Review from JAMA — Benefit of Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Resectable Gastric Cancer — A Meta-analysis

The Candesartan Antihypertensive Survival Evaluation in Japan Trial was designed to compare the long-term effects of the angiotensin II receptor blocker candesartan and the calcium channel blocker amlodipine on the incidence of cardiovascular events, represented as a composite of sudden death and cerebrovascular, cardiac, renal, and vascular events in high-risk Japanese hypertensive patients. We conducted a prospective, randomized, open-label study with blinded assessment of the end point in 4728 Japanese hypertensive patients (mean age: 63.8 years; mean body mass index: 24.6 kg/m ² ). Patients were followed for an average of 3.2 years. Blood pressure was well controlled with both treatment-based regimens (systolic blood pressure/diastolic blood pressure: 136.1/77.3 mm Hg for candesartan-based regimens and 134.4/76.7 mm Hg for amlodipine-based regimens after 3 years). Primary cardiovascular events occurred in 134 patients with both the candesartan- and amlodipine-based regimens. The 2 treatment-based regimens produced no significant differences in cardiovascular morbidity or mortality in the high-risk Japanese hypertensive patients (hazard ratio: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.28; P =0.969). In each primary end point category, there was no significant difference between the 2 treatment-based regimens. New-onset diabetes occurred in fewer patients taking candesartan (8.7/1000 person-years) than in those taking amlodipine (13.6/1000 person-years), which resulted in a 36% relative risk reduction (hazard ratio: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.97; P =0.033). We disclosed that candesartan-based and amlodipine-based regimens produced no statistical differences in terms of the primary cardiovascular end point, whereas candesartan prevented new-onset diabetes more effectively than amlodipine.

A random biopsy is recommended for surveillance of ulcerative colitis (UC)-associated colorectal cancer. However, a targeted biopsy might be more effective. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare rates of neoplasia detection by targeted vs random biopsies in patients with UC. We performed a study of 246 patients with UC for 7 years or more, seen at 52 institutions in Japan from October 1, 2008 through December 31, 2010. Patients were randomly assigned to the random group (4 random biopsies collected every 10 cm in addition to targeted biopsies, n = 122) or the target group (biopsies collected from locations of suspected neoplasia, n = 124). The primary end point was the number of neoplastic lesions detected in a single surveillance colonoscopy. We estimated the ratio and difference in the mean number of neoplastic lesions between the groups. We also evaluated the non-inferiority between the groups as an exploratory study. A non-inferiority margin of 0.65 (0.13 of 0.20) was considered for the ratio of the mean number of neoplastic lesions between groups. The mean number of biopsies found to contain neoplastic tissue per colonoscopy was 0.211 (24 of 114) in the target group and 0.168 (18 of 107) in the random group (ratio of 1.251; 95% confidence interval, 0.679–2.306). The lower limit was above the non-inferiority margin of 0.65. Neoplasias were detected in 11.4% of patients in the target group and 9.3% of patients in the random group (P = .617). Larger numbers of biopsy samples per colonoscopy were collected in the random group (34.8 vs 3.1 in the target group; P < .001), and the total examination time was longer (41.7 vs 26.6 minutes in the target group; P < .001). In the random group, all neoplastic tissues found in random biopsies were collected from areas of the mucosa with a history or presence of inflammation. In a randomized controlled trial, we found that targeted and random biopsies detect similar proportions of neoplasias. However, a targeted biopsy appears to be a more cost-effective method. Random biopsies from areas without any signs of present or past inflammation were not found to contain neoplastic tissues. Clinical Trial Registry: UMIN000001608.

In investigations of the effectiveness of surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy for gastric cancers, overall survival (OS) is considered the gold standard endpoint. However, the disadvantage of using OS as the endpoint is that it requires an extended follow-up period. We sought to investigate whether disease-free survival (DFS) is a valid surrogate for OS in trials of adjuvant chemotherapy for gastric cancer. The GASTRIC group initiated a meta-analysis of individual patient data collected in randomized clinical trials comparing adjuvant chemotherapy vs surgery alone for patients with curatively resected gastric cancer. Surrogacy of DFS was assessed through the correlation between the endpoints as well as through the correlation between the treatment effects on the endpoints. External validation of the prediction based on DFS was also evaluated. Individual patient data from 14 randomized clinical trials that included a total of 3288 patients were analyzed. The rank correlation coefficient between DFS and OS was 0.974 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.971 to 0.976). The coefficient of determination between the treatment effects on DFS and on OS was as high as 0.964 (95% CI = 0.926 to 1.000), and the surrogate threshold effect based on adjusted regression analysis was 0.92. In external validation, the six hazard ratios for OS predicted according to DFS were in very good agreement with those actually observed for OS. DFS is an acceptable surrogate for OS in trials of cytotoxic agents for gastric cancer in the adjuvant setting.