Search

Background: Population-based predictive factors for the effectiveness of second-line palliative systemic therapy in gastro-oesophageal cancer are not available. This study investigates the predictive value of effectiveness of first-line treatment for second-line treatment outcomes in gastro-oesophageal cancer in a real-world setting., Methods: Patients with metastatic gastro-oesophageal cancer diagnosed in 2010-2017 who were treated with second-line therapy after disease progression on first-line therapy were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients were divided into four groups as per duration of time to treatment failure (TTF) of the first line (0-3, 3-6, 6-9 and >9 months), and the association with overall survival (OS) and second-line TTF was assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves and two-sided multivariable regression models., Results: Median OS since the start of the second line of patients (n = 611) with first-line TTF of 0-3, 3-6, 6-9 and >9 months was 4.0, 4.1, 5.5 and 7.1 months, respectively (P < 0.001). Median second-line TTF of patients with first-line TTF of 0-3, 3-6, 6-9 and >9 months was 2.8, 2.4, 3.0 and 4.5 months, respectively (P < 0.001). Patients with first-line TTF of >9 months showed a longer OS than patients with first-line TTF of 0-3 months (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.90; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.46-2.47), 3-6 months (adjusted HR 1.88; 95% CI 1.47-2.39) and 6-9 months (adjusted HR 1.31; 95% CI 1.04-1.65). Results for second-line TTF were similar., Conclusions: This study shows a positive correlation between effectiveness of first-line therapy and outcomes of second-line therapy in gastro-oesophageal cancer. Physicians should take duration of the first line into account when considering second-line palliative systemic therapy., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: HWMvL reports grants from Roche, has served as a consultant for BMS, Celgene, Lilly, and Nordic and has received unrestricted research funding from Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD, Nordic, Philips, and Roche. NHM has served as a consultant for BMS, Lilly and MSD. RHAV reports grants from Roche and BMS. The other authors have no interests to declare., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Beyond first-line palliative systemic treatment can be beneficial to selected oesophagogastric cancer patients, but experience with its administration may be limited and vary among hospitals. In a population-based study, we analysed the association between hospital systemic treatment volume and administration of beyond first-line treatment in oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma, as well as the effect on overall survival (OS)., Methods: Synchronous metastatic oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma patients (2010-2017) were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Hospitals were categorised in volumes quartiles. The association between hospital systemic treatment volume and the use of beyond first-line treatment was assessed using trend and multivariable logistic regression analyses. OS was compared between hospitals with high and low beyond first-line treatment administration and treatment strategies using Kaplan-Meier curves with log-rank test and multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression., Results: Beyond first-line treatment was administered in 606 of 2,466 patients who received first-line treatment, and increased from 20% to 31% between 2010 and 2017 (P < 0.001). The lowest hospital volumes were independently associated with lower beyond first-line treatment administration compared to the highest volume (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39-0.99; OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.48-0.95). Median OS was higher in all patients treated in hospitals with a high versus low beyond first-line treatment administration (7.9 versus 6.2 months, P < 0.001). Second-line paclitaxel/ramucirumab was administered most frequently and independently associated with longer OS compared to taxane monotherapy (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.59-0.92)., Conclusion: Higher hospital volume was associated with increased beyond first-line treatment administration in oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma. Second-line paclitaxel/ramucirumab resulted in longer survival compared to taxane monotherapy., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement RHAV reports grants from BMS and Roche. JdV reports non-financial support from BTG, a consult/advisory role for Shire, and grants and non-financial support (consultancy) from Servier. NHM reports a consult/advisory role for BMS, MSD Servier, Eli Lilly, research grant from Servier. TvV reports non-financial support from Astellas, Ipsen, Roche, and Bayer. MGHvO reports grants from Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Nordic, Merck, Roche and Servier. VEPPL received educational grants and unrestricted research grants from Roche. HWMvL reports a consult/advisory role for BMS, Celgene, Lilly, Merck, and Nordic, and Servier and has received unrestricted research funding from Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD, Nordic, Philips, Roche and Servier. The other authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The optimal first-line palliative systemic treatment strategy for metastatic esophagogastric cancer is not well defined. The aim of our study was to explore real-world use of first-line systemic treatment in esophagogastric cancer and assess the effect of treatment strategy on overall survival (OS), time to failure (TTF) of first-line treatment and toxicity. We selected synchronous metastatic esophagogastric cancer patients treated with systemic therapy (2010-2016) from the nationwide Netherlands Cancer Registry (n = 2,204). Systemic treatment strategies were divided into monotherapy, doublet and triplet chemotherapy, and trastuzumab-containing regimens. Data on OS were available for all patients, on TTF for patients diagnosed from 2010 to 2015 (n = 1,700), and on toxicity for patients diagnosed from 2010 to 2014 (n = 1,221). OS and TTF were analyzed using multivariable Cox regression, with adjustment for relevant tumor and patient characteristics. Up to 45 different systemic treatment regimens were found to be administered, with a median TTF of 4.6 and OS of 7.5 months. Most patients (45%) were treated with doublet chemotherapy; 34% received triplets, 10% monotherapy and 10% a trastuzumab-containing regimen. The highest median OS was found in patients receiving a trastuzumab-containing regimen (11.9 months). Triplet chemotherapy showed equal survival rates compared to doublets (OS: HR 0.92, 95%CI 0.83-1.02; TTF: HR 0.92, 95%CI 0.82-1.04) but significantly more grade 3-5 toxicity than doublets (33% vs. 21%, respectively). In conclusion, heterogeneity of first-line palliative systemic treatment in metastatic esophagogastric cancer patients is striking. Based on our data, doublet chemotherapy is the preferred treatment strategy because of similar survival and less toxicity compared to triplets., (© 2019 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

Background: Abiraterone Acetate (AA) and Enzalutamide (Enz) are effective hormonal treatments in mCRPC patients. Retrospective studies suggested clinical cross-resistance between Enz and AA. However, 12.8-39.1% of patients previously treated with docetaxel (Doc) and AA do respond to Enz. These responders have not been characterized., Methods: 102 Enz treated mCRPC patients after AA and Doc treatment were included in this study. Differences in patient characteristics and previous treatment outcomes between PSA responders and non-responders on Enz were evaluated., Results: Median Progression-Free Survival was 12.2 weeks (95%CI 11.7-14.3) and Overall Survival 43.5 weeks (95%CI 37.4-61.2). There were 26 (25%) Enz-responders and 76 (75%) non-responders. Significant higher percentages of Gleason scores ≥ 8 and PSA doubling times (PSA-DT) <3 months were found in Enz responders than in non-responders. The interval between end of AA and start of Enz treatment (IAE) for responders was 24.6 weeks (IQR 4.0-48.1) and 8.9 weeks for non-responders (IQR 3.7-25.9) (P = 0.08). In an IAE <40 days subgroup (34 patients), Enz responses were related to AA non-responsiveness, while univariate and logistic regression analysis of baseline criteria of a subgroup of patients with an IAE ≥ 40 (68 patients) revealed significant differences in baseline PSA levels, PSA-DT <3 months, Gleason scores ≥ 8 and IAE's between Enz responders and non-responders., Conclusions: PSA response to Enz after previous AA and Doc treatment was associated with a longer IAE, a higher Gleason score and a PSA-DT <3 months. Identification of these patients might be of value for sequencing of treatment options., (© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)