Advertisement

Dawn of precision medicine on gastric cancer

  • Takahiro Ishii
  • Akihito Kawazoe
  • Kohei ShitaraEmail author
Invited Review Article

Abstract

Background

In recent years, a better understanding of tumor biology and molecular features of gastric cancer has been reached. It may serve as a roadmap for patient stratification and trials of targeted therapies. The apparent efficacy of PD-1 blockade might be limited to a relatively small subset of advanced gastric cancer patients.

Materials and methods

In this study, preclinical and clinical studies, which investigated molecular features, promising treatment targets, and immune checkpoint inhibitor in gastric cancer, were reviewed via PubMed and the congress webpages of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society of Medical Oncology.

Results

Next-generation sequencing technologies have defined the genomic landscape of gastric cancer. Indeed, several molecular classifications have been proposed, and distinct molecular subtypes have been identified. Based on these molecular profiles, clinical trials of new agents such as receptor tyrosine kinases inhibitors, antibody–drug conjugates, and IMAB362 (anti–Claudin 18.2) are ongoing. In addition, biomarkers to predict response during immune checkpoint inhibitors and combination therapy have been enthusiastically investigated.

Conclusion

Remarkable advances in an understanding of molecular profiles of gastric cancer enable the development of novel agents. The better treatment selection of immune checkpoint inhibitors or combination therapy should be established. These developments could facilitate precision medicine on gastric cancer in the near future.

Keywords

Gastric cancer Molecular profiles Receptor tyrosine kinases Claudin 18.2 Immune checkpoint inhibitors 

