Outcomes of Third-Line Docetaxel-Based Chemotherapy in Advanced Gastric Cancer Who Failed Previous Oxaliplatin-Based and Irinotecan-Based Chemotherapies

Min Jeong Lee; In Gyu Hwang; Joung-Soon Jang; Jin Hwa Choi; Byeong-Bae Park; Myung Hee Chang; Seung Tae Kim; Se Hoon Park; Myoung Hee Kang; Jung Hun Kang

doi:10.4143/crt.2012.44.4.235

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Cancer Res Treat > Volume 44(4); 2012 > Article

Original Article Outcomes of Third-Line Docetaxel-Based Chemotherapy in Advanced Gastric Cancer Who Failed Previous Oxaliplatin-Based and Irinotecan-Based Chemotherapies: Min Jeong Lee, MD¹, In Gyu Hwang, MD, PhD², Joung-Soon Jang, MD², Jin Hwa Choi, MD³, Byeong-Bae Park, MD⁴, Myung Hee Chang, MD⁵, Seung Tae Kim, MD⁶, Se Hoon Park, MD⁷, Myoung Hee Kang, MD¹, Jung Hun Kang, MD^1,8; Cancer Research and Treatment : Official Journal of Korean Cancer Association 2012;44(4):235-241.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2012.44.4.235
Published online: December 31, 2012

¹Department of Internal Medicine, Gyeongsang National University School of Medicine, Jinju, Korea.

²Department of Internal Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

³Department of Radiation Oncology, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

⁴Department of Internal Medicine, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

⁵Department of Internal Medicine, Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, Korea.

⁶Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

⁷Department of Internal Medicine, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

⁸Department of Internal Medicine, Institute of Health Science, Gyeongsang National University School of Medicine, Jinju, Korea.

Correspondence: In Gyu Hwang, MD, PhD. Division of Hematology/Oncology, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, 102 Heukseok-ro, Dongjak-gu, Korea.
Tel: 82-2-6299-1403, Fax: 82-2-6299-1459, hematoonco@naver.com

• Received: July 6, 2012 • Accepted: August 23, 2012

This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

62,502 Views
93 Download
24 Crossref
24 Scopus

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract

Purpose
Little is known about outcomes in the use of third-line chemotherapy in cases of advanced gastric cancer (AGC). The primary aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate outcomes of docetaxel-based chemotherapy in patients with AGC that progressed after both oxaliplatin-based and irinotecan-based regimens.
Materials and Methods
Eligible patients were those with AGC who had previous chemotherapy including fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin as well as fluoropyrimidine and irinotecan and who received subsequent docetaxel-based chemotherapy. Thirty-five patients were retrospectively recruited from 5 medical centers in Korea. Patients received either weekly or 3 weekly with docetaxel +/- cisplatin.
Results
Thirty-one out of 35 patients were evaluated for treatment response. A total of 94 cycles of chemotherapy (median, 2; range, 1 to 7) were administered. The overall response rate was 14.3%, and the disease control rate was 45.7%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 1.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1 to 2.7 months). The median overall survival (OS) was 3.6 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 4.4 months). PFS and OS were significantly prolonged in patients of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, with performance status of 0 or 1 in multivariate analysis (PFS: hazard ratio[HR], 0.411; 95% CI, 0.195 to 0.868; p=0.020 and OS: HR, 0.390; 95% CI, 0.184 to 0.826; p=0.014, respectively). Four of the 35 patients enrolled in the study died due to infection associated with neutropenia.
Conclusion
Our findings suggest that salvage docetaxel-based chemotherapy is a feasible treatment option for AGC patients with good performance status (PS), whereas chemotherapy for patients with poor PS (PS≤2) should be undertaken with caution for those who previously failed oxaliplatin- and irinotecan-based regimens.
Key words: Stomach neoplasms, Docetaxel, Oxaliplatin, Irinotecan

Introduction

Gastric cancer ranks fourth in incidence and second in cancer mortality worldwide [1]. In Korea, it is the most common malignancy and second-most common cause of cancer mortality [2]. Although gastric cancer is now detected earlier due to implementation of gastroduodenoscopy as a screening test in Korea, more than 20% of gastric cancer patients are still diagnosed with metastatic or advanced stage disease [3].

Systemic chemotherapy can provide significant palliation of symptoms and survival benefits to patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) [4-6]. First-line chemotherapy regimens for AGC patients generally confer a response rate of less than 50% and prolong survival by several months [7]. Second-line chemotherapy regimens may also be helpful for patients that are refractory to first-line treatment. We recently showed that there was a survival benefit of second-line chemotherapy over best supportive care in AGC patients who had failed first-line therapy [8]. Little is known, however, about the clinical outcomes of third-line or sequenced chemotherapy in AGC patients.

