Abstract
Background Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with docetaxel, oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and Leucovorin (FLOT) regimen has shown promising results in terms of pathological response and survival rate. However, S-1 or TGO plus oxaliplatin (SOX) is a more favorable chemotherapy regimen in eastern countries. We conducted this study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of both regimens.
Methods This is a prospective, open-label, randomized controlled trial. Patients with locally advanced gastric cancer were 1:1 randomized to 4 cycles of FLOT or 3 cycles of SOX group before curative gastrectomy. The primary endpoint was the comparison of complete or sub-total tumor regression grading (TRG1a+ TRG1b) in the primary tumor.
Results Altogether 74 cases enrolled between August 2018 and March 2020, all 74 randomly assigned cases were considered as intention-to-treat (ITT) population, and the 55 patients who completed the planned chemotherapy plus surgery were considered as per protocol (PP) population. There was no significant difference in pre-treatment clinical parameters between the FLOT and SOX group(p>0.05). There was no significant difference in adverse effects or postoperative morbidity and mortality between two groups (p>0.05). Similarly, there was no significant difference in the proportion of tumor regression grading between the FLOT and SOX group(p>0.05). In the ITT population, complete or sub-total TRG was 20.0 percent in FLOT versus 32.4 percent in the SOX group (p>0.05).
Conclusions Our study demonstrates that FLOT and SOX regimens are similarly effective for gastric cancer patients in terms of pathological response. The adverse effects and postoperative morbidity are similar for both groups. A large scale phase 3 randomized controlled trial is necessary to validate this result.
Background
For locally advanced gastric cancer(LAGC), despite disagreements, there is a positive trend for neoadjuvant chemotherapy after the milestone publication of MAGIC trial in 2006, and recently it was even supported by clinical trials from Asian countries (1–5). And recent studies have shown that neoadjuvant chemotherapy is well tolerated and did not influence postoperative morbidity or mortality in gastric cancer patients (6). A large scale German study clearly showed the superiority of neoadjuvant docetaxel, oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and Leucovorin (FLOT) over epirubicin, cisplatin, and fluorouracil or capecitabine (ECF or ECX) in terms of pathological response and overall survival (7, 8). FLOT regimen is not common chemotherapy in China, however, there were published study which clearly shows that the modified or standard FLOT regimen is safe and effective in Chinese patients (9, 10). Probably taxane-based triplet chemotherapy was considered more toxic in past, therefore doublet chemotherapy with the oral S-1 or tegafur gimeracil oteracil potassium capsule(TGO) is mainstream adjuvant chemotherapy in Asian countries and few studies suggested S-1 plus platinum-based chemotherapy as neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced gastric cancer, especially with bulky lymph nodes (11, 12, 13).
In recent years, several studies on perioperative chemotherapy for patients with LAGC have been carried out in East Asian countries, among them, preliminary results of two large scale RCT trials (RESOLVE, RESONANCE) in China suggest that perioperative SOX regimen is beneficial in terms of R0 resectability, TRG, ypTNM, pCR, and 3y-DFS compared with the control group (14, 15). To our knowledge, there is no previous study that compared the efficacy of doublet chemo regimen SOX with triplet chemo regimen FLOT. For patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the pathological response rate or tumor regression grading is considered as one of the major factors which influence the overall survival (16, 17). Therefore, the main purpose of this study is to compare the tumor regression after neoadjuvant chemotherapy between two groups.
Methods
Dragon III trial is an investigator-initiated, phase II, open-label, randomized controlled trial. All the patients were enrolled between August 2018 and March 2020 at Ruijin Hospital Shanghai Jiaotong University School of medicine. The trial is prospectively registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03636893
Inclusion criteria
Written informed consent from the patient Sex: Any
Age: 18-80 years old
Histology confirmed adenocarcinoma
Non-obstructive tumor of the stomach or esophagogastric junction
Clinical stage: cTNM: cT3-4bN1-3M0
Performance status: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG ≤ 2)
Adequate hematological function, liver function, renal function Adequate heart and pulmonary function
Exclusion criteria
Acute infectious diseases
Uncontrolled systemic disease or comorbidities
Confirmed or highly suspicious distant metastases
Confirmed or highly suspicious retroperitoneal lymph node metastases
Locally invaded irresectable tumors
Recurrent gastric cancer
Malignant secondary disease
Prior chemo or radiotherapy
Inclusion in another clinical trial
Known contraindications or hypersensitivity to drugs used for FLOT or SOX
chemotherapy
Drop out
Protocol violation
Unable to complete planned chemotherapy or surgery for any reason
Refusal to perform surgery at the same hospital
Withdrawn by the participant for any reason
Ethics
The study was done according to the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice Guidelines as defined by the International Conference on Harmonisation. The institutional review board of the Ruijin Hospital approved the study protocol and patients gave written informed consent for planned treatment. The study was conducted and analyzed by Unit III of the Gastrointestinal department at the Ruijin Hospital. This study was monitored by the Clinical Research Center of the Ruijin hospital (Official body responsible to guide and monitor all types of research in the hospital), a timely meeting was performed to check the implementation of protocol guidelines.
