An epidemiological appraisal of Berlin

Background Since the late 1950’s, a steadily increasing immigrant population in Germany is resulting in a subpopulation of aging immigrants. The German health care system needs to adjust its services—linguistically, culturally, and medically–for this subpopulation of patients. Immigrants make up over 20% of the population in Germany, yet the majority receive inadequate medical care. As many of the labor immigrants of the 1960s and 1970s are in need of hospice and palliative care (HPC), little is known about this specialized care for immigrants. This epidemiological study presents utilization of HPC facilities in Berlin with a focus on different immigrant groups. Methods A validated questionnaire was used to collect data from patients at 34 HPC institutions in Berlin over 20 months. All newly admitted patients were recruited. Anonymized data were coded and analyzed by using SPSS and compared with the population statistics of Berlin. Results 4118 questionnaires were completed and included in the analysis. At 11.4% the proportion of immigrants accessing HPC was significantly (p<0,001) below their proportion in the general Berlin population. This difference was especially seen in the age groups of 51–60 (21.46% immigrants in Berlin population, 17.7% immigrants in HPC population) and 61–70 years (16,9% vs. 13,1%). The largest ethnic groups are Turks, Russians, and Poles, with a different weighting than in the general population: Turkish immigrants were 24% of all Berlin immigrants, but only 13.6% of the study immigrant population (OR: 0.23, 95%CI: 0.18–0.29, p<0.001). Russian and Polish immigrants account for 5.6% and 9.2% in the population, but 11.5% and 24.8% in the study population respectively (Russian: OR 0.88, 95%CI: 0.66–1.16; Polish: OR 1.17, 95%CI: 0.97–1.42). Palliative care wards (PC) were used most often (16.7% immigrants of all PC patients); outpatient hospice services were used least often by immigrants (11.4%). Median age at first admission to HPC was younger in immigrants than non-immigrants: 61–70 vs. 71–80, p = 0.03. Conclusions Immigrants are underrepresented in Berlin´s HPC and immigrants on average make use of care at a younger age than non- immigrants. In this regard, Turkish immigrants in particular have the poorest utilization of HPC. These results should prompt research on Turkish immigrants, regarding access barriers, since they represent the largest immigrant group. This may be due to a lack of cultural sensitivity of the care-providers and a lack of knowledge about HPC among immigrants. In the comparison of the kinds of institutions, immigrants are less likely to access outpatient hospice services compared to PC. Apparently, PC appear to be a smaller hurdle for utilization. These results show a non-existent, but oft- cited “healthy immigrant effect” of the first generation of work immigrants, now entering old age. These findings correspond with studies suggesting increased health concerns in immigrants. Focused research is needed to promote efforts in providing adequate and fair access to HPC for all people in Berlin

Efficacy and safety of trifluridine/tipiracil in older and younger patients with metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer: subgroup analysis of a randomized phase 3 study (TAGS)