Although various chemotherapeutic agents are used in the treatment of AGC, no clear standard chemotherapy regimen has been established. Several studies have suggested that combination chemotherapy provides better response rates and favorable survival benefits compared with a single agent [6,9,10]. Based on these data, combination chemotherapeutic regimens containing fluoropyrimidine and platinum agents or irinotecan are commonly adopted as first-line treatment for AGC in Korea, regardless of the sequence in which the agents are administered [11-14].

Docetaxel has been shown to be efficacious for treatment of AGC and has been widely used either alone or in combination with other agents. A recent meta-analysis showed that docetaxel-containing regimens resulted in favorable survival benefits, though these effects were not statistically significant [15]. Thus, docetaxel may be a feasible treatment option for AGC patients that are refractory to chemotherapy regimens comprised of fluoropyrimidine and either oxaliplatin or irinotecan, which are commonly referred to as folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaplatin (FOLFOX), folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI), capecitabine plus oxliplatin (XELOX), capecitabine plus irinotecan (XELIRI) and S-1/oxaliplatin (SOX). However, no studies have examined outcomes of docetaxel treatment as third-line chemotherapy. The primary aim of this retrospective analysis was to evaluate the outcomes of docetaxel-based chemotherapy as a third-line treatment in AGC patients.

Materials and Methods

1. Eligibility

Databases from 5 medical centers were searched for patients with advanced or relapsed gastric adenocarcinoma who underwent chemotherapy between September 2005 and September 2009. All patients had a histologically confirmed diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the stomach. Patients were eligible for enrollment if they received docetaxel-containing chemotherapy as third-line treatment and had a history of progression after two prior chemotherapy regimens containing fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin as well as fluoropyrimidine and irinotecan. Since this was a retrospective study and no personal patient information was used, approval from the institutional review board was not obtained.

2. Chemotherapy regimens

All eligible patients received one of four chemotherapy regimens as follows: 1) docetaxel 30 mg/m² IV (wD) on days 1 and 8; 2) docetaxel 30 mg/m² with cisplatin 30 mg/m² IV (wDP) on days 1 and 8; 3) docetaxel 60 mg/m² IV (3wD) on day 1; or 4) docetaxel 60 mg/m² and cisplatin 60 mg/m² IV (3wDP) on day 1. All chemotherapeutic cycles were repeated every 3 weeks. Standard pre-medications were administered appropriately prior to treatment depending on the protocol of the specific institution.

Relative dose intensity (RDI) was defined as the actual chemotherapeutic dose administered divided by the total planned dose in a given period.

3. Assessment of efficacy and toxicity

The treatment response in patients with measurable lesions was evaluated in accordance with the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST version 1.1) [16]. The safety evaluation included all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug, and was based on abnormal laboratory values and adverse clinical events. Information about toxicity was collected and graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events ver. 3.0 (CTCAE v 3.0).

4. Statistical analysis

Since this study was a retrospective analysis, no formal estimation of the sample size was done. Progression-free survival (PFS) was calculated from the first day of salvage docetaxel chemotherapy until either the date of progression or the date of last follow-up. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from the first day of salvage docetaxel chemotherapy to the date of death by any cause. PFS and OS curves were obtained using the Kaplan-Meier method and the differences between curves were assessed using a log-rank test. Multivariate analyses of the predictive and prognostic factors for survival were performed using the Cox proportional hazard regression model with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical significance was established as p<0.05. All analyses were performed using SPSS ver. 18.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).

Results

1. Patient characteristics

A total of 35 eligible patients were enrolled from 5 institutions in South Korea. Patient characteristics are listed in Table 1. The median age was 53 years (range, 21 to 73 years) and 60% of the patients enrolled were men. Eighteen (52%) of 35 patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0-1, and 17 (48%) patients had an ECOG PS of 2-3. All patients had more than one metastatic lesion.

2. Drug delivery

Docetaxel and cisplatin were administered for a total of 94 and 70 cycles, respectively. The median number of chemotherapy cycles received per individual patient was 2 (range, 1 to 7). Dose modification for docetaxel and cisplatin was required in 26 (28%) cycles for 13 (37%) patients and 21 (30%) cycles for nine (37%) patients, respectively. Median dose intensities of docetaxel and cisplatin were 18.43 mg/m²/wk (range, 10 to 25 mg/m²/wk) and 16.19 mg/m²/wk (range, 10 to 20 mg/m²/wk), respectively. The mean RDI for docetaxel and cisplatin was 0.91 (range, 0.5 to 1) and 0.91 (range, 0.5 to 1), respectively.

