7 research outputs found

    Pattern of disease progression during third-line or later chemotherapy with nivolumab associated with poor prognosis in advanced gastric cancer: a multicenter retrospective study in Japan

    Get PDF
    [Background] Accelerated tumor growth during immunotherapy in pre-existing measurable lesions, hyperprogressive disease (HPD), has been reported. However, progression of non-measurable lesions and new lesions are frequently observed in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC). [Methods] This retrospective study involved AGC patients at 24 Japanese institutions who had measurable lesions and received nivolumab after ≥ 2 lines of chemotherapy. HPD was defined as a ≥ two-fold increase in the tumor growth rate of measurable lesions. The pattern of disease progression was classified according to new lesions in different organs and ascites appeared/increase of ascites. [Results] Of 245 patients, 147 (60.0%) showed progressive disease (PD) as the best response and 41 (16.7%) showed HPD during nivolumab monotherapy. There was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) between patients with HPD and those with PD other than HPD (median OS 5.0 vs 4.8 months; hazard ratio [HR] 1.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.6–1.5; p = 1.0). Fifty-three patients developed new lesions in different organs and 58 had appearance/increase of ascites; these patients showed shorter OS than those without each of these features (median OS 3.3 vs 7.1 months, HR 1.8, 95% CI 1.2–2.7, p = 0.0031 for new lesions, and 3.0 vs 7.8 months, HR 2.6, 95% CI 1.8–3.8, p < 0.0001 for ascites). Thirty-one patients who had both features showed the worst prognosis (median OS 2.6 months). [Conclusions] New lesions in different organs and appearance/increase of ascites, rather than the original definition of HPD, are the patterns of disease progression associated with poor prognosis in AGC patients receiving nivolumab whose best response was PD

    An Investigator-Initiated Phase 2 Study of Nivolumab Plus Low-Dose Ipilimumab as First-Line Therapy for Microsatellite Instability—High Advanced Gastric or Esophagogastric Junction Cancer (NO LIMIT, WJOG13320G/CA209-7W7)

    No full text
    Nivolumab (NIVO) plus low-dose ipilimumab (IPI) has shown a promising survival benefit in first-line treatment of microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) colorectal cancer. We hypothesized that this regimen might also be beneficial for MSI-H gastric cancer (GC), which accounts for ~5% of all GC cases. NO LIMIT (WJOG13320G/CA209-7W7) is an investigator-initiated, single-arm, open-label, 14-center phase 2 trial of NIVO plus low-dose IPI for MSI-H GC in the first-line setting. Eligibility criteria include unresectable advanced, recurrent, or metastatic gastric or esophagogastric junction cancer with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of adenocarcinoma; confirmed MSI-H status with the MSI-IVD Kit (FALCO); no prior systemic anticancer therapy; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1; and a measurable lesion per RECIST 1.1. The primary objective of the study is to determine the overall response rate (ORR) for the NIVO+IPI regimen as assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points include progression-free survival, overall survival, duration of response, safety, tolerability, and biomarkers. The number of patients was set at 28 on the basis of the threshold and expected ORR values of 35 and 65%, respectively, with a one-sided alpha error of 0.025 and power of 0.80. Subjects will receive treatment with nivolumab (240 mg) biweekly in combination with ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) every 6 weeks. The results of this study should clarify the therapeutic potential of NIVO+IPI for MSI-H GC in the first-line setting. Trial registration: JapicCTI-205400

    Role of plasma angiogenesis factors in the efficacy of first‐line chemotherapy combined with biologics in RAS wild‐type metastatic colorectal cancer: Results from the GI‐SCREEN CRC‐Ukit study

    No full text
    Abstract Background Several biomarkers have been established for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We investigated whether plasma angiogenesis factors could predict the efficacy of biologics combined with chemotherapy in first‐line (1L) treatment in patients with RAS wild‐type mCRC and the dynamics of plasma angiogenesis factors at progression during 1L treatment. Methods In this multicenter prospective observational study, serial plasma samples were prospectively collected at pretreatment and progression stages; 17 plasma angiogenesis factors were analyzed using the multiplex assay with Luminex® technology. Interactions between the pretreatment measurements and treatment groups on progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with RAS wild‐type were assessed using the propensity‐score weighted Cox proportional hazards model. Results From February 2018 to September 2020, 202 patients were enrolled in the 1L cohort; 133 patients had RAS wild‐type (chemotherapy plus bevacizumab [BEV group, n = 33] and plus anti‐epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibodies [aEGFR group, n = 100]). A trend of strong interaction on PFS was observed for interleukin‐8 (IL‐8) (p = 0.0752) and soluble vascular cell adhesion molecule‐1 (sVCAM‐1) (p = 0.0156). Regarding OS, IL‐8 (p = 0.0283), soluble vascular endothelial growth factor‐receptor‐1 (sVEGFR‐1) (p = 0.0777) and sVCAM‐1 (p = 0.0011) tended to differentiate the treatment effect. In 112 patients, plasma samples were evaluable for dynamic analysis (57 and 55 from the BEV and aEGFR groups, respectively). In the BEV group, six factors significantly increased during progression, whereas two decreased. In the aEGFR group, three factors significantly increased, and six decreased. Conclusion Pretreatment plasma IL‐8 and sVCAM‐1 levels could be predictive biomarkers to distinguish BEV and anti‐EGFR mAbs when combined with chemotherapy in the 1L treatment of RAS wild‐type mCRC. Several plasma angiogenesis factors showed significant change at progression in 1L chemotherapy plus biologics for RAS wild‐type mCRC, which are potential biomarkers for selecting an optimal angiogenesis inhibitor in second‐line treatment
    corecore