Age groups; Gastrointestinal neoplasms; TrifluridineGrupos de edad; Neoplasias gastrointestinales; TrifluridinaGrups d'edat; Neoplàsies gastrointestinals; TrifluridinaBackground Trifluridine and tipiracil (FTD/TPI) demonstrated survival benefit vs placebo and manageable safety in previously treated patients with metastatic gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer (mGC/GEJC) in the randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 TAGS study. This subgroup analysis of TAGS examined efficacy/safety outcomes by age. Methods In TAGS, patients with mGC/GEJC and ≥ 2 prior therapies were randomized (2:1) to receive FTD/TPI 35 mg/m2 or placebo, plus best supportive care. A preplanned subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate efficacy and safety outcomes in patients aged < 65, ≥ 65, and ≥ 75 years. Results Among 507 randomized patients (n = 337 FTD/TPI; n = 170 placebo), 55%, 45%, and 14% were aged < 65, ≥ 65, and ≥ 75 years, respectively. Overall survival hazard ratios for FTD/TPI vs placebo were 0.67 (95% CI 0.51–0.89), 0.73 (95% CI 0.52–1.02), and 0.67 (95% CI 0.33–1.37) in patients aged < 65, ≥ 65, and ≥ 75 years, respectively. Regardless of age, patients receiving FTD/TPI experienced improved progression-free survival and stayed longer on treatment than those receiving placebo. Among FTD/TPI-treated patients, frequencies of any-cause grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) were similar across age subgroups (80% each), although grade ≥ 3 neutropenia was more frequent in older patients [40% (≥ 65 and ≥ 75 years); 29% (< 65 years)]; AE-related discontinuation rates did not increase with age [14% (< 65 years), 12% (≥ 65 years), and 12% (≥ 75 years)]. Conclusions The results of this subgroup analysis show the efficacy and tolerability of FTD/TPI treatment regardless of age in patients with mGC/GEJC who had received 2 or more prior treatments.This study was sponsored by Taiho Oncology, Inc., and Taiho Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. Professional medical writing and editorial assistance were provided by Vasupradha Vethantham, PhD, and Jennifer L. Robertson, PhD, at Ashfield MedComms, an Ashfield Health company, funded by Taiho Oncology, Inc

Systemic Chemotherapy Including Ramucirumab in Combination With Pressurized Intra-Peritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy Is a Safe Treatment Option for Peritoneal Metastasis of Gastric Cancer

Background: Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a laparoscopic technique for local chemotherapy. It has been used for treatment of peritoneal metastasis of gastric cancer (PM GC) in combination with systemic therapy. VEGFR2 antagonist ramucirumab is a second-line therapy for GC, and has been suspected to cause wound healing disorders. Methods: This is a retrospective single center cohort study of patients with PM GC, who received PIPAC treatment in combination with systemic chemotherapy with and without ramucirumab. Data on patients' characteristics and their perioperative courses were collected and complication rates were compared with regard to preoperative use of ramucirumab and time between last dose of systemic therapy and PIPAC treatment. Results: Fifty patients underwent 90 PIPAC treatments for PM GC in 3 years. Overall postoperative morbidity was 11% with 6% severe complications. The mean interval between systemic therapy and PIPAC was 20 days. Neither the length of interval nor the use of ramucirumab had an effect on complication rates. Conclusion: Our study suggests that addition of ramucirumab to pre-PIPAC systemic therapy, irrespective of the length of the treatment-free interval before PIPAC, does not increase the risk of postoperative complications and is therefore a safe option for treatment of PM GC

Indication of Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Gastric Cancer (Gastripec, Gastrichip)

Background: Gastric cancer (GC) is associated with a poor prognosis mostly due to peritoneal metastasis, which will develop in time during the patient's disease history. To prevent and treat peritoneal metastasis, different kinds of treatment regimens have been described. Summary: In this review, we addressed two main topics - prophylaxis and treatment of peritoneal metastasis in GC. Prevention should be directed towards diminishing cancer cell spillage and reducing adherence of cancer cells to the abdominal cavity. Postoperative washing of the abdomen with or without chemotherapy and additional heat are herein discussed. Key Messages: Treatment of existing peritoneal metastasis is effective in patients with limited disease and tumour spread. Cytoreductive surgery including resection of peritoneal metastasis followed directly with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy can increase overall survival and progression-free survival in selected patients. Drugs, duration and time schedules of intraperitoneal chemotherapy are reviewed and presented. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy seems to improve the prognosis of patients with GC and peritoneal metastasis after complete resection of both primary and metastatic tumours

Chemotherapy vs supportive care alone for relapsed gastric, gastroesophageal junction, and oesophageal adenocarcinoma: a meta-analysis of patient-level data.