Randomization
Patients were 1:1 randomized to FLOT or SOX group. A masked statistician at the Clinical Research Center of the hospital was responsible for randomization. The randomization sequence was generated with SPSS software and labeled with random names for two groups. The assignment was made by telephone contact or text messages after the patient met the inclusion criteria and signed the informed consent.
Pre-treatment assessment
We reviewed all clinical results before the assignment of randomized allocation. All Patients completed all the routine tests included but not limited to the following:
complete blood count, liver and renal function test, clotting analysis, serum tumor markers.
Electrocardiography, echocardiography, plain chest film.
upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.
Enhanced computed tomography of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis. CT examination included arterial, venous, and portal phases. CT images consisted of transverse, sagittal, and coronary sections.
For suspicious distant metastases, supraclavicular lymph node or retroperitoneal lymph nodes on CT, we performed ultrasound test or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
Patients underwent bone scintigraphy or positron emission tomography (PET) in suspicious lesions on CT examination.
Finally, the diagnosis of peritoneal metastases was done by exploratory laparoscopy.
For clinical staging of the disease, we followed the eighth edition of tumor–node–metastasis (TNM) classification, issued by International Union against Cancer (UICC)
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy
After randomization, patients were transferred to the department of medical oncology for chemotherapy, a standard protocol for chemotherapy was circulated and timely inspection was performed by investigators and Clinical Research Center to evaluate the implementation of the protocol. Antiemetic drugs with dexamethasone were administered intravenously before chemotherapy. Other supportive drugs including granulocyte-colony stimulating-factor were given for treatment purposes only. Surgical intervention was allowed for an emergency, e.g. acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation.
Patients in the FLOT group received at least four cycles of FLOT chemotherapy(7) and the patients in the SOX group received at least three cycles of TGO plus oxaliplatin before curative gastrectomy.
A cycle of Neoadjuvant FLOT
Day 1: Intravenous 5-FU 2600mg/M2
Via peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) continued for 24 hour Day 1:Intravenous leucovorin 200mg/M2
Day 1:Intravenous oxaliplatin 85mg/ M2
Day 1: Intravenous docetaxel 50mg/M2
Next chemotherapy was repeated on 15th day
A cycle of Neoadjuvant SOX
Day 1: Intravenous oxaliplatin 130mg/M2
Day 1-14: Oral tegafur gimeracil oteracil potassium capsule(TGO) 80mg/M2 twice/day
The next chemotherapy was repeated on the 21st day.
Evaluation of adverse effects
Adverse effects were recorded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE 4.0). In the events of grade three and above adverse effects, dose adjustment or timing was extended for the next chemotherapy. Patients with progressive disease were allowed for the alteration of treatment. Patients were allowed for withdrawal due to any reason.
Restaging
Two specialized radiologists independently evaluated the response rate. Radiologists followed the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST version 1.1) guidelines for comparison of radiological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy between two groups (18). Criteria for response were as follow:
“Complete Response (CR): Disappearance of all target lesions. Any pathological lymph nodes (whether target or non-target) must have a reduction in short axis to <10 mm.”
“Partial Response (PR): At least a 30% decrease in the sum of diameters of target lesions, taking as reference the baseline sum diameters.”
“Progressive Disease (PD): At least a 20% increase in the sum of diameters of target lesions, taking as reference the smallest sum on study (this includes the baseline sum if that is the smallest on the study). In addition to the relative increase of 20%, the sum must also demonstrate an absolute increase of at least 5 mm. (Note: the appearance of one or more new lesions is also considered progression).”
“Stable Disease (SD): Neither sufficient shrinkage to qualify for PR nor sufficient increase to qualify for PD, taking as reference the smallest sum diameters while on the study.”
