To compare irinotecan-alone, paclitaxel-alone, and each combination chemotherapy with S-1 in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) that is refractory to S-1 or S-1 plus cisplatin (SP).

Patients with AGC after first-line chemotherapy with S-1 or SP, or patients during adjuvant chemotherapy or within 26 weeks after adjuvant chemotherapy completion with S-1 with confirmed disease progression were eligible. Patients were randomly divided into four groups based on treatment: irinotecan-alone (irinotecan; 150 mg/m², day 1, q14 days), paclitaxel-alone (paclitaxel; 80 mg/m², days 1, 8, 15, q28 days), S-1 plus irinotecan (irinotecan; 80 mg/m², days 1, 15, S-1; 80 mg/m², days 1-21, q35 days), and S-1 plus paclitaxel (paclitaxel; 50 mg/m², day1, 8, S-1; 80 mg/m², days 1-14, q21 days). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) and secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), response rate, and safety.

From July 2008 to March 2012, 127 patients were enrolled. No difference in median OS was observed in the irinotecan vs. paclitaxel groups or in the monotherapy groups vs. the S-1 combination therapy groups. Median PFS was longer in the paclitaxel group compared with the irinotecan group (4.1 vs. 3.6 months, p = 0.035), although no difference was observed when comparing monotherapy vs. S-1 combination. The most common grade 3 to 4 hematological adverse events were neutropenia with no difference in incidence rate across the treatment groups.

There was no difference in OS between irinotecan and paclitaxel no in OS prolongation of S-1 combination therapy in second-line chemotherapy.

It remains to be seen whether S-1 can be a replacement for infusional fluorouracil (5-FU) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of S-1 with 5-FU in AGC.PubMed and Cochrane Library were searched. Randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses comparing S-1 with 5-FU for AGC were eligible. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2.Seven trials involving 2443 patients were included. Compared with 5-FU, S-1 showed no significant prolongation of overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.83-1.01], P = 0.07) and progression-free survival (HR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.70-1.13], P = 0.35), but longer time to treatment failure (HR = 0.74, 95% CI [0.56-0.97], P = 0.03). The objective response rates were comparable (risk ratio [RR] = 1.36, 95% CI [0.95, 1.96], P = 0.10). Regarding treatment-related deaths and hematological toxicities, there was significant heterogeneity between Asian and non-Asian trials, and subgroup analysis was applied. In Asian patients, there was a significant increase in hematological toxicities such as leukopenia (grade 1-4: RR = 1.22, 95% CI [1.08, 1.37], P = 0.001; grade 3-4: RR = 2.21, 95% CI [1.52, 3.21], P < 0.0001), neutropenia (grade 1-4: RR = 1.29, 95% CI [1.11, 1.48], P = 0.0005; grade 3-4: RR = 1.87, 95% CI [1.11, 3.17], P = 0.02), and thrombocytopenia (grade 1-4: RR = 1.71, 95% CI [1.22, 2.41], P = 0.002) in S-1-containing regimens compared with 5-FU-containing regimens, but without significant difference in treatment-related mortality rate (risk difference [RD] = 0.00, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.01], P = 0.68). In non-Asian patients, S-1-containing regimens were, however, associated with significantly fewer treatment-related deaths (RD = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.05, -0.00], P = 0.04), as well as less all grade 1-4 and grade 3-4 hematological toxicities except anemia. There was no significant heterogeneity in nonhematologic toxicities between Asian and non-Asian trials. Lower incidence of grade 1-4 nausea, diarrhea, mucositis, grade 3-4 mucositis, increased creatinine, and decreased calculated creatinine clearance was observed in S-1-containing regimens.S-1 could not improve OS, but increase some hematological toxicities in Asian patients. Therefore, special attention on hematological toxicities should be paid to Asian patients because S-1 is administered on an outpatient basis.

The aim of this study was to explore whether a combination of S-1 and paclitaxel offers any benefit over paclitaxel alone to patients pretreated by S-1.