BACKGROUND: Second-line chemotherapy treatment of patients with relapsed gastric and oesophageal cancers in comparison with supportive care (SC) alone has been supported by recent phase 3 clinical trials, but a meta-analysis of patient-level data is lacking. METHODS: We searched Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Web of Science for phase 3 clinical trials that compared second-line chemotherapy with SC alone for gastric and oesophageal cancers. A meta-analysis of the comprehensive patient-level data from the three identified trials was performed. RESULTS: A total of 410 patients with gastric (n=301), gastroesophageal junction (n=76), or oesophageal (n=33) adenocarcinoma were identified. In all, 154 patients received single-agent docetaxel and 84 patients received single-agent irinotecan, each with SC. SC alone was given to 172 patients. Chemotherapy significantly reduced the risk of death (hazard ratio (HR)=0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.51-0.77, P<0.0001). This effect was observed for treatment with docetaxel (HR=0.71, 95% CI=0.56-0.89, P=0.003) and irinotecan (HR=0.49, 95% CI=0.36-0.67, P<0.001). Overall survival (OS) benefit was greatest for patients who progressed 3-6 months following first-line chemotherapy (HR=0.39, 95% CI=0.26-0.59, P<0.0001). Performance status (PS) 0-1 compared with PS 2 (HR=0.66, 95% CI=0.46-0.94, P=0.02), locally advanced disease compared with metastatic disease (HR=0.41, 95% CI=0.25-0.67, P=0.0004) and older age (HR=0.94 per 5 years, 95% CI=0.90-0.99, P=0.01) were significant predictors of improved OS. Progression of disease during first-line treatment (HR=1.24, 95% CI=0.96-1.59) or within the first 3 months of completion of first-line treatment (HR=1.42, 95% CI=1.09-1.83) were predictors of an increased risk of death compared with progression between 3 and 6 months (P=0.03). Health-related quality of life outcomes were reported in only one of the three trials, precluding meta-analysis of these parameters. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis of patient-level data confirms that second-line chemotherapy treatment results in significantly better OS compared with SC alone in patients with platinum and fluoropyrimidine refractory gastric and oesphageal adenocarcinoma. Health-related quality of life outcomes should be included in future trials in this setting.TJ and CC were supported by the Wellcome Trust Translational Medicine and Therapeutics programme and the National Institute for Health Research.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from Nature Publishing Group via http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2015.45

Pazopanib with 5‐FU and oxaliplatin as first line therapy in advanced gastric cancer: A randomized phase‐II study—The PaFLO trial. A study of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie AIO‐STO‐0510

VEGF inhibition in gastric cancer has a proven benefit in the second line setting. Pazopanib, an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor, selectively inhibits VEGFR-1, -2 and -3, c-kit and PDGF-R resulting in inhibition of angiogenesis. This open-label randomized phase II trial (2:1) investigated the efficacy of combining pazopanib with FLO (5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin) vs FLO alone (internal control arm) as first-line treatment in patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the stomach and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ). Eighty-seven patients were randomized and 78 patients were eligible and evaluable (PaFLO arm 51 patients, FLO arm 27 patients). The PFS rate at 6 months (primary endpoint) was 34% in the PaFLO arm vs 30% in the FLO arm. Comparing PaFLO with FLO median PFS was 4.66 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.87-6.46) vs 4.47 months (95% CI 1.79-7.14) (95% CI, hazard ratio [HR] 0.96 (0.60-1.55), P = .882 [exploratory]); median OS was 10.19 months (95% CI 5.46-14.92) vs 7.33 months (95% CI 4.93-9.73), (95% CI HR 1.01 [0.62-1.65], P = .953, exploratory), disease control rate was 72% vs 59%. PaFLO was well tolerable, toxicities were slightly higher in the PaFLO arm. Major adverse events were loss of appetite, nausea, fatigue, diarrhea, neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. Adding pazopanib to chemotherapy shows signs of efficacy but no major improvement in this randomized phase 2 trial. The PFS at 6 months in both arms was lower than expected from the literature. Biomarkers identifying subgroups who benefit and novel combinations are needed. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01503372