Surgery
Patients underwent surgical resection between two to four weeks after completion of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in any group. An exploratory laparoscopic was performed to rule out peritoneal or distant metastases. Experienced surgeons for gastric cancer were trained for the implementation of the study protocol. Surgeons followed Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines(19), partial or total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy was performed according to the guideline. Patients with adjacent involved organs underwent combined resection along with gastrectomy if deemed necessary for R0 resection and these patients were documented separately. Distal gastrectomy with Billroth I gastroduodenostomy or Billroth II gastrojejunostomy with Braun anastomosis or Uncut Roux-Y gastrojejunostomy or Roux-Y gastrojejunostomy was performed for the tumors located at antrum or lower part of the stomach body. Total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y esophagojejunostomy was performed for the proximal tumors. The extent of the surgery was documented to state whether the procedure was curative or non-curative intent according to the definition stated in Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines.
Pathological assessment
Pathologists were masked for the allocation types of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. After formalin fixation and paraffin embedding, pathologists performed an immunohistochemical examination of all resected specimens. The routine examination included for types of tumor, depth of tumor invasion, involved lymph nodes, resection margins, invasion of nerve, lymphatic, or blood vessel. Resection or R status nominated for curative(R0)resection or non-curative (R1 andR2) resection. Pathological examinations also included the following: measurement of the macroscopically identifiable residual tumor and/or scarring indicating the site of the previous tumor bed. Two specialized pathologists followed the Becker criteria for the tumor regression grading (TRG) (16). Any conflicting results were settled after re-examination and discussion among both pathologists and investigators.
Tumor regression grade (TRG), Becker criteria
“Grade 1a: Complete tumor regression: 0% residual tumor per tumor bed Grade 1b: Subtotal tumor regression: <10% residual tumor per tumor bed Grade 2: Partial tumor regression: 10-50% residual tumor per tumor bed Grade 3: Minimal or no tumor regression: >50% residual tumor per tumor bed” Primary endpoints
Total percentage of patients with pathological complete tumor regression (TRG1a) and sub-total tumor regression (TRG1b) in the primary tumor
Sample size
This is an exploratory study. The sample size was estimated empirically. Data analysis cut off time was set after completion of surgery of the 55th patient who met the criteria for per-protocol (PP) analysis.
Statistical analysis
The primary endpoint was analyzed in the intention- to-treat (ITT) population, defined as the patients who were randomly assigned to a treatment. Postoperative morbidity and mortality were analyzed in the per-protocol (PP) population, which is the number of patients who had surgery after completion of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Comparisons of other factors except primary endpoint were posthoc analyses. The statistical analysis was performed with Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 22.0 for Windows (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, Illinois). Nonparametric methods were used to test the data with an abnormal distribution. The continuous data are described as median and range. The categorical data are expressed as frequency and rate. A chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test was used to compare the differences in rate between the two groups. All p-values presented are two-sided, a p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT03636893.
Results
Altogether 74 patients (40 patients in the FLOT group and 34 patients in the SOX group) were enrolled. 9 cases in the FLOT group and 10 cases in SOX were dropped out for different reasons (Fig.1). Finally, 55 cases completed the planned chemotherapy and underwent surgical resection. All 74 randomly assigned cases were considered as the ITT population and 55 patients who had surgery were considered as PP population.
Clinical demographic
Clinical demographic of the ITT populations are described in Table 2, no significant difference was observed in all clinical parameters between two groups including age, sex, BMI (Table 1, p>0.05). In the PP population, there was no significant difference in terms of site of the tumor, types of resection. 32.3 % of patients in the FLOT group and 33.4% of patients in the SOX group had tumors in the proximal site of the stomach. All patients underwent D2 lymphadenectomy, 58.1 % of patients in FLOT, and 62.5% in the SOX group underwent total gastrectomy (Table 1). One patient in each group underwent pancreatoduodenectomy due to local invasion.
Adverse effects
All patients completed three cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the SOX group. Three cases (9.7%) of the FLOT group had more than four cycles of chemotherapy (5, 6, 8 cycles respectively); the remaining 90.3 percent of patients had four cycles of chemotherapy before surgery. Both the FLOT and SOX regimens were well tolerated. There was no significant difference in chemotherapy-related hematological or non-hematological adverse effects between the two groups (Table 2, p>0.05). Most of the hematological or non-hematological adverse events were below grade 3, rare cases of grade 3 or 4 hematological adverse events were observed in both groups. (Table 2).
Radiological response
The pre-treatment clinical stage was similar in both groups (Table 3). There was no difference in the cTNM stage between two groups, 41.9 percent versus 37.5 percent cases were diagnosed as stage IVa for FLOT and SOX group respectively. There was no significant difference concerning the radiological response rate between the two groups. In ITT population, the disease control rate (PR+SD) rate was comparable between FLOT group (75.0%) and SOX group(67.6%), Overall response rate (ORR) was 55.0% in FLOT group versus 41.2% in SOX group (Table 3, p>0.05).
