Trastuzumab in combination with a platinum and fluorouracil is the treatment of choice for patients with advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positive gastric cancer and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer. Pathological assessment of the HER2 status in gastric/GEJ cancer, however, still remains difficult. However, it is a crucial prerequisite for optimal treatment. The GASTRIC-5 registry was designed as an observational, multi-center research initiative comparing local and central HER2 testing. HER2 status was assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and in equivocal cases (IHC score 2+) by additional in-situ hybridization. Between May 2011 and August 2018, tumor samples of 183 patients were tested in local and central pathology laboratories, respectively. Central testing revealed HER2 positivity in 38 samples (21%). Discordant HER2 results were found in 12% (22 out of 183) with locally HER2 positive/centrally HER2 negative results (9%, 17 out of 183), exceeding locally HER2 negative/centrally HER2 positive results (3%, 5 out of 183). Centrally confirmed HER2 positive patients receiving trastuzumab-based palliative first-line therapy showed a longer median overall survival compared to centrally HER2 positive patients not receiving trastuzumab (17.7 months (95% CI: 10,870–24,530) vs. 6.9 months (95% CI: 3.980–9.820), p = 0.016). The findings of the GASTRIC-5 registry corroborate the challenge of HER2 testing in gastric/GEJ cancer and highlight the necessity for central quality control to optimize individual treatment options. Centrally HER2 positive patients not receiving trastuzumab had the worst outcome in a Western real-world gastric/GEJ cancer cohort.

Background: Azacitidine is the treatment backbone for patients with acute myeloid leukemia, myelodysplastic syndromes and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia who are considered unfit for intensive chemotherapy. Detailed reports on adverse events in a real-world setting are lacking. Aims: To analyze the frequency of adverse events in the Austrian Registry of Hypomethylating agents. To compare real-world data with that of published randomized clinical trials. Results: A total of 1406 patients uniformly treated with a total of 13,780 cycles of azacitidine were analyzed. Hematologic adverse events were the most common adverse events (grade 3–4 anemia 43.4%, grade 3–4 thrombopenia 36.8%, grade 3–4 neutropenia 36.1%). Grade 3–4 anemia was significantly more common in the Registry compared to published trials. Febrile neutropenia occurred in 33.4% of patients and was also more common in the Registry than in published reports. Other commonly reported adverse events included fatigue (33.4%), pain (29.2%), pyrexia (23.5%), and injection site reactions (23.2%). Treatment termination due to an adverse event was rare (5.1%). Conclusion: The safety profile of azacitidine in clinical trials is reproducible in a real-world setting. With the use of prophylactic and concomitant medications, adverse events can be mitigated and azacitidine can be safely administered to almost all patients with few treatment discontinuations.

Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines recommend regorafenib or trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) for the third-line therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In this analysis, we evaluated hospitalizations during regorafenib or TAS-102 treatment and the impact of hospitalizations on overall survival (OS). This retrospective analysis was based on unselected, consecutive mCRC patients treated with regorafenib and/or TAS-102 at the tertiary cancer centers in Salzburg and Wels-Grieskirchen, Austria. Between January 2013 and May 2019, 93 patients started third- or fourth-line therapy with regorafenib or TAS-102. Tumor therapy (regorafenib versus TAS-102, HR: 1.95 [95% CI: 1.07–3.54], p = 0.03) and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (2–3 versus 0–1, HR: 4.04 [95% CI: 2.11–7.71], p < 0.001) showed a statistically significant association with hospitalization risk in multivariate analysis. The corresponding hospitalization probability from initiation of third- or fourth-line was 30% with regorafenib versus 18% with TAS-102 at five weeks and 41% versus 28% at ten weeks, respectively. Hospitalizations irrespective of cause during regorafenib or TAS-102 therapy did neither impact median survival in patients undergoing only third-line therapy (never-hospitalized: 5.7 months [95% CI: 3.9–10.5] versus hospitalized: 5.4 months [95% CI: 2.8–9.6], p = 0.45), nor in patients receiving third- and fourth-line therapy (12.2 months [95% CI: 10.6–28.8] versus 18.6 months [95% CI: 6.3-not reached], p = 0.90). In conclusion, apart from poor ECOG performance status, regorafenib therapy was associated with an increased hospitalization probability during palliative systemic third- and fourth-line therapy in mCRC. However, hospitalizations during regorafenib or TAS-102 therapy did not impact OS beyond second-line therapy.

We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of oncological treatments in metastatic CRC related to comorbidities and age. This retrospective study included 1105 patients from three oncological centers. aaCCI and CCI was available from 577 patients. An aaCCI > 3 was of the highest predictive value compared to other aaCCI-levels, CCI or age (p < 0.001 for all). Treatment (best supportive care (BSC), systemic treatment only (STO) and resection of metastases (ROM)) significantly prolonged survival in patients with aaCCI > 3 (STO: HR 0.39, CI 0.29–0.51; ROM: HR 0.16, CI 0.10–0.24) and patients older than 70 years (STO: HR 0.56, CI 0.47–0.66; ROM: HR 0.23, 0.18–0.30). Median overall survival was shorter in patients with aaCCI or age > 70 years and interaction for treatment type not significant for aaCCI, but significant for age older or younger than 70 years (STO: p = 0.01; ROM p = 0.02). BSC is more often considered as optimal care for patients with an aaCCI > 3 (37.6% vs. 12.4%; p < 0.001) or age > 70 years (35.7% vs. 11.2%; p < 0.001). Older patients or patients with comorbidities benefit from cancer-specific therapy independently of their age and comorbidities.