Recent advances in the management of gastric adenocarcinoma patients

Rogers, Jane E.; Ajani, Jaffer A.

doi:10.12703/r/12-2

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Gastric cancer remains one of the prevalent causes of cancer and cancer-related death worldwide. [1] Despite many developments in diagnosis and treatment, the prognosis of metastatic or advanced gastric cancer is still not promising. The 5-year survival rate of gastric cancer is only 20%.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of efficacy and safety of 5-FU or capecitabine combined with cisplatin and docetaxel (mDCF and mDCX) as a first-line chemotherapy regimen in her 2-negative metastatic gastric cancer patients: A retrospective study

Demirci,

Azizy,

Paksoy

et al. 2024

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The prognosis of metastatic gastric cancer (GC) is poor, with a median survival time of less than a year. Capecitabine is a prodrug, metabolized by thymidine phosphorylase to its cytotoxic metabolite (5-FU). Few studies have compared capecitabine and 5-FU in mGC. In this retrospective study, we compared the efficacy and safety of modified DCF (mDCF) (docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-FU) and modified DCX (mDCX) (docetaxel, cisplatin, and capecitabine) regimens for first-line treatment in patients with mGC. The study included 112 mGC patients treated with either mDCF (n = 69) or mDCX (n = 43) between 2010 and 2021. Demographic data, response rate, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events were evaluated. The complete response rate in the mDCF group was 10.1%, whereas the complete response rate in the mDCX group was 2.3%. The partial response rate for mDCF and mDCX were 29% and 37%, respectively. The 2 treatment arms of the study had the same objective rate of response and disease control rate (DCR). PFS and OS rates were comparable between the 2 groups. The median PFS in the mDCF and mDCX arms were 6.0 months (95% CI, 4.87–7.14) and 5.0 months (95% CI, 4.10–5.90) respectively (P = .08). The median OS in the mDCF and mDCX arms were 9.0 months (95% CI, 7.53–10.47) and 9.0 months (95% CI, 6.87–11.11) respectively (P = .07). Neutropenia, asthenia, stomatitis, and nausea/vomiting were the most frequently reported grade 3 to 4 adverse events (AEs). The rates of grade 3/4 AEs and dose reduction were comparable between the 2 groups. There was no treatment discontinuation due to grade 3 to 4 AE. As a first-line treatment for patients with mGC, mDCX and mDCF regimens have comparable efficacy and tolerability profiles.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of efficacy and safety of 5-FU or capecitabine combined with cisplatin and docetaxel (mDCF and mDCX) as a first-line chemotherapy regimen in her 2-negative metastatic gastric cancer patients: A retrospective study

Demirci,

Azizy,

Paksoy

et al. 2024

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Systemic Treatments for Advanced and Metastatic Gastric Cancer

Sharma,

Carey,

McConnell

et al. 2024

PharmacoEconomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Recent advances in the development of biomarker-directed therapy and immunotherapy, for advanced and metastatic gastric cancers, have the potential to improve survival and quality of life. Much attention has been directed towards second-and later-line treatments, and the landscape here is evolving rapidly. However, uncertainty in relative effectiveness, high costs and uncertainty in cost effectiveness represent challenges for decision makers. Objective To identify economic evaluations for the second-line or later-line treatment of advanced and metastatic gastric cancer. Also, to assess key criteria (including model assumptions, inputs and outcomes), reporting completeness and methodological quality to inform future cost-effectiveness evaluations. Methods A systematic literature search (from database inception to 5 March 2023) of EconLit via EBSCOhost, Cochrane Library (restricted to National Health Service [NHS] Economic Evaluation Database and Health Technology Assessment [HTA] Database), Embase, MEDLINE and of grey literature was conducted. This aimed to identify systemic treatments that align with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines. Data were collected on key criteria and on reporting completeness and methodological quality. A narrative synthesis focussed on cost-effectiveness and cost-of-illness studies. Outcomes of interest included total and incremental costs and outcomes (life-years and quality-adjusted life-years), ratios of incremental costs per unit outcome and other summary cost and outcome measures. Also, for cost-effectiveness studies, reporting completeness and the methodological quality were assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) and the Philips Checklist, respectively. Results A total of 19 eligible economic evaluations were identified (cost-effectiveness studies [n = 15] and cost-of-illness studies [n = 4]). There was a general lack of consistency in the methodological approaches taken across studies. In the main, the cost-effectiveness studies indicated that the intervention under consideration was more effective and more costly than the comparator(s). However, most interventions were not cost effective. No studies were fully compliant with reportingcompleteness and methodological-quality requirements. Given the lack of consistency in the approaches taken across costof-illness studies, outcomes could not be directly compared. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the first published systematic literature review that has qualitatively synthesised economic evaluations for advanced and metastatic gastric cancer. There were differences in the approaches taken across the cost-effectiveness studies and the cost-of-illness studies. The conclusions of most of the cost-effectiveness studies were consistent despite identified differences in approaches. In the main, the interventions under consideration were not cost effective, presenting challenges to sustaina...

show abstract

Short-Term Outcomes Analysis Comparing Open, Lap-Assisted, Totally Laparoscopic, and Robotic Total Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis

Manara,

Aiolfi,

Bonitta

et al. 2024

Cancers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/Objectives: Total gastrectomy (TG) is the cornerstone treatment for gastric cancer (GC). While open TG (OTG) with D2 lymphadenectomy remains the gold standard, alternative techniques such as lap-assisted TG (LATG), totally laparoscopic TG (TLTG), and robotic TG (RTG) have been reported with promising outcomes. The present analysis aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of different techniques for TG comprehensively in the setting of GC. Methods: A systematic review and network meta-analysis were performed. The primary outcomes were overall complications (OC), severe postoperative complications (SPCs), and anastomotic leak (AL). Pooled effect-size measures included risk ratio (RR), weighted mean difference (WMD), and 95% credible intervals (CrIs). Results: Sixty-eight studies (44,689 patients) were included. Overall, 52.4% underwent OTG, 6.5% LATG, 39.2% TLTG, and 1.9% RTG. Both TLTG (RR 0.82; 95% CrI 0.73–0.92) and RTG (RR 0.75; 95% CrI 0.59–0.95) showed a reduced rate of postoperative OC compared to OTG. SPCs and AL RR were comparable across all techniques. Despite the longer operative time, LATG, TLTG, and RTG showed reduced intraoperative blood loss, time to first flatus, ambulation, liquid diet resumption, and hospital stay compared to OTG. Conclusions: Minimally invasive approaches seem to be associated with improved OC and functional outcomes compared to OTG.

show abstract

Recent advances in the management of gastric adenocarcinoma patients

Cited by 3 publications

References 41 publications

Comparison of efficacy and safety of 5-FU or capecitabine combined with cisplatin and docetaxel (mDCF and mDCX) as a first-line chemotherapy regimen in her 2-negative metastatic gastric cancer patients: A retrospective study

Comparison of efficacy and safety of 5-FU or capecitabine combined with cisplatin and docetaxel (mDCF and mDCX) as a first-line chemotherapy regimen in her 2-negative metastatic gastric cancer patients: A retrospective study

Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Systemic Treatments for Advanced and Metastatic Gastric Cancer

Short-Term Outcomes Analysis Comparing Open, Lap-Assisted, Totally Laparoscopic, and Robotic Total Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About