Daiichi Sankyo, TERUMO, Eli Lilly Japan, Merk Biopharma, and Yakult Honsha, outside the submitted work. A.T. reports receiving personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Merck Serono Co., Ltd. E.B. reports receiving grants and personal fees from Ono, Merck-Serono, Taiho, Chugai and Daiichi-Sankyo and personal fees from BMS, Takeda, Eli lilly, Tsumura, Kyowa-Kirin and Yakult, outside the submitted work. K.S. reports personal fees from SHIONOGI & CO., LTD., personal fees from Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, personal fees from Taiho Pharmaceutical Co Ltd, personal fees from ONO PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., personal fees from Merck Biopharma Co., Ltd, personal fees from NIPPON KAYAKU Co., Ltd., personal fees from Asahi Kasei Pharma, from Eisai Co., Ltd., personal fees from Bayer Yakuhin, Ltd., personal fees from Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd., personal fees from CHUGAI PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., personal fees from MOCHIDA PHARMACEUTICAL CO.,LTD., personal fees from Eli Lilly Japan K.K., personal fees from DAIICHI SANKYO COMPANY, LIMITED, outside the submitted work. M.G. reports receiving grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Yakult Honsha Co., Ltd., Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd., Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., during the conduct of the study and personal fees and non-financial support from Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Novartis Pharmaceuticals and Bayer Yakuhin, Ltd., outside the submitted work. S.K. reports receiving grants and personal fees from Eli Lilly, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Ono Pharmaceutical and Bristol-Myers Squibb and personal fees from Chugai Pharma, Merck Serono, Bayer, Eisai and Yakult Honsha, outside the submitted work. Y.K. reports receiving research grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Boehringer Ingelheim Japan, Ono Pharmaceutical, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Tosoh Corp., research grants from MSD, Toppan Printing, Terumo and On-chip Biotechnologies, and personal fees from Thermo Fisher, and Lilly outside the submitted work. K.Y. reports receiving personal fees and other fees from Chugai, Bayer and MSD; personal fees from Takeda, Taiho, Yakult, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck Serono, Sanofi, Lily and other fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. S.H. reports receiving personal fees from Ono Pharm, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Taiho Pharm, Yakult Honsha, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Chugai Pharm, Nihonkayaku and Tsumura & Co., outside the submitted work. N.B. reports receiving research grant from Ono, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Taiho and honorarium from Ono, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Taiho, Eli-Lilly and Chugai. I.H. reports receiving grants and personal fees from Chugai, Taiho, Takeda, Ono, Daiichi-Sankyo and Yakult-Honsha and personal fees from Merck-Serono, outside the submitted work. K.M. reports receiving grants and personal fees from ONO Pharmaceutical CO.,LTD. and Sanofi, and grants from Daiichi Sankyo, Parexel International, Shionogi Pharmaceutical, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma, MSD, Pfizer, Mediscience Planning, Solasia Pharma, and Merck Serono. He also reports receiving personal fees from Eli Lilly, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Bayer; outside the submitted work. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is highly associated with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) and is sometimes lethal. Predictors of VTE have not been identified, and the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for AGC-associated VTE remain to be clarified., Methods: A total of 188 AGC patients who started chemotherapy during the period from January 2014 to December 2017 in our institutions were retrospectively examined for the incidence of VTE, risk factors for VTE, and the efficacy and safety of DOAC-based anticoagulant therapy for VTE., Results: Thirty-four patients (18%) were diagnosed with VTE at the start or during the course of chemotherapy (VTE group). More VTE group patients had a history of abdominal surgery and had moderate-severe ascites (32% versus 17%, 32% versus 14%, respectively) than non-VTE group patients (NVTE group). The mean serum albumin concentrations in the VTE group were significantly lower than NVTE group (3.38 mg/dL vs 3.65 mg/dL, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that hypoalbuminemia was significantly correlated with VTE (P = 0.012). In the VTE group, 29 patients (85%) received anticoagulant therapy, including 24 patients treated with DOACs. No lethal VTE was observed in any patients. Thirteen patients (45%) terminated DOACs because of anemia or bleeding events, of whom eleven developed major bleeding. Median overall survivals of the VTE and NVTE groups were 9.63 months and 11.5 months, respectively (P = 0.262)., Conclusion: Hypoalbuminemia appears to be a risk factor for AGC-associated VTE. DOACs are effective to AGC-associated VTE, but careful observation of bleeding events is required.

