Advancements and challenges in treating advanced gastric cancer in the West.
Journal: 2019/September - World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology
ISSN: 1948-5204
Abstract:
Gastric cancer is a leading cause of cancer incidence and death worldwide. Patients with advanced gastric cancer benefit from a multi-modality treatment regimen. Sound oncologic resection with negative margins and complete lymphadenectomy plays a crucial role in long-term survival for patients with resectable disease. The utilization of minimally invasive techniques for gastric cancer has been slowly increasing and is proving to be both technically and oncologically safe. Perioperative chemotherapy is the current standard of care for advanced gastric cancer. A variety of chemotherapy regimens have been used with the combination of docetaxel, oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin being the current recommendation given its superior ability to induce a complete pathologic response and prolong survival. The use of radiation has been more controversial with its optimal place in the treatment sequence being unclear. There are current ongoing studies assessing the impact of radiation as an adjunct or in place of chemotherapy. Targeted treatments (e.g., trastuzumab for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive tumors and pembrolizumab for programmed death-ligand 1 positive tumors) are showing promise and are part of a continued emphasis on individualized care. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy may also play a role in preventing peritoneal recurrences for patients with high risk lesions. The treatment of patients with advanced gastric cancer in the West continues to advance and improve with a better understanding of optimal treatment sequences and the utilization of personalized treatment regimens.
Relations:
Content
Citations
(1)
References
(81)
Conditions
(2)
Drugs
(6)
Chemicals
(1)
Genes
(1)
Processes
(2)
Affiliates
(1)
Similar articles
Articles by the same authors
Discussion board
World J Gastrointest Oncol 11(9): 652-664

Advancements and challenges in treating advanced gastric cancer in the West

INTRODUCTION

Gastric cancer is the fifth most frequently diagnosed cancer and is the third leading cause of cancer death worldwide[1]. However, nearly 50% of these cases are diagnosed in Eastern Asia with over 70% of gastric cancer occurring outside of the United States[2]. Overall, the incidence of gastric cancer in the United States has been declining while overall survival (OS) rates have been steadily increasing[3]. Non-cardia gastric cancers have seen a decrease in incidence which has been attributed to changes in diet and treatment of chronic Helicobactor pylori infections which account for nearly 90% of new non-cardia gastric cancer cases[2,4]. Gastric cancers of the cardia, on the other hand, have seen an increase in incidence, and are associated with factors like obesity, Epstein-Barr virus and gastroesophageal reflux disease[1,3,5]. Additionally, recent studies suggest that while the incidence of gastric cancer in the United States is declining for those aged 40-84, the incidence of gastric cancer in the young is increasing, particularly in young Hispanic males[4]. Young gastric cancer patients are more likely to present with aggressive histologic factors such as poor differentiation, signet ring cells, diffuse histology, and linitis plastica, as well as more advanced nodal metastasis at presentation[6,7].

Outcomes for patients with advanced gastric cancer greatly depend on whether they have resectable disease. Patients with unresectable advanced disease have very poor outcomes with median survivals of just 10-18 mo[8,9]. Long-term survival for patients with resected advanced gastric cancer has improved as medical and surgical therapies have advanced. OS at 5 years after a curative resection was once just 19% in the 1980’s but has now improved to 40%-70%[10-12]. Unfortunately, nearly half of patients with an R0 resection have a recurrence and median survival after a recurrence is just 6 mo[13]. These outcomes show that there remains room for improvement in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer. Here, we review the advancements and challenges of treating advanced gastric cancer in the West.

SURGERY

Surgery for gastric cancer is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. A study of more than 700 American College of Surgeons (ACS) approved cancer programs in the United States during the 1980s reported a 30-d mortality of 7%[12]. With improvements in surgical technique, instruments, anesthesia, and peri-operative care, the morbidity and mortality associated with gastrectomy has improved in the United States. A 2005-2010 ACS NSQIP study looking at outcomes in patients undergoing total or partial gastrectomies for gastric cancer found that 24% experienced a major morbidity and the 30-d mortality was 4%[14]. If additional procedures were required (e.g., splenectomy or pancreatectomy), major morbidity increased to nearly 30%[14]. A second NSQIP study in the same time period looking at total gastrectomies alone found similar results with 36% of patients experiencing a complication and a 30-day mortality of 5%[15]. Additionally, the 30-day mortality increased to 13% in patients who underwent a pancreatectomy in addition to a total gastrectomy[15].

The benefit of multivisceral resection has been debated given the higher morbidity and mortality associated with these procedures, which is generally reported around 3% and 30%-40% respectively[16-18]. The number of patients undergoing curative-intent resection who require a multivisceral resection is anywhere from 19%-66%[16,17]. A Canadian study found that combining systemic therapy with multivisceral resections can result in a high rate of margin negative resection[19]. The 5-year survival was 34% and there were few locoregional recurrences with an acceptable morbidity and mortality[19]. A systematic review reported similar conclusions in that multivisceral resections may be helpful in achieving an R0 resection margin[20]. The United States Gastric Cancer Collaborative found that patients who underwent a multivisceral resection without a pancreatectomy had higher post-operative morbidity than those who underwent a gastrectomy alone but there was no change in mortality, while a multivisceral resection with a pancreatectomy was an independent predictor of worse OS[17]. This data would suggest that in appropriately selected patients with locally advanced gastric cancer, a multivisceral resection can be performed at high volume centers with a high rate of negative margins and an acceptable morbidity and mortality. The inclusion of pancreatectomy is an independent predictor of poor outcome and must be used selectively.

The stomach has a multidirectional and complex network of regional lymphatic vessels and nodes[21]. Gastric cancer has a high tendency to metastasize to these regional lymph nodes and their involvement is an important prognostic factor[22]. As such, lymph node retrieval is an important aspect of staging for gastric cancer and has implications in adjuvant treatment recommendations (Table (Table11)[22-24]. The final publication of the Dutch trial reported lower locoregional recurrence and gastric cancer-related death in patients undergoing a D2 lymphadenectomy compared to a D1 lymphadenectomy[25]. Similarly, an Italian trial demonstrated a survival benefit for patients with positive nodes treated with D2 gastrectomy without splenectomy and pancreatectomy[26]. As such, a pancreas and spleen preserving, or modified D2 lymphadenectomy, is now the standard of care at most academic institutions throughout the United States.

Table 1

Surgery trials

Trial nameCountryStatusYearsFactorsOutcome
DGCT TrialNetherlandsComplete1989-1993Randomization to D1 or D2 lymphadenectomyIncreased morbidity and mortality in D2 group

Decreased gastric cancer-related deaths and locoregional recurrences after D2 resection
IGCSG-R01ItalyComplete1998-2006Randomization to D1 or D2 lymphadenectomyNo difference in morbidity and mortality

Improved 5-yr survival in subgroup analysis of patients with positive LN after D2 resection
KLASS-011KoreaComplete2006-2010Randomization to open distal gastrectomy or laparoscopic distal gastrectomyDecreased wound complication rate in laparoscopic group with no difference in morbidity or mortality
KLASS-022KoreaComplete2011-2015Randomization to open or laparoscopic gastrectomy and D2 lymph node resectionDecreased complication rates and pain scores with shorter hospital stays in laparoscopic resections
JCOG 07031JapanComplete2007-2008Prospective study with patients undergoing laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with D1 lymph node resectionLaparoscopic surgery was safe with lower than expected rates of anastomotic leaks and pancreatic fistulas
Clinical stage I gastric cancers only;
Locally advanced gastric cancers only. DGCT: Dutch Gastric Cancer Group Trial; IGCSG: Italian Gastric Cancer Study Group; LN: Lymph node; KLASS: Korean Laparoscopic Surgical Society; JCOG: Japan Clinical Oncology Group.

