Search

Background: PLAnning Treatment For Oesophago-gastric Cancer: a Randomised Maintenance Therapy Trial (PLATFORM) is an adaptive phase II study assessing the role of maintenance therapies in advanced oesophago-gastric (OG) adenocarcinoma. We evaluated the role of the anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor durvalumab in these patients., Patients and Methods: Patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative locally advanced or metastatic OG adenocarcinoma with disease control or response to 18 weeks of platinum-based first-line chemotherapy were randomised to active surveillance or maintenance durvalumab. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Safety was assessed in all patients who had commenced surveillance visits or received at least one dose of durvalumab. Exploratory survival analyses according to PD-L1 Combined Positive Score (CPS) and immune (biomarker-positive) or angiogenesis dominant (biomarker-negative) tumour microenvironment (TME) phenotypes were conducted., Results: Between March 2015 and April 2020, 205 patients were randomised to surveillance (n = 100) and durvalumab (n = 105). No significant differences were seen in PFS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.84, P = 0.13] and overall survival (OS; HR 0.98, P = 0.45) between surveillance and durvalumab. Five patients randomised to durvalumab demonstrated incremental radiological responses compared with none with surveillance. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 77 (76.2%) durvalumab-assigned patients. A favourable effect in OS with durvalumab over surveillance in CPS ≥5 and immune biomarker-positive patients was observed compared with CPS <5 and biomarker-negative subgroups, respectively: CPS ≥5 versus <5: HR 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32-1.22 versus HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.44-1.96; biomarker-positive versus negative: HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.29-1.23 versus HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.42-1.65., Conclusion: Maintenance durvalumab does not improve PFS in patients with OG adenocarcinoma who respond to first-line chemotherapy but induced incremental radiological responses in a subset of patients. TME characterisation could refine patient selection for anti-PD-L1 therapy above PD-L1 CPS alone., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: An improved understanding of which gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (GOA) patients respond to both chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) is needed. We investigated the predictive role and underlying biology of a 44-gene DNA damage immune response (DDIR) signature in patients with advanced GOA., Materials and Methods: Transcriptional profiling was carried out on pretreatment tissue from 252 GOA patients treated with platinum-based chemotherapy (three dose levels) within the randomized phase III GO2 trial. Cross-validation was carried out in two independent GOA cohorts with transcriptional profiling, immune cell immunohistochemistry and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) (n = 430)., Results: In the GO2 trial, DDIR-positive tumours had a greater radiological response (51.7% versus 28.5%, P = 0.022) and improved overall survival in a dose-dependent manner (P = 0.028). DDIR positivity was associated with a pretreatment inflamed tumour microenvironment (TME) and increased expression of biomarkers associated with ICI response such as CD274 (programmed death-ligand 1, PD-L1) and a microsatellite instability RNA signature. Consensus pathway analysis identified EGFR as a potential key determinant of the DDIR signature. EGFR amplification was associated with DDIR negativity and an immune cold TME., Conclusions: Our results indicate the importance of the GOA TME in chemotherapy response, its relationship to DNA damage repair and EGFR as a targetable driver of an immune cold TME. Chemotherapy-sensitive inflamed GOAs could benefit from ICI delivered in combination with standard chemotherapy. Combining EGFR inhibitors and ICIs warrants further investigation in patients with EGFR-amplified tumours., Competing Interests: Disclosure MAB reported personal fees from Ipsen, BMS and Servier. RDP reported personal fees from Eli Lilly, Bristol Myers Squib, and Servier and grants from AstraZeneca, Roche, Sanofi, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Five Prime Therapeutics and Jansen outside the submitted work. MJS reported grants from Cancer Research UK during the conduct of the GO2 study. PSH reported grants from Cancer Research UK during the conduct of the study and institutional research funding from Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Daiichi-Sankyo and Eisai outside the submitted work. GL and RDK are employees of Almac Diagnostic Services. RT reported personal fees from Eli Lilly, Astellas and Almac Diagnostic Services outside the submitted work. