Explore the vast range of titles available.

Phase I/II clinical trials of S-1 plus cisplatin for advanced gastric cancer have yielded good responses and the treatment was well tolerated. In this S-1 Plus cisplatin versus S-1 In RCT In the Treatment for Stomach cancer (SPIRITS) trial, we aimed to verify that overall survival was better in patients with advanced gastric cancer treated with S-1 plus cisplatin than with S-1 alone. In this phase III trial, chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced gastric cancer were enrolled betweeen March 26, 2002, and Nov 30, 2004, at 38 centres in Japan, and randomly assigned to S-1 plus cisplatin or S-1 alone. In patients assigned to S-1 plus cisplatin, S-1 (40–60 mg depending on patient's body surface area) was given orally, twice daily for 3 consecutive weeks, and 60 mg/m 2 cisplatin was given intravenously on day 8, followed by a 2-week rest period, within a 5-week cycle. Those assigned to S-1 alone received the same dose of S-1 twice daily for 4 consecutive weeks, followed by a 2-week rest period, within a 6-week cycle. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival, proportions of responders, and safety. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00150670. 305 patients were enrolled; seven patients were ineligible or withdrew consent, therefore, 148 patients were assigned to S-1 plus cisplatin and 150 patients were assigned to S-1 alone. Median overall survival was significantly longer in patients assigned to S-1 plus cisplatin (13·0 months [IQR 7·6–21·9]) than in those assigned to S-1 alone (11·0 months [5·6–19·8]; hazard ratio for death, 0·77; 95% CI 0·61–0·98; p=0·04). Progression-free survival was significantly longer in patients assigned to S-1 plus cisplatin than in those assigned to S-1 alone (median progression-free survival 6·0 months [3·3–12·9] vs 4·0 months [2·1–6·8]; p<0·0001). Additionally, of 87 patients assigned S-1 plus cisplatin who had target tumours, one patient had a complete response and 46 patients had partial responses, ie, a total of 54% (range 43–65). Of 106 patients assigned S-1 alone who had target tumours, one patient had a complete response and 32 had partial responses, ie, a total of 31% (23–41). We recorded more grade 3 or 4 adverse events including leucopenia, neutropenia, anaemia, nausea, and anorexia, in the group assigned to S-1 plus cisplatin than in the group assigned to S-1 alone. There were no treatment-related deaths in either group. S-1 plus cisplatin holds promise of becoming a standard first-line treatment for patients with advanced gastric cancer.

The multicentre RESOLVE trial examined the efficacy of perioperative and postoperative S-1 and oxaliplatin (SOX) compared with postoperative capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CapOx) in gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer. Initial analyses did not encompass overall survival owing to the immature data. This paper provides an updated analysis of the survival data from the RESOLVE trial. In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 study, participants aged 18 years or older with cT4a N+ M0 or cT4b Nany M0 gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma who were feasible for D2 lymphadenectomy and had a Karnofsky performance score of 70 or higher were enrolled. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio via an interactive web response system, stratified by participating centres and Lauren classification, to receive adjuvant CapOx (eight postoperative cycles of intravenous oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1 of each 21-day cycle plus oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 twice a day on days 1–14, adjuvant SOX (eight postoperative cycles of intravenous oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1 of each 21-day cycle plus oral S-1 40–60 mg twice a day on days 1–14), or perioperative SOX (intravenous oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1 of each 21-day cycle plus oral S-1 40–60 mg twice a day for three cycles preoperatively and five cycles postoperatively followed by three cycles of S-1 monotherapy. The primary endpoint, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, was 3-year disease-free survival to assess the superiority of perioperative-SOX compared with adjuvant-CapOx and the non-inferiority (hazard ratio [HR] non-inferiority margin of 1·33) of adjuvant-SOX compared with adjuvant-CapOx, and has been reported previously. This final report focuses on the secondary endpoint of 5-year overall survival, also assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population. Other secondary endpoints—R0 resection rate and safety—were not updated in this analysis. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01534546, and is complete. Between Aug 15, 2012, and Feb 28, 2017, 1094 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, of whom 1022 participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat population: 345 (259 male, 86 female) in the adjuvant-CapOx group, 340 (238 male, 102 female) in the adjuvant-SOX group, and 337 (271 male, 66 female) in the perioperative-SOX group. As of April 7, 2022, the median duration of follow-up was 62·8 months (IQR 52·0–75·1). The 5-year overall survival rates were 52·1% (95% CI 46·3–57·5) for the adjuvant-CapOx group, 61·0% (55·3–66·2) for the adjuvant-SOX group, and 60·0% (54·2–65·3), for the perioperative-SOX group. Overall survival was significantly prolonged with perioperative-SOX (HR 0·79; 95% CI 0·62–1·00, p=0·049) and adjuvant-SOX (HR 0·77, 0·61–0·98, p=0·033), compared with adjuvant-CapOx. Consistent with the initial analysis of 3-year disease-free survival, the extended 5-year overall survival analysis from the RESOLVE trial confirmed the survival advantage of perioperative-SOX and adjuvant-SOX compared with the standard adjuvant-CapOx regimen. The SOX regimen, given perioperatively or as an adjuvant treatment, emerges as a potential standard treatment modality for locally advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer management in Asian patients. The National Key Research and Development Program of China, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Capital's Funds for Health Improvement and Research, the Beijing Natural Science Foundation, National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Beijing Natural Science Foundation, Taiho, Hengrui Pharmaceutical and Sanofi-Aventis. For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

