Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2020 Aug;9(16):5731-5745.
doi: 10.1002/cam4.3224. Epub 2020 Jun 24.

The efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on patients with advanced gastric cancer: A multicenter randomized clinical trial

Qun Zhao  1 , Changhong Lian  2 , Zhibin Huo  3 , Ming Li  4 , Yang Liu  1 , Liqiao Fan  1 , Bibo Tan  1 , Xuefeng Zhao  1 , Zhidong Zhang  1 , Dong Wang  1 , Yu Liu  1 , Honghai Guo  1 , Peigang Yang  1 , Yuan Tian  1 , Yong Li  1
Affiliations
Clinical Trial

The efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on patients with advanced gastric cancer: A multicenter randomized clinical trial

Qun Zhao et al. Cancer Med. 2020 Aug.

Abstract

Objectives: Exploring the efficacy and safety of perioperative chemotherapy on patients with AGC at different clinical and pathological stages.

Methods: A phase III randomized, multicenter, trial comparing adjuvant (arm A) or perioperative S-1 plus oxaliplatin (SOX, arm B), and perioperative capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX, arm C) was initiated in T3/4, node + gastric cancer patients (unclear). Each patient received an 8-cycle chemotherapy (3 weeks for one cycle). Group arms B and C received two cycles preoperatively, and six cycles postoperatively. Primary endpoints were R0 resection rate and DFS, and secondary endpoints included OS, ORR, DCR, and safety. This study was registered on Clinicaltrials.gov. NCT01516944.

Results: A total of 749 patients were randomly assigned into groups A, B, and C. Group A received 1460 circles chemotherapy and group B received 1177 circles while group C received 1200 circles. R0 resection rates in the three groups were 81.7%, 88.7%, and 83.1%, respectively. The difference between groups A and B was considered to be statistically significant (P = .018), and no significant difference between groups B and C (P = .051). Hazard ratio were compared between groups B and C and DFS showed 0.72 (0.67-0.77 with 95% CI), Pnon-inferiority < .0001, Plog-rank = .064). The CI top limit actually lower than the estimated value of 1.38, which indicated noninferiority of SOX to XELOX.

Conclusions: Compared with PAC, perioperative chemotherapy showed a significant improvement in R0 resection rates and prognosis in AGC patients with higher safety rates. This study was powered to show superiority of perioperative over adjuvant SOX, and noninferiority of SOX to XELOX. Volume measurement, repeated laparoscopic exploration combined with exfoliative cytology can be used as a supplementary method in the clinical staging and efficacy evaluation of AGC.

Keywords: SOX; XELOX; gastric cancer; neoadjuvant chemotherapy; survival analysis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Trial profile
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
The transition and time course of surgical exploration, peritoneal lavage cytology, and efficacy assessment
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Laparoscopic exploration revealed the presence of peritoneal metastasis
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Comparison of positive and negative survival rates of peritoneal lavage cytology
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5
The IIIC staging patients were stratified according to the median volume of 62.5 cm3, and the overall survival of the two groups of patients was compared
FIGURE 6
FIGURE 6
Evaluation of the percentage change of primary gastric cancer volume in ROC curve analysis for the effectiveness of chemotherapy
FIGURE 7
FIGURE 7
Comparison of postoperative survival rate between chemotherapy‐effective group and chemotherapy‐ineffective group in the percentage change of volume change
FIGURE 8
FIGURE 8
Comparison of overall survival between the three groups
FIGURE 9
FIGURE 9
Comparison of disease‐free survival between the three groups
FIGURE 10
FIGURE 10
Forest plot graph of subgroup analysis (group B vs group C)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) . GLOBOCAN 2018: estimated cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide in 2018; 2018.
    1. Yamashita K, Kurokawa Y, Yamamoto K, et al. Risk factors for poor compliance with adjuvant S‐1 chemotherapy for gastric cancer: a multicenter retrospective study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24:2639‐2645. - PubMed
    1. Bang Y‐J, Kim Y‐W, Yang H‐K, et al. Adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin for gastric cancer after D2 gastrectomy (CLASSIC): a phase 3 open‐label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2012;379:315‐321. - PubMed
    1. Sasako M, Sakuramoto S, Katai H, et al. Five‐year outcomes of a randomized phase III trial comparing adjuvant chemotherapy with S‐1 versus surgery alone in stage II or III gastric cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:4387‐4393. - PubMed
    1. Cunningham D, Allum WH, Stenning SP, et al. Perioperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone for resectable gastroesophageal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:11‐20. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Supplementary concepts

Associated data