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Subset analyses from phase III evaluation of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibition (EGFRi) suggest improved outcomes in patients with EGFR- amplified gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (GEA), but large-scale analyses are lacking. This multi-institutional analysis sought to determine the role of EGFRi in the largest cohort of patients with EGFR- amplified GEA to date., Patients and Methods: A total of 60 patients from 15 tertiary cancer centers in six countries met the inclusion criteria. These criteria required histologically confirmed GEA in the metastatic or unresectable setting with EGFR amplification identified by using a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-approved assay, and who received on- or off-protocol EGFRi. Testing could be by tissue next-generation sequencing, plasma circulating tumor DNA next-generation sequencing, and/or fluorescence in situ hybridization performed by a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments approved laboratory. Treatment patterns and outcomes analysis was also performed using a deidentified clinicogenomic database (CGDB)., Results: Sixty patients with EGFR -amplified GEA received EGFRi, including 31 of 60 patients (52%) with concurrent chemotherapy. Across treatment lines, patients achieved a 43% objective response rate with a median progression-free survival of 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.5 to 6.4). Patients receiving EGFRi in first-, second-, and third-line therapy achieved a median overall survival of 20.6 months (95% CI, 13.5 to not reached [NR]), 9 months (95% CI, 7.9 to NR), and 8.4 months (7.6 to NR), respectively. This survival far exceeded the 11.2-month (95% CI, 8.7 to 14.2) median overall survival from first-line initiation of non-EGFRi therapy in patients with EGFR -amplified GEA in the CGDB. Despite this benefit, analysis of the CGDB (January 2011-December 2020) suggests that only 5% of patients with EGFR -amplified GEA received EGFRi., Conclusion: Patients with EGFR- amplified GEA derive significant benefit from EGFRi. Further prospective investigation of EGFRi in a well-selected patient population is ongoing in an upcoming trial of amivantamab in EGFR and/or MET amplified GEA.

Perioperative oncological therapies resulting in pathological complete response (pCR) in diffuse-type distal gastric adenocarcinoma are extremely rare. We report a case of locally advanced (cT3 N2 M0) diffuse-type distal gastric adenocarcinoma treated with 'total neoadjuvant' FLOT (eight cycles), due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and laparoscopic radical subtotal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy. The patient demonstrated a progressive radiological response on positron emission tomography with 2-deoxy-2-[fluorine-18]fluoro-d-glucose integrated with computed tomography ( 18 F-FDG PET-CT) and pCR in the resected specimen (ypT0 N0). As far as we are aware, this is the first case of pCR in locally advanced T3 N2 diffuse distal gastric cancer to be reported in the literature. It introduces a novel approach of total neoadjuvant chemotherapy with 18 F-FDG PET-CT to assess response, combined with radical minimally invasive surgical management to provide optimal care for patients with gastric cancer.

Introduction: Research into the optimal management of frail patients with cancer is limited and treatment decision-making in this cohort can be difficult. A number of measures have been developed to assess frailty, but few studies explore the correlation between frailty measures and cancer treatment outcomes., Methods: This retrospective cohort study is an exploratory analysis of the GO2 randomised controlled trial. GO2 recruited both older and frail younger patients commencing first-line palliative chemotherapy for advanced gastro-oesophageal (aGO) cancer. This analysis aims to explore the correlation between baseline frailty and treatment outcome. Baseline frailty measures were derived from clinical data and included ECOG Performance Status (PS), the GO2 Frailty Score (GO2FS), Geriatric-8 (G8), Cancer and Aging Research Group (CARG) toxicity score and a 'modified' Rockwood Clinical Frailty Scale (mCFS). Novel patient-centred composite measure Overall Treatment Utility (OTU) was the primary endpoint. Ordinal logistic regression was undertaken to give odds ratios for poor vs good/intermediate OTU. Secondary endpoints were progression-free and overall survival. Models were adjusted for age, sex, histology, metastases, Trastuzumab and renal/hepatic function., Results: In GO2, 514 patients were randomised between three chemotherapy dose-levels; all of these patients were assessed for OTU and are included in this analysis. Worse GO2FS, mCFS and G8 scores all had a statistically significant association with poor (vs good/intermediate) OTU, progression and death, which persisted after