This trial tested the efficacy of S-1, an oral prodrug that converts to fluorouracil within cells, in the adjuvant treatment of gastric cancer in Japanese patients after gastrectomy and an extended (D2) lymph-node dissection. Treatment with S-1 for 1 year after surgery was associated with longer overall survival than surgery alone. An important feature of this trial is the D2 dissection, which is not commonly performed in Western countries. After gastrectomy and an extended (D2) lymph-node dissection, treatment with S-1 for 1 year was associated with longer overall survival than surgery alone. S-1 is an oral prodrug that converts to fluorouracil within cells. Meta-analyses have shown that adjuvant chemotherapy is effective in treating gastric cancer. 1 – 6 However, the effectiveness of specific regimens has not been verified in large clinical trials. In 2001, the Intergroup-0116 (INT-0116) study investigators reported that postoperative chemoradiotherapy was effective in treating adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction. 7 Subsequently, the Medical Research Council Adjuvant Gastric Infusional Chemotherapy (MAGIC) trial 8 showed the efficacy of perioperative chemotherapy. Both studies assessed the benefits of adjuvant therapy after only limited surgery, but the type of surgical procedure for gastric cancer can influence the results of postoperative chemotherapy. 9 , 10 In Japan, gastrectomy with extended . . .

Background Encouraging antitumor activity of nab-paclitaxel plus S-1 (AS) has been shown in several small-scale studies. This study compared the efficacy and safety of AS versus standard-of-care nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (AG) as a first-line treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer (PC). Methods In this multicenter, randomized, phase II trial, eligible patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic PC were recruited and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive AS (nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8; S-1 twice daily on days 1 through 14) or AG (nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8; gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8) for 6 cycles. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Results Between July 16, 2019, and September 9, 2022, 62 patients (AS, n = 32; AG, n = 30) were treated and evaluated. With a median follow-up of 8.36 months at preplanned interim analysis (data cutoff, March 24, 2023), the median PFS (8.48 vs 4.47 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.402; P = .002) and overall survival (OS; 13.73 vs 9.59 months; HR, 0.226; P < .001) in the AS group were significantly longer compared to the AG group. More patients had objective response in the AS group than AG group (37.50% vs 6.67%; P = .005). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia and leucopenia in both groups, and gamma glutamyl transferase increase was observed only in the AG group. Conclusion The first-line AS regimen significantly extended both PFS and OS of Chinese patients with advanced PC when compared with the AG regimen, with a comparable safety profile. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03636308). Encouraging antitumor activity of nab-paclitaxel plus S-1 has been shown in several small-scale studies. This study compared the efficacy and safety of nab-paclitaxel plus S-1 versus standard-of-care nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine as a first-line treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer.