Similarly, the total number of lymph nodes removed during gastrectomy is an independent predictor of survival, with an increasing number of excised lymph nodes being associated with a decreased risk of death[27]. As such, the recently, published American Joint Committee on Cancer 8 edition tumor-node-metastasis-staging guidelines recommend a minimum of 16 lymph nodes be assessed in gastric cancer with 30 or more lymph nodes being desirable[28]. Despite this, most patients in the west do not receive an adequate lymphadenectomy. A recent NCDB study found that only 23% of patients had evaluation of the recommended 15 lymph nodes[29]. That same study showed that patients who were treated in National Cancer Institute-designated centers or high-volume centers were more likely to have the recommended lymph node retrieval[29]. A Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) analysis found that from 2004-2010, only 42% of patients had at least 15 lymph nodes evaluated after surgery, and while being treated at a cancer program increased the odds of having 15 nodes removed, improved survival was significant with removal of 15 or more lymph nodes regardless of treatment location[30]. The ability to obtain 15 lymph nodes can be difficult if a D1 resection, rather than a D2, is utilized[31]. Recently, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has recommended performing a D2 lymphadenectomy with the goal of obtaining at least 15 lymph nodes while avoiding a splenectomy[32].

There has been a slow increase in minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer over time. The first description of a laparoscopic gastrectomy was in 1994 from a group in Japan[33]. In the United States, a SEER analysis from 2008-2013 showed that only 8% of gastrectomies were performed laparoscopically and only 2% were performed robotically[34]. There was also no significant increase in the last three years of this analysis indicating that the use of laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer has not continued to increase[34]. This is in contrast to a nearly 26% utilization by Eastern countries[35]. Data from the NCDB showed that only 13% of cases were done laparoscopically between 1998-2011 with a conversion from laparoscopic to open in nearly 24% of cases[36]. Another study from the NCDB showed that between 2010 and 2012, there was an increase in the use of minimally invasive techniques with 4% being performed robotically and 23% undergoing laparoscopic gastrectomies[37]. This study also found that open gastrectomies are decreasing overall, with a rise in both laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomies[37].

Two prospective trials, KLASS-01 and JCOG 0703, as well as several retrospective studies support the safety and oncologic feasibility of laparoscopic surgery for early gastric cancer (Table (Table11)[38,39]. Fewer studies have addressed laparoscopy in advanced gastric cancer. The KLASS-02 trial randomized patients with locally advanced gastric cancer to either laparoscopic or open distal gastrectomy[40]. Short term outcomes from this trial were recently published and demonstrated benefits in terms of lower complication rates, lower pain score, earlier return of bowel function, and shorter hospital length of stays compared to open surgery[41]. A primary concern regarding minimally invasive surgery for advanced gastric cancer is whether adequate lymph node retrieval could be achieved. A study from the United States Gastric Cancer Collaborative showed similar rates of lymph nodes retrieved between a minimally invasive cohort and an open cohort, both overall and after propensity matching[42]. From an outcomes standpoint, a NSQIP analysis of patients undergoing laparoscopic vs. open gastrectomies showed fewer complications for patients undergoing laparoscopic gastrectomies with no difference in mortality[43]. As western surgeons become more experienced and minimally invasive technology improves (e.g., 3D visualization and robotic surgery), minimally invasive surgery will likely become safer and more oncologically sound for western patients with advanced gastric cancer.

CHEMOTHERAPY

The role of systemic chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer has evolved over time as we continue to search for optimal therapies and treatment sequencing that will positively influence outcomes (Table (Table2).2). The MAGIC trial was the first large prospective trial that observed improved outcomes in patients who received perioperative chemotherapy[44]. The agents used in this study were epirubicin, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (ECF). This study showed improved outcomes even with only 42% of patients receiving the full six cycles of chemotherapy, with many patients being unable to complete their post-operative cycles. Patients who received pre-operative chemotherapy demonstrated significant down-staging as evidenced by smaller tumors and less lymph node involvement, but most importantly, had significantly better overall and progression-free survival[44]. Perioperative chemotherapy has since become standard of care for patients with non-metastatic stage II or higher gastric cancers. The use of perioperative chemotherapy in the United States has increased overtime since the MAGIC trial. In the year 2003, just 25% of patients were receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy while in 2012 the rate increased to over 45%[45]. A later trial, the ACCORD 07, was a phase III randomized trial that again showed a significant improvement in overall and progression free survival in patients that underwent perioperative chemotherapy and surgery compared to those that underwent surgery alone[46]. This trial used cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil without epirubicin and OS were similar between the MAGIC and the ACCORD 07 trial with 5-year survivals around 30%[44,46].

Table 2

Chemotherapy trials

Trial nameCountryStatusYearsGroupsChemotherapy regimensOutcome
MAGICUKComplete1994-2002Surgery alone-Smaller tumors in chemo group (3 cm vs 5 cm)
Surgery with perioperative chemoEpirubicin, cisplatin, 5-FU (ECF)Better PFS and OS in chemo group (5-yr OS 36% vs 23%)
ACCORD 07FranceComplete1995-2003Surgery alone-Improved curative resection rates with chemo (84% vs 73%)
Surgery with perioperative chemoCisplatin and 5-FUBetter DFS and OS in chemo group (5-yr OS 38% vs 24%)
AIO-FLOT4 (Phase II)GermanyComplete2010-2012Neoadjuvant ECF/ECXEpirubicin and cisplatin with either 5-FU (ECF) or capecitabine (ECX)Improved pathological complete regression in FLOT vs ECF/ECX
Neoadjuvant FLOTDocetaxel, oxaliplatin, 5-FU with leucovorin
AIO-FLOT4 (Phase III)GermanyComplete2010-2015Neoadjuvant ECF/ECXEpirubicin and cisplatin with either 5-FU (ECF) or capecitabine (ECX)Improved OS in FLOT group with no increase in toxicities
Neoadjuvant FLOTDocetaxel, oxaliplatin, 5-FU with leucovorin

MAGIC: Medical Research Council Adjuvant Gastric Infusional Chemotherapy; UK: United Kingdom; 5-FU: 5-fluorouracil; PFS: Progression-free survival; OS: Overall survival; DFS: Disease-free survival; ECF: Epirubicin, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil; ECX: Epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine; FLOT: 5-fluorouracil, leuocovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy has several potential benefits to adjuvant chemotherapy. First, pre-operative chemotherapy is consistently better tolerated than post-operative chemotherapy in multiple trials[44,46]. Second, blood supply to the tumor is not disrupted by surgical resection and micrometastasis can be treated at the earliest possible time[47]. Down-staging or shrinkage of the tumor may lead to higher R0 resection rates, particularly in advanced gastric cancer, and it allows the assessment of response to therapy allowing postoperative therapy to be tailored to the individual response to pre-operative therapy[48]. Unfortunately, very few patients receiving pre-operative ECF are able to achieve a complete pathologic response following neoadjuvant chemotherapy[49]. Tumor regression on final surgical pathology has been reported to be an independent factor associated with improved survival in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy for a number of cancers, including gastric[50,51]. In a phase II study where patients received epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (ECX), a complete pathologic response was found in just 6%[49]. This compares to a complete response rates as high as 17%-20% in phase II studies where docetaxel is part of the treatment regimen[52,53].