adjustment. Adjusted odds ratios for poor OTU amongst those with the worst GO2FS and mCFS and best G8 scores were as follows: 1.85 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-2.88) for GO2FS ≥3 ('severely frail'), 1.72 (1.19-2.50) for mCFS 5+ ('frail') and 0.57 (0.32-1.00) for G8 > 14 ('normal'). Worse ECOG PS and CARG scores did not have a statistically significant association with poor OTU/progression/death., Conclusion: In this study, frailty identified via GO2FS, mCFS and G8 conveyed a statistically significant increased risk of worse treatment outcome in older and frail younger patients with aGO cancer. Frailty assessment provides information over and above PS and should be integrated alongside routine assessments in research and clinical practice. In the absence of prospective data, frailty measures can be derived retrospectively to build the evidence base around optimal care of frailer patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. Petty reported personal fees from Eli Lilly, Bristol Myers Squib, and Servier, and grants from AstraZeneca, Roche, Sanofi, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Five Prime Therapeutics, and Jansen outside the submitted work. Prof Seymour reported grants from Cancer Research UK during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Hall reported grants from Cancer Research UK during the conduct of the study and institutional research funding from Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Daiichi-Sanchyo, and Eisai outside the submitted work. Prof Velikova reported personal fees from Roche, Eisai, Novartis, and Seattle Genetics, and grants from Breast Cancer Now, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Yorkshire Cancer Research, and Pfizer outside the submitted work., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Older and/or frail patients are underrepresented in landmark cancer trials. Tailored research is needed to address this evidence gap., Objective: The GO2 randomized clinical trial sought to optimize chemotherapy dosing in older and/or frail patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer, and explored baseline geriatric assessment (GA) as a tool for treatment decision-making., Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, noninferiority, open-label randomized trial took place at oncology clinics in the United Kingdom with nurse-led geriatric health assessment. Patients were recruited for whom full-dose combination chemotherapy was considered unsuitable because of advanced age and/or frailty., Interventions: There were 2 randomizations that were performed: CHEMO-INTENSITY compared oxaliplatin/capecitabine at Level A (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1, capecitabine 625 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-21, on a 21-day cycle), Level B (doses 0.8 times A), or Level C (doses 0.6 times A). Alternatively, if the patient and clinician agreed the indication for chemotherapy was uncertain, the patient could instead enter CHEMO-BSC, comparing Level C vs best supportive care., Main Outcomes and Measures: First, broad noninferiority of the lower doses vs reference (Level A) was assessed using a permissive boundary of 34 days reduction in progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio, HR = 1.34), selected as acceptable by a forum of patients and clinicians. Then, the patient experience was compared using Overall Treatment Utility (OTU), which combines efficacy, toxic effects, quality of life, and patient value/acceptability. For CHEMO-BSC, the main outcome measure was overall survival., Results: A total of 514 patients entered CHEMO-INTENSITY, of whom 385 (75%) were men and 299 (58%) were severely frail, with median age 76 years. Noninferior PFS was confirmed for Levels B vs A (HR = 1.09 [95% CI, 0.89-1.32]) and C vs A (HR = 1.10 [95% CI, 0.90-1.33]). Level C produced less toxic effects and better OTU than A or B. No subgroup benefited from higher doses: Level C produced better OTU even in younger or less frail patients. A total of 45 patients entered the CHEMO-BSC randomization: overall survival was nonsignificantly longer with chemotherapy: median 6.1 vs 3.0 months (HR = 0.69 [95% CI, 0.32-1.48], P = .34). In multivariate analysis in 522 patients with all variables available, baseline frailty, quality of life, and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio were independently associated with OTU, and can be combined in a model to estimate the probability of different outcomes., Conclusions and Relevance: This phase 3 randomized clinical trial found that reduced-intensity chemotherapy provided a better patient experience without significantly compromising cancer control and should be considered for older and/or frail patients. Baseline geriatric assessment can help predict the utility of chemotherapy but did not identify a group benefiting from higher-dose treatment., Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN44687907.