The best chemotherapy regimen for metastatic gastric cancer is uncertain, but promising findings have been reported with irinotecan plus cisplatin and S-1 (tegafur, 5-chloro-2,4-dihydropyrimidine, and potassium oxonate). We aimed to investigate the superiority of irinotecan plus cisplatin and non-inferiority of S-1 compared with fluorouracil, with respect to overall survival, in patients with metastatic gastric cancer. We undertook a phase 3 open label randomised trial in 34 institutions in Japan. We enrolled patients aged 20–75 years or younger, who had histologically proven gastric adenocarcinoma, and randomly assigned them by minimisation to receive either: a continuous infusion of fluorouracil (800 mg/m 2 per day, on days 1–5) every 4 weeks (n=234); intravenous irinotecan (70 mg/m 2, on days 1 and 15) and cisplatin (80 mg/m 2, on day 1) every 4 weeks (n=236); or oral S-1 (40 mg/m 2, twice a day, on days 1–28) every 6 weeks (n=234). The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This study is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT00142350, and with UMIN-CTR, number C000000062. All randomised patients were included in the primary analysis. Median overall survival was 10·8 months (IQR 5·7–17·8) for individuals assigned fluorouracil, 12·3 months (8·1–19·5) for those allocated irinotecan plus cisplatin (hazard ratio 0·85 [95% CI 0·70–1·04]; p=0·0552), and 11·4 months (6·4–21·3) for those assigned S-1 (0·83 [0·68–1·01]; p=0·0005 for non-inferiority). Three treatment-related deaths occurred in the irinotecan plus cisplatin group and one was recorded in the S-1 group. S-1 is non-inferior to fluorouracil and, in view of the convenience of an oral administration, could replace intravenous fluorouracil for treatment of unresectable or recurrent gastric cancer, at least in Asia. Irinotecan plus cisplatin is not superior to fluorouracil in this setting. Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare of Japan; Taiho Pharmaceutical; Yakult Honsha.

SummaryBackgroundOral fluoropyrimidines, such as S-1, have been shown to have a role in controlling disease progression in metastatic breast cancer. We examined adjuvant treatment with S-1 in patients with oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive and HER2-negative primary breast cancer. MethodsWe did a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial in 139 sites (137 hospitals and two clinics). Eligible patients were women aged 20–75 years with histologically diagnosed stage I to IIIB invasive breast cancer (intermediate to high risk of recurrence). Patients were temporarily registered at participating institutions and biopsy or surgical samples were collected and sent for central pathological assessment. Patients received 5 years of standard adjuvant endocrine therapy (selective oestrogen receptor modulators with or without ovarian suppression and aromatase inhibitors) with or without 1 year of S-1. Oral S-1 80–120 mg/day was administered twice a day for 14 days with 7 days off. Randomisation (1:1) using the minimisation method was done with six stratification factors (age, axillary lymph node metastasis at surgery or sentinel lymph node biopsy, preoperative or postoperative (neoadjuvant or adjuvant) chemotherapy, preoperative endocrine therapy, proportion of ER-positive cells, and study site). The primary endpoint was invasive disease-free survival, in the full analysis set (all randomly assigned patients, excluding those with significant protocol deviations). The safety analysis set consisted of all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. Here, we report the results from the interim analysis at the data cutoff date Jan 31, 2019. This trial is registered with Japan Registry of Clinical Trials, jRCTs051180057, and the University hospital Medical Information Network, UMIN000003969. FindingsBetween Feb 1, 2012, and Feb 1, 2016, 1930 patients were enrolled in the full analysis set, 957 (50%) received endocrine therapy plus S-1 and 973 (50%) received endocrine therapy alone. Median follow-up was 52·2 months (IQR 42·1–58·9). 155 (16%) patients in the endocrine therapy alone group and in 101 (11%) patients in the endocrine therapy plus S-1 group had invasive disease-free survival events (hazard ratio 0·63, 95% CI 0·49–0·81, p=0·0003). As the primary endpoint was met at interim analysis, the trial was terminated early. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were decreased neutrophil count (72 [8%] of 954 patients in the endocrine therapy plus S-1 group vs seven [<1%] of 970 patients in the endocrine therapy alone group), diarrhoea (18 [2%] vs none), decreased white blood cells (15 [2%] vs two [<1%]), and fatigue (six [<1%] vs none). Serious adverse events were reported in nine (<1%) of 970 patients in the endocrine therapy alone group and 23 (2%) of 954 patients in the endocrine therapy plus S-1 group. There was one (<1%) possible treatment-related death in the endocrine therapy plus S-1 group due to suspected pulmonary artery thrombosis. InterpretationThese data suggest that this combination of S-1 with endocrine therapy could be a potential treatment option for this intermediate and high-risk group of patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative primary breast cancer. FundingPublic Health Research Foundation (Japan), Taiho Pharmaceutical.