Background: Avelumab is a human anti-PD-L1 IgG1 monoclonal antibody that has shown antitumor activity in several advanced cancers. We report results from JAVELIN Solid Tumor JPN, a phase 1 trial of avelumab in Japanese patients with advanced solid tumors with expansion in patients with advanced gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction cancer., Methods: In the dose-escalation part, eligible patients had various previously treated metastatic or advanced solid tumors. In the dose-expansion part, patients had stage IV gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma and disease progression after prior therapy that included a platinum and fluoropyrimidine agent. Patients received avelumab every 2 weeks intravenously at 3, 10, or 20 mg/kg during dose escalation and 10 mg/kg during dose expansion., Results: Among 17 patients who received avelumab in the dose-escalation part, no dose-limiting toxicities occurred, and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached. 40 patients were enrolled in the dose-expansion part, of whom 21 (52.5%) had received ≥ 3 prior lines of therapy for advanced disease. In these patients, the objective response rate was 10.0% (95% CI, 2.8-23.7%) and median overall survival was 9.1 months (95% CI, 7.2-11.2 months). Three of 40 patients (7.5%) had a grade 3 treatment-related adverse event (alanine aminotransferase increase, anemia, and hyponatremia), and no grade ≥ 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred. Five patients (12.5%) had an immune-related adverse event (all grade 1/2)., Conclusions: Avelumab showed acceptable safety in Japanese patients with advanced solid tumors and clinical activity in patients with advanced gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction cancer and disease progression after chemotherapy.

Background: Patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) are often treated with irinotecan monotherapy as salvage-line therapy. However, the survival benefit of this therapy remains to be elucidated., Methods: Medical records of AGC patients who were treated with irinotecan monotherapy as salvage-line treatment in six institutions from 2007 to 2014 were reviewed., Results: A total of 146 patients had prior fluoropyrimidine and taxane therapies, and 75.3% had prior platinum therapy. The median age was 66 (range 27-81) years, and 102 males (69.9%) were included. Performance status (PS) was 0/1/2/3 in 53/70/19/4 patients. Eighty-nine patients (61.0%) had two or more metastatic sites. Irinotecan monotherapy as 3rd-/4th-line therapy was performed in 135/11 (92.5%/7.5%). The median number of administrations was 4 (range 1-62). Forty-six patients (31.5%) required initial dose reduction at the physician's discretion. The overall response rate was 6.8%, and the disease control rate was 43.1%. The median PFS was 3.19 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.30-4.08 months], and the median OS was 6.61 months (95% CI 5.94-7.28 months). Grade 3/4 adverse events were hematological toxicity (46 patients, 31.5%) and non-hematological toxicity (50 patients, 34.2%). Hospitalization due to adverse events was required in 31 patients (21.2%). Patients with relative dose intensity (RDI) less than 80% showed similar survival to those with RDI 80% or higher., Conclusions: Irinotecan monotherapy was relatively safely performed as salvage-line treatment for AGC in Japanese clinical practice. Careful patient selection and intensive modification of the dose of irinotecan might possibly be associated with favorable survival.

