Adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy for MSI early gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background:

Perioperative chemotherapy (CT) is an established therapeutic approach for patients diagnosed with stage IB–III gastric cancer (GC).

Objectives:

This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of this approach in individuals with GC exhibiting high microsatellite instability (MSI-H).

Design:

A systematic review was conducted, including studies that provided data on (neo)adjuvant CT outcomes in patients with MSI-H GC.

Methods:

Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Central of Controlled Trials, and Embase databases. Data were aggregated using hazard ratios (HRs) to compare overall survival between CT and surgery.

Results:

Data analysis from 23 studies, including 22,011 patients, revealed that the prevalence of MSI-H is 9.8%. Administration of adjuvant or perioperative CT did not significantly reduce the risk of death or relapse in patients with MSI-H GC (HR = 0.8, 95% CI 0.54–1.16; p = 0.24 and HR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.59–1.18; p = 0.31, respectively).

Conclusion:

Chemotherapy did not benefit patients diagnosed with MSI-H nonmetastatic GC but rather will be integrated with immune checkpoint inhibitors in the near future.

Keywords

adjuvant chemotherapy gastric cancer meta-analysis MSI neoadjuvant survival

Introduction

Globally, gastric cancer (GC) ranks as the fifth most common malignancy, with an incidence of 1,089,103 new cases per year, and it is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death, with 768,793 fatalities in 2020. The incidence of GC varies geographically, being more frequent in Asia, Eastern and Central Europe, and South America.¹ Radical gastrectomy remains the definitive treatment for gastric cancer. However, a multimodal treatment approach is necessary to improve outcomes in the early and advanced stages, particularly with lymph node involvement or in stages greater than T1 (stages IB–III).

A multidisciplinary team, including oncologists, gastroenterologists, radiologists, pathologists, and surgeons, collaboratively reviews and discusses each case to formulate a tailored preoperative management plan. This plan is usually based on individual factors such as tumor and molecular characteristics, clinical and surgical staging, overall health, and personal preferences, aiming to maximize the chances of successful surgical resection and improve long-term outcomes. According to NCCN and ESMO guidelines, perioperative treatment with a triplet regimen is the preferred option for fit patients.^2,3 Adjuvant (radio)chemotherapy is another viable option for patients undergoing less than D2 lymph node dissection.^4–6

In all newly diagnosed cases of GC, a mandatory molecular characterization assessment typically includes evaluating the microsatellite instability (MSI)/Mismatch repair (MMR) status. Four GC subtypes are recognized, each with different prognoses, clinical characteristics, and potential targeted therapies.⁷

In current clinical practice, MMR deficiency (dMMR) is evaluated by performing immunohistochemistry (IHC) to assess the nuclear expression of DNA mismatch repair proteins (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2). MSI status is determined at the gene expression level of microsatellite markers using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests.⁸ MSI-H or dMMR status, associated with a better prognosis, is present in about 8–10% of GC cases. In metastatic GC, therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors plays a significant role and represents the standard of care in advanced settings where PD-L1 is expressed. The most significant benefit is observed in patients with MSI-H tumors. Ongoing trials are investigating the use of immunotherapy in neoadjuvant and perioperative settings for MSI-H GC.^9–14

This meta-analysis was designed to determine whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy offers an advantage to patients with MSI-H GC.

Methods

This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement.

Eligibility criteria and search strategy

We included prospective and retrospective studies that assessed the efficacy of adjuvant, perioperative, and neoadjuvant CT in patients with nonmetastatic MSI-H GC. All patients with early-stage or locally advanced disease were included in this meta-analysis, regardless of the histological subtype, sex, race, and country. We excluded patients who received immune checkpoint inhibitors in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting.

We searched several electronic databases on 30 April 2023, including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, and EMBASE, using the following terms: (gastroesophageal or gastric or stomach) and (cancer or carcinoma), and chemotherapy and (dMMR or MSI or microsatellite or mismatch repair). We also manually checked eligible studies’ reference lists and cited articles.