The AIO-FLOT4 trial looked to compare the rates of pathological regression in patients who received neoadjuvant ECF/ECX vs the docetaxel-based regimen FLOT (5-fluorouracil, leuocovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel)[54]. Results of this study showed a significant increase in complete regression with FLOT treatment when compared to ECF (16% vs 6%). Recent phase III results of the FLOT4 randomized trial showed improved median OS of 50 mo for patient receiving the FLOT regimen compared to 35 mo for those on ECF/ECX with similar toxicities between the two groups[55]. The current NCCN guidelines recommend perioperative FLOT as the preferred regimen for medically fit patients with oxaliplatin and a fluoropyrimidine without docetaxel to be used in patients with a poor performance status or significant medical comorbidities[32].

RADIATION

The benefit of chemoradiation in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer has been controversial (Table (Table3).3). In the early 2000s, the Intergroup 0116 Trial showed that patients who underwent post-operative chemoradiation radiation therapy with 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin after a complete resection had improved long-term outcomes compared to patients who underwent surgery alone[56]. These patients did not undergo perioperative chemotherapy and the median survival in the surgery plus chemoradiation group was 36 mo compared to 27 mo in the surgery alone group[56]. This trial was criticized for its low (10%) utilization of D2 lymphadenectomy suggesting that chemoradiation may compensate for inadequate surgery. In contrast, a large retrospective United States multi-institutional study in which patients had a median 18 lymph nodes removed showed that post-operative chemoradiation with 5-fluorouracil improved both overall and recurrence-free survival when compared to patients who received perioperative chemotherapy alone[57]. On subgroup analysis, patients with nodal disease (N1) and lymphovascular invasion derived the most benefit[57].

Table 3

Radiation trials

Trial nameCountryStatusYearsTrial group(s)RegimensOutcome
INT-0116USComplete1991-1998Surgery alone-Improved DSF and OS in radiation group (median survival 36 mo vs 27 mo)
Surgery + adjuvant CRT45 Gy with 5-FU and leucovorin
Ajani et al[60]USComplete1999-2004CRT45 Gy with 5-FU, leucovorin, and cisplatin77% R0 resection rate
26% complete pathologic response rate
Martin-Romano et al[61]SpainComplete2004-2014Neoadjuvant chemotherapyVariableImproved pathologic response and nodal regression in CRT group
Neoadjuvant CRTRadiation: 45 Gy
Chemo: Variable
CRITICSNetherlands, Sweden, DenmarkComplete2007-2015Perioperative chemoEpirubicin, cisplatin or oxaliplatin, capecitabineNo difference in OS or DFS
Neoadjuvant chemo and adjuvant CRTChemo: Epirubicin, cisplatin or oxaliplatin, capecitabine
CRT: 45 Gy with capecitabine
CRITICS-II ({"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT02931890","term_id":"NCT02931890"}}NCT02931890)Netherlands, Sweden, DenmarkOngoing-Neoadjuvant chemoDocetaxel, oxaliplatin, capecitabine-
Neoadjuvant chemo and CRTChemo: Docetaxel, oxaliplatin, capecitabine
CRT: 45 Gy with paclitaxel and carboplatin
Neoadjuvant CRT45 Gy with paclitaxel and carboplatin
ARTISTKoreaComplete2004-2008Adjuvant chemoCapecitabine and cisplatinNo difference in DFS overall
Adjuvant chemo and CRTChemo: Capecitabine and cisplatinSuperior DFS in radiation group on subgroup analysis of patients with positive LNs
CRT: 45 Gy with capecitabine
ARTIST-II ({"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01761461","term_id":"NCT01761461"}}NCT01761461)KoreaOngoing-Adjuvant chemoS-1-
Adjuvant chemoS-1 and oxaliplatin
Adjuvant chemo and CRTChemo: S-1 and oxaliplatin
CRT: 45Gy with S-1
TOPGEAR (ACTRN12609000035224)AustraliaOngoing-Perioperative chemoEpirubicin, cisplatin, 5-FU (ECF)-
Perioperative chemo with Neoadjuvant CRTChemo: Epirubicin, cisplatin, 5-FU (ECF)
CRT: 45 Gy with 5-FU

INT: Intergroup; US: United States; CRT: Chemoradiation therapy; Gy: Gray; DFS: Disease-free survival; OS: Overall survival; 5-FU: 5-fluorouracil; CRITICS: Chemoradiotherapy after Induction chemotherapy In Cancer of the Stomach; chemo: Chemotherapy; LN: Lymph node; TOPGEAR: Trial Of Preoperative therapy for Gastric and Esophago-gastric junction Adenocarcinoma; ECF: Epirubicin, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation may improve R0 resection rate and achievement of pathological complete response (pCR) in advanced gastric cancer. A phase I multi-institutional single-arm trial in the US reported a 70% R0 resection rate and a 30% pCR rate with preoperative chemoradiation consisting of two 28-d cycles of induction fluorouracil, leucovorin, and cisplatin followed by fluorouracil-based chemoradiation therapy (CRT) to 45 Gy[58]. Pathological partial or complete response were associated with improved OS[59]. Similarly, another multi-institutional phase II trial in the United States reported a 77% R0 resection rate and 26% pCR rate following preoperative induction chemotherapy with two cycles of fluorouracil, leucovorin, and cisplatin followed by paclitaxel, fluorouracil, and concurrent 45 Gy radiotherapy[60]. A small retrospective series from Spain comparing neoadjuvant chemotherapy to neoadjuvant chemoradiation in resectable advanced gastric cancer demonstrated a significantly higher likelihood of achieving a Becker Ia-b response (58% vs 32%), a grade D nodal regression (30% vs 6%) and a favorable pathological response (23% vs 3%). Nodal, but not primary, response was associated with a longer 5-year progression-free and OS[61].

Whether chemoradiation offers a benefit in addition to or in place of chemotherapy is being actively prospectively investigated. The CRITICS trial randomized patients to perioperative chemotherapy vs pre-operative chemotherapy and post-operative CRT and was not able to show a survival difference between the two groups[11], however only 50% of patients received their intended post-operative treatment regimens in the CRITICS trial. The follow up CRITICS-II trial aims to optimize neoadjuvant therapy by comparing neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone, neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation, and neoadjuvant chemoradiation alone[62]. Similarly, the ARTIST trial, which was designed to compare adjuvant chemotherapy to chemoradiation, failed to demonstrate a difference in disease-free and OS; however, subgroup analysis suggested that patients with intestinal type histology and lymph node metastasis, in particular, may benefit from chemoradiation[63]. A follow-up trial, ARTIST II, is currently under way addressing this question ({"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01761461","term_id":"NCT01761461"}}NCT01761461). The TOPGEAR trial is another randomized prospective trial aimed at determining if pre-operative chemoradiation, in addition to perioperative chemotherapy, improves outcomes over perioperative chemotherapy alone[64].

The mode of radiation administration has traditionally been through three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT). The potential advantage of using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) over 3D-CRT is the ability to limit exposure to critical surrounding structures while delivering therapeutic doses to the organs of interest[65,66]. One study found that overall and disease-free survival were significantly improved in patients treated with adjuvant IMRT compared to similar patients treated with adjuvant 3D-CRT[67]. There has been little investigation into the use of proton beam radiation for the treatment of locally advanced gastric cancer. Reasons for this include the limited availability of proton beam radiation in the United States and that a moderate dose of radiation over a large area may be ideal for treating the resection margins and wide nodal basin[68]. A benefit of proton beam radiation is its ability to provide a very high dose of radiation to a single lesion with relative sparing of adjacent structures, limiting damage to surrounding tissue[69]. Given these properties, there has been more interest in using proton beam radiation for unresectable primary liver tumors like hepatocellular carcinoma, or even gastric cancer hepatic metastases[69,70]. For similar reason, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) has been under investigation for the treatment of liver tumors, though there has been a description of using SBRT for the treatment of lymph node recurrences after gastric resection[71,72].