Background: This study compared the efficacy of regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil (TFTD) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who are refractory to standard chemotherapy, because despite their clinical approval, it still remains unclear which of these two drugs should be used as initial treatment., Materials and Methods: The clinical data of patients with mCRC who were treated with regorafenib or TFTD and those of drug-naive patients, between June 2014 and September 2015, were retrospectively collected from 24 institutions in Japan. Overall survival (OS) was evaluated using the Cox's proportional hazard models based on propensity score adjustment for baseline characteristics., Results: A total of 550 patients (223 patients in the regorafenib group and 327 patients in the TFTD group) met all criteria. The median OS was 7.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.8-9.2) in the regorafenib group and 7.4 months (95% CI, 6.6-8.3) in the TFTD group. The propensity score adjusted analysis showed that OS was similar between the two groups (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.96; 95% CI, 0.78-1.18). In the subgroup analysis, a significant interaction with age was observed. Regorafenib showed favorable survival in patients aged <65 years (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.98-1.69), whereas TFTD was favored in patients aged ≥65 years (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.59-1.03)., Conclusion: No significant difference in OS between regorafenib and TFTD was observed in patients with mCRC. Although the choice of the drug by age might affect survival, a clearly predictive biomarker to distinguish the two drugs should be identified in further studies., Implications for Practice: Previous studies of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer refractory to standard chemotherapy had demonstrated that both regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil could result in increased overall survival compared with placebo, but there are no head-to-head trials. This large, multicenter, observational study retrospectively compared the efficacy of regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil in 550 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer refractory to standard chemotherapy who had access to both drugs. Although no difference in overall survival was found between the two drugs in adjusted analysis using propensity score, regorafenib showed favorable survival in patients aged <65 years, whereas trifluridine/tipiracil was favored in patients aged ≥65 years in the subgroup analysis., Competing Interests: Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article., (© 2017 The Authors The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of AlphaMed Press.)

Purpose: Standard therapy for advanced small bowel adenocarcinoma (SBA) has not yet been established. The present study assessed the efficacy and safety of chemotherapy (CT) in association with molecular targeting approaches for SBA., Methods: The histories of 33 advanced SBA patients from six different institutions in Japan, who received CT from 2008 to 2016, were retrospectively examined for background, clinical course and outcome., Results: Median patient age was 65 years (range 39-83). Primary tumor was located in the duodenum in 21 patients (67%), the ampulla of Vater in three patients (9%), the jejunum in seven patients (21%) and the ileum in one patient (3%). Histologically, well-to-moderately and poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma were identified in 20 (61%) and nine (27%) patients, respectively. Thirteen patients received a single CT regimen, seven patients received two types of CT regimen, and 13 patients received three or more CT regimens. As first-line CT, modified FOLFOX6, capecitabine plus oxaliplatin, and S-1 plus cisplatin were employed in 13, 1, and 4 patients, respectively. The response rate (RR) and median progression-free survival (PFS) were 25% and 6.0 months, respectively. Median overall survival (OS) was 13.0 months. Nine out of the 33 patients received bevacizumab-containing CT and three received cetuximab-containing CT. Median OS of bevacizumab-containing CT patients was 21.9 months. No unexpected serious adverse events were observed., Conclusions: The analysis indicates that combination CT for advanced SBA is associated with modest efficacy and safety, and bevacizumab-containing CT may contribute to favorable outcome in these patients.

Background: We evaluated the safety and efficacy of ramucirumab plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel in patients previously treated for advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma in Japanese and Western subgroups from the RAINBOW trial., Methods: Patients received ramucirumab at 8 mg/kg or placebo (days 1 and 15) plus paclitaxel at 80 mg/m(2) (days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle). End points were compared between treatment arms within Japanese (N = 140) and Western (N = 398) populations., Results: The incidence of adverse events of grade 3 or higher was higher for ramucirumab plus paclitaxel in both populations (Japanese population, 83.8 % vs 52.1 %; Western population, 79.1 % vs 61.9 %). Neutropenia was the commonest adverse event of grade 3 or higher, with a higher incidence for ramucirumab plus paclitaxel (Japanese population, 66.2 % vs 25.4 %; Western population, 32.1 % vs 14.7 %). The incidence of febrile neutropenia was low and was similar between treatment arms in both populations. The overall survival hazard ratio was 0.88 (95 % confidence interval, 0.60-1.28) in the Japanese population and 0.73 (95 % confidence interval, 0.58-0.91) in the Western population. The progression-free survival hazard ratio was 0.50 (95 % confidence interval, 0.35-0.73) in the Japanese population and 0.63 (95 % confidence interval, 0.51-0.79) in the Western population. The objective response rate was higher for ramucirumab plus paclitaxel in both populations (Japanese population, 41.2 % vs 19.4 %; Western population, 26.8 % vs 13.0 %), as was the 6-month survival rate (Japanese population, 94.1 % vs 71.4 %; Western population, 66.0 % vs 49.0 %)., Conclusions: Safety profiles of the ramucirumab plus paclitaxel arm were similar between populations, though there was a higher incidence of neutropenia in Japanese patients. Progression-free survival and objective response rate improvements were observed for ramucirumab plus paclitaxel in both populations. CLINICALTRIALS., Gov Identifier: NCT01170663.

