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

Second-line palliative systemic treatment for synchronous metastatic esophagogastric cancer: a population-based study

Date

29 Sep 2019

Session

Poster Display session 2

Presenters

Willemieke Dijksterhuis

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2019) 30 (suppl_5): v253-v324. 10.1093/annonc/mdz247

Authors

W.P.M. Dijksterhuis1, R.H.A. Verhoeven2, M. Slingerland3, N. Haj Mohammad4, J. de Vos-Geelen5, L.V. Beerepoot6, T. Van Voorthuizen7, G. Creemers8, M. van Oijen1, H.W.M. van Laarhoven1

Author affiliations

  • 1 Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, 1105AZ - Amsterdam/NL
  • 2 Epidemiology, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL), 5612HZ - Eindhoven/NL
  • 3 Medical Oncology, Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum (LUMC), 2333 ZA - Leiden/NL
  • 4 Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht/NL
  • 5 Medical Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Center (MUMC), 6202 AZ - Maastricht/NL
  • 6 Medical Oncology, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, 5022 GC - Tilburg/NL
  • 7 Medical Oncology, Rijnstate Hospital, 6900 - Arnhem/NL
  • 8 Medical Oncology, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, 5602 ZA - Eindhoven/NL
More

Resources

Background

Metastatic esophagogastric cancer patients can be treated with paclitaxel/ramucirumab, or another taxane, or an irinotecan-containing regimen in second line. The aim of this study was to explore the real-world use of second-line palliative systemic treatment in esophagogastric cancer and to compare treatment regimens in terms of overall survival (OS) and time to failure of second-line treatment (TTF).

Methods

Synchronous metastatic esophagogastric cancer patients treated with systemic therapy (2010-2015) were selected from the nationwide Netherlands Cancer Registry. Systemic treatment was considered second line if a drug group was used that essentially differed from first-line treatment, irrespective of reason for switch of treatment. Thus, a switch from capecitabine/oxaliplatin (CapOx) to docetaxel was considered second line, while CapOx to i.v. 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/oxaliplatin was not. OS and TTF were calculated from start of second-line treatment until date of death, or progression/failure of treatment, and analyzed using Kaplan Meier curves with logrank test.

Results

Second-line systemic treatment was applied in 344 (20%) of the 1712 patients that received first-line systemic treatment in 2010-2015, of which 96% had adenocarcinoma and 4% squamous cell carcinoma. In the total cohort, 38 different second-line systemic treatment regimens were administered. Monotherapy with a taxane (31%), paclitaxel/ramucirumab (13%), carboplatin/paclitaxel (10%), trastuzumab-containing regimens (7%), fluoropyrimidine/platinum doublets (7%), irinotecan (6%), and 5-FU/irinotecan (6%) were most frequently used regimens. In patients that received second-line treatment, median OS was 5.2 (IQR 2.7, 8.6) and TTF 2.8 (IQR 1.5, 5.0) months. Median OS was 3.9 (IQR 2.3, 6.4) months in patients treated with second-line taxane monotherapy (n = 108), and 5.4 (IQR 2.3, 9.7) months in patients treated with paclitaxel/ramucirumab (n = 45, p = 0.188).

Conclusions

According to real-world evidence, 20% of synchronous metastatic esophagogastric cancer patients treated with first-line systemic therapy receive second-line systemic treatment, most frequently consisting of a taxane with or without ramucirumab.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

The authors.

Funding

Lilly.

Disclosure

R.H.A. Verhoeven: Research grant / Funding (institution): Roche; Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS. N. Haj Mohammad: Advisory / Consultancy: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD. J. de Vos-Geelen: Non-remunerated activity/ies: BTG; Research grant / Funding (institution), Non-remunerated activity/ies: Servier; Advisory / Consultancy: Shire. T. Van Voorthuizen: Non-remunerated activity/ies: Astellas; Non-remunerated activity/ies: Ipsen; Non-remunerated activity/ies: Roche; Non-remunerated activity/ies: Bayer. M. van Oijen: Research grant / Funding (institution): Lilly; Research grant / Funding (institution): Nordic; Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck Serono; Research grant / Funding (institution): Servier; Research grant / Funding (institution): Amgen; Research grant / Funding (institution): Roche. H.W.M. van Laarhoven: Research grant / Funding (institution): Bayer; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Celgene; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Lilly; Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck Serono; Research grant / Funding (institution): MSD; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Nordic; Research grant / Funding (institution): Philips; Research grant / Funding (institution): Roche. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Resources from the same session

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