Data extraction and statistical analysis

Two authors (FP and MA) independently screened the titles and abstracts of the articles identified in the search and assessed study eligibility based on the full texts. Disagreements between the two authors were resolved by discussion. We performed abstract and full-text screening using the prescribed criteria. Using a standardized data collection form, two authors (FP and MA) independently extracted the data from the included studies. All disagreements were resolved by discussion. Two authors (FP and MA) independently evaluated the risk of bias using the ROBINS tool.¹⁵ A third author (GT) discussed any disagreements between the two authors. We used the Newcastle–Ottawa scale to assess the methodological quality of the observational studies.¹⁶

We performed a meta-analysis using the Review Manager software (RevMan 5.4.1; Nordic Cochrane Center, Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS). We pooled the data using a random-effects model. We calculated the pooled hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the two primary endpoints. Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated by visual inspection of the forest plots and I² statistics.

We performed a subgroup analysis according to trial quality (Nottingham-Ottawa Scale (NOS) > 7), median follow-up (at least 5 years), country, and type of CT (adjuvant versus perioperative/neoadjuvant). A two-tailed p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Figure 1 illustrates a flow diagram of the study selection process. After screening the titles and abstracts of the identified articles, 76 relevant ones were identified. Eligibility assessment based on the full text resulted in the final inclusion of 23 records.^17–39

Figure 1.

Flow diagram of included studies.

The characteristics of the 23 included studies are summarized in Table 1. Two retrospective studies evaluated randomized clinical trials (RCT; one meta-analysis of four RCTs and one retrospective analysis of one RCT), one case–control study, one prospective observational study, and n = 19 retrospective series for a total of 22,011 GC patients (n = 2161 were MSI; 9.8%).

Table 1.

Characteristics of included studies.

Author/years	Type of study	Median follow-up (months)	Country	No. pts(MSI + MSS)	No. MSI (CT + S versus S)	Type of MSI evaluation	Type of CT	Stage	OS available	DFS available	Quality	Bias
Akimoto/2023	Case–control study	NR	Japan	679	71 (41 versus 30)	IHC	Adjuvant	II/III	√	√	6	Low
An/2012	Retrospective	30.2	Korea	1990	170	PCR	Adjuvant	I/II/III/IV	–	√	6	Low
Kim/2020	Retrospective	71.1 in cohort 1 87.9 in cohort 2	Japan	521	203	PCR	Adjuvant	Ib/II/III	√	√	8	Low
Bermudez/2021	Retrospective	NR	Spain	142	23 (5 versus18)	IHC	Adjuvant	I/II/III/IV	√	–	5	High
Biesma /2022	Retrospective analysis of 1 RCT	NR	Netherland	898	74	PCR and IHC	Perioperative	I/II/III/IV	√	√	6	Moderate
Cai/2020	Retrospective	NR	China	690	57 (42 versus15)	IHC and PCR	Neoadjuvant	III	√	√	6	Uncertain
Kim /2015	Retrospective	47	Korea	1276	105 (58 versus47)	PCR	Adjuvant	II/III	√	–	6	Low
Hashimoto/2019	Retrospective	58.4	Japan	285	28 (12 versus 16)	IHC e PCR	Neoadjuvant	III/IV	–	√	7	Low
Guan /2021	Retrospective	NR	China	890	196	IHC e PCR	Adjuvant-1 line	I/II/III/IV	√	√	5	Low
Dai /2019	Retrospective	NR	China + western	429	102 (32 versus 70)	PCR	Adjuvant	IB/II/III	√	√	5	Uncertain
Kohlruss /2021	Retrospective	60.7	Germany	717	67 (32 versus 35)	PCR	Neoadjuvant	II/III	√	–	7	Low
Oh/2021	Retrospective	70	Korea	838	100 (40 versus 60)	PCR	Adjuvant CT e CTRT	IIA	–	√	8	Low
Pietrantonio/2019	Individual-patient-data meta-analysis of four RCTs*	NR	Asian and European	1556	121 (88 versus 33)	PCR and IHC	Perioop and adjuvant ± RT	II/III	√	√	8	Low
Ramos/2019	Retrospective	36,9	Brazil	171	31	IHC	Adjuvant CT/CTRT	II/III	√	√	6	Moderate
Quaas/2022	Retrospective	NR	Netherland	1307	115 (39 versus 76)	PCR and IHC	Perioperative CT/CTRT	I/IV	√	–	6	Low
Neto do Nascimento/2023	Retrospective	41	Portugal	137	37 (11 versus 26)	PCR	Perioperative CT	II/III	√	–	7	Low
Shon/2017	Retrospective	NR	Korea	699	NR	PCR/NGS	Adjuvant	II/III	√	√	5	Moderate
Stolze/2023	Retrospective	NR	Germany	223	23 (10 versus 13)	IHC	Perioperative CT	II/III	√	–	5	Uncertain
Vos/2022	Retrospective	34	US	535	82 (50 versus 32)	NGS and IHC	Perioperative, or adjuvant CT	III/IV	√	√	6	Low
Zhao-Li/2023	Prospective, observational	36	China	479	69 (54 versus 15)	IHC	Adjuvant	II/III	√	√	6	Low
Wang/2020	Retrospective	NR	China	444	111	IHC	Adjuvant	II/III	√	–	5	Moderate
Zhao-Fu/2023	Retrospective	NR	China	6176	293 (191 versus 102)	IHC	Perioperative and adjuvant	I/II/III	√	√	6	Low
Tsai/2020	Retrospective	NR	Taiwan	929	83 (59 versus 24)	IHC	Adjuvant	II/III/IV	√	√	6	Low