Background: Although leucovorin enhances the efficacy of fluorouracil, the anti-tumour activity of S-1 and leucovorin and their combination with oxaliplatin for patients with advanced gastric cancer is unknown. We compared the activity and safety of S-1 plus leucovorin, S-1 plus leucovorin and oxaliplatin, and S-1 plus cisplatin as first-line chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer., Methods: In this multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial, we recruited chemotherapy-naive patients with unresectable or recurrent gastric cancer with measurable lesions aged 20 years or older from 25 general hospitals and specialist centres in Japan. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) centrally to receive S-1 plus leucovorin (S-1 40-60 mg orally plus oral leucovorin 25 mg twice a day for 1 week, every 2 weeks), S-1 plus leucovorin and oxaliplatin (S-1 plus leucovorin and intravenous oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) on day 1, every 2 weeks), or S-1 plus cisplatin (S-1 40-60 mg orally twice a day for 3 weeks, plus intravenous cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) on day 8, every 5 weeks). Randomisation was done with the minimisation method using performance status (0 vs 1) and tumour stage (stage IV vs recurrent) as stratification factors. The primary endpoint was independently reviewed overall response in the full analysis set. This trial is registered with Japic CTI, number 111635., Findings: Between Oct 20, 2011, and Dec 17, 2012, we enrolled and randomly assigned 145 patients: 49 patients were assigned to S-1 plus leucovorin, 47 to S-1 plus leucovorin and oxaliplatin, and 49 to S-1 plus cisplatin. An objective response assessed by the independent review committee was achieved in 20 (43% [95% CI 28·3-57·8]) of the 47 patients in the S-1 plus leucovorin group, 31 (66% [50·7-79·1]) of the 47 patients in the S-1 plus leucovorin and oxaliplatin group, and 22 (46% [31·4-60·8]) of the 48 patients in the S-1 plus cisplatin group (Fisher's exact test, p=0·84 for S-1 plus leucovorin vs S-1 plus cisplatin, p=0·063 for S-1 plus leucovorin and oxaliplatin vs S-1 plus cisplatin, and p=0·038 for S-1 plus leucovorin and oxaliplatin vs S-1 plus leucovorin). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (three [6%] of 48 patients in the S-1 plus leucovorin group vs 12 [26%] of 47 patients in the S-1 plus leucovorin and oxaliplatin group vs 17 [35%] of 49 patients in the S-1 plus cisplatin group), decreased appetite (six [13%] vs 14 [30%] vs 12 [24%]), anaemia (five [10%] vs seven [15%] vs 13 [27%]), and hyponatraemia (two [4%] vs two [4%] vs nine [18%])., Interpretation: S-1 plus leucovorin and oxaliplatin was more active than S-1 plus leucovorin or S-1 plus cisplatin with acceptable toxic effects for patients with advanced gastric cancer. A phase 3 trial comparing S-1 plus leucovorin and oxaliplatin with S-1 plus cisplatin is underway., Funding: Taiho Pharmaceutical., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Five-weekly S-1 plus cisplatin (SP5) is one of the standard first-line regimens for advanced gastric cancer (GC), proven in a Japanese phase III study. To enhance the dose intensity of cisplatin, 3-weekly S-1 plus cisplatin (SP3) was developed., Patients and Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase III study evaluated whether SP3 (S-1 80 mg/m(2)/day on days 1-14 and cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) on day 1) was noninferior/superior to SP5 (S-1 80-120 mg/day on days 1-21 and cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) on day 1 or 8) in terms of progression-free survival (PFS). Chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic, recurrent gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma were randomized 1 : 1 to receive either SP3 or SP5. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00915382)., Results: Between February 2009 and January 2012, 625 patients were randomized at 42 sites in Korea and Japan. With a median follow-up duration of 32.4 months (range, 13.3-48.6 months) in surviving patients, SP3 was not only noninferior but also superior to SP5 in terms of PFS [median 5.5 versus 4.9 months; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.82; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68-0.99; P = 0.0418 for superiority). There was no difference in overall survival (OS) between the groups (median 14.1 versus 13.9 months; HR = 0.99; 95% CI 0.81-1.21; P = 0.9068). In patients with measurable disease, the response rates were 60% in the SP3 arm and 50% in the SP5 arm (P = 0.065). Both regimens were generally well tolerated, but grade 3 or higher anemia (19% versus 9%) and neutropenia (39% versus 9%) were more frequent in SP3., Conclusions: SP3 is superior to SP5 in terms of