3. Toxicity

Hematologic and non-hematologic toxicities are summarized in Table 2, with hematologic toxicities being the most common. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was observed in 12 (34%) patients and febrile neutropenia occurred in 4 (11%) patients. Infection, neuropathy, and fatigue were the most common non-hematologic toxicities. There were 4 (11%) treatment-related deaths caused by infection associated with neutropenia.

4. Treatment outcomes and prognostic factors

Thirty-one patients were evaluated for responses to docetaxelbased chemotherapy. Four patients were not included in the analysis due to refusal of treatment (2 patients), death due to pneumonia (1 patient), and death due to lung toxicity (1 patient). A partial response was achieved in 5 patients (14.3%, confirmed response in all 5 patients), and stable disease was observed in 11 patients (31.4%). The overall disease control rate was 45.7%.

Over the median follow-up duration of 3.6 months (range, 0.3 to 14.3 months), 33 patients exhibited disease progression. Of these 33 patients, 32 patients died. The median PFS and OS were 1.9 months (95% CI, 1.1 to 2.7 months) and 3.6 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 4.4 months), respectively.

Prognostic factors that influenced PFS and OS of AGC patients are shown in Table 3 and Fig. 1. According to prognostic factor analysis, only ECOG PS was a significant independent prognostic factor in PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.411; 95% CI, 0.195 to 0.868; p=0.020) and OS (HR, 0.390; 95% CI, 0.184 to 0.826; p=0.014) (Table 4, Fig. 1). There were no significant differences in treatment outcomes including overall response, PFS, and OS according to chemotherapy schedules (weekly vs. every 3 weeks) and regimens (monotherapy vs. combination therapy).

Discussion

This study examined the clinical outcomes of docetaxel-based chemotherapy as a third-line treatment regimen in AGC patients refractory to oxaliplatin- and irinotecan-based combination hemotherapy. The overall response rate (ORR) was 14.3% and the median OS was 3.6 months. Our results were largely consistent with previous reports of third-line chemotherapy outcomes in AGC patients [17-19], in which the ORR had a reported range of 0% to 11%, and the OS ranged from 4.2 to 6.4 months. However, these studies included a variety of third-line chemotherapy regimens. To avoid difficulty in interpreting our results, we limited inclusion criteria to AGC patients who received docetaxel-based chemotherapy as third-line treatment after failure to respond to oxaliplatin- and irinotecan-based sequential chemotherapy.

The relatively short median OS (3.6 months) in our study raises the question of whether the use of third-line chemotherapy is more efficacious than best supportive treatment in AGC patients. Patients with colorectal cancer who received fluoropyrimidine as well as oxaliplatin and irinotecan have been shown to have a survival benefit over patients who did not receive one of these agents [20]. It is unclear, however, whether a similar approach may be beneficial for gastric cancer patients. Our team recently identified a survival benefit (HR, 0.81) of chemotherapy in patients who had received two or more prior chemotherapy regimens [8]. This finding suggests that third-line chemotherapy may be helpful in prolonging survival.

Since PS is a well-known prognostic factor for AGC [21], decreased survival rates would be expected in patients with a poorer PS. Our data supported this hypothesis, showing that PS was independently associated with patients' survival in multivariate analysis. The proportion of patients with a PS of 3 in our study was higher than in the populations used in two previous studies (14% vs. 0-0.7%) [17,18]. Thus, the shorter survival in our study could be attributed to inclusion of patients with poorer PS.

Clinical trials using docetaxel on a weekly schedule showed less toxicity and comparable efficacy [22]. Most high-risk patients exhibited poor PS, multiple co-morbidities, or reduced bone-marrow reserves due to prior therapy with weekly regimens. Four treatmentrelated mortalities occurred that were likely attributable to infection associated with neutropenia, despite weekly treatment wDP. All 4 of these patients had poor PS (three with a PS of 2, one with a PS of 3), thus chemotherapy regimens for patients with a poor PS (PS≤2) should be considered carefully.

Our study had several notable limitations. In addition to being a retrospective analysis, the size of our patient cohort was small despite recruitment of patients from multiple centers. Difficulty in recruiting patients may have been due to the strictness of the inclusion criteria. The homogeneity of prior and third-line chemotherapeutic regimens received by the patients enrolled, on the other hand, is helpful for interpreting the data and predicting treatment outcomes in similar cases. Limitation in the evaluation of toxicity may exist due to inherent characteristics of the retrospective design.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that salvage docetaxel-based chemotherapy is a feasible treatment for AGC patients with good PS, whereas chemotherapy for patients with a poor PS (PS≤2) should be used cautiously for those with AGC who previously failed oxaliplatin- and irinotecan-based regimens. Further studies are warranted to determine treatment outcomes of various other third-line chemotherapeutic regimens in AGC patients.