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

While outcomes for patients with advanced gastric cancer have improved with medical and surgical advancement, there are still areas for improvement and exploration. The use of targeted treatments as adjuncts to traditional chemotherapeutic agents is under continued investigation (Table (Table4).4). Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is overexpressed in most gastric cancers, however the trials that used anti-EGFR antibodies such as cetuximab (EXPAND Trial), and panitumumab (REAL3 Trial) failed to improve survival[8,73]. In contrast, in the randomized phase III AVAGAST trial, bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), when given with cisplatin and a fluoropyrimidine was found to significantly improve progression-free survival in patients with unresectable or metastatic advanced gastric cancer though it did not improve OS (50% vs 42%)[74]. However, the use of ramucirumab, a VEGFR-2 inhibitor, in the REGARD trial was able to show a significant improvement in OS as a second-line option for patients with metastatic disease unresponsive to first-line therapy so there may be a role for its use in the perioperative setting in the future[75].

Table 4

Targeted treatment trials

Trial nameCountryStatusYearsTargetGroupsChemotherapy regimensOutcome
EXPANDMultipleComplete2008-2010EGFRStandard chemoCapecitabine, cisplatinNo difference in PFS
Standard chemo with cetuximabCapecitabine, cisplatin, cetuximab
REAL3MultipleComplete2008-2011EGFRStandard chemoEpirubicin, oxaliplatin, capecitabineNo difference in OS
Standard chemo with panitumumabEpirubicin, oxaliplatin, capecitabine, panitumumab
AVAGASTMultipleComplete2007-2008VEGFRStandard chemoCapecitabine, cisplatinImproved PFS in the bevacizumab group (median survival 6.7 mo vs 5.3 mo)
Standard chemo withCapecitabine, cisplatin,
bevacizumabbevacizumab
REGARDMultipleComplete2009-2012VEGFRBest supportive care-Improved OS in ramucirumab group (median survival 5.2 mo vs 3.8 mo)
Best supportive careRamucirumab
with ramucirumab
ToGA TrialMultipleComplete2005-2008HER2Standard chemoCisplatin with capecitabine or 5-FUImproved OS in the trastuzumab group (median survival 13.8 mo vs 11.1 mo)
Standard chemo with trastuzumabCisplatin, capecitabine or 5-FU, trastuzumab
KEYNOTE-012MultipleComplete2013-2014PD-L1PembrolizumabPembrolizumabMedian OS of 11.4 mo
GASTRICHIP ({"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01882933","term_id":"NCT01882933"}}NCT01882933)MultipleOngoing-HIPECCurative gastrectomy with D1-D2 lymph node dissection--
Curative gastrectomy with D1-D2 lymph node dissection with HIPECIP Oxaliplatin with IV 5-FU and leucovorin

EGFR: Endothelial growth factor receptor; chemo: Chemotherapy; PFS: Progression-free survival; OS: Overall survival; AVAGAST: Avastin in Gastric Cancer; VEGFR: Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor; ToGA: Trastuzumab for Gastric Cancer; HER2: Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; 5-FU: 5-fluorouracil; PD-L1: Programmed death-ligand 1; HIPEC: Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy; IP: Intraperitoneal; IV: Intravascular.

Another advance and future direction is using molecular analysis to better predict prognosis as well as treatment options for individual patients. One of these molecular characteristics is identification of patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) overexpression. Around 12%-24% of patients with gastric cancer have been found to have HER2 overexpression with most showing associated poorer outcomes when compared to patients with normal HER2 expression[76-78]. Intestinal type gastric cancers are much more likely to have overexpression than diffuse type (32% vs 6%)[79]. The randomized controlled ToGA trial found that in patients with HER2 overexpression, treatment with chemotherapy with trastuzumab was associated with improved OS when compared to patients treated with chemotherapy alone[79]. These results have led to NCCN guidelines recommending the assessment of HER2 expression and the addition of trastuzumab to all HER2 overexpressing metastatic gastric adenocarcinomas[32].

The use of pembrolizumab, a monoclonal antibody against programmed death 1 (PD-1), in patients with PD-L1-positive cancers is another example of how individualized treatment may impact specific patients based on their tumor’s molecular characteristics. In a phase I study, pembrolizumab showed promising results as a single agent in patients with PD-L1-positive metastatic or recurrent gastric cancer that had failed other treatment regimens[80]. In this cohort, 22% of patients had a partial tumor response and the 1-year survival was 42%[80].

Additionally, there has been investigation into the adjuvant use of intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Peritoneal recurrence develops in about 60% of the patients with T3 and T4 tumors following curative-intent resection, and up to 40% of resected gastric cancer patients die as a direct result of peritoneal dissemination[13]. Few systemic chemotherapeutic agents penetrate the peritoneum well and intraperitoneal chemotherapy has less adverse effects with higher doses in the intraperitoneal regions than systemic chemotherapy[81]. A recent meta-analysis of 23 prospective randomized trials including 2767 advanced gastric patients from Japan, China, Korea, and Austria demonstrated that adjuvant intraperitoneal chemotherapy was associated with improved 1, 2 and 3-year survival rate, as well as a 30% reduction in the incidence of peritoneal recurrence[82]. Currently, the GASTRICHIP Trial, a randomized multicenter phase III clinical study, is evaluating the effects of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy with oxaliplatin on patients with locally advanced gastric cancer and will hopefully provide further direction on the effectiveness of intraperitoneal chemotherapy for locally advanced gastric cancer[83].

CONCLUSION

Treatment for advanced gastric cancer continues to evolve with better understanding of optimal treatment regimens, treatment sequences, and surgical optimization with improved technique. Additionally, future efforts in providing individualized treatment recommendations based on molecular characteristics at the time of the initial diagnosis have the opportunity to improve long-term outcomes.

Jennifer L Leiting, Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, United States;
Contributor Information.
Author contributions: Leiting JL and Grotz TE conceived and drafted the manuscript; both authors approved the final version of the article.

Corresponding author: Travis E Grotz, MD, Assistant Professor, Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St. Southwest, Rochester, MN 55905, United States. ude.oyam@sivart.ztorg

Telephone: +1-507-2841529Fax: +1-507-2845196

Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, United States;
Author contributions: Leiting JL and Grotz TE conceived and drafted the manuscript; both authors approved the final version of the article.

Corresponding author: Travis E Grotz, MD, Assistant Professor, Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St. Southwest, Rochester, MN 55905, United States. ude.oyam@sivart.ztorg

Telephone: +1-507-2841529Fax: +1-507-2845196

Received 2019 Feb 6; Revised 2019 Jul 2; Accepted 2019 Jul 29.
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial.

Abstract

Gastric cancer is a leading cause of cancer incidence and death worldwide. Patients with advanced gastric cancer benefit from a multi-modality treatment regimen. Sound oncologic resection with negative margins and complete lymphadenectomy plays a crucial role in long-term survival for patients with resectable disease. The utilization of minimally invasive techniques for gastric cancer has been slowly increasing and is proving to be both technically and oncologically safe. Perioperative chemotherapy is the current standard of care for advanced gastric cancer. A variety of chemotherapy regimens have been used with the combination of docetaxel, oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin being the current recommendation given its superior ability to induce a complete pathologic response and prolong survival. The use of radiation has been more controversial with its optimal place in the treatment sequence being unclear. There are current ongoing studies assessing the impact of radiation as an adjunct or in place of chemotherapy. Targeted treatments (e.g., trastuzumab for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive tumors and pembrolizumab for programmed death-ligand 1 positive tumors) are showing promise and are part of a continued emphasis on individualized care. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy may also play a role in preventing peritoneal recurrences for patients with high risk lesions. The treatment of patients with advanced gastric cancer in the West continues to advance and improve with a better understanding of optimal treatment sequences and the utilization of personalized treatment regimens.