Oral fluoropyrimidines are used for the first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer to avoid severe adverse effects, although firm supporting evidence is lacking. We aimed to establish whether S-1 is non-inferior to taxanes in this setting. We did an open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial at 154 hospitals in Japan. We enrolled individuals who had HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer who had received no chemotherapy for advanced disease, and who were resistant to endocrine treatment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) either to taxane (docetaxel 60–75 mg/m2 at intervals of 3–4 weeks; paclitaxel 80–100 mg/m2 weekly for 3 of 4 weeks; or paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 at intervals of 3–4 weeks) or to S-1 (40–60 mg twice daily for 28 consecutive days, followed by a 14-day break). Randomisation was done centrally with the minimisation method, with stratification by institution, liver metastasis, oestrogen and progesterone receptor status, previous treatment with taxanes or oral fluorouracil, and time from surgery to recurrence. The primary endpoint was overall survival, with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1·333 for the hazard ratio (HR). The primary efficacy analysis was done in the full analysis set, which consisted of all patients who took at least one study treatment and who had all data after randomisation. This trial is registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network, Japan (protocol ID C000000416). Between Oct 27, 2006, and July 30, 2010, we enrolled 618 patients (309 assigned to taxane; 309 assigned to S-1). The full analysis set consisted of 286 patients in the taxane group and 306 in the S-1 group. Median follow-up was 34·6 months (IQR 17·9–44·4). Median overall survival was 35·0 months (95% CI 31·1–39·0) in the S-1 group and 37·2 months (33·0–40·1) in the taxane group (HR 1·05 [95% CI 0·86–1·27]; pnon-inferiority=0·015). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (20 [7%] of 307 patients in the S-1 group vs nine [3%] of 290 patients in the taxane group), fatigue (ten [3%] vs 12 [4%]), and oedema (one [<1%] vs 12 [4%]). Treatment-related deaths were reported in two patients in the taxane group. S-1 is non-inferior to taxane with respect to overall survival as a first-line treatment for metastatic breast cancer. S-1 should be considered a new option for first-line chemotherapy for patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Comprehensive Support Project for Oncology Research of the Public Health Research Foundation, Japan; Taiho.

Fluorouracil and folinic acid with either oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) or irinotecan (FOLFIRI) are widely used as first-line or second-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. However, infusional fluorouracil-based regimens, requiring continuous infusion and implantation of an intravenous port system, are inconvenient. We therefore planned an open-label randomised controlled trial to verify the non-inferiority of irinotecan plus oral S-1 (a combination of tegafur, 5-chloro-2,4-dihydroxypyridine, and potassium oxonate; IRIS) to FOLFIRI as second-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. Between Jan 30, 2006, and Jan 29, 2008, 426 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer needing second-line chemotherapy from 40 institutions in Japan were randomly assigned by a computer-based minimisation method to receive either FOLFIRI (n=213) or IRIS (n=213). In the FOLFIRI group, patients received folinic acid (200 mg/m2) and irinotecan (150 mg/m2) and then a bolus injection of fluorouracil (400 mg/m2) on day 1 and a continuous infusion of fluorouracil (2400 mg/m2) over 46 h, repeated every 2 weeks. In the IRIS group, patients received irinotecan (125 mg/m2) on days 1 and 15 and S-1 (40–60 mg according to body surface area) twice daily for 2 weeks, repeated every 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, with a non-inferiority margin of 1·333. Statistical analysis was on the basis of initially randomised participants. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00284258. All randomised patients were included in the primary analysis. After a median follow-up of 12·9 months (IQR 11·5–18·2), median progression-free survival was 5·1 months in the FOLFIRI group and 5·8 months in the IRIS group (hazard ratio 1·077, 95% CI 0·879–1·319, non-inferiority test p=0·039). The most common grade three or four adverse drug reactions were neutropenia (110 [52·1%] of 211 patients in the FOLFIRI group and 76 [36·2%] of 210 patients in the IRIS group; p=0·0012), leucopenia (33 [15·6%] in the FOLFIRI group and 38 [18·1%] in the IRIS group; p=0·5178), and diarrhoea (ten [4·7%] in the FOLFIRI group and 43 [20·5%] in the IRIS group; p<0·0001). One treatment-related death from hypotension due to shock was reported in the FOLFIRI group within 28 days after the end of treatment; no treatment-related deaths were reported in the IRIS group. Progression-free survival with IRIS is not inferior to that with FOLFIRI in patients receiving second-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. Treatment with IRIS could be an additional therapeutic option for second-line chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. Taiho Pharmaceutical Co Ltd and Daiichi Sankyo Co Ltd.