Gastric cancer patients who developed progression during S-1-based first-line chemotherapy or had recurrence during postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy by S-1 were randomly assigned to receive second-line treatment either by weekly administration of paclitaxel at 80 mg/m(2) three times every 4 weeks or daily oral S-1 (80 mg/m(2)) for 2 weeks plus paclitaxel (50 mg/m(2)) given on days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks (S-1 plus paclitaxel). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) at 4 months after the initiation of treatment.

A total of 78 patients were eligible for efficacy analyses-40 were assigned to the paclitaxel group and 38 to the S-1 plus paclitaxel group. PFS at 4 months was similar between the groups (50 % for paclitaxel vs 55 % for S-1 plus paclitaxel, P = 0.641). There were no differences between the groups either in progression-free survival (4.6 vs 4.6 months, respectively, P = 0.526), overall survival (10.0 vs 10.0 months, respectively, P = 0.464), or overall response rate (27 vs 22 %, respectively, P = 0.767). The incidences of grade 3 or 4 hematological and non-hematological toxicities were also equivalent between the two groups (25 vs 26 % and 24 vs 26 %, respectively).

No benefit of S-1 administration beyond progression was shown when paclitaxel was selected as the key drug for second-line chemotherapy.

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of S-1-based therapy versus non-S-1-based therapy in advanced gastric cancer (AGC) patients.Eligible studies stratifying objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs) in AGC patients were identified from Embase, Pubmed, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases. The STATA package (version 11.0) was used to pool the data from the eligible studies.Fifteen studies with 2973 AGC cases, of which 1497 (50.4%) received S-1-based therapy and 1476 (49.6%) received non-S-1-based therapy, were identified in the meta-analysis. AGC patients who had received S-1-based therapy had a higher median OS, median PFS, and ORR than those who had received 5-fluorouracil (FU)-based therapy (OS: hazard ratio [HR] 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80-0.98, P = 0.015; PFS: HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80-0.98, P = 0.016; ORR: OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08-1.45, P = 0.003, respectively). S-1-based therapy had similar efficacy to capecitabine-based therapy in terms of median OS (HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91-1.41, P = 0.253), median PFS (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.82-1.25, P = 0.927), and ORR (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.63-1.12, P = 0.226). Subgroup analysis for grade 3 to 4 toxicity showed higher incidence of neutropenia (relative risk [RR] = 0.827, P = 0.006), nausea (RR = 0.808, P = 0.040), and lower diarrhea (RR = 1.716, P = 0.012) in 5-FU-based arm, and higher diarrhea (RR = 0.386, P = 0.007) in capecitabine-based arm.S-1-based chemotherapy is favorable to AGC patients with better clinical benefit than 5-FU-based chemotherapy and with equivalent antitumor compare with capecitabine-based therapy.

To assess the efficacy and safety of combination therapy based on S-1, a novel oral fluoropyrimidine, vs S-1 monotherapy in advanced gastric cancer (AGC).

We searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library for eligible studies published before March 2013. Our analysis identified four randomized controlled trials involving 790 participants with AGC. The outcome measures were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and grade 3-4 adverse events.

Meta-analysis showed that S-1-based combination therapy significantly improved OS (HR = 0.77, 95%CI: 0.66-0.91, P = 0.002), PFS (HR = 0.58, 95%CI: 0.46-0.72, P = 0.000) and ORR (OR = 2.23, 95%CI: 1.54-3.21, P = 0.000). Sensitivity analysis further confirmed this association. Lower incidence of grade 3-4 leucopenia (OR = 4.06, 95%CI: 2.11-7.81), neutropenia (OR = 3.94, 95%CI: 2.1-7.81) and diarrhea (OR = 2.41, 95%CI: 1.31-4.44) was observed in patients with S-1 monotherapy.

S-1-based combination therapy is superior to S-1 monotherapy in terms of OS, PFS and ORR. S-1 monotherapy is associated with less toxicity.

