There is an urgent need for first-line treatment options for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, locally advanced unresectable or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction (mG/GEJ) adenocarcinoma. Claudin-18 isoform 2 (CLDN18.2) is expressed in normal gastric cells and maintained in malignant G/GEJ adenocarcinoma cells. GLOW (closed enrollment), a global, double-blind, phase 3 study, examined zolbetuximab, a monoclonal antibody that targets CLDN18.2, plus capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) as first-line treatment for CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative, locally advanced unresectable or mG/GEJ adenocarcinoma. Patients (n = 507) were randomized 1:1 (block sizes of two) to zolbetuximab plus CAPOX or placebo plus CAPOX. GLOW met the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (median, 8.21 months versus 6.80 months with zolbetuximab versus placebo; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.687; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.544–0.866; P = 0.0007) and key secondary endpoint of overall survival (median, 14.39 months versus 12.16 months; HR = 0.771; 95% CI, 0.615–0.965; P = 0.0118). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events were similar with zolbetuximab (72.8%) and placebo (69.9%). Zolbetuximab plus CAPOX represents a potential new first-line therapy for patients with CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative, locally advanced unresectable or mG/GEJ adenocarcinoma. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03653507.

Purpose: In Asian countries, paclitaxel once per week is used as second-line treatment in advanced gastric cancer, including human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) –positive tumors. The role of anti-HER2 agents, including lapatinib, in this setting and population is unclear. Patients and Methods: TyTAN was a two-part, parallel-group, phase III study in Asian patients. An open-label, dose-optimization phase (n = 12) was followed by a randomized phase (n = 261), in which patients who were HER2 positive by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) received lapatinib 1,500 mg once per day plus once-per-week paclitaxel 80 mg/m² or paclitaxel alone. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression (TTP), overall response rate (ORR), time to response, response duration, and safety. Analyses were based on immunohistochemistry (IHC) and gastrectomy status, prior trastuzumab therapy, and regional subpopulations. Results: Median OS was 11.0 months with lapatinib plus paclitaxel versus 8.9 months with paclitaxel alone (P = .1044), with no significant difference in median PFS (5.4 v 4.4 months) or TTP (5.5 v 4.4 months). ORR was higher with lapatinib plus paclitaxel versus paclitaxel alone (odds ratio, 3.85; P < .001). Better efficacy with lapatinib plus paclitaxel was demonstrated in IHC3+ compared with IHC0/1+ and 2+ patients and in Chinese compared with Japanese patients. A similar proportion of patients experienced adverse events with each treatment (lapatinib plus paclitaxel, 100% v paclitaxel alone, 98%). Conclusion: Lapatinib plus paclitaxel demonstrated activity in the second-line treatment of patients with HER2 FISH-positive IHC3+ advanced gastric cancer but did not significantly improve OS in the intent-to-treat population.

There currently are no internationally recognised treatment guidelines for patients with advanced gastric cancer/gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (GC/GEJC) in whom two prior lines of therapy have failed. The randomised, phase III JAVELIN Gastric 300 trial compared avelumab versus physician’s choice of chemotherapy as third-line therapy in patients with advanced GC/GEJC. Patients with unresectable, recurrent, locally advanced, or metastatic GC/GEJC were recruited at 147 sites globally. All patients were randomised to receive either avelumab 10 mg/kg by intravenous infusion every 2 weeks or physician’s choice of chemotherapy (paclitaxel 80 mg/m² on days 1, 8, and 15 or irinotecan 150 mg/m² on days 1 and 15, each of a 4-week treatment cycle); patients ineligible for chemotherapy received best supportive care. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. A total of 371 patients were randomised. The trial did not meet its primary end point of improving OS {median, 4.6 versus 5.0 months; hazard ratio (HR)=1.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.9–1.4]; P = 0.81} or the secondary end points of PFS [median, 1.4 versus 2.7 months; HR=1.73 (95% CI 1.4–2.2); P > 0.99] or ORR (2.2% versus 4.3%) in the avelumab versus chemotherapy arms, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of any grade occurred in 90 patients (48.9%) and 131 patients (74.0%) in the avelumab and chemotherapy arms, respectively. Grade ≥3 TRAEs occurred in 17 patients (9.2%) in the avelumab arm and in 56 patients (31.6%) in the chemotherapy arm. Treatment of patients with GC/GEJC with single-agent avelumab in the third-line setting did not result in an improvement in OS or PFS compared with chemotherapy. Avelumab showed a more manageable safety profile than chemotherapy. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02625623.