PFS. However, since the improvement in PFS was only slight and there was no difference in OS, both SP3 and SP5 can be recommended as first-line treatments for patients with advanced GC., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Salvage-line regorafenib monotherapy exhibited a marked survival benefit for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, the toxicity of this regimen has resulted in the clinical use of a reduced dose of regorafenib., Patients and Methods: Thirty-two Japanese mCRC patients (median age=61 years) who had been treated with regorafenib were retrospectively examined., Results: Best objective response rate was 0% and stable disease (SD) was 31%. Median progression-free survival was 81 days and median overall survival was 233 days. Adverse events of any grade were observed in all patients: 17 (53%) patients suffered grade 3 or 4 adverse events including fatigue (13%), anorexia (13%), hand-foot skin reaction (22%) and elevations of alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase (19%/16%). One patient with grade 5 liver dysfunction was identified (3%). Twenty-nine (91%) patients required treatment dose reduction or a delay in treatment. The relative dose intensity was 59%. Regorafenib treatments were terminated because of disease progression (59%) or adverse events (34%)., Conclusion: Despite a decrease in the intensity of regorafenib treatment, because of severe adverse events, a fairly favorable efficacy was achieved in Japanese patients., (Copyright© 2015 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. John G. Delinassios), All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The FIRIS study previously demonstrated non-inferiority of IRIS (irinotecan plus S-1) to FOLFIRI (5-fluorouracil/leucovorin with irinotecan) for progression-free survival as the second-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) as the primary endpoint. The overall survival (OS) data were immature at the time of the primary analysis., Methods: Between 30 January 2006 and 29 January 2008, 426 patients with mCRC who failed in first-line chemotherapy were randomly assigned to receive either FOLFIRI or IRIS. After the primary analysis, the follow-up survey was cut off on 29 July 2010, and the final OS data were analysed., Results: With a median follow-up of 39.2 months, the median OS was 17.4 months in the FOLFIRI group and 17.8 months in the IRIS group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.900; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.728-1.112]. In the pre-planned subgroup of patients who received prior chemotherapy containing oxaliplatin, the median OS was 12.7 months in the FOLFIRI group and 15.3 months in the IRIS group (HR 0.755; 95% CI 0.580-0.983)., Conclusions: IRIS is non-inferior to FOLFIRI for OS as second-line chemotherapy for mCRC. IRIS can be an option for second-line chemotherapy of mCRC. (ClinicalTrials.gov Number: NCT00284258).

Purpose: This single-arm, phase II clinical study evaluated the efficacy and safety of sequential treatment with S-1 followed by cisplatin in patients with advanced or recurrent gastric cancer., Methods: Fifty patients with histologically confirmed advanced or recurrent gastric cancer and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 who had measurable and/or assessable lesions and gave written informed consent were enrolled. S-1 (40 mg/m(2), bid) was administered on days 1-21, and cisplatin (70 mg/m(2)) was given as an intravenous infusion on day 22 of a 35-day cycle. Treatment was continued until disease progression or intolerable adverse events. Cisplatin was administered for 6 cycles. Adverse events were assessed according to Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events version 3.0, and efficacy was evaluated according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.0 for patients with measurable lesions and by the criteria of the Japanese Research Society for Gastric Cancer for all patients., Results: Efficacy could be evaluated in 49 of the 50 enrolled patients. The median age was 62 years. Lesions were measurable in 38 patients and assessable in 11. The response rate was 44.7% in patients with measurable lesions and 40.8% overall. The progression-free survival and overall survival were, respectively, 233 days (7.8 months) and 574 days (19.0 months) in patients with measurable lesions and 192 days (6.4 months) and 402 days (13.4 months) overall. Serious adverse events (grade 3 or higher) included neutropenia (24.5%), anemia (20.4%), and anorexia (20.4%) and were safely managed., Conclusion: The safety and effectiveness of sequential treatment with S-1 followed by cisplatin every 35 days is equivalent to that reported for conventional chemotherapeutic regimens in patients with advanced or recurrent gastric cancer.