We investigated the efficacy and safety of metronomic chemotherapy with combined irinotecan and tegafur-gimeracil-oteracil potassium (TS-1) in patients with metastatic and recurrent breast cancer (MRBC), and the association between irinotecan metabolizing enzyme UDP-glucuronosyltransferase 1A1 (UGT1A1) gene polymorphisms and adverse events.

The study group comprised 40 patients aged 35-79 years. Irinotecan (60 mg/m(2) in 5 % dextrose) was administered by 120-min infusion on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks. TS-1 (prescribed in a standard quantity) was administered at 80 mg/m(2)/day orally on days 3-7, 10-14, and 17-21 every 4 weeks.

Tumor response data were available for 34 patients. Median follow-up was 12 months (range 1-45 months). Response rate was 47 % (one complete and 15 partial responses). Stable disease was observed in 17 patients (50 %). One patient had disease progression (3 %). Median progression-free survival was 14 months [95 % confidence interval (CI), 10-26]. Median overall survival was 26 months (95 % CI not calculable owing to sample size), and 79.3 % of patients survived for 1 year. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (15 %), leukopenia (12.5 %), diarrhea (7.5 %), and anemia (2.5 %). All other adverse events were grade 1 or 2. Treatment-related toxicity was generally modest and manageable. No significant correlation was observed between UGT1A1 polymorphisms and hematological or non-hematological toxicities.

Metronomic chemotherapy with combined irinotecan and TS-1 was effective in MRBC patients. Adverse effects were mild and the regimen was safely administered without identifying UGT1A1 polymorphisms.

This randomized phase II study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of paclitaxel with S-1 (PS) vs. S-1 in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC).

Eighty-two (82) patients were 1:1 randomly assigned to oral S-1 (daily for 2 weeks, every 4 weeks' cycle) or S-1 (daily for 2 weeks, every 4 weeks' cycle) plus paclitaxel (on day 1, 8 and 15 of a 4 weeks' cycle). S-1 was orally administered with a fixed quantity according to body surface area (BSA), while paclitaxel was given 60 mg/m(2) i.v. daily through an implanted catheter. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall responsible rates and safety.

The median OS with PS versus S-1 monotherapy was 14.0 versus 11.0 months (P = 0.02), survival at 12 months was 61.0 % in the PS group and 46.3 % in the S-1 group. Median PFS was also significantly longer in the PS group (6.0 months) than in the S-1 group (4.0 months). The overall response rate was determined in 82 evaluable patients, and was significantly higher (P = 0.04) with PS (19 patients, 46.3 %) than with S-1 monotherapy (10 patients, 24.4 %). PS was well tolerated with no treatment-related deaths, all were grade 3-4 gastrointestinal toxicities, including anorexia, nausea, and diarrhea developed in less than 10 % of the patients.

Combination chemotherapy of paclitaxel with S-1 is well tolerated and active in AGC patients. Further investigation with comparative trials is needed for confirmation.

Recent advances in the treatment of metastatic unresectable gastric cancers (MGC) include the development of new antitumor drugs and new regimens for their use. However, the selection of individually designed regimens by gastric cancer (GC) subtype remains problematic. Here, we investigated the clinical usefulness of programmed chemotherapy.

MGC patients were classified into three groups by clinical condition. We implemented a chemotherapy program consisting of S-1 combination regimens. Median survival time (MST) of level 1 patients was 416 days (95% CI: 313-506 days), with an overall response rate of 47%. MSTs of level 2 and 3 patients were 208 (95% CI: 153-287 days) and 95 days (95% CI: 28-136 days), respectively. Grade 3-4 toxicities were neutropenia in 12% and anorexia in 6%. All treatment- related toxicities were resolved, and no treatment-related deaths occurred.

This program provided reasonable selection of case-matching regimens and may improve the survival of patients with MGC. Further, it may represent the first clinical tool to provide efficient chemotherapy course selection for MGC. Ongoing analysis of newly developed drugs and regimens will allow the efficacy of this chemotherapy program to be improved.