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgments

We appreciate the dedicated help of Ms. Eun-Hee Cho, an assistant nurse.

NOTES

Conflict of interest relevant to this article was not reported.

REFERENCES

1. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61:69–90. PMID: 21296855Article PubMed
2. Jung KW, Won YJ, Park S, Kong HJ, Sung J, Shin HR, et al. Cancer statistics in Korea: incidence, mortality and survival in 2005. J Korean Med Sci. 2009;24:995–1003. PMID: 19949651Article PubMed PMC
3. Kong SH, Park DJ, Lee HJ, Jung HC, Lee KU, Choe KJ, et al. Clinicopathologic features of asymptomatic gastric adenocarcinoma patients in Korea. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2004;34:1–7. PMID: 15020656Article PubMed
4. Glimelius B, Ekstrom K, Hoffman K, Graf W, Sjoden PO, Haglund U, et al. Randomized comparison between chemotherapy plus best supportive care with best supportive care in advanced gastric cancer. Ann Oncol. 1997;8:163–168. PMID: 9093725Article
5. Pyrhonen S, Kuitunen T, Nyandoto P, Kouri M. Randomised comparison of fluorouracil, epidoxorubicin and methotrexate (FEMTX) plus supportive care with supportive care alone in patients with non-resectable gastric cancer. Br J Cancer. 1995;71:587–591. PMID: 7533517Article PubMed PMC
6. Wagner AD, Unverzagt S, Grothe W, Kleber G, Grothey A, Haerting J, et al. Chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(3):CD004064PMID: 20238327Article PubMed
7. Wohrer SS, Raderer M, Hejna M. Palliative chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer. Ann Oncol. 2004;15:1585–1595. PMID: 15520058Article PubMed
8. Kang JH, Lee SI, Lim DH, Park KW, Oh SY, Kwon HC, et al. Salvage chemotherapy for pretreated gastric cancer: a randomized phase III trial comparing chemotherapy plus best supportive care with best supportive care alone. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:1513–1518. PMID: 22412140Article PubMed
9. Kang H, Kauh JS. Chemotherapy in the treatment of metastatic gastric cancer: is there a global standard? Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2011;12:96–106. PMID: 21274667Article PubMed
10. Wagner AD, Grothe W, Haerting J, Kleber G, Grothey A, Fleig WE. Chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on aggregate data. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:2903–2909. PMID: 16782930Article PubMed
11. Jeon EK, Hong SH, Kim TH, Jung SE, Park JC, Won HS, et al. Modified FOLFIRI as second-line chemotherapy after failure of modified FOLFOX-4 in advanced gastric cancer. Cancer Res Treat. 2011;43:148–153. PMID: 22022291Article PubMed PMC PDF
12. Lee HH, Hur H, Kim SH, Park AR, Kim W, Jeon HM. Outcomes of modified FOLFOX-6 as first line treatment in patients with advanced gastric cancer in a single institution: retrospective analysis. Cancer Res Treat. 2010;42:18–23. PMID: 20369047Article PubMed PMC PDF
13. Kim SH, Lee GW, Go SI, Cho SH, Kim HJ, Kim HG, et al. A phase II study of irinotecan, continuous 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFIRI) combination chemotherapy for patients with recurrent or metastatic gastric cancer previously treated with a fluoropyrimidine-based regimen. Am J Clin Oncol. 2010;33:572–576. PMID: 20042971Article PubMed
14. Kim BG, Oh SY, Kwon HC, Lee S, Lee DM, Kim SG, et al. A phase II study of irinotecan with biweekly, low dose leucovorin and bolus and continuous infusion 5-fluorouracil (modified FOLFIRI) as first line therapy for patients with recurrent or metastatic gastric cancer. Am J Clin Oncol. 2010;33:246–250. PMID: 19770628Article PubMed
15. Khokhar NZ, Jiang Y, Benson AB 3rd, Ajani JA, Mulcahy MF. Refining docetaxel-containing therapy for gastric cancer. Gastrointest Cancer Res. 2011;4:96–105. PMID: 22043325PubMed PMC
16. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:228–247. PMID: 19097774Article PubMed
17. Moon YW, Rha SY, Jeung HC, Kim C, Hong MH, Chang H, et al. Outcomes of multiple salvage chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer: implications for clinical practice and trial design. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2010;66:797–805. PMID: 20221831Article PubMed
18. Shin SJ, Jeung HC, Ahn JB, Choi HJ, Cho BC, Rha SY, et al. Capecitabine and doxorubicin combination chemotherapy as salvage therapy in pretreated advanced gastric cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2008;61:157–165. PMID: 17426971Article PubMed
19. Shim HJ, Yun JY, Hwang JE, Bae WK, Cho SH, Chung IJ. Prognostic factor analysis of third-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2011;14:249–256. PMID: 21431297Article PubMed
20. Grothey A, Sargent D, Goldberg RM, Schmoll HJ. Survival of patients with advanced colorectal cancer improves with the availability of fluorouracil-leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin in the course of treatment. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:1209–1214. PMID: 15051767Article PubMed
21. Hasegawa H, Fujitani K, Nakazuru S, Hirao M, Mita E, Tsujinaka T. Optimal indications for second-line chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer. Anticancer Drugs. 2012;23:465–470. PMID: 22227714Article PubMed
22. Rivera E, Mejia JA, Arun BK, Adinin RB, Walters RS, Brewster A, et al. Phase 3 study comparing the use of docetaxel on an every-3-week versus weekly schedule in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Cancer. 2008;112:1455–1461. PMID: 18300256Article PubMed