Only analysis of MAGIC and CLASSIC trials were used.

Adj, adjuvant; CT, chemotherapy; DFS, disease-free survival; IHC, immunohistochemistry; MSI, microsatellite instability; MSS, microsatellite stable; NGS, next-generation sequencing; NR, not reported; OS, overall survival; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; RCT, randomized controlled trials; RT, radiotherapy; US, United States.

Overall, 15 studies had a low risk of bias (65%) and 17 were of sufficient or high quality according to the NOS score (74%).

Chemotherapy was delivered in n = 3, n = 13, and n = 6 studies in neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and perioperative settings, respectively.

Overall survival

Seventeen trials reported OS data. Overall, adjuvant or perioperative CT resulted in a non-significant reduction in the risk of death (HR = 0.8, 95% CI 0.54–1.16; p = 0.24; Figure 2) with high heterogeneity (I² = 91%, p < 0.01).

Figure 2.

Overall survival with adjuvant chemotherapy versus surgery alone in MSI gastric cancer.

Disease-free survival

Sixteen trials reported an analysis of DFS. Chemotherapy resulted in a nonsignificant reduction in the risk of relapse (HR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.59–1.18; p = 0.31; Figure 3), with high heterogeneity (I² = 73%, p < 0.01).

Figure 3.

Disease-free survival with adjuvant chemotherapy versus surgery alone in MSI gastric cancer.

Subgroup analysis

In studies with higher-quality scores (NOS score ⩾ 7), the risk of death with CT was similar to that in the main analysis (HR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.53–1.21; p = 0.29). Only two papers reported median follow-up over 5 years; therefore, subgroup analysis was not performed. In both Asian populations and Western countries, the effect of CT was similar (HR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.28–1.78; p = 0.47 and HR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.57–1.04). The effect of adjuvant CT (HR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.33–1.53; p = 0.38) was similar to that of perioperative CT (HR = 0.72, 95% CI 0.51–1.01; p = 0.06).