Notes

Acknowledgements

No specific funding, financial disclosures or assistance declared.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R et al (2015) Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. In J Cancer Journal international du cancer 136:e359–e386Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Koizumi W, Narahara H, Hara T et al (2008) S-1 plus cisplatin versus S-1 alone for first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer (SPIRITS trial): a phase III trial. Lancet Oncol 9:215–221Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cunningham D, Starling N, Rao S et al (2008) Capecitabine and oxaliplatin for advanced esophagogastric cancer. N Engl J Med 358:36–46Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wilke H, Muro K, Van Cutsem E et al (2014) Ramucirumab plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel in patients with previously treated advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (RAINBOW): a double-blind, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 15:1224–1235Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Janowitz T, Thuss-Patience P, Marshall A et al (2016) Chemotherapy vs supportive care alone for relapsed gastric, gastroesophageal junction, and oesophageal adenocarcinoma: a meta-analysis of patient-level data. Br J Cancer 114:381–387Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fuchs CS, Tomasek J, Yong CJ et al (2014) Ramucirumab monotherapy for previously treated advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (REGARD): an international, randomised, multicentre, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet 383:31–39Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kang YK, Boku N, Satoh T et al (2017) 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 390(10111):2461–2471Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shitara K, Doi T, Dvorkin M et al (2018) Trifluridine/tipiracil versus placebo in patients with heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer (TAGS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 19(11):1437–1448Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network (2014) Comprehensive molecular characterization of gastric adenocarcinoma. Nature 513:202–209Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cristescu R, Lee J, Nebozhyn M et al (2015) Molecular analysis of gastric cancer identifies subtypes associated with distinct clinical outcomes. Nat Med 21:449–456Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Li X, Wu WK, Xing R et al (2016) Distinct subtypes of gastric cancer defined by molecular characterization include novel mutational signatures with prognostic capability. Cancer Res 76:1724–1732Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kakiuchi M, Nishizawa T, Ueda H et al (2014) Recurrent gainof- function mutations of RHOA in diffuse-type gastric carcinoma. Nat Genet 46:583–587Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wong SS, Kim KM, Ting JC et al (2014) Genomic landscape and genetic heterogeneity in gastric adenocarcinoma revealed by whole-genome sequencing. Nat Commun 5:5477Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chen K, Yang D, Li X et al (2015) Mutational landscape of gastric adenocarcinoma in Chinese: implications for prognosis and therapy. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:1107–1112Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Deng N, Goh LK, Wang H et al (2012) A comprehensive survey of genomic alterations in gastric cancer reveals systematic patterns of molecular exclusivity and co-occurrence among distinct therapeutic targets. Gut 61:673–684Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kwak EL, Ahronian LG, Siravegna G et al (2015) Molecular heterogeneity and receptor coamplification drive resistance to targeted therapy in METamplified esophagogastric cancer. Cancer Discov 5:1271–1281Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kuboki Y, Yamashita S, Niwa T et al (2016) Comprehensive analyses using next-generation sequencing and immunohistochemistry enable precise treatment in advanced gastric cancer. Ann Oncol 27:127–133Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nagatsuma AK, Aizawa M, Kuwata T et al (2015) Expression profiles of HER2, EGFR, MET and FGFR2 in a large cohort of patients with gastric adenocarcinoma. Gastric Cancer 18(2):227–238Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Satoshi Y et al (2018) The nationwide cancer genome screening project in Japan SCRUM-Japan GI-SCREEN: Efficient identification of cancer genome alterations in advanced gastric cancer (GC). J Clin Oncol 36(15_suppl):4050Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kawazoe A, Shitara K, Kuboki Y et al (2019) Clinicopathological features of 22C3 PD-L1 expression with mismatch repair, Epstein–Barr virus status, and cancer genome alterations in metastatic gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer 22(1):69–76Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stahl P, Seeschaaf C, Lebok P et al (2015) Heterogeneity of amplification of HER2, EGFR, CCND1 and MYC in gastric cancer. BMC Gastroenterol 4(15):7Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pectasides E, Stachler MD, Derks S et al (2018) Genomic heterogeneity as a barrier to precision medicine in gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. Cancer Discov 8(1):37–48Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kim ST, Banks KC, Pectasides E et al (2018) Impact of genomic alterations on lapatinib treatment outcome and cell-free genomic landscape during HER2 therapy in HER2+ gastric cancer patients. Ann Oncol 29(4):1037–1048Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kato S, Okamura R, Baumqartner JM et al (2018) Analysis of circulating tumor dna and clinical correlates in patients with esophageal, gastroesophageal junction, and gastric adenocarcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 24(24):6248–6256Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Riches JC, Schultz N, Ku GY et al (2015) Genomic profiling of esophagogastric (EG) tumors in clinical practice. J Clin Oncol 33(Suppl 3):57Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Secrier M, Li X, de Silva N et al (2016) Mutational signatures in esophageal adenocarcinoma define etiologically distinct subgroups with therapeutic relevance. Nat Genet 48:1131–1141Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bang YJ, Van Cutsem E, Feyereislova A et al (2010) Trastuzumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for treatment of HER2-positive advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (ToGA): a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 376:687–697Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kim ST, Banks KC, Pectasides E et al (2018) Impact of genomic alterations on lapatinib treatment outcome and cell-free genomic landscape during HER2 therapy in HER2+ gastric cancer patients. Ann Oncol 