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: Biomarkers, Gynaecological cancers, Haematological malignancies, Immunotherapy of cancer, New diagnostic tools, NSCLC - early stage, locally advanced & metastatic, SCLC, Thoracic malignancies, Translational research

1018 - Meta-enrichment analysis to identify a higher response patient population to S-1/Cisplatin for advanced gastric cancer


20 Oct 2018


Poster display session: Biomarkers, Gynaecological cancers, Haematological malignancies, Immunotherapy of cancer, New diagnostic tools, NSCLC - early stage, locally advanced & metastatic, SCLC, Thoracic malignancies, Translational research


Tumour Site

Gastric Cancer


Masahiro Takeuchi


Annals of Oncology (2018) 29 (suppl_8): viii649-viii669. 10.1093/annonc/mdy303


M. Takeuchi1, M. Takeuchi2, H.W.M. van Laarhoven3, X. Fang1, P. Pfeiffer4, J.A. Ajani5

Author affiliations

  • 1 Clinical Medicine (biostatistics), Kitasato University, 108-8641 - tokyo/JP
  • 2 Faculty Of Environment And Information Studies, Keio University, 252-0882 - Fujisawa/JP
  • 3 Medical Oncology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, 1100 DD - Amsterdam/NL
  • 4 Experimental Research In Medical Cancer Therapy, Odense University Hospital, 5000 - Odense C/DK
  • 5 Gi Medical Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, 77030-4095 - Houston/US

Abstract 1018


Previous publications of the FLAGS and the DIGEST trials have shown that S-1/Cisplatin (CS) had a similar overall survival (OS) compared to 5-fluorouracil/cisplatin (CF) in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) (Ajani JA et al, Eur J Cancer 2013. Ajani JA et al, Ann Oncol 2017). Although a co-enrichable population (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 1) that respond favorably to CS compared to CF was identified with predictive enrichment strategy analysis by the FLAGS and the DIGEST trials respectively (Takeuchi et al, ESMO 2017), a more enrichable population may exist. Here we report the result of a meta-enrichment analysis assessing whether such a population exists.


To overcome differences in baseline characteristics of the FLAGS and the DIGEST a meta-enrichment analysis was performed after combining the data from the two trials. Since the treatment effect is consistent in the FLAGS and the DIGEST trial, meta-enrichment analysis allows for the combination of the two datasets and identify a robust subgroup of high response patients. Eleven clinicopathological factors were selected and a high response enrichable population was determined. It must be noted that although peritoneal metastases was included in the previous analysis as a clinicopathological factor, it was removed from this analysis due to inconsistent date readings between the individual and the central review committee.


The efficacy of the combined data set of 1365 patients (n = 1019 from FLAGS and n = 346 from DIGEST) were analyzed. A total of 683 patients (n = 374 from CS, n = 309 from CF) were identified as the high response enrichable population. High response patients were classified as patients with ECOG PS1, more than two metastatic sites and low Neutrophil-Lymphocyte ratio (log(NL ratio)) In the high response enrichable population, the median OS in the CS group was 241 days compared to 210 days in the CF group (Hazard ratio 0.776 ; 95% Confidence interval 0.658 to 0.915 ; P value 0.004).


Through meta-enrichment analysis, a higher response enrichable population to CS was identified. This statistically robust analysis indicated that for selected patients with AGC, CS is more beneficial compared to CF.

Clinical trial identification

FLAGS trial: NCT00400179. First received: June 30, 2005. Last updated: April 23, 2012. Last verified: March 2012. DIGEST trial: NCT01285557. First received: January 28, 2011. Last updated: October 21, 2016. Last verified: October 2016.

Legal entity responsible for the study

Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.


Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

Editorial Acknowledgement


M. Takeuchi: Honoraria: Shionogi & Co., Ltd.; Consulting or advisory role: Taiho pharmeceutical Co., Ltd., Hisamitsu Pharmaceutical Co. Inc., AstraZeneca K.K., AbbVie Inc. M. Takeuchi: Consulting: Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Travel, accommodations, expenses: AnGes MG, Inc. H.W.M. van Laarhoven: Consultant: Celgene, Lilly, Nordic; Unrestricted research funding: Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD, Nordic, Roche. P. Pfeiffer: Research Funding: Taiho pharmeceutical Co., Ltd. J.A. Ajani: Honoraria: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Five Prime Therapeutics, Inc., Medscape, LLC., Celgene, Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Eli Lilly and Company, Merck KGaA; Research funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Delta‐Fly Pharma, Inc., Gilead Sciences Inc. All other 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.