This phase II trial first describes the combination chemotherapy of biweekly irinotecan plus S-1 (biweekly IRIS) for pretreated advanced gastric cancer (AGC) patients.

Patients who had previously been treated with greater than or equal to one regimen were enrolled. They received S-1 35 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 and irinotecan 150 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 15, every 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS).

Among the 38 patients enrolled, 18 patients were treated as second line, and the remaining 20 patients were enrolled as third- or fourth line. A total of 208 cycles were administered with the median being four cycles (range 1-16). The median OS was 8.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.5-10.3], and the median progression-free survival was 6.3 months (95% CI 5.3-7.3). Low serum albumin (<3.5 mg/dL) was an independent adverse prognosticator for survival. Overall response rate was 17% (95% CI 4-30%). The major grade 3/4 toxicities were neutropenia (26%) and diarrhea (18%).

Biweekly IRIS showed the moderate activity as salvage treatment in AGC. Considering high neutropenia and gastrointestinal toxicity, patient selection should be warranted; serum albumin may be a predictive factor for treatment decision.

To carry out a phase II multi-center study on the efficacy and safety of triple combination therapy with paclitaxel, S-1, and cisplatin in patients with unresectable/metastatic gastric cancer.

A total of 63 patients from 8 institutions were included in this study. Paclitaxel (160 mg/m²) was administered by infusion for 3 h on the first day. S-1 (70 mg/m²/day) was administered orally for 14 consecutive days from the first day. Cisplatin (60 mg/m²) was administered intravenously over 24 h on day 14 of every 28-day cycle.

All 63 patients were assessed for clinical efficacy and safety. A total of 259 cycles of treatment were administered (median 4, range 1-10). Grade 3-4 toxicities included neutropenia in 30.2%, thrombocytopenia in 12.7%, and anemia in 11.1%. There was no grade 3-4 non-hematological toxicity or treatment-related death. Complete response was observed in 6 patients and partial response in 34 patients. The overall response rate was 63.5%. The median progression-free survival and response duration were 8.0 and 8.8 months, respectively, and median survival time was 15 months.

Triple combination therapy with paclitaxel, S-1, and cisplatin showed promising safety and efficacy profiles with the potential to become a standard regimen for unresectable/metastatic gastric cancer.

Irinotecan hydrochloride and S-1, an oral fluoropyrimidine, have shown antitumor activity against advanced gastric cancer as single agents in phase I/II studies. The combination of irinotecan and S-1 (IRI-S) is also active against advanced gastric cancer. This study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of IRI-S versus S-1 monotherapy in patients with advanced or recurrent gastric cancer.

Patients were randomly assigned to oral S-1 (80 mg/m² daily for 28 days every 6 weeks) or oral S-1 (80 mg/m² daily for 21 days every 5 weeks) plus irinotecan (80 mg/m² by intravenous infusion on days 1 and 15 every 5 weeks) (IRI-S). The primary endpoint was overall survival. Secondary endpoints included the time to treatment failure, 1- and 2-year survival rates, response rate, and safety.

The median survival time with IRI-S versus S-1 monotherapy was 12.8 versus 10.5 months (P = 0.233), time to treatment failure was 4.5 versus 3.6 months (P = 0.157), and the 1-year survival rate was 52.0 versus 44.9%, respectively. The response rate was significantly higher for IRI-S than for S-1 monotherapy (41.5 vs. 26.9%, P = 0.035). Neutropenia and diarrhea occurred more frequently with IRI-S, but were manageable. Patients treated with IRI-S received more courses of therapy at a relative dose intensity similar to that of S-1 monotherapy.

Although IRI-S achieved longer median survival than S-1 monotherapy and was well tolerated, it did not show significant superiority in this study.

This phase I study was conducted to evaluate the feasibility and to determine the recommended doses of the combination therapy of S-1 and irinotecan (CPT-11) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) as second-line treatment.