Discussion

This meta-analysis was specifically designed to evaluate the effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in a distinct subgroup of GC patients characterized by microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) status. The primary objective was to shed light on the ambiguous benefits of both neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy in this specific patient population. Our comprehensive analysis revealed a notable absence of significant improvement in key survival metrics, namely OS and DFS, across both adjuvant and perioperative treatment settings.

A critical aspect of this study was the examination of findings from previous studies, notably those conducted by Pietrantonio et al. and Nie et al.^40,41 These inconsistencies are crucial as they underline the complex and multifaceted nature of MSI-H GC and the difference in included studies. Nie and colleagues conducted a review of only seven retrospective studies, each inherently subject to bias. By contrast, the meta-analysis by Pietrantonio et al., despite the limited number of MSI-H GC cases, presents for the first time the results of an individual patient data meta-analysis. This analysis focuses on the impact of MSI status on long-term oncologic outcomes for patients with resectable GC who were treated in large RCT.

The reduced treatment efficacy observed in these studies suggests that MSI-H GC should not be treated as a uniform disease entity. Instead, it appears to be a heterogeneous condition that demands a more nuanced and detailed molecular classification system. Such a system would enable the development of more precisely targeted treatment strategies, tailored to the unique characteristics of each patient’s disease.

One of the most promising directions emerging from this meta-analysis is the observed positive correlation between MSI-H status and the efficacy of immunotherapy, particularly in patients exhibiting high PD-L1 scores. This correlation indicates a potential paradigm shift away from traditional chemotherapy toward immunotherapy, especially for those patients who demonstrate poor responsiveness to conventional chemotherapy treatments. This shift underscores the growing importance of developing personalized treatment plans based on each tumor’s detailed molecular and genetic profiling. Supporting this notion, a recent meta-analysis focusing on locally advanced GC highlighted the effectiveness of therapy based on immune checkpoint inhibitors in a neoadjuvant context. According to the findings reported by Li et al., the most significant benefits of this approach were seen in MSI-H patients with high PD-L1 scores.⁴² An intriguing finding from the prospective phase II DANTE trial, conducted in the preoperative setting, was that the combination of 5-Fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, taxotere (FLOT) chemotherapy and atezolizumab resulted in more effective downsizing than the FLOT alone regimen [complete pathological response (pT0), 23% versus 15%; node-negative status (pN0), 68% versus 54%]. Increases in pathological regression rates were observed, particularly in cases with higher PD-L1 expression. However, the trial did not gather data on OS or DFS, which limits the ability to understand the long-term impacts of this treatment approach fully.⁴³ Similarly, the KEYNOTE-585 study randomized GC patients to receive either neoadjuvant and adjuvant pembrolizumab or placebo combined with chemotherapy. Differences in pathological complete responses, in favor of the experimental arm, were 37% in patients with MSI-H tumors who received pembrolizumab but only 7% in those with microsatellite stable (MSS) tumors. This was even though OS and event-free survival were similar between the pembrolizumab and placebo groups.⁴⁴

Based on this rationale and considering the data from the metastatic setting, perioperative or neoadjuvant treatment using PD-1 inhibitors combined with chemotherapy appears to be theoretically superior to chemotherapy alone for patients with dMMR/MSI-H GC before radical surgery. For this reason, chemotherapy should probably not be abandoned but instead augmented with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

However, our meta-analysis is not without limitations. It was primarily based on retrospective studies that met specific inclusion criteria. As a result, the predictive role of MSI status in patients could not be verified through prospective, RCT. In addition, the analysis encompassed a diverse array of patient populations, disease settings (including both adjuvant and neoadjuvant contexts), surgical approaches (ranging from D1 to D2 lymphadenectomy), chemotherapy regimens (primarily older agents), and racial backgrounds. Another point of consideration is the variation in MSI assessment techniques used across the studies, which were predominantly conducted at the time of surgery rather than at diagnosis. Despite these limitations, our study stands as the most extensive and up-to-date meta-analysis evaluating the predictive role of MSI in GC treated with perioperative/adjuvant chemotherapy or surgery for localized or locally advanced disease.

