Nils Homann

PURPOSE: This study was designed to compare fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and cisplatin in patients with advanced gastric cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated advanced adenocarcinoma of the stomach or esophagogastric junction were randomly assigned to receive either fluorouracil 2,600 mg/m(2) via 24-hour infusion, leucovorin 200 mg/m(2), and oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) (FLO) every 2 weeks or fluorouracil 2,000 mg/m(2) via 24-hour infusion, leucovorin 200 mg/m(2) weekly, and cisplatin 50 mg/m(2) every 2 weeks (FLP). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Two hundred twenty patients (median age, 64 years; metastatic, 94%) were randomly assigned. FLO was associated with significantly less (any grade) anemia (54% v 72%), nausea (53% v 70%), vomiting (31% v 52%), alopecia (22% v 39%), fatigue (19% v 34%), renal toxicity (11% v 34%), thromboembolic events (0.9% v 7.8%), and serious adverse events related to the treatment (9% v 19%). FLP was associated with significantly less peripheral neuropathy (22% v 63%). There was a trend toward improved median PFS with FLO versus FLP (5.8 v 3.9 months, respectively; P = .077) and no significant difference in median overall survival (10.7 v 8.8 months, respectively). However, in patients older than 65 years (n = 94), treatment with FLO resulted in significantly superior response rates (41.3% v 16.7%; P = .012), time to treatment failure (5.4 v 2.3 months; P < .001), and PFS (6.0 v 3.1 month; P = .029) and an improved OS (13.9 v 7.2 months) as compared with FLP, respectively. CONCLUSION: FLO reduced toxicity as compared with FLP. In older adult patients, FLO also seemed to be associated with improved efficacy.

IMPORTANCE: Surgical resection has a potential benefit for patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the stomach and gastroesophageal junction. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate outcome in patients with limited metastatic disease who receive chemotherapy first and proceed to surgical resection. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The AIO-FLOT3 (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel) trial is a prospective, phase 2 trial of 252 patients with resectable or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. Patients were enrolled from 52 cancer care centers in Germany between February 1, 2009, and January 31, 2010, and stratified to 1 of 3 groups: resectable (arm A), limited metastatic (arm B), or extensive metastatic (arm C). Data cutoff was January 2012, and the analysis was performed in March 2013. INTERVENTIONS: Patients in arm A received 4 preoperative cycles of fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel (FLOT) followed by surgery and 4 postoperative cycles. Patients in arm B received at least 4 cycles of neoadjuvant FLOT and proceeded to surgical resection if restaging (using computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging) showed a chance of margin-free (R0) resection of the primary tumor and at least a macroscopic complete resection of the metastatic lesions. Patients in arm C were offered FLOT chemotherapy and surgery only if required for palliation. Patients received a median (range) of 8 (1-15) cycles of FLOT. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: In total, 238 of 252 patients (94.4%) were eligible to participate. The median (range) age of participants was 66 (36-79) years in arm A (n = 51), 63 (28-79) years in arm B (n = 60), and 65 (23-83) years in arm C (n = 127). Patients in arm B (n = 60) had only retroperitoneal lymph node involvement (27 patients [45%]), liver involvement (11 [18.3%]), lung involvement (10 [16.7%]), localized peritoneal involvement (4 [6.7%]), or other (8 [13.3%]) incurable sites. Median overall survival was 22.9 months (95% CI, 16.5 to upper level not achieved) for arm B, compared with 10.7 months (95% CI, 9.1-12.8) for arm C (hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.25-0.55) (P < .001). The response rate for arm B was 60% (complete, 10%; partial, 50%), which is higher than the 43.3% for arm C. In arm B, 36 of 60 patients (60%) proceeded to surgery. The median overall survival was 31.3 months (95% CI, 18.9-upper level not achieved) for patients who proceeded to surgery and 15.9 months (95% CI, 7.1-22.9) for the other patients. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Patients with limited metastatic disease who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and proceeded to surgery showed a favorable survival. The AIO-FLOT3 trial provides a rationale for further randomized clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00849615.

Chronic ethanol ingestion leads to an enhanced risk of upper gastrointestinal tract cancer. Although many hypotheses for the tumor promoting effect of alcohol exist, the pathogenetic mechanisms remain unclear since alcohol in itself is not carcinogenic. Acetaldehyde, the first metabolite of ethanol, has been shown to have multiple mutagenic effects and to be carcinogenic to animals. Previous research has revealed that acetaldehyde can be formed from ethanol via microbial alcohol dehydrogenase. Thus, at least part of the proposed tumorigenic effect of ethanol may be linked to local production of acetaldehyde from ethanol by oral microflora. In this study we demonstrate the production of marked amounts of acetaldehyde in saliva after ingestion of moderate amounts of ethanol. Considerable inter individual variation in acetaldehyde production capacity is also shown. In vivo acetaldehyde production is significantly reduced after a 3-day use of an antiseptic mouthwash (chlorhexidine). In vitro acetaldehyde production was shown to be linear in time, inhibited by 4-methylpyrazole and it could not be saturated under ethanol conditions that are relevant in vivo. There was a significant positive correlation between salivary acetaldehyde production in vitro and in vivo. We conclude, that the microbial formation of acetaldehyde in saliva could be one explanation for the tumor promoting effect of ethanol on the upper gastrointestinal tract. Moreover, this may support the epidemiological finding, that poor oral hygiene is an independent risk factor for oral cavity cancer.