Purpose: Gastric and gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas represent the third leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. Despite significant therapeutic improvement, the outcome of patients with advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma is poor. Randomized clinical trials failed to show a significant survival benefit in molecularly unselected patients with advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma treated with anti-EGFR agents., Experimental Design: We performed analyses on four cohorts: IRCC (570 patients), Foundation Medicine, Inc. (9,397 patients), COG (214 patients), and the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori (206 patients). Preclinical trials were conducted in patient-derived xenografts (PDX)., Results: The analysis of different gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma patient cohorts suggests that EGFR amplification drives aggressive behavior and poor prognosis. We also observed that EGFR inhibitors are active in patients with EGFR copy-number gain and that coamplification of other receptor tyrosine kinases or KRAS is associated with worse response. Preclinical trials performed on EGFR -amplified gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma PDX models revealed that the combination of an EGFR mAb and an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) was more effective than each monotherapy and resulted in a deeper and durable response. In a highly EGFR- amplified nonresponding PDX, where resistance to EGFR drugs was due to inactivation of the TSC2 tumor suppressor, cotreatment with the mTOR inhibitor everolimus restored sensitivity to EGFR inhibition., Conclusions: This study underscores EGFR as a potential therapeutic target in gastric cancer and identifies the combination of an EGFR TKI and a mAb as an effective therapeutic approach. Finally, it recognizes mTOR pathway activation as a novel mechanism of primary resistance that can be overcome by the combination of EGFR and mTOR inhibitors. See related commentary by Openshaw et al., p. 2964 ., (©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: With rapid advancement in the genomics of oesophagogastric (OG) cancer and raised expectations in clinical outcomes from patients and clinicians alike there is a clear need to determine the current research priorities in OG cancer surgery. The aim of our study was to use a modified Delphi process to determine the research priorities among OG cancer surgeons in the United Kingdom., Methods: Delphi methodology may be utilised to develop consensus opinion amongst a group of experts. Members of the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland were invited to submit individual research questions via an online survey (phase I). Two rounds of prioritisation by multidisciplinary expert healthcare professionals (phase II and III) were completed to determine a final list of high priority research questions. All questions submitted and subsequently ranked were analysed on an anonymised basis., Results: In total, 427 questions were submitted in phase I and 75 with an OG cancer focus were taken forward for prioritisation in phase II. Phase III produced a final list of 12 high priority questions with an emphasis on tailored or personalised treatment strategies in OG cancer surgery., Conclusion: A modified Delphi process produced a list of 12 high priority research questions in OG cancer surgery. Future studies and awards from funding bodies should reflect this consensus list of prioritised questions in the interest of improving patient care and encouraging collaborative research across multiple centres., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest All authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2019 Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (Scottish charity number SC005317) and Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Approximately 5%-10% of gastric cancers have a fibroblast growth factor receptor-2 (FGFR2) gene amplification. AZD4547 is a selective FGFR-1, 2, 3 tyrosine kinase inhibitor with potent preclinical activity in FGFR2 amplified gastric adenocarcinoma SNU16 and SGC083 xenograft models. The randomized phase II SHINE study (NCT01457846) investigated whether AZD4547 improves clinical outcome versus paclitaxel as second-line treatment in patients with advanced gastric adenocarcinoma displaying FGFR2 polysomy or gene amplification detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization., Patients and Methods: Patients were randomized 3:2 (FGFR2 gene amplification) or 1:1 (FGFR2 polysomy) to AZD4547 or paclitaxel. Patients received AZD4547 80 mg twice daily, orally, on a 2 weeks on/1 week off schedule of a 21-day cycle or intravenous paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 administered weekly on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Safety outcomes were assessed and an exploratory biomarker analysis was undertaken., Results: Of 71 patients randomized (AZD4547 n = 41, paclitaxel n = 30), 67 received study treatment (AZD4547 n = 40, paclitaxel n = 27). Among all randomized patients, median PFS was 1.8 months with AZD4547 and 3.5 months with paclitaxel (one-sided P = 0.9581); median follow-up duration for PFS was 1.77 and 2.12 months, respectively. The incidence of adverse events was similar in both treatment arms. Exploratory biomarker analyses revealed marked intratumor heterogeneity of FGFR2 amplification and poor concordance between amplification/polysomy and FGFR2 mRNA expression., Conclusions: AZD4547 did not significantly improve PFS versus paclitaxel in gastric cancer FGFR2 amplification/polysomy patients. Considerable intratumor heterogeneity for FGFR2 gene amplification and poor concordance between FGFR2 amplification/polysomy and FGFR2 expression indicates the need for alternative predictive biomarker testing. AZD4547 was generally well tolerated., (© The Author 2017. 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.)