The reliance on retrospective studies underscores an urgent need for more prospective, randomized trials in this area. Such studies would provide stronger, more conclusive data and would help in more clearly defining the role of MSI status in guiding treatment decisions. The diversity in patient populations, disease settings, and treatment regimens examined in our meta-analysis accurately reflects the real-world complexity of treating GC. Future research efforts should aim to embrace this diversity to ensure the findings are broadly applicable and relevant. Furthermore, the differences in MSI assessment techniques across studies present a significant challenge. Establishing a standardized, universally accepted method for MSI assessment is essential for future research, as it would ensure consistency and comparability of results across different studies.⁴⁵

Conclusion

In conclusion, the lack of significant benefit from adjuvant or perioperative chemotherapy in patients with MSI-H GC necessitates critically reevaluating current treatment strategies for this subgroup. There is a compelling need to integrate modern chemotherapy regimens and immune checkpoint inhibitors in both neoadjuvant and perioperative settings. Moreover, the inclusion of MSI-H GC patients in clinical and translational studies is imperative for developing more effective, personalized treatment approaches that cater to this patient subgroup’s specific needs and characteristics.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-tam-10.1177_17588359241231259 – Supplemental material for Adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy for MSI early gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-tam-10.1177_17588359241231259 for Adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy for MSI early gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis by Fausto Petrelli, Maria Antista, Francesca Marra, Fulvia Milena Cribiu’, Valentina Rampulla, Filippo Pietrantonio, Lorenzo Dottorini, Michele Ghidini, Andrea Luciani, Alberto Zaniboni and Gianluca Tomasello in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-tam-10.1177_17588359241231259 – Supplemental material for Adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy for MSI early gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-tam-10.1177_17588359241231259 for Adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy for MSI early gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis by Fausto Petrelli, Maria Antista, Francesca Marra, Fulvia Milena Cribiu’, Valentina Rampulla, Filippo Pietrantonio, Lorenzo Dottorini, Michele Ghidini, Andrea Luciani, Alberto Zaniboni and Gianluca Tomasello in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

None.

Declarations

ORCID iD

Fausto Petrelli

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Global Cancer Observatory: Cancer Today. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer. https://gco.iarc.fr/today (accessed 10 June 2023).

Al-Batran

S-E

Homann

Pauligk

, et al. Perioperative chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel versus fluorouracil or capecitabine plus cisplatin and epirubicin for locally advanced, resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (FLOT4): a randomised, phase 2/3 trial. Lancet 2019; 393: 1948–1957.

Ychou

Boige

Pignon

J-P

, et al. Perioperative chemotherapy compared with surgery alone for resectable gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma: an FNCLCC and FFCD multicenter phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 1715–1721.

Smalley

Benedetti

Haller

, et al. Updated analysis of SWOG-directed intergroup study 0116: a phase III trial of adjuvant radiochemotherapy versus observation after curative gastric cancer resection. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 2327–2333.

Noh

Park

Yang

, et al. Adjuvant capecitabine plus oxaliplatin for gastric cancer after D2 gastrectomy (CLASSIC): 5-year follow-up of an openlabel, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 1389–1396.

Park

Sohn

Lee

, et al. Phase III trial to compare adjuvant chemotherapy with capecitabine and cisplatin versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy in gastric cancer: final report of the adjuvant chemoradiotherapy in stomach tumors trial, including survival and subset analyses. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33: 3130–3136.

The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Comprehensive molecular characterization of gastric adenocarcinoma. Nature 2014; 513: 202–209.

Murphy

Zhang

Geiger

, et al. Comparison of the microsatellite instability analysis system and the Bethesda panel for the determination of microsatellite instability in colorectal cancers. J Mol Diagn 2006; 8: 305–311.

