Intensive up-front treatment versus a sequential approach in advanced gastric cancer patients: Does first-line matter?

Abstract

e14663 Background: The definition of the standard chemotherapy regimen for advanced gastric cancer is still a matter of debate. A recent meta-analysis suggested that the addition of a third drug to a doublet regimen should be considered the state-of-the-art strategy to improve overall survival. Aim of our analysis was to retrospectively assess whether an intensive, three-drugs, front line approach could be comparable to a sequential (two-drugs front line then second line) in terms of RR (response rate), PFS (progression free survival) and OS (overall survival) in advanced gastric cancer patients. Methods: Patients with metastatic gastric cancer who have received a first-line combination chemotherapy with a two or three-drugs regimen were included in our analysis. We divided our patients into two groups, A and B, based on the first line chemotherapy administered (group A=three drugs; group B= two drugs). Results: A total of 390 patients were eligible for our analysis. 211 patients (54%) received three chemotherapeutic agents (group A) and 179 patients (46%) received a two drugs regimen as first-line combination chemotherapy (group B). The 2 groups of patients resulted comparable for all known prognostic factors of clinical relevance. RR for group A and B was 46.5% and 28%, respectively (p=0,0007), median PFS was 7.12 months in group A and 3.96 months in group B (p<0,0001). No significantly difference resulted for the median OS of patients in the two groups (13 months for group A and 11.8 months for group B; p= 0.962). Conclusions: The addition of a third drug to a doublet chemotherapy regimen appeared more active in terms of response rate and PFS. However median OS resulted comparable. On this basis, a triplet regimen may represent an optimal choice, particularly when response and PFS are relevant treatment endpoints. Nevertheless the use of a sequential approach may also represent a reasonable strategy for patients unwilling or unable to undergo a more intensive treatment without compromising OS.