Purpose: To determine the recommended dose and antitumor activity of single-agent elisidepsin as a 24-h intravenous (i.v.) infusion fortnightly [biweekly, d1 and 15 every 4 weeks (q4wk); Arm A, dose-intensity strategy] or as a 3-h i.v. infusion weekly (d1, 8, 15 and 22 q4wk; Arm B, dose-density strategy) in adult patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic pretreated esophageal, gastroesophageal junction and gastric cancer., Methods: Patients were randomized to one of two elisidepsin dosing schedules. Phase Ib starting doses were 8.0 mg flat dose (FD) in Arm A and 3.0 mg FD in Arm B. Phase II subsequently explored antitumor activity of both dosing schedules at the respective recommended doses., Results: Forty-four patients received elisidepsin: 12 in stage Ib and 32 in stage II. The recommended doses were defined as 10 mg FD (Arm A) and 3.75 mg FD (Arm B). Both schedules were well tolerated. Most adverse events were mild or moderate, reversible and predictable with no meaningful differences between schedules. The pharmacokinetic profiles of both schedules were similar to those reported previously in patients with solid tumors treated with a comparable dose. An interim analysis found tumor control in one patient receiving elisidepsin fortnightly, and in none given elisidepsin weekly; patient accrual was therefore discontinued due to lack of efficacy., Conclusions: Both schedules at the recommended doses presented an acceptable safety profile, but lack of response means that we do not recommend further evaluation of single-agent elisidepsin as chemotherapy for unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic gastroesophageal cancer.

Background: Resistance to chemotherapy is common in gastroesophageal cancer. Mechanisms of resistance are incompletely characterised and there are no predictive biomarkers in clinical practice for cytotoxic drugs. We used new cell line models to characterise novel chemotherapy resistance mechanisms and validated them in tumour specimens to identify new targets and biomarkers for gastroesophageal cancer., Methods: Cell lines were selected for resistance to oxaliplatin, cisplatin and docetaxel and gene expression examined using Affymetrix Exon 1.0 ST arrays. Leads were validated by qRT-PCR and HPLC of tumour metabolites. Protein expression and pharmacological inhibition of lead target SPHK1 was evaluated in independent cell lines, and by immunohistochemistry in gastroesophageal cancer patients., Results: Genes with differential expression in drug resistant cell lines compared to the parental cell line they were derived from, were identified for each drug resistant cell line. Biological pathway analysis of these gene lists, identified over-represented pathways, and only 3 pathways - lysosome, sphingolipid metabolism and p53 signalling- were identified as over-represented in these lists for all three cytotoxic drugs investigated. The majority of genes differentially expressed in chemoresistant cell lines from these pathways, were involved in metabolism of glycosphingolipids and sphingolipids in lysosomal compartments suggesting that sphingolipids might be important mediators of cytotoxic drug resistance in gastroeosphageal cancers . On further investigation, we found that drug resistance (IC50) was correlated with increased sphingosine kinase 1(SPHK1) mRNA and also with decreased sphingosine-1-phosphate lysase 1(SGPL1) mRNA. SPHK1 and SGPL1 gene expression were inversely correlated. SPHK1:SGPL1 ratio correlated with increased cellular sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P), and S1P correlated with drug resistance (IC50). High SPHK1 protein correlated with resistance to cisplatin (IC50) in an independent gastric cancer cell line panel and with survival of patients treated with chemotherapy prior to surgery but not in patients treated with surgery alone. Safingol a SPHK1 inhibitor, was cytotoxic as a single agent and acted synergistically with cisplatin in gastric cancer cell lines., Conclusion: Agents that inhibit SPHK1 or S1P could overcome cytotoxic drug resistance in gastroesophageal cancer. There are several agents in early phase human trials including Safingol that could be combined with chemotherapy or used in patients progressing after chemotherapy.