Fuchs

Doi

Jang

, et al. Safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with previously treated advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer: phase 2 clinical KEYNOTE-059 trial. JAMA Oncol 2018; 4: e180013.

10.

Kang

Boku

Satoh

, et al. Nivolumab in patients with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer refractory to, or intolerant of, at least two previous chemotherapy regimens (ONO-4538-12, ATTRACTION-2): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2017; 390: 2461–2471.

11.

Janjigian

Shitara

Moehler

, et al. First-line nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for advanced gastric, gastro-oesophageal junction, and oesophageal adenocarcinoma (CheckMate 649): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2021; 398: 27–40.

12.

Janjigian

Kawazoe

Yanez

, et al. The KEYNOTE-811 trial of dual PD-1 and HER2 blockade in HER2-positive gastric cancer. Nature 2021; 600: 727–730.

13.

André

Tougeron

Piessen

, et al. Neoadjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab and adjuvant nivolumab in localized deficient mismatch repair/microsatellite instability-high gastric or esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma: the GERCOR NEONIPIGA phase II study. J Clin Oncol 2023; 41: 255.

14.

Pietrantonio

Raimondi

Lonardi

, et al. TremelImumab and Durvalumab Combination for the Non-OperatIve Management (NOM) of Microsatellite InstabiliTY (MSI)-High Resectable Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer: the multicentre, single-arm, multi-cohort, phase II INFINITY study. J Clin Oncol 2023; 41: 358–358.

15.

Sterne

Hernán

Reeves

, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016; 355: i4919.

16.

Stang

Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol 2010; 25: 603–605.

17.

Zhao

Shen

, et al. Correlation between mismatch repair and survival of patients with gastric cancer after 5-FU-based adjuvant chemotherapy. J Gastroenterol 2023; 58: 622–632.

18.

Wang

J Bin

Liu

, et al. An immune checkpoint score system for prognostic evaluation and adjuvant chemotherapy selection in gastric cancer. Nat Commun 2020; 11.

19.

do Nascimento

Mascarenhas-Lemos

Silva

, et al. EBV and MSI status in gastric cancer: does it matter? Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15: 1–17. doi:10.3390/cancers15010074

20.

Kohlruss

Ott

Grosser

, et al. Sexual difference matters: Females with high microsatellite instability show increased survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in gastric cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13: 1–13.

21.

Kim

Cho

Chae

, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy in microsatellite instability–high gastric cancer. Cancer Res Treat 2020; 52: 1178–1187.

22.

Kim

Choi

, et al. The benefit of microsatellite instability is attenuated by chemotherapy in stage II and stage III gastric cancer: results from a large cohort with subgroup analyses. Int J Cancer 2015; 137: 819–825.

23.

Hashimoto

Kurokawa

Takahashi

, et al. Predictive value of MLH1 and PD-L1 expression for prognosis and response to preoperative chemotherapy in gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer 2019; 22: 785–792.

24.

Guan

Cui

, et al. The impact of mismatch repair status on prognosis of patients with gastric cancer: a multicenter analysis. Front Oncol 2021; 11: 1–10.

25.

Dai

Zhao

, et al. Association between the microsatellite instability status and the efficacy of postoperative adjuvant chemoradiotherapy in patients with gastric cancer. Front Oncol 2020; 9: 1–10.

26.

Cai

Rui

, et al. Microsatellite status affects tumor response and survival in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for clinical stage III gastric cancer. Front Oncol 2020; 10: 1–10.

27.

Biesma

Soeratram

TTD

Sikorska

, et al. Response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and survival in molecular subtypes of resectable gastric cancer: a post hoc analysis of the D1/D2 and CRITICS trials. Gastric Cancer 2022; 25: 640–651.

28.

Bermúdez

Arranz-Salas

Mercado

, et al. Her2-positive and microsatellite instability status in gastric cancer—clinicopathological implications. Diagnostics 2021; 11: 1–17.