The combination of an oral fluoropyrimidine derivative, S-1, and irinotecan is expected to be a promising regimen for advanced colorectal cancer. This study was performed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended dose (RD) of irinotecan combined with S-1 in a 3-week cycle regimen and to observe the safety and efficacy for patients with previously untreated advanced colorectal cancer. Eighty milligrams per m(2) of S-1 was given orally for 14 consecutive days and escalated doses of irinotecan were administered on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks in the phase I trial. Forty patients were treated at the RD during the phase II trial. Forty-three patients were enrolled between February 2005 and March 2007. The dose-limiting toxicity was diarrhea and abdominal pain. The MTD of irinotecan was 100 mg/m(2) and the RD was determined to be 80 mg/m(2) of irinotecan combined with 80 mg/m(2) of S-1. The phase II trial showed that 22 of 40 patients achieved a complete or partial response and eight had stable disease. The overall response rate was 55.0%. The median progression-free survival time and median survival time were 6.7 and 21 months, respectively. There were no treatment-related deaths. The main toxicities were leukopenia, neutropenia, anorexia and diarrhea. This study suggests the combination of irinotecan and S-1 repeated every 3 weeks is tolerable and effective for patients with previously untreated advanced colorectal cancer., (© 2010 Japanese Cancer Association.)

Background: Fluorouracil and folinic acid with either oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) or irinotecan (FOLFIRI) are widely used as first-line or second-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. However, infusional fluorouracil-based regimens, requiring continuous infusion and implantation of an intravenous port system, are inconvenient. We therefore planned an open-label randomised controlled trial to verify the non-inferiority of irinotecan plus oral S-1 (a combination of tegafur, 5-chloro-2,4-dihydroxypyridine, and potassium oxonate; IRIS) to FOLFIRI as second-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer., Methods: Between Jan 30, 2006, and Jan 29, 2008, 426 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer needing second-line chemotherapy from 40 institutions in Japan were randomly assigned by a computer-based minimisation method to receive either FOLFIRI (n=213) or IRIS (n=213). In the FOLFIRI group, patients received folinic acid (200 mg/m(2)) and irinotecan (150 mg/m(2)) and then a bolus injection of fluorouracil (400 mg/m(2)) on day 1 and a continuous infusion of fluorouracil (2400 mg/m(2)) over 46 h, repeated every 2 weeks. In the IRIS group, patients received irinotecan (125 mg/m(2)) on days 1 and 15 and S-1 (40-60 mg according to body surface area) twice daily for 2 weeks, repeated every 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, with a non-inferiority margin of 1.333. Statistical analysis was on the basis of initially randomised participants. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00284258., Findings: All randomised patients were included in the primary analysis. After a median follow-up of 12.9 months (IQR 11.5-18.2), median progression-free survival was 5.1 months in the FOLFIRI group and 5.8 months in the IRIS group (hazard ratio 1.077, 95% CI 0.879-1.319, non-inferiority test p=0.039). The most common grade three or four adverse drug reactions were neutropenia (110 [52.1%] of 211 patients in the FOLFIRI group and 76 [36.2%] of 210 patients in the IRIS group; p=0.0012), leucopenia (33 [15.6%] in the FOLFIRI group and 38 [18.1%] in the IRIS group; p=0.5178), and diarrhoea (ten [4.7%] in the FOLFIRI group and 43 [20.5%] in the IRIS group; p<0.0001). One treatment-related death from hypotension due to shock was reported in the FOLFIRI group within 28 days after the end of treatment; no treatment-related deaths were reported in the IRIS group., Interpretation: Progression-free survival with IRIS is not inferior to that with FOLFIRI in patients receiving second-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. Treatment with IRIS could be an additional therapeutic option for second-line chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer., Funding: Taiho Pharmaceutical Co Ltd and Daiichi Sankyo Co Ltd., (Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The combination of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and cisplatin (CDDP) has