Sodium Thiosulfate Reduces Acute Kidney Injury in Patients Undergoing Cytoreductive Surgery Plus Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy with Cisplatin: A Single-Center Observational Study

Background: Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) in combination with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) represents a multimodal treatment concept for patients with peritoneal surface malignancies. The use of intraperitoneal cisplatin (CDDP) is associated with a risk of acute kidney injury (AKI). The aim of this study is to evaluate the protective effect of perioperative sodium thiosulfate (STS) administration on kidney function in patients undergoing CRS and CDDP-based HIPEC. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed clinical data of all patients who underwent CRS and CDDP-based HIPEC at our hospital between March 2017 and August 2020. Patients were stratified according to the use of sodium thiosulfate (STS vs. no STS). We compared kidney function and clinical outcome parameters between both groups and determined risk factors for postoperative AKI on univariate and multivariate analysis. AKI was classified according to acute kidney injury network (AKIN) criteria. Results: Of 238 patients who underwent CRS and CDDP-based HIPEC, 46 patients received STS and 192 patients did not. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics. In patients who received STS, a lower incidence (6.5% vs. 30.7%; p = 0.001) and severity of AKI (p = 0.009) were observed. On multivariate analysis, the use of STS (OR 0.089, p = 0.001) remained an independent kidney-protective factor, while arterial hypertension (OR 5.283, p < 0.001) and elevated preoperative urea serum level (OR 5.278, p = 0.032) were predictors for postoperative AKI. Conclusions: The present data suggest that STS protects patients from AKI caused by CRS and CDDP-based HIPEC. Further prospective studies are needed to validate the benefit of STS among kidney-protective strategies

a randomized, placebo-controlled phase II AIO trial with serum biomarker program

Background As a multi-targeted anti-angiogenic receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) inhibitor sunitinib (SUN) has been established for renal cancer and gastrointestinal stromal tumors. In advanced refractory esophagogastric cancer patients, monotherapy with SUN was associated with good tolerability but limited tumor response. Methods This double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, phase II clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of SUN as an adjunct to second and third-line FOLFIRI (NCT01020630). Patients were randomized to receive 6-week cycles including FOLFIRI plus sodium folinate (Na-FOLFIRI) once every two weeks and SUN or placebo (PL) continuously for four weeks followed by a 2-week rest period. The primary study endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Preplanned serum analyses of VEGF-A, VEGF-D, VEGFR2 and SDF-1α were performed retrospectively. Results Overall, 91 patients were randomized, 45 in each group (one patient withdrew). The main grade ≥3 AEs were neutropenia and leucopenia, observed in 56 %/20 % and 27 %/16 % for FOLFIRI + SUN/FOLFIRI + PL, respectively. Median PFS was similar, 3.5 vs. 3.3 months (hazard ratio (HR) 1.11, 95 % CI 0.70–1.74, P = 0.66) for FOLFIRI + SUN vs. FOLFIRI + PL, respectively. For FOLFIRI + SUN, a trend towards longer median overall survival (OS) compared with placebo was observed (10.4 vs. 8.9 months, HR 0.82, 95 % CI 0.50–1.34, one-sided P = 0.21). In subgroup serum analyses, significant changes in VEGF-A (P = 0.017), VEGFR2 (P = 0.012) and VEGF-D (P < 0.001) serum levels were observed. Conclusions Although sunitinib combined with FOLFIRI did not improve PFS and response in chemotherapy-resistant gastric cancer, a trend towards better OS was observed. Further biomarker-driven studies with other anti- angiogenic RTK inhibitors are warranted. Trial registration This study was registered prospectively in the NCT Clinical Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) under NCT01020630 on November 23, 2009 after approval by the leading ethics committee of the Medical Association of Rhineland- Palatinate, Mainz, in coordination with the participating ethics committees (see Additional file 2) on September 16, 2009

Progression-Free Survival as a Surrogate for Overall Survival in Advanced/Recurrent Gastric Cancer Trials: A Meta-Analysis