Background: Cytotoxic chemotherapy remains the main systemic therapy for gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma, but resistance to chemotherapy is common, resulting in ineffective and often toxic treatment for patients. Predictive biomarkers for chemotherapy response would increase the probability of successful therapy, but none are currently recommended for clinical use. We used global gene expression profiling of tumour biopsies to identify novel predictive biomarkers for cytotoxic chemotherapy., Methods: Tumour biopsies from patients (n=14) with TNM stage IB-IV gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinomas receiving platinum-based combination chemotherapy were used as a discovery cohort and profiled with Affymetrix ST1.0 Exon Genechips. An independent cohort of patients (n=154) treated with surgery with or without neoadjuvant platinum combination chemotherapy and gastric adenocarcinoma cell lines (n=22) were used for qualification of gene expression profiling results by immunohistochemistry. A cisplatin-resistant gastric cancer cell line, AGS Cis5, and the oesophageal adenocarcinoma cell line, OE33, were used for in vitro validation investigations., Results: We identified 520 genes with differential expression (Mann-Whitney U, P<0.020) between radiological responding and nonresponding patients. Gene enrichment analysis (DAVID v6.7) was used on this list of 520 genes to identify pathways associated with response and identified the adipocytokine signalling pathway, with higher leptin mRNA associated with lack of radiological response (P=0.011). Similarly, in the independent cohort (n=154), higher leptin protein expression by immunohistochemistry in the tumour cells was associated with lack of histopathological response (P=0.007). Higher leptin protein expression by immunohistochemistry was also associated with improved survival in the absence of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and patients with low leptin protein-expressing tumours had improved survival when treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy (P for interaction=0.038). In the gastric adenocarcinoma cell lines, higher leptin protein expression was associated with resistance to cisplatin (P=0.008), but not to oxaliplatin (P=0.988) or 5fluorouracil (P=0.636). The leptin receptor antagonist SHLA increased the sensitivity of AGS Cis5 and OE33 cell lines to cisplatin., Conclusions: In gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinomas, tumour leptin expression is associated with chemoresistance but a better therapy-independent prognosis. Tumour leptin expression determined by immunohistochemistry has potential utility as a predictive marker of resistance to cytotoxic chemotherapy, and a prognostic marker independent of therapy in gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Leptin antagonists have been developed for clinical use and leptin and its associated pathways may also provide much needed novel therapeutic targets for gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

Background: Peri-operative chemotherapy and surgery is a standard treatment of localised oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma; however, the outcomes remain poor., Patients and Methods: ST03 is a multicentre, randomised, phase II/III study comparing peri-operative ECX with or without bevacizumab (ECX-B). The primary outcome measure of phase II (n = 200) was safety, specifically gastrointestinal (GI) perforation rates and cardiotoxicity., Results: Two hundred patients were randomised between October 2007 and April 2010. Ninety-one/101 (90%) ECX and 86/99 (87%) ECX-B patients completed pre-operative chemotherapy; 7 ECX and 9 ECX-B patients stopped due to toxicity. Gastrointestinal perforations (3 ECX, 1 ECX-B), cardiac events (1 ECX, 4 ECX-B) and venous thromboembolic events (VTEs, 8 ECX, 7 ECX-B) were uncommon. Arterial thromboembolic events (ATEs, myocardial infarction (MI) or cerebrovascular accident) were more frequent with ECX-B (5 versus 1 with ECX). Delayed wound healing, anastomotic leaks and GI bleeding rates were similar. More asymptomatic left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) falls (≥15% and/or to <50%) occurred with ECX-B (21.2% versus 11.1% with ECX). Clinically significant falls (≥10% to below lower limit of normal, LLN) occurred in (15.3%) and (8.9%) respectively, with no associated cardiac failure (median 22 months follow-up)., Conclusions: Addition of bevacizumab to peri-operative ECX chemotherapy is feasible with acceptable toxicity and no negative impact on surgical outcomes.