Kan Xue1, Xiangji Ying1, Zhaode Bu1, Aiwen Wu1, Zhongwu Li1,2, Lei Tang1,3, Lianhai Zhang1, Yan Zhang1, Ziyu Li1, Jiafu Ji1. 1. Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), 1Gastrointestinal Cancer Center. 2. Department of Pathology. 3. Department of Radiology, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing 100142, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) with adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) using oxaliplatin plus S-1 (SOX) or capecitabine (CapeOX) on gastric cancer patients with D2 lymphadenectomy. METHODS: This was a two-by-two factorial randomized phase II-III trial, and registered on ISRCTN registry (No. ISRCTN12206108). Locally advanced gastric cancer patients were randomized to neoadjuvant SOX, neoadjuvant CapeOX, adjuvant SOX, or adjuvant CapeOX arms. Primary analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis using overall survival (OS) as primary endpoint. RESULTS: This trial started in September 2011 and closed in December 2012 with 100 patients enrolled. Treatment completion rate was 56%, 52%, 38% and 30% in the four arms, respectively. NACT group had fewer dropouts due to unacceptable toxicity (P=0.042). Surgical complication rate did not differ by the four groups (P=0.986). No survival significant difference was found comparing NACT with ACT (P=0.664; 5-year-OS: 70% vs. 74% respectively), nor between the SOX and CapeOX groups (P=0.252; 5-year-OS: 78% vs. 66% respectively). Subgroup analysis showed SOX significantly improved survival in patients with diffuse type (P=0.048). CONCLUSIONS: No significant survival difference was found between NACT and ACT. SOX and CapeOX had good safety and efficacy as neoadjuvant regimens. Diffuse type patients may survive longer due to SOX.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) with adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) using oxaliplatin plus S-1 (SOX) or capecitabine (CapeOX) on gastric cancer patients with D2 lymphadenectomy. METHODS: This was a two-by-two factorial randomized phase II-III trial, and registered on ISRCTN registry (No. ISRCTN12206108). Locally advanced gastric cancer patients were randomized to neoadjuvant SOX, neoadjuvant CapeOX, adjuvant SOX, or adjuvant CapeOX arms. Primary analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis using overall survival (OS) as primary endpoint. RESULTS: This trial started in September 2011 and closed in December 2012 with 100 patients enrolled. Treatment completion rate was 56%, 52%, 38% and 30% in the four arms, respectively. NACT group had fewer dropouts due to unacceptable toxicity (P=0.042). Surgical complication rate did not differ by the four groups (P=0.986). No survival significant difference was found comparing NACT with ACT (P=0.664; 5-year-OS: 70% vs. 74% respectively), nor between the SOX and CapeOX groups (P=0.252; 5-year-OS: 78% vs. 66% respectively). Subgroup analysis showed SOX significantly improved survival in patients with diffuse type (P=0.048). CONCLUSIONS: No significant survival difference was found between NACT and ACT. SOX and CapeOX had good safety and efficacy as neoadjuvant regimens. Diffuse type patients may survive longer due to SOX.
Authors: Sook Ryun Park; Jong Seok Lee; Chan Gyoo Kim; Hark Kyun Kim; Myeong-Cherl Kook; Young-Woo Kim; Keun Won Ryu; Jun Ho Lee; Jae-Moon Bae; Il Ju Choi Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Y Yamada; K Higuchi; K Nishikawa; M Gotoh; N Fuse; N Sugimoto; T Nishina; K Amagai; K Chin; Y Niwa; A Tsuji; H Imamura; M Tsuda; H Yasui; H Fujii; K Yamaguchi; H Yasui; S Hironaka; K Shimada; H Miwa; C Hamada; I Hyodo Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2014-10-14 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: N Fazio; R Biffi; R Maibach; S Hayoz; S Thierstein; P Brauchli; J Bernhard; R Stupp; B Andreoni; G Renne; C Crosta; R Morant; A Chiappa; F Luca; M G Zampino; O Huber; A Goldhirsch; F de Braud; A D Roth Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2015-12-27 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Axel Grothey; Alberto F Sobrero; Anthony F Shields; Takayuki Yoshino; James Paul; Julien Taieb; John Souglakos; Qian Shi; Rachel Kerr; Roberto Labianca; Jeffrey A Meyerhardt; Dewi Vernerey; Takeharu Yamanaka; Ioannis Boukovinas; Jeffrey P Meyers; Lindsay A Renfro; Donna Niedzwiecki; Toshiaki Watanabe; Valter Torri; Mark Saunders; Daniel J Sargent; Thierry Andre; Timothy Iveson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-03-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: J A Ajani; M Abramov; I Bondarenko; Y Shparyk; V Gorbunova; A Hontsa; N Otchenash; M Alsina; S Lazarev; J Feliu; A Elme; V Esko; K Abdalla; U Verma; F Benedetti; T Aoyama; H Mizuguchi; L Makris; G Rosati Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Tom van den Ende; Frank A Abe Nijenhuis; Héctor G van den Boorn; Emil Ter Veer; Maarten C C M Hulshof; Suzanne S Gisbertz; Martijn G H van Oijen; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2019-07-25 Impact factor: 6.244