29(4):1037–1048Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Janjigian YY, Sanchez-Vega F, Jonsson P et al (2018) Genetic predictors of response to systemic therapy in esophagogastric cancer. Cancer Discov 8(1):49–58Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lee JY, Hong M, Kim ST et al (2018) The impact of concomitant genomic alterations on treatment outcome for trastuzumab therapy in HER2-positive. Gastric Cancer 29(4):1037–1048Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kang YK, Shah MA, Ohtsu A et al (2016) A randomized, open-label, multicenter, adaptive phase 2/3 study of trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) versus a taxane (TAX) in patients (pts) with previously treated HER2-positive locally advanced or metastatic gastric/gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (LA/MGC/GEJC). J Clin Oncol 34(Suppl 4S):5Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ruschoff J, Hanna W, Bilous M et al (2012) HER2 testing in gastric cancer: a practical approach. Mod Pathol 25(5):637–650Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lee JY, Hong M, Kim ST et al (2015) The impact of concomitant genomic alterations on treatment outcome for trastuzumab therapy in HER2-positive gastric cancer. Sci Rep 5:9289Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Press MF, Ellis CE, Gagnon RC et al (2017) HER2 status in advanced or metastatic gastric, esophageal, or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma for entry to the TRIO-013/LOGiC trial of lapatinib. Mol Cancer Ther 16(1):228–238Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ogitani Y, Aida T, Hagihara K et al (2016) DS-8201a, a novel HER2-targeting ADC with a novel dna topoisomerase i inhibitor, demonstrates a promising antitumor efficacy with differentiation from T-DM1. Clin Cancer Res 22(20):5097–5108Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Doi T, Shitara K, Naito Y et al (2017) Safety, pharmacokinetics, and antitumour activity of trastuzumab deruxtecan (DS-8201), a HER2-targeting antibody-drug conjugate, in patients with advanced breast and gastric or gastro-oesophageal tumours: a phase 1 dose-escalation study. Lancet Oncol 18(11):1512–1522Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Shitara K, Iwata H, Takahashi S et al (2017) Trastuzumab deruxtecan (DS-8201a) in patients with advanced HER2-positive gastric cancer: a dose-expansion, phase 1 study. Lancet Oncol 18(11):1512–1522Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kwak EL, LoRusso P, Hamid O et al (2015) Clinical activity of AMG 337, an oral MET kinase inhibitor, in adult patients (pts) with MET-amplified gastroesophageal junction (GEJ), gastric (G), or esophageal (E) cancer [abstract]. J Clin Oncol 33(Suppl 3):1Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Shitara K, Kim TM, Yokota T et al (2017) Phase I dose-escalation study of the c-Met tyrosine kinase inhibitor SAR125844 in Asian patients with advanced solid tumors, including patients with MET-amplified gastric cancer. Oncotarget 8(45):79546–79555Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Smyth EC, Turner NC, Peckitt C et al (2015) Phase II multicenter proof of concept study of AZD4547 in FGFR amplified tumours [abstract]. J Clin Oncol 33(Suppl):2508Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Pearson A, Smyth E, Babina IS et al (2016) High-level clonal FGFR amplification and response to FGFR inhibition in a translational clinical trial. Cancer Discov 6(8):838–851Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Van Cutsem E, Bang YJ, Mansoor W et al (2017) A randomized, open-label study of the efficacy and safety of AZD4547 monotherapy versus paclitaxel for the treatment of advanced gastric adenocarcinoma with FGFR2 polysomy or gene amplification. Ann Oncol 28(6):1316–1324Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kuboki Y, Matsumura N, Bando H et al (2017) First-in-human (FIH) study of TAS-120, a highly selective covalent oral fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitor, in patients (pts) with advanced solid tumors. Ann Oncol 28(suppl_5):v122–v141.  https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdx367 Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sase H, Nakanishi Y, Aida S et al (2018) Acquired JHDM1D-BRAF fusion confers resistance to FGFR inhibition in FGFR2-amplified gastric cancer. Mol Cancer Ther 17(10):2217–2225Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kim SY, Ahn T, Bang H et al (2017) Acquired resistance to LY2874455 in FGFR2-amplified gastric cancer through an emergence of novel FGFR2-ACSL5 fusion. Oncotarget 8(9):15014–15022Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lordick F, Kang YK, Salman P et al (2013) Clinical outcome according to tumor HER2 status and EGFR expression in advanced gastric cancer patients from the EXPAND study. J Clin Oncol 31(15_suppl):4021Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Maron SB, Alpert L, Kwak HA et al (2018) Targeted therapies for targeted populations: anti-EGFR treatment for EGFR-amplified gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. Cancer Discov 8(6):696–713Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bang YJ, Im SA, Lee KW et al (2015) Randomized, double-blind phase II trial with prospective classification by ATM protein level to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of olaparib plus paclitaxel in patients with recurrent or metastatic gastric cancer. J Clin Oncol 33:3858–3865Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Bang YJ, Xu RH, Chin K et al (2017) Olaparib in combination with paclitaxel in patients with advanced gastric cancer who have progressed following first-line therapy (GOLD): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 18(12):1637–1651Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Liu Y, Hodgson D, Locker G et al (2018) Olaparib plus paclitaxel sensitivity in biomarker subgroups of gastric cancer. Ann Oncol 29(suppl_8):viii14–viii57Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Li Y, Rogoff HA, Keates S, Gao Y, Murikipudi S, Mikule K et al (2015) Suppression of cancer relapse and metastasis by inhibiting cancer stemness. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:1839–1844Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Becerra C, Stephenson J, Jonker DJ et al (2015) Phase Ib/II study of cancer stem cell (CSC) inhibitor BBI608 combined with paclitaxel in advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma. J Clin Oncol 33(15 Suppl):4069Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Shah MA, Muro K, Shitara K et al. (2017) The BRIGHTER trial: a phase III randomized double-blind study of BBI608+ weekly paclitaxel versus placebo (PBO)+ weekly paclitaxel in patients (pts) with pretreated advanced gastric and gastro-esophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma. J Clin Oncol 36(15_suppl):4010Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Coussens LM, Fingleton B, