Concurrent apatinib and docetaxel vs apatinib monotherapy as third- or subsequent-line therapy for advanced gastric adenocarcinoma: a retrospective study
Authors Lin H, Han D, Fu G, Liu C, Wang L, Han S, Liu B, Yu J
Received 7 November 2018
Accepted for publication 28 January 2019
Published 28 February 2019 Volume 2019:12 Pages 1681—1689
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewers approved by Dr Andrew Yee
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Dr Sanjay Singh
Haimin Lin,1,2,* Dali Han,1,* Guobin Fu,3 Chengxin Liu,1 Lili Wang,4 Shumei Han,5 Bo Liu,5 Jinming Yu1
1Department of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong 250117, China; 2School of Medicine and Life Sciences, University of Jinan-Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, Shandong 250200, China; 3Department of Medical Oncology, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong 250021, China; 4Department of Bone and Soft Tumor, Shandong Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong 250117, China; 5Department of Medical Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong 250117, China
*These authors contributed equally to this work
Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of concurrent apatinib and docetaxel therapy vs apatinib monotherapy as third- or subsequent-line treatment for advanced gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC).
Methods: Patients, who had received apatinib with or without docetaxel as third or more line therapy for advanced GAC, were retrospectively reviewed. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to minimize the potential confounding bias. Kaplan–Meier curve and log-rank test were used to analyze the survival. Prognostic factors were estimated by Cox regression. Adverse events (AEs) were evaluated using CTCAE 4.0.
Results: Thirty-four patients received concurrent therapy, whereas 31 received monotherapy. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in monotherapy and con-therapy groups were 2.5 and 4 months (P=0.002), 3.3 and 6 months (P=0.004), respectively. After PSM, the median PFS and OS in the con-therapy group were also superior to the monotherapy group (P=0.004 and P=0.017). Cox regression suggested that Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS; HR =2.437, 95% CI: 1.349–4.404, P=0.003), CA199 (HR =1.001, 95% CI: 1.000–1.002, P=0.016), and treatment options (HR =0.388, 95% CI: 0.222–0.679, P=0.001) had significant effects on OS. Grade 3/4 toxicities in the monotherapy and con-therapy groups were as follows: leukopenia (0% vs 8.8%), neutropenia (3.2% vs 2.9%), anemia (9.8% vs 8.8%), thrombocytopenia (6.4% vs 2.9%), proteinuria (3.2% vs 2.9%), aminotransferase (0% vs 11.8%), hyperbilirubinemia (9.8% vs 5.9%), hypertension (9.8% vs 5.9%), hand–foot syndrome (3.2% vs 8.8%), nausea and vomiting (0% vs 11.8%), diarrhea (0% vs 5.9%), and fatigue (6.5% vs 2.9%).
Conclusion: Patients with advanced GAC benefit more from concurrent apatinib and docetaxel therapy than apatinib monotherapy.
Keywords: propensity score matching, progression-free survival, overall survival
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]