Patients with NSCLC who were previously treated with one chemotherapy regimen and had a performance status of 0 or 1 were eligible. CPT-11 was administered at 60 mg/m² (level 1), 80 mg/m² (level 2) on days 1 and 8, and oral S-1 was administered at 80 mg/day for body surface area (BSA) less than 1.25 m², 100 mg/day for BSA 1.25-1.5 m², and 120 mg/day for BSA more than 1.5 m² on days 1-14 every 3 weeks. The dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined as grade 4 leukocytopenia or neutropenia, grade ≥ 3 neutropenia with fever over 38°C, grade ≥ 3 thrombocytopenia, or grade ≥ 3 major nonhematological toxicities.

Nine patients were enrolled in the study. None of 3 patients enrolled in level 1 had any DLT. Of 6 patients in level 2, 2 patients had grade 3 diarrhea and one had grade 3 interstitial pneumonia. Level 1 was declared as the recommended dose.

The feasibility of the combination therapy of S-1 and CPT-11 was shown in the second-line setting for the treatment of advanced NSCLC. The recommended dose of CPT-11 was 60 mg/m² combined with standard dose of S-1 for phase II trials of pretreated advanced NSCLC patients.

The outcome of stage III gastric cancer patients treated by D2 dissection followed by adjuvant chemotherapy with S-1 remains unsatisfactory. Moreover, some patients with a preoperative diagnosis of stage II/III turn out to be stage IV after surgical exploration, and a standard postoperative treatment for this population has not been established.

A feasibility study of postoperative S-1/cisplatin (CDDP) was performed with patients who underwent gastrectomy for what turned out to be a stage IV gastric cancer. The primary endpoint of the trial was the relative dose intensity during five courses of S-1/CDDP. Several criteria to skip, postpone, or reduce the dose had been predetermined.

Between 2007 and 2009, 31 patients were accrued, including 19 patients who were positive for peritoneal washing cytology, 6 with peritoneal seeding, 5 with metastasis to the paraaortic nodes, and 4 with other distant metastases. Only 7 patients completed five cycles as planned (median, two cycles). The median relative dose intensities of S-1 and CDDP were 37% and 40%, respectively. Causes of treatment failure were failure to fulfill criteria for starting a new course within 5 weeks of the last administration of S-1 in 7, patient refusal in 6, disease recurrence/progression in 4, need to reduce dose by two levels in 4, and two successive skips of CDDP in 3 patients. The median progression-free survival time of all patients was 363 days.

Although promising in the neoadjuvant and advanced/metastatic setting, S-1/CDDP is too toxic as a postgastrectomy treatment for Japanese patients.

Irinotecan and S-1, an oral fluoropyrimidine composed of tegafur, gimeracil, and oteracil potassium, have demonstrated antitumor activity against advanced gastric cancer. We performed a phase 1/2 study to determine the recommended dose, antitumor activity, and safety of a combination of S-1 and irinotecan in patients with advanced gastric cancer.

Patients with previously untreated advanced gastric cancer were enrolled. Patients received irinotecan intravenously on days 1 and 15 plus oral S-1 twice daily on days 1-14 of a 28-day cycle. In the phase 1 part, the dose of irinotecan was escalated from 100 mg/m(2) to 125 mg/m(2) and then to 150 mg/m(2).

A total of 24 patients were enrolled. Overall, the median number of treatment cycles per patient was 5.9, and 92% of the patients completed at least two cycles. The overall response rate was 54.2% (13 of 24). The response rates in differentiated and undifferentiated cancer were 56.3% (nine of 16) and 50.0% (four of eight), respectively. Median survival time was 581 days. The maximum tolerated dose of irinotecan was not reached at the highest level. However, grade 4 neutropenia occurred at 125 mg/m(2). We concluded that the recommended dose of irinotecan for the present regimen was 125 mg/m(2).

