Concurrent apatinib and docetaxel vs apatinib monotherapy as third-or subsequent-line therapy for advanced gastric adenocarcinoma: A retrospective study

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of concurrent apatinib and docetaxel therapy vs apatinib monotherapy as third-or subsequent-line treatment for advanced gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC). Methods: Patients, who had received apatinib with or without docetaxel as third or more line therapy for advanced GAC, were retrospectively reviewed. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to minimize the potential confounding bias. Kaplan–Meier curve and log-rank test were used to analyze the survival. Prognostic factors were estimated by Cox regression. Adverse events (AEs) were evaluated using CTCAE 4.0. Results: Thirty-four patients received concurrent therapy, whereas 31 received monotherapy. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in monotherapy and con-therapy groups were 2.5 and 4 months (P=0.002), 3.3 and 6 months (P=0.004), respectively. After PSM, the median PFS and OS in the con-therapy group were also superior to the monotherapy group (P=0.004 and P=0.017). Cox regression suggested that Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS; HR =2.437, 95% CI: 1.349–4.404, P=0.003), CA199 (HR =1.001, 95% CI: 1.000–1.002, P=0.016), and treatment options (HR =0.388, 95% CI: 0.222–0.679, P=0.001) had significant effects on OS. Grade 3/4 toxicities in the monotherapy and con-therapy groups were as follows: leukopenia (0% vs 8.8%), neutropenia (3.2% vs 2.9%), anemia (9.8% vs 8.8%), thrombocytopenia (6.4% vs 2.9%), proteinuria (3.2% vs 2.9%), aminotransferase (0% vs 11.8%), hyperbilirubinemia (9.8% vs 5.9%), hypertension (9.8% vs 5.9%), hand–foot syndrome (3.2% vs 8.8%), nausea and vomiting (0% vs 11.8%), diarrhea (0% vs 5.9%), and fatigue (6.5% vs 2.9%). Conclusion: Patients with advanced GAC benefit more from concurrent apatinib and docetaxel therapy than apatinib monotherapy.