Fig. 1

Progression-free survival (PFS) (A) and overall survival (OS) (B) curves for patients treated with 3rd line docetaxel according to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS).

Table 1

Patient characteristics

Characteristics (n=35)	No. of patients	%
Gender
Male	21	60
Female	14	40
Median age (range, yr)	53 (21-73)
ECOG PS
0-1	18	52
2	12	34
3	5	14
Histology
Well differentiated	1	3
Moderate differentiated	12	34
Poorly differentiated	18	49
Unknown	4	14
Disease status
Initially metastatic	24	69
Recurrent	11	31
Sites of metastases
Liver	12	34
Lung	3	9
Distant lymph nodes	17	49
Bone	6	17
Peritoneum	13	37
Ovary	4	11
No. of metastatic sites
1-2	18	52
≥ 3	17	48
Treatment regimen
Weekly D	4	11
Weekly DP	16	46
3 weekly D	9	26
3 weekly DP	6	17

ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; D, docetaxel; DP, docetaxel/cisplatin.

Table 2

Toxicity of third-line docetaxel-based chemotherapy

	Total	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4
Leukopenia	19 (54)	2 (6)	4 (11)	8 (23)	5 (14)
Neutropenia	20 (57)	1 (3)	7 (20)	4 (11)	8 (23)
Anemia	33 (94)	11 (31)	20 (57)	2 (6)	0 (0)
Thrombocytopenia	10 (29)	6 (17)	4 (11)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Neutropenic fever	4 (11)	-	-	2 (6)	2 (6)
Infection	7 (20)	0 (0)	0 (0)	2 (6)	1 (3)
Neuropathy	7 (20)	2 (6)	2 (6)	3 (9)	0 (0)
Fatigue	6 (17)	1 (3)	3 (9)	2 (6)	0 (0)
Renal insufficiency	1 (3)	0	1 (3)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Mucositis	3 (9)	1 (3)	1 (3)	1 (3)	0 (0)
Pulmonary toxicity	1 (3)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (3)

Values are presented as number (%).

Table 3

Univariateanalysis for survival

Factors		Median PFS (mo)	p-value^a)	Median OS (mo)	p-value^a)
Gender	Male	2.2	0.183	4.0	0.241
	Female	1.8		2.9
Age (yr)	≤53	1.3	0.195	2.9	0.517
	＞53	3.0		4.4
PS	0-1	2.6	0.013	4.0	0.010
	2-3	1.3		2.4
Grade	MD	2.6	0.180	4.4	0.134
	PD	1.4		3.1
Presentation	Relapse	2.2	0.594	4.0	0.959
	Initially metastatic	1.8		3.1
Site of metastases
Liver	Yes	1.9	0.749	3.0	0.288
	No	1.5		3.7
Lung	Yes	1.6	0.460	1.6	0.060
	No	1.9		3.6
Peritoneum	Yes	2.6	0.818	4.4	0.661
	No	1.6		3.1
Bone	Yes	1.1	0.379	1.6	0.082
	No	2.2		3.7
Albumin level (g/dL)	＜3.0	1.3	0.130	2.4	0.043
	≥3.0	2.4		4.0
Schedule	Weekly	2.2	0.365	3.7	0.916
	3 weekly	1.5		3.0
Cisplatin	Yes	2.2	0.115	3.1	0.507
	No	1.3		3.6

PFS, progression-free survival; OS, overall survival; PS, performance status; MD, moderately differentiated; PD, poorly differentiated. ^a)Log-rank analysis.