been reported to be active against metastatic gastric cancer (MGC) and great synergy has been shown in vivo and in vitro when 5-FU precedes CDDP. The sequential combination of S-1 (tegafur, oxonic acid, 5-chloro-2,4-dihydroxypyridine) followed by CDDP for MGC was investigated. A phase I trial applying increasing doses of oral administration of S-1 (65-80 mg/m(2)) for 21 days and increasing doses of CDDP (60-80 mg/m(2)) on day 22 every 35 days was conducted in order to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase II dose. Patients with metastatic or recurrent gastric cancer, no prior chemotherapy, measurable disease, ECOG performance status less than 3 and adequate organ functions were eligible for the study. Three patients were treated at each dose level with escalation based on toxicity. Fifteen patients were included and evaluated for dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) and MTD. DLT included NCICTC grade 3 anorexia and fatigue in patients treated at S-1 80 mg/m(2) and CDDP 80 mg/m(2) (dose level 5). The other toxicities, grade 3 or higher, included neutropenia (grade 3) and nausea/vomiting (grade 3). Non-hematological toxicities were grade 1/2 and included diarrhea, nausea and stomatitis. There was no treatment-related mortality. Therefore, the recommended dose was a combination of S-1 at 80 mg/m(2) and CDDP at 70 mg/m(2). This sequential administration of S-1 and CDDP every 35 days is tolerable and warrants a phase II trial. A multicenter phase II study is currently under way.

The aims of this phase I/II study of docetaxel and S-1 were to determine the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), and recommended dose (RD) in the phase I part and to explore the tumour response, survival and safety in the phase II part. Patients with histologically- or cytologically confirmed unresectable or recurrent gastric cancer were eligible. Treatment consisted of intravenous docetaxel on day 1 (starting dose 50 mg m(-2)) and oral S-1 at a fixed dose of 40 mg m(-2) twice daily on days 1-14, every 4 weeks up to six cycles. Nine patients took part in the phase I portion of the study. The MTD of docetaxel was determined to be 50 mg m(-2), with the DLTs of grade 3 infection associated with grade 3 neutropenia and grade 4 neutropenia during S-1 administration. The RD of docetaxel was 40 mg m(-2) in combination with S-1 40 mg m(-2) b.i.d. The efficacy and safety of this regimen was therefore assessed in 46 patients with at least one measurable lesion. The overall response rate and estimated median overall survival were 46% (95% CI, 31-61%) and 14.0 months (8.3-17.3 months), respectively. The most common grade 3/4 toxicity was neutropenia (67% of patients), which was predictable and manageable. This regimen showed promising activity with moderate toxicities in advanced gastric cancer.

The roles of activated ras and src oncogene products in the acquisition of fully neoplastic phenotype by human gallbladder adenocarcinoma cells were investigated by co-transfecting non-tumorigenic HAG-I human gallbladder carcinoma cells with the pSV2neo plasmid and a plasmid carrying either activated c-H-ras or v-src oncogene. G418-resistant clones were isolated and assessed for the acquisition of anchorage-independent growth potential. Neither the 10 established clones transfected with pSV2neo alone nor the 17 clones transfected with activated c-H-ras, including 4 clones expressing the mutated p21H-ras protein, could form colonies in soft agar. By contrast, out of 10 clones transfected with v-src, 2 formed colonies in soft agar and produced tumors in athymic nude mice, the resulting progressive neoplasms being poorly differentiated adenocarcinomas. These tumorigenic clones were shown to have v-src DNA and mRNA levels with p60v-src protein, but there were no significant chromosomal alterations following tumorigenic conversion. Moreover, herbimycin A, a selective src-kinase inhibitor, markedly reduced clonogenic growth of these cells in soft agar rather than monolayer growth, suggesting that anchorage-independent growth of the v-src-transformed HAG-I cells might be driven directly by p60v-src kinase activity. Taken together, our data suggest that the fully neoplastic conversion of HAG-I cells depends on src-related tyrosine-kinase activity, but not solely on the function mediated by activated ras, thus providing evidence of an src-related signaling pathway for the acquisition of tumorigenic potential by human gallbladder adenocarcinoma cells.