Keywords: Gastric cancer, D2 lymphadenectomy, Minimally invasive surgery, Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, Chemoradiation, Targeted treatments
Abstract

Core tip: The treatment of advanced gastric cancer in the West continues to evolve and advance. Surgery-related outcomes continue to improve and have included the addition of minimally invasive surgery techniques. The use of chemotherapy to improve long-term survival outcomes has been demonstrated in randomized-controlled trials, though the best regimen to use continues to be investigated. Chemoradiation has also been shown to improve outcomes, though the timing, sequence, and patient-population for optimal benefit has yet to be determined. Targeted-therapies and intraperitoneal chemotherapy may also play a role in the treatment of patients with advanced gastric cancer.

MAGIC: Medical Research Council Adjuvant Gastric Infusional Chemotherapy; UK: United Kingdom; 5-FU: 5-fluorouracil; PFS: Progression-free survival; OS: Overall survival; DFS: Disease-free survival; ECF: Epirubicin, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil; ECX: Epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine; FLOT: 5-fluorouracil, leuocovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel.

INT: Intergroup; US: United States; CRT: Chemoradiation therapy; Gy: Gray; DFS: Disease-free survival; OS: Overall survival; 5-FU: 5-fluorouracil; CRITICS: Chemoradiotherapy after Induction chemotherapy In Cancer of the Stomach; chemo: Chemotherapy; LN: Lymph node; TOPGEAR: Trial Of Preoperative therapy for Gastric and Esophago-gastric junction Adenocarcinoma; ECF: Epirubicin, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil.

EGFR: Endothelial growth factor receptor; chemo: Chemotherapy; PFS: Progression-free survival; OS: Overall survival; AVAGAST: Avastin in Gastric Cancer; VEGFR: Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor; ToGA: Trastuzumab for Gastric Cancer; HER2: Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; 5-FU: 5-fluorouracil; PD-L1: Programmed death-ligand 1; HIPEC: Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy; IP: Intraperitoneal; IV: Intravascular.

Footnotes

Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Manuscript source: Invited manuscript

Peer-review started: February 12, 2019

First decision: June 4, 2019

Article in press: July 29, 2019

Specialty type: Oncology

Country of origin: United States

Peer-review report classification

Grade A (Excellent):

Grade B (Very good): B, B

Grade C (Good): C

Grade D (Fair): 0

Grade E (Poor): 0

P-Reviewer: Cigdem Arslan N, Nishida T, Sinagra E S-Editor: Yan JP L-Editor: A E-Editor: Qi LL

Footnotes

Contributor Information

Jennifer L Leiting, Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, United States.

Travis E Grotz, Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, United States. ude.oyam@sivart.ztorg.

Contributor Information
Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, United States.
Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, United States. ude.oyam@sivart.ztorg.