Table 4

Prognostic factors influencing PFS and OS

	Univariate analysis		Multivariate analysis

	Median PFS (mo)	p-value^a)	HR for PFS (95% CI)	p-value^b)
PFS
ECOG PS		0.013		0.020
0-1	2.6		0.411
2-3	1.3		(0.195-0.868)
OS
ECOG PS		0.009		0.014
0-1	4.0
2-3	2.4
Albumin (g/dL)		0.043	NE
＜3.0	2.4
≥3.0	4.0

PFS, progression-free survival; OS, overall survival; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; NE, not in the equation. ^a)Log rank test, ^b)Cox proportional hazard analysis.

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2024: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach (Update of 2022 Guideline)
In-Ho Kim, Seung Joo Kang, Wonyoung Choi, An Na Seo, Bang Wool Eom, Beodeul Kang, Bum Jun Kim, Byung-Hoon Min, Chung Hyun Tae, Chang In Choi, Choong-kun Lee, Ho Jung An, Hwa Kyung Byun, Hyeon-Su Im, Hyung-Don Kim, Jang Ho Cho, Kyoungjune Pak, Jae-Joon Kim
Journal of Gastric Cancer.2025; 25(1): 5. CrossRef
Assessment of novel prognostic biomarkers to predict pathological complete response in patients with non-metastatic triple-negative breast cancer using a window of opportunity design
Chitradurga Rajashekhar Akshatha, Dhanapathi Halanaik, Rajesh Nachiappa Ganesh, Nanda Kishore, Prasanth Ganesan, Smita Kayal, Harichandra Kumar, Biswajit Dubashi
Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
HTA and Gastric Cancer: Evaluating Alternatives in Third- and Fourth-Line Patients
Lucrezia Ferrario, Federica Asperti, Giuseppe Aprile, Jacopo Giuliani
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.2023; 20(3): 2107. CrossRef
Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2022: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach
Tae-Han Kim, In-Ho Kim, Seung Joo Kang, Miyoung Choi, Baek-Hui Kim, Bang Wool Eom, Bum Jun Kim, Byung-Hoon Min, Chang In Choi, Cheol Min Shin, Chung Hyun Tae, Chung sik Gong, Dong Jin Kim, Arthur Eung-Hyuck Cho, Eun Jeong Gong, Geum Jong Song, Hyeon-Su Im
Journal of Gastric Cancer.2023; 23(1): 3. CrossRef
A Comprehensive and Comparative Review of Global Gastric Cancer Treatment Guidelines
Sang Soo Eom, Wonyoung Choi, Bang Wool Eom, Sin Hye Park, Soo Jin Kim, Young Il Kim, Hong Man Yoon, Jong Yeul Lee, Chan Gyoo Kim, Hark Kyun Kim, Myeong-Cherl Kook, Il Ju Choi, Young-Woo Kim, Young Iee Park, Keun Won Ryu
Journal of Gastric Cancer.2022; 22(1): 3. CrossRef
Current therapeutic options for gastric adenocarcinoma
C.R. Akshatha, Smitha Bhat, R. Sindhu, Dharini Shashank, Sarana Rose Sommano, Wanaporn Tapingkae, Ratchadawan Cheewangkoon, Shashanka K. Prasad
Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences.2021; 28(9): 5371. CrossRef
What is the value of third‐line chemotherapy in advanced gastroesophageal cancer? A 5‐year retrospective analysis at a single center
Justina Yick Ching Lam, Su Pin Choo, David Wai‐Meng Tai, Iain Bee Huat Tan, Chee Kian Tham, Wen Hsin Koo, Simon Yew Kuang Ong, Soo Fan Ang, Clarinda Wei Ling Chua, Dawn Qingqing Chong, Patrick Tze Hern Teo, Christabel Jing Zhi Lee, Samuel Cheng En Ee, Mat
Asia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology.2020; 16(1): 23. CrossRef
Korean Practice Guideline for Gastric Cancer 2018: an Evidence-based, Multi-disciplinary Approach

