Does Oxaliplatin Improve Survival Over Cisplatin in Advanced Gastric Cancer?

Article

Researchers tested the novel oral fluoropyrimidine derivative S-1 plus oxaliplatin vs S-1 plus cisplatin in patients with diffuse-type or mixed-type advanced gastric adenocarcinoma.

CHICAGO-The novel oral fluoropyrimidine derivative S-1 plus oxaliplatin was more efficacious and less toxic than S-1 plus cisplatin in patients with diffuse-type or mixed-type advanced gastric adenocarcinoma, according to the results of a phase III trial (abstract 4017) presented at the 2019 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting, held May 31–June 4 in Chicago.

“We know that gastric cancer patients with diffuse or mixed type have worse prognosis than those with intestinal-type subgroup,” said Rui-hua Xu, MD, PhD, of the Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, who presented the results.

While S-1 plus cisplatin is the standard first-line treatment for patients with advanced gastric cancer in Asia, recent studies have indicated that oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy may give patients a small but significant survival benefit, explained Xu. Therefore, Xu and colleagues conducted a multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, open-label study in China that compared S-1 plus oxaliplatin with S-1 plus cisplatin as first-line treatment for advanced diffuse-type or mixed-type gastric/gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.

The study included previously untreated patients ages 18 to 75 years with an ECOG status score of 0 to 2, with unresectable disease. Patients were randomized to receive S-1 40 to 60 mg twice daily on days 1 to 14 every 3 weeks plus oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1 every 3 weeks, or S-1 plus cisplatin 60 mg/m2 on day 1 every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), time to treatment failure (TTF), and toxicity.

“Our original study design was a noninferior test. In light of the results of some clinical trials, the design was modified to a superiority test,” said Xu.

In total, 558 patients participated in the trial, 279 patients per group, and both groups had a median age of 52 years. There were more men (55.7%) than women (44.3%). Each group received a median number of 4 chemotherapy cycles.

The S-1 plus oxaliplatin group compared with the S-1 plus cisplatin group had improved OS (13.0 months vs 11.8 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63–0.91; P < .01), PFS (5.7 months vs 4.9 months; HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63–0.89; P < .01), and TTF (5.2 months vs 4.7 months; HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64–0.90; P < .01).

“If you look at the efficacy, I fully concur that there is a significant improvement in OS and PFS using an oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy vs cisplatin. In fact, there aren’t that many dedicated randomized controlled trials looking at diffuse subtype of gastric cancer,” said Ian Chau, MD, of the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, who was the discussant for the study.

Patients in the S-1 plus oxaliplatin group had fewer adverse events grade ≥ 3: neutropenia (10.0% vs 22.9% of patients), leukopenia (9.7% vs 21.9%), anemia (4.3% vs 14.3%), vomiting (3.9% vs 10.4%), nausea (2.2% vs 10.4%), anorexia (2.2% vs 6.8%), and febrile neutropenia (2.5% vs 6.8%) than those in the S-1 plus cisplatin group (P < .05 for all). However, the occurrence of grade ≤ 2 sensory neuropathy was more frequent in the S-1 plus oxaliplatin group compared with the S-1 plus cisplatin group (41.6% vs 12.2%; P < .001).

“In most large randomized controlled trials, including one that was done with our group, REAL-2, we have established noninferiority of oxaliplatin with cisplatin, but we have not really seen superiority of oxaliplatin vs cisplatin,” said Chau.

Recent Videos
Advocacy groups such as Cancer Support Community and the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society may help support patients with CML undergoing treatment.
Paolo Tarantino, MD, discusses the potential utility of agents such as datopotamab deruxtecan and enfortumab vedotin in patients with breast cancer.
Paolo Tarantino, MD, highlights strategies related to screening and multidisciplinary collaboration for managing ILD in patients who receive T-DXd.
Those with CML should discuss adverse effects such as nausea or fatigue with their providers to help optimize their quality of life during treatment.
Patients with CML can become an active part of their treatment plan by discussing any questions that come to mind with their providers.
Jorge E. Cortes, MD, emphasizes proper communication between patients with chronic myeloid leukemia and their providers during the treatment course.
Dietary interventions or other medications may help mitigate diarrhea in patients who undergo therapy for chronic myeloid leukemia.
Considering notable adverse effects associated with treatment may be critical when selecting therapy options for those with CML.
Byoung Chul Cho, MD, PhD, highlights ongoing trials assessing intravenous and subcutaneous amivantamab in EGFR-mutant non–small cell lung cancer.
An AI-based system may reduce the time needed to match patients with cancer to suitable clinical trials.
Related Content