References

  • 1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal AGlobal cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:394–424.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 2. Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal AGlobal cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65:87–108.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 3. Jim MA, Pinheiro PS, Carreira H, Espey DK, Wiggins CL, Weir HKStomach cancer survival in the United States by race and stage (2001-2009): Findings from the CONCORD-2 study. Cancer. 2017;123 Suppl 24:4994–5013.[Google Scholar]
  • 4. Anderson WF, Camargo MC, Fraumeni JF, Jr, Correa P, Rosenberg PS, Rabkin CSAge-specific trends in incidence of noncardia gastric cancer in US adults. JAMA. 2010;303:1723–1728.[Google Scholar]
  • 5. Akiba S, Koriyama C, Herrera-Goepfert R, Eizuru YEpstein-Barr virus associated gastric carcinoma: Epidemiological and clinicopathological features. Cancer Sci. 2008;99:195–201.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 6. Rona KA, Schwameis K, Zehetner J, Samakar K, Green K, Samaan J, Sandhu K, Bildzukewicz N, Katkhouda N, Lipham JCGastric cancer in the young: An advanced disease with poor prognostic features. J Surg Oncol. 2017;115:371–375.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 7. Al-Refaie WB, Hu CY, Pisters PW, Chang GJGastric adenocarcinoma in young patients: A population-based appraisal. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:2800–2807.[Google Scholar]
  • 8. Lordick F, Kang YK, Chung HC, Salman P, Oh SC, Bodoky G, Kurteva G, Volovat C, Moiseyenko VM, Gorbunova V, Park JO, Sawaki A, Celik I, Götte H, Melezínková H, Moehler M Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie and EXPAND InvestigatorsCapecitabine and cisplatin with or without cetuximab for patients with previously untreated advanced gastric cancer (EXPAND): A randomised, open-label phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:490–499.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 9. Hironaka S, Sugimoto N, Yamaguchi K, Moriwaki T, Komatsu Y, Nishina T, Tsuji A, Nakajima TE, Gotoh M, Machida N, Bando H, Esaki T, Emi Y, Sekikawa T, Matsumoto S, Takeuchi M, Boku N, Baba H, Hyodo IS-1 plus leucovorin versus S-1 plus leucovorin and oxaliplatin versus S-1 plus cisplatin in patients with advanced gastric cancer: A randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:99–108.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 10. Li P, Huang CM, Zheng CH, Russo A, Kasbekar P, Brennan MF, Coit DG, Strong VEComparison of gastric cancer survival after R0 resection in the US and China. J Surg Oncol. 2018;118:975–982.[Google Scholar]
  • 11. Cats A, Jansen EPM, van Grieken NCT, Sikorska K, Lind P, Nordsmark M, Meershoek-Klein Kranenbarg E, Boot H, Trip AK, Swellengrebel HAM, van Laarhoven HWM, Putter H, van Sandick JW, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Hartgrink HH, van Tinteren H, van de Velde CJH, Verheij M CRITICS investigatorsChemotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy after surgery and preoperative chemotherapy for resectable gastric cancer (CRITICS): An international, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:616–628.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 12. Wanebo HJ, Kennedy BJ, Chmiel J, Steele G, Jr, Winchester D, Osteen R. Cancer of the stomach. A patient care study by the American College of Surgeons. Ann Surg. 1993;218:583–592.
  • 13. D'Angelica M, Gonen M, Brennan MF, Turnbull AD, Bains M, Karpeh MSPatterns of initial recurrence in completely resected gastric adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2004;240:808–816.[Google Scholar]
  • 14. Papenfuss WA, Kukar M, Oxenberg J, Attwood K, Nurkin S, Malhotra U, Wilkinson NWMorbidity and mortality associated with gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:3008–3014.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 15. Bartlett EK, Roses RE, Kelz RR, Drebin JA, Fraker DL, Karakousis GCMorbidity and mortality after total gastrectomy for gastric malignancy using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Surgery. 2014;156:298–304.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 16. Pacelli F, Cusumano G, Rosa F, Marrelli D, Dicosmo M, Cipollari C, Marchet A, Scaringi S, Rausei S, di Leo A, Roviello F, de Manzoni G, Nitti D, Tonelli F, Doglietto GB Italian Research Group for Gastric CancerMultivisceral resection for locally advanced gastric cancer: An Italian multicenter observational study. JAMA Surg. 2013;148:353–360.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 17. Tran TB, Worhunsky DJ, Norton JA, Squires MH, 3rd, Jin LX, Spolverato G, Votanopoulos KI, Schmidt C, Weber S, Bloomston M, Cho CS, Levine EA, Fields RC, Pawlik TM, Maithel SK, Poultsides GAMultivisceral Resection for Gastric Cancer: Results from the US Gastric Cancer Collaborative. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22 Suppl 3:S840–S847.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 18. Mita K, Ito H, Katsube T, Tsuboi A, Yamazaki N, Asakawa H, Hayashi T, Fujino KPrognostic Factors Affecting Survival After Multivisceral Resection in Patients with Clinical T4b Gastric Cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2017;21:1993–1999.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 19. Molina JC, Al-Hinai A, Gosseling-Tardif A, Bouchard P, Spicer J, Mulder D, Mueller CL, Ferri LEMultivisceral Resection for Locally Advanced Gastric and Gastroesophageal Junction Cancers-11-Year Experience at a High-Volume North American Center. J Gastrointest Surg. 2019;23:43–50.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 20. Brar SS, Seevaratnam R, Cardoso R, Yohanathan L, Law C, Helyer L, Coburn NGMultivisceral resection for gastric cancer: A systematic review. Gastric Cancer. 2012;15 Suppl 1:S100–S107.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 21. Lirosi MC, Biondi A, Ricci RSurgical anatomy of gastric lymphatic drainage. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;2:14.[Google Scholar]
  • 22. Kim JP, Lee JH, Kim SJ, Yu HJ, Yang HKClinicopathologic characteristics and prognostic factors in 10783 patients with gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 1998;1:125–133.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 23. Siewert JR, Böttcher K, Stein HJ, Roder JDRelevant prognostic factors in gastric cancer: Ten-year results of the German Gastric Cancer Study. Ann Surg. 1998;228:449–461.[Google Scholar]
  • 24. Washington K7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual: Stomach. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:3077–3079.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 25. Songun I, Putter H, Kranenbarg EM, Sasako M, van de Velde CJSurgical treatment of gastric cancer: 15-year follow-up results of the randomised nationwide Dutch D1D2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:439–449.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 26. Degiuli M, Sasako M, Ponti A, Vendrame A, Tomatis M, Mazza C, Borasi A, Capussotti L, Fronda G, Morino M Italian Gastric Cancer Study GroupRandomized clinical trial comparing survival after D1 or D2 gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Br J Surg. 2014;101:23–31.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 27. Karpeh MS, Leon L, Klimstra D, Brennan MFLymph node staging in gastric cancer: Is location more important than Number? An analysis of 1,038 patients. Ann Surg. 2000;232:362–371.[Google Scholar]
  • 28. Amin MB, Edge S, Greene F, Byrd DR, Brookland RK, Washington MK, Gershenwald JE, Compton CC, Hess KR, Sullivan DC, Jessup JM, Brierley JD, Gaspar LE, Schilsky RL, Balch CM, Winchester DP, Asare EA, Madera M, Gress DM, Meyer LR AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 8 ed. Switzerland: Springer; 2017. [PubMed]
  • 29. Bilimoria KY, Talamonti MS, Wayne JD, Tomlinson JS, Stewart AK, Winchester DP, Ko CY, Bentrem DJEffect of hospital type and volume on lymph node evaluation for gastric and pancreatic cancer. Arch Surg. 2008;143:671–8; discussion 678.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 30. Morgan JW, Ji L, Friedman G, Senthil M, Dyke C, Lum SSThe role of the cancer center when using lymph node count as a quality measure for gastric cancer surgery. JAMA Surg. 2015;150:37–43.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 31. Smith BR, Stabile BEAggressive D2 lymphadenectomy is required for accurate pathologic staging of gastric adenocarcinoma. Am Surg. 2006;72:849–852.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 32. National Comprehensive Cancer NetworkGastric Cancer (Version 2.2018) Available from: . [PubMed]
  • 33. Kitano S, Iso Y, Moriyama M, Sugimachi KLaparoscopy-assisted Billroth I gastrectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1994;4:146–148.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 34. Glenn JA, Turaga KK, Gamblin TC, Hohmann SF, Johnston FMMinimally invasive gastrectomy for cancer: Current utilization in US academic medical centers. Surg Endosc. 2015;29:3768–3775.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 35. Jeong O, Park YKClinicopathological features and surgical treatment of gastric cancer in South Korea: The results of 2009 nationwide survey on surgically treated gastric cancer patients. J Gastric Cancer. 2011;11:69–77.[Google Scholar]
