Gastric cancer is a global health concern, ranking fifth in cancer diagnoses and fourth in cancer-related deaths worldwide. Despite recent advancements in diagnosis, most cases are detected at advanced stages, resulting in poor outcomes. However, recent breakthroughs in genome analysis have identified biomarkers that hold positive clinical significance for GC treatment. These biomarkers and classifications offer the potential for more precise diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for GC patients. In this review, we explore the classification and molecular pathways in this disease, highlighting potential biomarkers that have emerged in recent studies including targeted therapies and immunotherapies. These advancements provide a promising direction for improving the management of GC.

Background: Malnutrition and sarcopenia are poor prognostic factors in many cancers. Studies in gastric and esophageal (GE) cancer have focused on curative intent patients. This study aims to evaluate the prognostic utility of malnutrition and sarcopenia in de novo metastatic GE adenocarcinoma.Methods: Patients with de novo metastatic GE adenocarcinoma seen at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre from 2010 to 2016 with an available pre‐treatment abdominal computed tomography (CT) were included. Malnutrition was defined as nutritional risk index (NRI) <97.5. Skeletal muscle index (SMI) was measured at the L3 level (sarcopenia defined as SMI <34.4 cm²/m² in women and <45.4 cm²/m² in men). Patients receiving chemotherapy had NRI and SMI recalculated at the time of first restaging CT.Results: Of 175 consecutive patients, 33% were malnourished and 39% were sarcopenic at baseline. Patients with pretreatment malnourishment had significantly shorter overall survival (OS; 5.8 vs. 10.9 months, p = 0.000475). Patients who became malnourished during chemotherapy had worse OS compared to those who maintained their nutrition (12.2 vs. 17.5 months p = 0.0484). On univariable analysis, ECOG (p < 0.001), number of metastatic sites (p = 0.029) and NRI (p < 0.001) were significant prognostic factors while BMI (p = 0.57) and sarcopenia (p = 0.19) were not. On multivariable analysis, ECOG (p < 0.001), baseline NRI (p = 0.025), and change in NRI during treatment (p < 0.001) were significant poor prognostic factors for OS.Conclusions: In de novo metastatic GE adenocarcinoma patients, ECOG, pretreatment NRI and change in NRI were significant prognostic factors for OS while sarcopenia was not. Use of NRI at baseline and during treatment can provide useful prognostic information.

Background: The cost of new anticancer drugs is rising. We aimed to assess the clinical benefit and price of anti‐cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for advanced gastrointestinal cancers.Methods: Drugs approved between 2006 and 2017 for advanced GI malignancies were identified from FDA.gov, and their updated supporting trial data were searched. Incremental clinical benefit was quantified by using ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (grade 0‐5) and ASCO Value Framework version 2 (score range −20 to 180). Higher scores indicate larger net benefit, and substantial benefit was defined as score 4 or 5 by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO). The Micromedex REDBOOK was used to estimate the monthly average wholesale price (AWP) and total drug price (TDP) over the median treatment duration per patient. Clinical benefit, AWP and TDP of each drug class were assessed.Results: In total, 16 GI cancer drugs received FDA approval for 24 indications, including five monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), five oral targeted therapies (TT), two immunotherapeutics (IO), three cytotoxic chemotherapies (CT), and one recombinant fusion protein (aflibercept). Most supporting trials (82%) reported overall survival benefit of less than 3 months and no significant improvement in quality of life. Only five agents (including one TT and one IO) with 21% the of approved indications met the ESMO's threshold of substantial clinical benefit. Median incremental benefit scores of TT and IO were comparable to other drug classes. However their median TDP was much higher at $153 402 and $98 208, respectively, compared to $30 330 USD per patient for CT. The estimated TDP did not correlate with clinical benefit scores.Conclusion: Most FDA–approved gastrointestinal cancer drugs do not meet the ESMO threshold of substantial clinical benefit. TT and IO are estimated to carry significant drug costs, and further cost analysis of these drugs is urgently needed.

Prognostic scores that can identify patients at risk for early death are needed to aid treatment decision-making and patient selection for clinical trials. We compared the accuracy of four scores to predict early death (within 90 days) and overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic gastric and esophageal (GE) cancer. Advanced GE cancer patients receiving first-line systemic therapy were included. Prognostic risks were calculated using: Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH), MD Anderson Cancer Centre (MDACC), Gustave Roussy Immune (GRIm-Score), and MD Anderson Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor (MDA-ICI) scores. Overall survival (OS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyze associations between prognostic scores and OS. The predictive discrimination was estimated using Harrell’s c-index. Predictive ability for early death was measured using time-dependent AUCs. In total, 451 patients with metastatic GE cancer were included. High risk patients had shorter OS for all scores (RMH high- vs. low–risk median OS 7.9 vs. 12.2 months, P < .001; MDACC 6.8 vs. 11.9 months P < .001; GRIm-Score 5.3 vs. 13 months, P < .001; MDA-ICI 8.2 vs. 12.2 months, P < .001). On multivariable analysis, each prognostic score was significantly associated with OS. The GRIm-Score had the highest predictive discrimination and predictive ability for early death. The GRIm-Score had the highest accuracy in predicting early death and OS. Clinicians may use this score to identify patients at higher risk of early death to guide treatment decisions including clinical trial enrolment. This score could also be used as a stratification factor in future clinical trial designs.

We investigated, whether ¹⁸[18F]-FDG PET/CT-derived radiomics combined with sarcopenia measurements improves survival prognostication among patients with advanced, metastatic gastroesophageal cancer. In our study, 128 consecutive patients with advanced, metastatic esophageal and gastroesophageal cancer (n = 128; 26 females; 102 males; mean age 63.5 ± 11.7 years; age range: 29–91 years) undergoing ¹⁸[18F]-FDG PET/CT for staging between November 2008 and December 2019 were included. Segmentation of the primary tumor and radiomics analysis derived from PET and CT images was performed semi-automatically with a commonly used open-source software platform (LIFEX, Version 6.30, lifexsoft.org). Patients’ nutritional status was determined by measuring the skeletal muscle index (SMI) at the level of L3 on the CT component. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to establish a survival prediction model including radiomics, clinical data, and SMI score. Univariable Cox proportional hazards model revealed ECOG (<0.001) and bone metastasis (p = 0.028) to be significant clinical parameters for overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS). Age (p = 0.017) was an additional prognostic factor for OS. Multivariable analysis showed improved prognostication for overall and progression free survival when adding sarcopenic status, PET and CT radiomics to the model with clinical parameters only. PET and CT radiomics derived from hybrid ¹⁸[18F]-FDG PET/CT combined with sarcopenia measurements and clinical parameters may improve survival prediction among patients with advanced, metastatic gastroesophageal cancer.