Publication: Efficacy and safety of systemic regimens for resectable gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Loading...
Program
KU-Authors
Organization Authors
Co-Authors
Nohmi, R. L.
Mamede, I.
Hoffmann Da Silva, R.
Silva, G. B. E.
Simoes, A. R.
Fernandes, G. D. S.
Andrade, M. D. O.
Date
Language
eng
Type
Embargo Status
N/A
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Alternative Title
Abstract
Perioperative systemic therapy is the standard of care for resectable locally advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) adenocarcinoma. The emergence of multiple chemoimmunotherapy regimens warrants updated comparative evaluation. Methods A systematic review identified randomized controlled trials evaluating systemic therapy strategies for resectable locally advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma. Chemoradiotherapy-based approaches were not included. Overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), grade 3–4 adverse events, treatment-related discontinuation, and treatment-related deaths were analyzed. A Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis was conducted, with treatment rankings based on surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Results Across 30 trials (11,547 patients), sixteen strategies were compared. Perioperative taxane-based triplet chemotherapy (P-Trp-Tax) plus an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) ranked highest for OS (SUCRA = 0.952) and DFS (SUCRA = 0.959). P-Trp-Tax + ICI showed a numerically favorable trend compared with P-Trp-Tax for OS (HR 0.79; 95% CrI, 0.59–1.05), although the estimate was imprecise. A more consistent benefit was observed for DFS (HR 0.72; 95% CrI, 0.56–0.93). Comparisons versus P-Dbl + ICI were imprecise (OS HR 0.76; 95% CrI, 0.45–1.26; DFS HR 0.74; 95% CrI, 0.46–1.19). Toxicity profiles were consistent with known patterns, without increased high-grade adverse events with ICIs, with estimates limited by heterogeneity and sparse data. Conclusions P-Trp-Tax + ICI had the highest probability of being among the most effective strategies in this analysis. These findings suggest a potential benefit of treatment intensification, but should be interpreted with caution given reliance on indirect comparisons, limited direct evidence for key regimens, and wide credible intervals for several estimates.
Source
Publisher
Elsevier
Subject
Citation
item.page.haspartof
Source
Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology
item.page.ispartofseries
item.page.edition
DOI
10.1016/j.critrevonc.2026.105359
item.page.datauri
item.page.link
Rights
N/A
