Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster display session: Basic science, Endocrine tumours, Gastrointestinal tumours - colorectal & non-colorectal, Head and neck cancer (excluding thyroid), Melanoma and other skin tumours, Neuroendocrine tumours, Thyroid cancer, Tumour biology & pathology

2414 - Meta-analysis of biweekly irinotecan plus cisplatin versus irinotecan alone as second-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer


21 Oct 2018


Poster display session: Basic science, Endocrine tumours, Gastrointestinal tumours - colorectal & non-colorectal, Head and neck cancer (excluding thyroid), Melanoma and other skin tumours, Neuroendocrine tumours, Thyroid cancer, Tumour biology & pathology


Cytotoxic Therapy

Tumour Site

Gastric Cancer


Kazuhiro Nishikawa


Annals of Oncology (2018) 29 (suppl_8): viii205-viii270. 10.1093/annonc/mdy282


K. Nishikawa1, W. Koizumi2, A. Tsuburaya3, T. Yamanaka4, S. Morita5, K. Fujitani6, Y. Akamaru7, K. Shimada8, H. Hosaka9, N. Nakayama10, Y. Miyashita11, T. Tsujinaka12, J. Sakamoto13

Author affiliations

  • 1 Surgery, National Hospital Organization Osaka National Hospital, 540-0006 - Osaka/JP
  • 2 Gastroenterology, Kitasato University School of Medicine, 252-0374 - Kanagawa/JP
  • 3 Surgery, Tsuboi Cancer Center Hospital, 963-0197 - Koriyama/JP
  • 4 Biostatistics, Yokohama City University Hospital, 236-004 - Yokohama/JP
  • 5 Biomedical Statistics And Bioinformatics, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto/JP
  • 6 Surgery, Osaka General Medical Center, 558-8558 - Osaka/JP
  • 7 Surgery, Ikeda Municippal Hospital, 5638510 - Ikeda/JP
  • 8 Internal Medicine, Showa University Kouto-Toyosu Hospital, 135-8577 - Tokyo/JP
  • 9 Gastroenterology, Gunma Prefectural Cancer Center, Ohta/JP
  • 10 Gastroenterology, Kanagawa Cancer Center, Yokohama/JP
  • 11 Deta Center, Epidemiological & Clinical research Information Network, Okazaki/JP
  • 12 Surgery, Kaizuka City Hospital, 597-0015 - Kaizuka/JP
  • 13 Surgery, Tokai Central Hospital, 504 0816 - Kakamigahara/JP


Login to access the resources on OncologyPRO.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 2414


Biweekly CPT-11 plus CDDP (BIRIP) and CPT-11 alone are both expectable options for treating advanced gastric cancer (AGC) in second-line setting. Recently, two randomized phase III trials (TCOG GI-0801 and ECRIN TRICS) employing the same regimens have been reported. Both trials did not demonstrate the survival benefit of BIRIP due to underpowered. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of these two regimens in patients who have been enrolled in these two randomized trials.


Individual patient–level data from these two trials were collected for this study. In these two trials, patients with metastatic or recurrent gastric cancer refractory to S-1-based chemotherapy were randomly allocated to BIRIP (CPT-11, 60 mg/m2; CDDP, 30 mg/m2, q2w) or CPT-11 (150 mg/m2, q2w). Overall survivals (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were described using Kaplan-Meier methods. Tumor responses were evaluated using RECIST ver. 1.0. Adverse events were evaluated using CTCAE ver. 3.0.


Cumulative data from eligible 290 patients from these two trials were evaluated. OS were 12.3 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.5–14.1) in BIRIP group and 11.3 (95% CI: 10.0–13.2) months in CPT-11 group (hazard ratio 0.87; 95% CI: 0.68–1.12, P = 0.272). PFS was significantly longer in BIRIP group (4.3months [95% CI: 3.5–5.1]) than in CPT-11 group (3.3months [2.9–4.1]; HR 0.77; 95% CI: 0.61–0.98, P = 0.035). The response rate was 20.5% [95% CI: 13.3–27.7] in BIRIP group and 16.0% [95% CI: 9.6–22.4] in CPT-11 group (P = 0.361). The disease control rate was significantly better in BIRIP group (72.1% [95% CI: 64.2–80.1]) than in CPT-11 group (59.2% [95% CI: 50.6–67.8]) (P = 0.032). The incidences of grade 3 or worse adverse events did not differ between the two groups, for example neutropenia (35.9% vs. 32.4%) and elevation of serum creatinine (0.7% vs. 0.7%). The incidences of anemia (16.6% vs. 10.3%) was higher for BIRIP than for CPT-11. But diarrhea (1.4% versus 4.1%) was more common in CPT-11 group.


BIRIP significantly prolonged PFS as compared with CPT-11 alone and was tolerated as second-line treatment for AGC, but did not demonstrate the survival benefit.

Clinical trial identification

UMIN 000025367.

Legal entity responsible for the study

The non-profit organization Epidemiological & Clinical research Information Network (ECRIN).


Has not received any funding.

Editorial Acknowledgement


All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.