Background The ideal neoadjuvant treatment protocol for patients with pancreatic cancer (PDAC) remains unclear. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant hypofractionated chemoradiotherapy with S-1 for patients with resectable (R) and borderline resectable (BR) PDAC. Methods Eligibility criteria included patients with R and BR PDAC, performance status 0–1, and age 20–85 years. Hypofractionated external-beam radiotherapy (30 Gy in 10 fractions) with concurrent S-1 (60 mg/m 2 ) was delivered 5 days/week for 2 weeks prior to pancreatectomy. Results Fifty-seven patients were enrolled in this study, including 33 R and 24 BR [19 BR tumors with portal vein contact (BR-PV) and 5 BR tumors with arterial contact (BR-A)]. The total rates of protocol treatment completion and resection were 91% (50/57) and 96% (55/57), respectively. Seven patients failed to complete S-1 due to cholangitis ( n  = 5) or neutropenia ( n  = 2). The most common grade 3 toxicities [Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0] were anorexia (7%), nausea (5%), neutropenia (4%), and leukopenia (4%). No patient experienced grade 4 toxicity. Pathologically negative margins (R0) were achieved in 54 of 55 patients (98%) who underwent pancreatectomy. Pathological response was classified as Evans grade I in 8 patients (15%), IIa in 31 patients (56%), IIb in 14 patients (25%), III in 1 patient (2%), and IV in 1 patient (2%), and operative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade IIIb or less) was observed in 4 patients (8%). The 1- and 2-year overall survival (OS) rates were 91 and 83% in R patients, respectively, and 77 and 58% in BR patients, respectively ( p  = 0.03). Conclusion Neoadjuvant S-1 with concurrent hypofractionated radiotherapy is tolerable and appears promising for patients with R and BR PDAC.

Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CapeOX) is one of the reference doublet cytotoxic chemotherapy treatments for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of CapeOX with that of S-1 plus oxaliplatin (SOX), a promising alternative treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. In this open-label, multicentre, randomised phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients (1:1) from 11 institutions in South Korea to receive either CapeOX (capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1–14 and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1) or SOX (S-1 40 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1–14 and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1). Treatment was repeated every 3 weeks and continued for as many as nine cycles of oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy, except in instances of disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or a patient's refusal. Maintenance chemotherapy with S-1 or capecitabine was allowed after discontinuation of oxaliplatin. Randomisation was done with a computer-generated sequence (stratified by primary sites, previous adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatment, and the presence of measurable lesions). The primary endpoint was to show non-inferiority of SOX relative to CapeOX in terms of progression-free survival (PFS). The primary analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00677443. Between May 14, 2008, and Sept 23, 2009, we randomly assigned 168 patients to receive SOX and 172 to receive CapeOX. Median PFS was 8·5 months (95% CI 7·6–9·3) in the SOX group and 6·7 months (6·2–7·1) in the CapeOX group (hazard ratio, 0·79 [95% CI 0·60–1·04]; pnon-inferiority<0·0001, plog-rank=0·09). The upper limit of the CI was below the predefined margin of 1·43, showing the non-inferiority of SOX to CapeOX. We recorded a higher incidence of grade 3–4 neutropenia (49 [29%] vs 24 [15%]), thrombocytopenia (37 [22%] vs 11 [7%]), and diarrhoea (16 [10%] vs seven [4%]) in the SOX group than in the CapeOX group. The frequency of any grade of hand-foot syndrome was greater in the CapeOX group than it was in the SOX group (51 [31%] vs 23 [14%]). The SOX regimen could be an alternative first-line doublet chemotherapy strategy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Further investigation is needed to explore its potential when used together with other targeted agents or as adjuvant chemotherapy. Korea Healthcare Technology Research and Development Project, Ministry of Health and Welfare, South Korea.