Pathological response
Among the PP population, there was no significant difference in any pathological factors (Table 4, p>0.05). Patients in both groups had favorable margin free resection, 87.1 percent in FLOT group, and 100.0 percent in the SOX group. Lauren’s classification shows that 58.1 percent in the FLOT group and 54.2 percent in the SOX group were Intestinal types. The proportion of T4a tumor and N2 lymph node was relatively higher in FLOT group comparing to SOX group, a greater portion of stage III postoperative tumor (ypTNM) was observed in FLOT group than SOX group (54.8 percent versus 45.8 percent) but there was no significant difference between two groups. Overall pathological response (TRG grade 1a+1b+2) rate was 67.7 percent in FLOT versus 75 percent in the SOX group (Table 4, p>0.05). In the ITT population, the complete or sub-total TRG was 20 percent in the FLOT group and 32.4 percent in the SOX group, yet there was no significant difference between the two groups (p>0.05).
Postoperative morbidity
There was no significant difference in the postoperative stay at the hospital between two groups, the median length of stay was 9 days in both groups. There was no significant difference in overall postoperative morbidity between the two groups (Table 5, p>0.05). Two (6.5 percent) anastomotic leakage was observed in the FLOT group and 1(4.2 percent) in the SOX group. One patient underwent reoperation for intrabdominal hemorrhage in the SOX group. There was no death due to postoperative complications in any group.
Discussion
There was no difference in both groups in terms of adverse effects and postoperative morbidity. Thus, this study further validated our previous study that neoadjuvant chemotherapy with the FLOT regimen is safe in Chinese patients (14=10). Despite less number of patients in the study, the demographic data shows that patients in both groups were well balanced by randomized assignment. The univariate analysis of the whole data suggested that TRG was associated with sex, nerve invasion, vessel invasion, and postoperative pathological stage. But there was no difference between any of these factors between the two groups (Table 6). These data suggest that these known factors which might have a role for a pathological response did not influence the result of this study.
There was a conflicting result of the radiological response rate with that of pathological results, which shows that a greater proportion of ORR was seen in the FLOT group comparing to the SOX group. Though there was no significant difference in terms of statistics, the result demands further clarification. We therefore further analyzed the data according to the stratification of pretreatment clinical staging and postoperative pathological TNM staging. Still, there was no significant difference in terms of TRG, and the proportion of complete or sub-total TRG was still higher in the SOX group.
We believe that the result of this study with no way challenges the results of the milestone study in the field of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for gastric cancer, the FLOT4 trial(11=7), but it perhaps gives some insights for further trials because as per our knowledge there was no previous study which compares the famous SOX regimen with the FLOT regimen. The higher proportion of complete or sub-total TRG in the SOX group cannot claim superiority over the FLOT group because there was no significant difference in terms of statistical calculation. This might have simply caused by the inadequate sample numbers or biased by the significant number of drop-out patients. However, at the very least the result of this study urges for the need for further large scale multicenter randomized trials. We may assume hypothetically that the heterogeneity was caused by the racial difference, and maybe FLOT was not that effective in Chinese patients as it reported in German patients because the proportion of complete or sub-total TRG in our study was less than the result of FLOT 4 trial. Approximately 16 percent of patients achieved complete pathological response and 37 percent of patients achieved complete or sub-total TRG in FLOT, but we only have 20% of complete or sub-total TRG. Even if we do not compare the result with the SOX group, this result was almost half of that was observed in FLOT 4 study. In contrary to that the complete or sub-total TRG of SOX group was 32.4 percent and it was comparable to the result of FLOT 4.
We did not calculate the sample number because there was no good quality paper on tumor regression grading of SOX regimen, we only had the results of FLOT4 (11=7). Probably this was the most important demerit of this study. The number of participants was empirically estimated to obtain preliminary results, and initially, 60 patients were expected to get enrolled for the analysis but there were a substantial number of drop-out cases. Because the primary endpoint of our study was to compare the pathological regression, the cut off time was set after the surgery of the 55th patient; cut-off time was set after discussion among investigators and statisticians, without knowing pathological results. Besides, the results of DFS and OS are still awaited, which will provide further insight into these findings.
Conclusion
Our study demonstrates that FLOT and SOX regimens are similarly effective for gastric cancer patients in terms of pathological response. The adverse effects and postoperative morbidity are similar for both groups. The result for disease-free survival and overall survival are still awaited. A large scale phase 3 multicenter randomized controlled trial is necessary for the validation of this result.
Data Availability
Any data regarding this study are kept safe with corresponding authors and can be obtained for reasonable request.