  • 36. Ecker BL, Datta J, McMillan MT, Poe SL, Drebin JA, Fraker DL, Dempsey DT, Karakousis GC, Roses REMinimally invasive gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma in the United States: Utilization and short-term oncologic outcomes. J Surg Oncol. 2015;112:616–621.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 37. Greenleaf EK, Sun SX, Hollenbeak CS, Wong JMinimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer: The American experience. Gastric Cancer. 2017;20:368–378.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 38. Kim W, Kim HH, Han SU, Kim MC, Hyung WJ, Ryu SW, Cho GS, Kim CY, Yang HK, Park DJ, Song KY, Lee SI, Ryu SY, Lee JH, Lee HJ Korean Laparo-endoscopic Gastrointestinal Surgery Study (KLASS) GroupDecreased Morbidity of Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy Compared With Open Distal Gastrectomy for Stage I Gastric Cancer: Short-term Outcomes From a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial (KLASS-01) Ann Surg. 2016;263:28–35.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 39. Katai H, Sasako M, Fukuda H, Nakamura K, Hiki N, Saka M, Yamaue H, Yoshikawa T, Kojima K JCOG Gastric Cancer Surgical Study GroupSafety and feasibility of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy with suprapancreatic nodal dissection for clinical stage I gastric cancer: A multicenter phase II trial (JCOG 0703) Gastric Cancer. 2010;13:238–244.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 40. Hur H, Lee HY, Lee HJ, Kim MC, Hyung WJ, Park YK, Kim W, Han SUEfficacy of laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer: The protocol of the KLASS-02 multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial. BMC Cancer. 2015;15:355.[Google Scholar]
  • 41. Lee HJ, Hyung WJ, Yang HK, Han SU, Park YK, An JY, Kim W, Kim HI, Kim HH, Ryu SW, Hur H, Kong SH, Cho GS, Kim JJ, Park DJ, Ryu KW, Kim YW, Kim JW, Lee JH, Kim MC Korean Laparo-endoscopic Gastrointestinal Surgery Study (KLASS) GroupShort-term Outcomes of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy With D2 Lymphadenectomy to Open Distal Gastrectomy for Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer (KLASS-02-RCT) Ann Surg. 2019[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 42. Spolverato G, Kim Y, Ejaz A, Valero V, 3rd, Squires MH, Poultsides G, Fields RC, Bloomston M, Weber SM, Acher AW, Votanopoulos K, Schmidt C, Cho CS, Maithel SK, Pawlik TMA multi-institutional analysis of open versus minimally-invasive surgery for gastric adenocarcinoma: Results of the US gastric cancer collaborative. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;18:1563–1574.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 43. Higgins RM, Kubasiak JC, Jacobson RA, Janssen I, Myers JA, Millikan KW, Deziel DJ, Luu MBOutcomes and Use of Laparoscopic Versus Open Gastric Resection. JSLS. 2015;19:pii: e2015.00095.[Google Scholar]
  • 44. Cunningham D, Allum WH, Stenning SP, Thompson JN, Van de Velde CJ, Nicolson M, Scarffe JH, Lofts FJ, Falk SJ, Iveson TJ, Smith DB, Langley RE, Verma M, Weeden S, Chua YJ, MAGIC Trial ParticipantsPerioperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone for resectable gastroesophageal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:11–20.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 45. Greenleaf EK, Hollenbeak CS, Wong JTrends in the use and impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on perioperative outcomes for resected gastric cancer: Evidence from the American College of Surgeons National Cancer Database. Surgery. 2016;159:1099–1112.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 46. Ychou M, Boige V, Pignon JP, Conroy T, Bouché O, Lebreton G, Ducourtieux M, Bedenne L, Fabre JM, Saint-Aubert B, Genève J, Lasser P, Rougier PPerioperative chemotherapy compared with surgery alone for resectable gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma: An FNCLCC and FFCD multicenter phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:1715–1721.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 47. Song Z, Wu Y, Yang J, Yang D, Fang XProgress in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer. Tumour Biol. 2017;39:1010428317714626.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 48. Schuhmacher C, Gretschel S, Lordick F, Reichardt P, Hohenberger W, Eisenberger CF, Haag C, Mauer ME, Hasan B, Welch J, Ott K, Hoelscher A, Schneider PM, Bechstein W, Wilke H, Lutz MP, Nordlinger B, Van Cutsem E, Siewert JR, Schlag PMNeoadjuvant chemotherapy compared with surgery alone for locally advanced cancer of the stomach and cardia: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer randomized trial 40954. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:5210–5218.[Google Scholar]
  • 49. Starling N, Okines A, Cunningham D, Allum W, Wotherspoon A, Benson M, Thompson J, Thomas J, Brown G, Riddell A, Stavridi F, Ashley S, Oates J, Chau IA phase II trial of preoperative chemotherapy with epirubicin, cisplatin and capecitabine for patients with localised gastro-oesophageal junctional adenocarcinoma. Br J Cancer. 2009;100:1725–1730.[Google Scholar]
  • 50. Becker K, Langer R, Reim D, Novotny A, Meyer zum Buschenfelde C, Engel J, Friess H, Hofler HSignificance of histopathological tumor regression after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in gastric adenocarcinomas: A summary of 480 cases. Ann Surg. 2011;253:934–939.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 51. Langer R, Ott K, Feith M, Lordick F, Siewert JR, Becker KPrognostic significance of histopathological tumor regression after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in esophageal adenocarcinomas. Mod Pathol. 2009;22:1555–1563.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 52. Lorenzen S, Hentrich M, Haberl C, Heinemann V, Schuster T, Seroneit T, Roethling N, Peschel C, Lordick FSplit-dose docetaxel, cisplatin and leucovorin/fluorouracil as first-line therapy in advanced gastric cancer and adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction: Results of a phase II trial. Ann Oncol. 2007;18:1673–1679.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 53. Schulz C, Kullmann F, Kunzmann V, Fuchs M, Geissler M, Vehling-Kaiser U, Stauder H, Wein A, Al-Batran SE, Kubin T, Schäfer C, Stintzing S, Giessen C, Modest DP, Ridwelski K, Heinemann VNeoFLOT: Multicenter phase II study of perioperative chemotherapy in resectable adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction or gastric adenocarcinoma-Very good response predominantly in patients with intestinal type tumors. Int J Cancer. 2015;137:678–685.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 54. Al-Batran SE, Hofheinz RD, Pauligk C, Kopp HG, Haag GM, Luley KB, Meiler J, Homann N, Lorenzen S, Schmalenberg H, Probst S, Koenigsmann M, Egger M, Prasnikar N, Caca K, Trojan J, Martens UM, Block A, Fischbach W, Mahlberg R, Clemens M, Illerhaus G, Zirlik K, Behringer DM, Schmiegel W, Pohl M, Heike M, Ronellenfitsch U, Schuler M, Bechstein WO, Königsrainer A, Gaiser T, Schirmacher P, Hozaeel W, Reichart A, Goetze TO, Sievert M, Jäger E, Mönig S, Tannapfel AHistopathological regression after neoadjuvant docetaxel, oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin versus epirubicin, cisplatin, and fluorouracil or capecitabine in patients with resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (FLOT4-AIO): Results from the phase 2 part of a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 2/3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:1697–1708.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 55. Al-Batran SE, Homann N, Pauligk C, Goetze TO, Meiler J, Kasper S, Kopp HG, Mayer F, Haag GM, Luley K, Lindig U, Schmiegel W, Pohl M, Stoehlmacher J, Folprecht G, Probst S, Prasnikar N, Fischbach W, Mahlberg R, Trojan J, Koenigsmann M, Martens UM, Thuss-Patience P, Egger M, Block A, Heinemann V, Illerhaus G, Moehler M, Schenk M, Kullmann F, Behringer DM, Heike M, Pink D, Teschendorf C, Löhr C, Bernhard H, Schuch G, Rethwisch V, von Weikersthal LF, Hartmann JT, Kneba M, Daum S, Schulmann K, Weniger J, Belle S, Gaiser T, Oduncu FS, Güntner M, Hozaeel W, Reichart A, Jäger E, Kraus T, Mönig S, Bechstein WO, Schuler M, Schmalenberg H, Hofheinz RD FLOT4-AIO InvestigatorsPerioperative chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel versus fluorouracil or capecitabine plus cisplatin and epirubicin for locally advanced, resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (FLOT4): A randomised, phase 2/3 trial. Lancet. 2019;393:1948–1957.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 56. Macdonald JS, Smalley SR, Benedetti J, Hundahl SA, Estes NC, Stemmermann GN, Haller DG, Ajani JA, Gunderson LL, Jessup JM, Martenson JAChemoradiotherapy after surgery compared with surgery alone for adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:725–730.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 57. Ejaz A, Spolverato G, Kim Y, Squires MH, Poultsides G, Fields R, Bloomston M, Weber SM, Votanopoulos K, Worhunsky DJ, Swords D, Jin LX, Schmidt C, Acher AW, Saunders N, Cho CS, Herman JM, Maithel SK, Pawlik TMImpact of external-beam radiation therapy on outcomes among patients with resected gastric cancer: A multi-institutional analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:3412–3421.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 58. Ajani JA, Mansfield PF, Janjan N, Morris J, Pisters PW, Lynch PM, Feig B, Myerson R, Nivers R, Cohen DS, Gunderson LLMulti-institutional trial of preoperative chemoradiotherapy in patients with potentially resectable gastric carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:2774–2780.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 59. Ajani JA, Mansfield PF, Crane CH, Wu TT, Lunagomez S, Lynch PM, Janjan N, Feig B, Faust J, Yao JC, Nivers R, Morris J, Pisters PWPaclitaxel-based chemoradiotherapy in localized gastric carcinoma: Degree of pathologic response and not clinical parameters dictated patient outcome. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:1237–1244.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 60. Ajani JA, Winter K, Okawara GS, Donohue JH, Pisters PW, Crane CH, Greskovich JF, Anne PR, Bradley JD, Willett C, Rich TAPhase II trial of preoperative chemoradiation in patients with localized gastric adenocarcinoma (RTOG 9904): Quality of combined modality therapy and pathologic response. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3953–3958.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 61. Martin-Romano P, Sola JJ, Diaz-Gonzalez JA, Chopitea A, Iragorri Y, Martínez-Regueira F, Ponz-Sarvise M, Arbea L, Subtil JC, Cano D, Ceniceros L, Legaspi J, Hernandez JL, Rodríguez JRole of histological regression grade after two neoadjuvant approaches with or without radiotherapy in locally advanced gastric cancer. Br J Cancer. 2016;115:655–663.[Google Scholar]