The traditional endpoint for assessing efficacy of chemotherapies for advanced/recurrent gastric cancer is overall survival (OS), but OS requires prolonged follow-up. We investigated whether progression-free survival (PFS) is a valid surrogate for OS. Using individual patient data from the GASTRIC meta-analysis, surrogacy of PFS was assessed through the correlation between the endpoints and through the correlation between the treatment effects on the endpoints. External validation of the prediction based on PFS was also evaluated. Individual data from 4069 patients in 20 randomized trials were analyzed. The rank correlation coefficient between PFS and OS was 0.853 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.852 to 0.854). The R 2 between treatment effects on PFS and on OS was 0.61 (95% CI = 0.04 to 1.00). Treatment effects on PFS and on OS were only moderately correlated, and we could not confirm the validity of PFS as a surrogate endpoint for OS in advanced/recurrent gastric cance

Efficacy and Safety of Trastuzumab Emtansine Plus Capecitabine vs Trastuzumab Emtansine Alone in Patients With Previously Treated ERBB2 (HER2)-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer A Phase 1 and Randomized Phase 2 Trial

Importance: ERBB2 (HER2)-targeted therapy provides benefits in metastatic breast cancer (mBC) and gastric cancer, but additional treatments are needed to maximize efficacy and quality of life. Objective: To determine maximum tolerated doses (MTDs) of trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) plus capecitabine in patients with previously treated ERBB2-positive mBC and locally advanced/metastatic gastric cancer (LA/mGC) (phase 1) and the efficacy and safety of this combination vs T-DM1 alone in patients with mBC (phase 2). Design, setting, and participants: The MTD in phase 1 was assessed using a 3 + 3 design with capecitabine dose modification. Phase 2 was an open-label, randomized, international multicenter study of patients with mBC treated with T-DM1 plus capecitabine or T-DM1 alone. Eligible patients had previously treated ERBB2-positive mBC or LA/mGC with no prior chemotherapy treatment for advanced disease. Interventions: Patients in the phase 1 mBC cohort received capecitabine (750 mg/m2, 700 mg/m2, or 650 mg/m2 twice daily, days 1-14 of a 3-week cycle) plus T-DM1 3.6 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Patients with LA/mGC received capecitabine at the mBC phase 1 MTD, de-escalating as needed, plus T-DM1 2.4 mg/kg weekly. In phase 2, patients with mBC were randomized (1:1) to receive capecitabine (at the phase 1 MTD) plus T-DM1 or T-DM1 alone. Main outcomes and measures: The phase 1 primary objective was to identify the MTD of capecitabine plus T-DM1. The phase 2 primary outcome was investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR). Results: In phase 1, the median (range) age was 54.0 (37-71) and 57.5 (53-70) years for patients with mBC and patients with LA/mGC, respectively. The capecitabine MTD was identified as 700 mg/m2 in 11 patients with mBC and 6 patients with LA/mGC evaluable for dose-limiting toxic effects. In phase 2, between October 2014 and April 2016, patients with mBC (median [range] age, 52.0 [28-80] years) were randomized to receive combination therapy (n = 81) or T-DM1 (n = 80). The ORR was 44% (36 of 81 patients) and 36% (29 of 80 patients) in the combination and T-DM1 groups, respectively (difference, 8.2%; 90% CI, -4.5 to 20.9; P = .34; clinical cutoff, May 31, 2017). Adverse events (AEs) were reported in 78 of 82 patients (95%) in the combination group, with 36 (44%) experiencing grade 3-4 AEs, and 69 of 78 patients (88%) in the T-DM1 group, with 32 (41%) experiencing grade 3-4 AEs. No grade 5 AEs were reported. Conclusions and relevance: Adding capecitabine to T-DM1 did not statistically increase ORR associated with T-DM1 in patients with previously treated ERBB2-positive mBC. The combination group reported more AEs, but with no unexpected toxic effects