29.

Vos

Maron

Krell

, et al. Survival of locally advanced msi-high gastric cancer patients treated with perioperative chemotherapy: a retrospective cohort study. Ann Surg 2023; 277: 798–805.

30.

Kim

Cheong

, et al. Microsatellite instability in sporadic gastric cancer: Its prognostic role and guidance for 5-FU based chemotherapy after R0 resection. Int J Cancer 2012; 131: 505–511.

31.

Akimoto

Kuwata

Shitara

, et al. Impact of programmed death-ligand 1 expression on mismatch repair deficiency and epstein–barr virus status on survival outcomes in patients with stage II/III gastric cancer after surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 2023; 30: 5227–5236.

32.

Tsai

C-Y

Lin

T-A

Huang

S-C

, et al. Is adjuvant chemotherapy necessary for patients with deficient mismatch repair gastric cancer?—Autophagy inhibition matches the mismatched. Oncologist 2020; 25: e1021–e1030.

33.

Stolze

Franke

Haybaeck

, et al. Mismatch repair deficiency, chemotherapy and survival for resectable gastric cancer: an observational study from the German staR cohort and a meta-analysis. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2023; 149: 1007–1017.

34.

Sohn

Hwang

Jang

, et al. Clinical significance of four molecular subtypes of gastric cancer identified by The Cancer Genome Atlas project. Clin Cancer Res 2017; 23: 4441–4449.

35.

Ramos

MFKP

Pereira

Amorim

, et al. Gastric cancer molecular classification and adjuvant therapy: Is there a different benefit according to the subtype? J Surg Oncol 2020; 121: 804–813.

36.

Quaas

Biesma

Wagner

, et al. Microsatellite instability and sex differences in resectable gastric cancer – A pooled analysis of three European cohorts. Eur J Cancer 2022; 173: 95–104.

37.

Pietrantonio

Miceli

Raimondi

, et al. Individual patient data meta-analysis of the value of microsatellite instability as a biomarker in gastric cancer. J Clin Oncol 2019; 37: 3392–3400.

38.

Kim

, et al. Microsatellite instability and effectiveness of adjuvant treatment in pT1N1 gastric cancer: a multicohort study. Ann Surg Oncol 2021; 28: 8908–8915.

39.

Zhao

Niu

, et al. Perioperative chemotherapy could not improve the prognosis of gastric cancer patients with mismatch repair deficiency: a multicenter, real-world study. Oncologist 2023; 28: e891–e901.

40.

Pietrantonio

Miceli

Raimondi

, et al. Pietrantonio, Individual patient data meta-analysis of the value of microsatellite instability as a biomarker in gastric cancer. J Clin Oncol 2019; 37: 3392–3400.

41.

Nie

Chen

Yuan

, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy for gastric cancer patients with mismatch repair deficiency or microsatellite instability: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 2022; 29: 3193.

42.

Dai

Neoadjuvant therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors in gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 2023; 30: 3594–3602.

43.

Al-Batran

Lorenzen

Homann Pathological regression in patients with microsatellite instability (MSI) receiving perioperative atezolizumab in combination with FLOT vs. FLOT alone for resectable esophagogastric adenocarcinoma: results from the DANTE trial of the German Gastric Group at the AIO and SAKK. Ann Oncol 2021; 32: S1069.

44.

Shitara

Rha

Wyrwicz

, et al. Neoadjuvant and adjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in locally advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal cancer (KEYNOTE-585): an interim analysis of the multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. Epub ahead of print 19 December 2023. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00541-7

45.

Smyth

Wotherspoon

Peckitt

, et al. Mismatch repair deficiency, microsatellite instability, and survival: an exploratory analysis of the medical research council adjuvant gastric infusional chemotherapy (MAGIC) trial. JAMA Oncol 2017; 3: 1197–1203.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB

0.03 MB