Journal of Gastric Cancer.2019; 19(1): 1. CrossRef
Novel Agents in Heavily Pretreated Metastatic Gastric Cancer: More Shadows Than Lights
Giandomenico Roviello, Alberto D’Angelo, Raheleh Roudi, Roberto Petrioli, Enrico Mini
Journal of Oncology.2019; 2019: 1. CrossRef
Treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with metastatic gastric cancer receiving third-line chemotherapy: A population-based outcomes study
In Sil Choi, Mihong Choi, Ju Hyun Lee, Jee Hyun Kim, Koung Jin Suh, Ji Yun Lee, Beodeul Kang, Ji-Won Kim, Se-Hyun Kim, Jin Won Kim, Jeong-Ok Lee, Yu Jung Kim, Soo-Mee Bang, Jong Seok Lee, Keun-Wook Lee, Ju-Seog Lee
PLOS ONE.2018; 13(6): e0198544. CrossRef
The role of third-line chemotherapy in recurrent or metastatic gastric cancer
Yong Won Choi, Mi Sun Ahn, Geum Sook Jeong, Hyun Woo Lee, Seong Hyun Jeong, Seok Yun Kang, Joon Seong Park, Jin-Hyuk Choi, Seung Soo Sheen
Medicine.2018; 97(39): e12588. CrossRef
Third line treatment of advanced oesophagogastric cancer: A critical review of current evidence and evolving trends
P. Edwards, M. Davidson, V. Calamai, D. Cunningham, N. Starling
Cancer Treatment Reviews.2018; 71: 32. CrossRef
Irinotecan monotherapy as third-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer refractory to fluoropyrimidines, platinum, and taxanes
Takashi Nishimura, Satoru Iwasa, Kengo Nagashima, Natsuko Okita, Atsuo Takashima, Yoshitaka Honma, Ken Kato, Tetsuya Hamaguchi, Yasuhide Yamada, Yasuhiro Shimada, Narikazu Boku
Gastric Cancer.2017; 20(4): 655. CrossRef
Advanced gastric cancer: is there an optimal chemotherapy regimen?
Kalliopi Andrikou, Massimiliano Salati, Annalisa Fontana, Andrea Spallanzani, Stefania Pipitone, Fabio Gelsomino, Monica Barbolini, Stefano Cascinu
Expert Review of Quality of Life in Cancer Care.2017; 2(2): 123. CrossRef
Third-line systemic treatment versus best supportive care for advanced/metastatic gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Wing-lok Chan, Kwok-keung Yuen, Steven Wai-kwan Siu, Ka-on Lam, Dora Lai-wan Kwong
Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology.2017; 116: 68. CrossRef
Third-line chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer
Yu Zheng, Xu-Qing Zhu, Xiao-Gang Ren
Medicine.2017; 96(24): e6884. CrossRef
Second-line treatments: moving towards an opportunity to improve survival in advanced gastric cancer?
Massimiliano Salati, Katia Di Emidio, Vittoria Tarantino, Stefano Cascinu
ESMO Open.2017; 2(3): e000206. CrossRef
Outcomes of Advanced Gastric Cancer Patients Treated with at Least Three Lines of Systemic Chemotherapy
Valentina Fanotto, Mario Uccello, Irene Pecora, Lorenza Rimassa, Francesco Leone, Gerardo Rosati, Daniele Santini, Riccardo Giampieri, Samantha Di Donato, Gianluca Tomasello, Nicola Silvestris, Filippo Pietrantonio, Francesca Battaglin, Antonio Avallone,
The Oncologist.2017; 22(12): 1463. CrossRef
Metastatic gastric cancer treatment: Second line and beyond
Marwan Ghosn, Samer Tabchi, Hampig Raphael Kourie, Mustapha Tehfe
World Journal of Gastroenterology.2016; 22(11): 3069. CrossRef
A Phase I study of cabazitaxel in patients with advanced gastric cancer who have failed prior chemotherapy (GASTANA)
Yoon-Koo Kang, Baek-Yeol Ryoo, Shinkyo Yoon, Lin Shen, Jooyun Lee, Chenlu Wei, Yu Zhou, Min-Hee Ryu
Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology.2015; 75(2): 309. CrossRef
Impact of the availability of active cytotoxic agents on the survival of patients with advanced gastric cancer
BYUNG HA CHO, HYE SOOK HAN, JIHYUN KWON, JOUNG-HO HAN, SOON MAN YOON, DAE HOON KIM, HYO YUNG YUN, KI HYEONG LEE, SEI JIN YOUN, SEUNG TAIK KIM
Oncology Letters.2015; 10(4): 2481. CrossRef
Docetaxel and its potential in the treatment of refractory esophagogastric adenocarcinoma
Hugo Ford, Ioannis Gounaris
Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology.2015; 8(4): 189. CrossRef
Chemotherapy beyond second-line in advanced gastric cancer
Sung Min Kim
World Journal of Gastroenterology.2015; 21(29): 8811. CrossRef
Biweekly S-1 plus paclitaxel (SPA) as second-line chemotherapy after failure from fluoropyrimidine and platinum in advanced gastric cancer: a phase II study
Yulong Zheng, Weijia Fang, Chenyu Mao, Joing Qian, Peng Zhao, Xiaochen Zhang, Haiping Jiang, Yi Zheng, Nong Xu
Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology.2014; 74(3): 503. CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Outcomes of Third-Line Docetaxel-Based Chemotherapy in Advanced Gastric Cancer Who Failed Previous Oxaliplatin-Based and Irinotecan-Based Chemotherapies

Cancer Res Treat. 2012;44(4):235-241. Published online December 31, 2012

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2012.44.4.235

XML Download

Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Acknowledgments
NOTES
REFERENCES

Outcomes of Third-Line Docetaxel-Based Chemotherapy in Advanced Gastric Cancer Who Failed Previous Oxaliplatin-Based and Irinotecan-Based Chemotherapies

Fig. 1 Progression-free survival (PFS) (A) and overall survival (OS) (B) curves for patients treated with 3rd line docetaxel according to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS).