Treatment with S-1+irinotecan is considered effective in patients with advanced gastric cancer who have not previously received chemotherapy. A combination of irinotecan and S-1 was well tolerated in patients with advanced gastric cancer and could be given on an outpatient basis.

Unresectable duodenal adenocarcinoma excluding the ampullary region is rare, and no standard chemotherapy has been defined for this disease. Although S-1-based chemotherapy is widely administered for advanced gastric cancer, few reports have described advanced duodenal cancer treated with S-1-based chemotherapy. We present herein a case of duodenal adenocarcinoma with liver metastases. The patient was a 72-year-old man with chief complaints of epigastralgia and fever. Gastroduodenal endoscopy revealed an ulcerative lesion on the upper wall of the duodenal bulb, and biopsy specimens showed well-differentiated adenocarcinoma. Computed tomography and ultrasonography showed multiple liver metastases. S-1 (80 mg/m(2) day(-1) on days 1-21) + irinotecan (80 mg/m(2) day(-1) on days 1 and 15) were administered in 4-week intervals as first-line chemotherapy. Tumor markers subsequently normalized, and liver metastases were diminished. The progression-free term was 6 months. Grade 3 neutropenia and diarrhea were observed as adverse events. S-1 + cisplatin and S-1 + docetaxel were administered as second- and third-line chemotherapies, respectively. The patient died due to hepatic failure, with an overall survival of 15 months. S-1-based regimens appear effective and well tolerated, and S-1 may thus represent a useful option for advanced duodenal cancer.

We retrospectively analyzed the efficacy of chemotherapy in patients whose gastric cancer recurred after adjuvant chemotherapy with S-1. A total of 51 patients were evaluated. Twenty-one patients received S-1-containing chemotherapy as first-line treatment after recurrence [cohort A: S-1 plus cisplatin (n = 10), S-1 monotherapy (n = 7), S-1 plus irinotecan (n = 3) and S-1 plus docetaxel (n = 1)]. The other 30 patients received a non-S-1-containing regimen [cohort B: paclitaxel or docetaxel (n = 22), irinotecan plus cisplatin (n = 6) and other drugs (n = 2)]. No objective responses occurred in cohort A, while five patients achieved a partial response in cohort B (response rate, 0 versus 16%; P = 0.04). Median progression-free survival was significantly longer in cohort B than in cohort A (4.3 versus 2.3 months, P = 0.02). S-1-containing chemotherapy does not appear to be effective in patients whose gastric cancer recurs after adjuvant S-1 chemotherapy. Other chemotherapeutic agents should be evaluated in this setting.

The Gastrointestinal Oncology Study Group of Japan Clinical Oncology Group (GIOSG/JCOG) has conducted several clinical trials to establish standard chemotherapy for unresectable or recurrent gastric cancer. From the late 1980s to early 1990s, two phase II studies by JCOG evaluated oral fluoropyrimidines, and others introduced Western chemotherapy regimens. Thereafter, the first phase III study (JCOG9205), comparing 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), 5-FU plus ciplatin (CDDP) (FP), and uracil and tegafur (UFT) plus mitomycin (UFTM), could not show a survival benefit of either FP or UFTM over 5-FU alone. In the late 1990s, new active agents such as irinotecan (CPT-11) and S-1 (new oral fluoropyrimidine) showed promising results in their phase II trials. The latest phase III study (JCOG9912), comparing 5-FU, CPT-11 plus CDDP, and S-1, showed significant noninferiority of S-1 to 5-FU in overall survival, associated with a better response rate and progression-free survival and acceptable toxicities, and concluded that S-1 should be considered for the standard chemotherapy of unresectable or recurrent gastric cancer. Simultaneously, another Japanese phase III trial comparing S-1 with S-1 plus CDDP showed a survival benefit of S-1 plus CDDP. At present, S-1 plus CDDP is recognized as standard chemotherapy for unresectable or recurrent gastric cancer, and new treatment with molecular target agents is under development.