  • 62. Slagter AE, Jansen EPM, van Laarhoven HWM, van Sandick JW, van Grieken NCT, Sikorska K, Cats A, Muller-Timmermans P, Hulshof MCCM, Boot H, Los M, Beerepoot LV, Peters FPJ, Hospers GAP, van Etten B, Hartgrink HH, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Nieuwenhuijzen GAP, van Hillegersberg R, van der Peet DL, Grabsch HI, Verheij MCRITICS-II: A multicentre randomised phase II trial of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery versus neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and subsequent chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery versus neo-adjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery in resectable gastric cancer. BMC Cancer. 2018;18:877.[Google Scholar]
  • 63. Lee J, Lim DH, Kim S, Park SH, Park JO, Park YS, Lim HY, Choi MG, Sohn TS, Noh JH, Bae JM, Ahn YC, Sohn I, Jung SH, Park CK, Kim KM, Kang WKPhase III trial comparing capecitabine plus cisplatin versus capecitabine plus cisplatin with concurrent capecitabine radiotherapy in completely resected gastric cancer with D2 lymph node dissection: The ARTIST trial. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:268–273.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 64. Leong T, Smithers BM, Michael M, Gebski V, Boussioutas A, Miller D, Simes J, Zalcberg J, Haustermans K, Lordick F, Schuhmacher C, Swallow C, Darling G, Wong RTOPGEAR: A randomised phase III trial of perioperative ECF chemotherapy versus preoperative chemoradiation plus perioperative ECF chemotherapy for resectable gastric cancer (an international, intergroup trial of the AGITG/TROG/EORTC/NCIC CTG) BMC Cancer. 2015;15:532.[Google Scholar]
  • 65. Ringash J, Perkins G, Brierley J, Lockwood G, Islam M, Catton P, Cummings B, Kim J, Wong R, Dawson LIMRT for adjuvant radiation in gastric cancer: A preferred plan? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;63:732–738.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 66. Wieland P, Dobler B, Mai S, Hermann B, Tiefenbacher U, Steil V, Wenz F, Lohr FIMRT for postoperative treatment of gastric cancer: Covering large target volumes in the upper abdomen: A comparison of a step-and-shoot and an arc therapy approach. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;59:1236–1244.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 67. Boda-Heggemann J, Hofheinz RD, Weiss C, Mennemeyer P, Mai SK, Hermes P, Wertz H, Post S, Massner B, Hieber U, Hochhaus A, Wenz F, Lohr FCombined adjuvant radiochemotherapy with IMRT/XELOX improves outcome with low renal toxicity in gastric cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;75:1187–1195.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 68. Allen AM, Pawlicki T, Dong L, Fourkal E, Buyyounouski M, Cengel K, Plastaras J, Bucci MK, Yock TI, Bonilla L, Price R, Harris EE, Konski AAAn evidence based review of proton beam therapy: The report of ASTRO's emerging technology committee. Radiother Oncol. 2012;103:8–11.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 69. Fukumitsu N, Okumura T, Takizawa D, Numajiri H, Ohnishi K, Mizumoto M, Aihara T, Ishikawa H, Tsuboi K, Sakurai HProton beam therapy for liver metastases from gastric cancer. J Radiat Res. 2017;58:357–362.[Google Scholar]
  • 70. Bush DA, Hillebrand DJ, Slater JM, Slater JDHigh-dose proton beam radiotherapy of hepatocellular carcinoma: Preliminary results of a phase II trial. Gastroenterology. 2004;127:S189–S193.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 71. Goodman KA, Wiegner EA, Maturen KE, Zhang Z, Mo Q, Yang G, Gibbs IC, Fisher GA, Koong ACDose-escalation study of single-fraction stereotactic body radiotherapy for liver malignancies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;78:486–493.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 72. Kim MS, Yoo SY, Cho CK, Yoo HJ, Yang KM, Kang JK, Lee DH, Lee JI, Bang HY, Kim MS, Kang HJStereotactic body radiotherapy for isolated para-aortic lymph node recurrence after curative resection in gastric cancer. J Korean Med Sci. 2009;24:488–492.[Google Scholar]
  • 73. Waddell T, Chau I, Cunningham D, Gonzalez D, Okines AF, Okines C, Wotherspoon A, Saffery C, Middleton G, Wadsley J, Ferry D, Mansoor W, Crosby T, Coxon F, Smith D, Waters J, Iveson T, Falk S, Slater S, Peckitt C, Barbachano YEpirubicin, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine with or without panitumumab for patients with previously untreated advanced oesophagogastric cancer (REAL3): A randomised, open-label phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:481–489.[Google Scholar]
  • 74. Ohtsu A, Shah MA, Van Cutsem E, Rha SY, Sawaki A, Park SR, Lim HY, Yamada Y, Wu J, Langer B, Starnawski M, Kang YKBevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy as first-line therapy in advanced gastric cancer: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:3968–3976.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 75. Fuchs CS, Tomasek J, Yong CJ, Dumitru F, Passalacqua R, Goswami C, Safran H, Dos Santos LV, Aprile G, Ferry DR, Melichar B, Tehfe M, Topuzov E, Zalcberg JR, Chau I, Campbell W, Sivanandan C, Pikiel J, Koshiji M, Hsu Y, Liepa AM, Gao L, Schwartz JD, Tabernero J REGARD Trial InvestigatorsRamucirumab monotherapy for previously treated advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (REGARD): An international, randomised, multicentre, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2014;383:31–39.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 76. Tanner M, Hollmén M, Junttila TT, Kapanen AI, Tommola S, Soini Y, Helin H, Salo J, Joensuu H, Sihvo E, Elenius K, Isola JAmplification of HER-2 in gastric carcinoma: Association with Topoisomerase IIalpha gene amplification, intestinal type, poor prognosis and sensitivity to trastuzumab. Ann Oncol. 2005;16:273–278.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 77. Gravalos C, Jimeno AHER2 in gastric cancer: A new prognostic factor and a novel therapeutic target. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:1523–1529.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 78. Yan Y, Lu L, Liu C, Li W, Liu T, Fu WHER2/neu over-expression predicts poor outcome in early gastric cancer without lymph node metastasis. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol. 2015;39:121–126.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 79. Bang YJ, Van Cutsem E, Feyereislova A, Chung HC, Shen L, Sawaki A, Lordick F, Ohtsu A, Omuro Y, Satoh T, Aprile G, Kulikov E, Hill J, Lehle M, Rüschoff J, Kang YK ToGA Trial InvestigatorsTrastuzumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for treatment of HER2-positive advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (ToGA): A phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;376:687–697.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 80. Muro K, Chung HC, Shankaran V, Geva R, Catenacci D, Gupta S, Eder JP, Golan T, Le DT, Burtness B, McRee AJ, Lin CC, Pathiraja K, Lunceford J, Emancipator K, Juco J, Koshiji M, Bang YJPembrolizumab for patients with PD-L1-positive advanced gastric cancer (KEYNOTE-012): A multicentre, open-label, phase 1b trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:717–726.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 81. Sugarbaker PH, Mora JT, Carmignani P, Stuart OA, Yoo DUpdate on chemotherapeutic agents utilized for perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Oncologist. 2005;10:112–122.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 82. He Z, Zhao TT, Xu HM, Wang ZN, Xu YY, Song YX, Ni ZR, Xu H, Yin SC, Liu XY, Miao ZFEfficacy and safety of intraperitoneal chemotherapy in patients with advanced gastric cancer: A cumulative meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Oncotarget. 2017;8:81125–81136.[Google Scholar]
  • 83. Glehen O, Passot G, Villeneuve L, Vaudoyer D, Bin-Dorel S, Boschetti G, Piaton E, Garofalo AGASTRICHIP: D2 resection and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in locally advanced gastric carcinoma: A randomized and multicenter phase III study. BMC Cancer. 2014;14:183.[Google Scholar]
Collaboration tool especially designed for Life Science professionals.Drag-and-drop any entity to your messages.