Fig. 1

Outcomes of Third-Line Docetaxel-Based Chemotherapy in Advanced Gastric Cancer Who Failed Previous Oxaliplatin-Based and Irinotecan-Based Chemotherapies

Characteristics (n=35)	No. of patients	%
Gender
Male	21	60
Female	14	40
Median age (range, yr)	53 (21-73)
ECOG PS
0-1	18	52
2	12	34
3	5	14
Histology
Well differentiated	1	3
Moderate differentiated	12	34
Poorly differentiated	18	49
Unknown	4	14
Disease status
Initially metastatic	24	69
Recurrent	11	31
Sites of metastases
Liver	12	34
Lung	3	9
Distant lymph nodes	17	49
Bone	6	17
Peritoneum	13	37
Ovary	4	11
No. of metastatic sites
1-2	18	52
≥ 3	17	48
Treatment regimen
Weekly D	4	11
Weekly DP	16	46
3 weekly D	9	26
3 weekly DP	6	17

	Total	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4
Leukopenia	19 (54)	2 (6)	4 (11)	8 (23)	5 (14)
Neutropenia	20 (57)	1 (3)	7 (20)	4 (11)	8 (23)
Anemia	33 (94)	11 (31)	20 (57)	2 (6)	0 (0)
Thrombocytopenia	10 (29)	6 (17)	4 (11)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Neutropenic fever	4 (11)	-	-	2 (6)	2 (6)
Infection	7 (20)	0 (0)	0 (0)	2 (6)	1 (3)
Neuropathy	7 (20)	2 (6)	2 (6)	3 (9)	0 (0)
Fatigue	6 (17)	1 (3)	3 (9)	2 (6)	0 (0)
Renal insufficiency	1 (3)	0	1 (3)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Mucositis	3 (9)	1 (3)	1 (3)	1 (3)	0 (0)
Pulmonary toxicity	1 (3)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (3)

Factors		Median PFS (mo)	p-value^a)	Median OS (mo)	p-value^a)
Gender	Male	2.2	0.183	4.0	0.241
	Female	1.8		2.9
Age (yr)	≤53	1.3	0.195	2.9	0.517
	＞53	3.0		4.4
PS	0-1	2.6	0.013	4.0	0.010
	2-3	1.3		2.4
Grade	MD	2.6	0.180	4.4	0.134
	PD	1.4		3.1
Presentation	Relapse	2.2	0.594	4.0	0.959
	Initially metastatic	1.8		3.1
Site of metastases
Liver	Yes	1.9	0.749	3.0	0.288
	No	1.5		3.7
Lung	Yes	1.6	0.460	1.6	0.060
	No	1.9		3.6
Peritoneum	Yes	2.6	0.818	4.4	0.661
	No	1.6		3.1
Bone	Yes	1.1	0.379	1.6	0.082
	No	2.2		3.7
Albumin level (g/dL)	＜3.0	1.3	0.130	2.4	0.043
	≥3.0	2.4		4.0
Schedule	Weekly	2.2	0.365	3.7	0.916
	3 weekly	1.5		3.0
Cisplatin	Yes	2.2	0.115	3.1	0.507
	No	1.3		3.6

	Univariate analysis		Multivariate analysis

	Median PFS (mo)	p-value^a)	HR for PFS (95% CI)	p-value^b)
PFS
ECOG PS		0.013		0.020
0-1	2.6		0.411
2-3	1.3		(0.195-0.868)
OS
ECOG PS		0.009		0.014
0-1	4.0
2-3	2.4
Albumin (g/dL)		0.043	NE
＜3.0	2.4
≥3.0	4.0

Table 1 Patient characteristics

ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; D, docetaxel; DP, docetaxel/cisplatin.

Table 2 Toxicity of third-line docetaxel-based chemotherapy

Values are presented as number (%).

Table 3 Univariateanalysis for survival

PFS, progression-free survival; OS, overall survival; PS, performance status; MD, moderately differentiated; PD, poorly differentiated. ^a)Log-rank analysis.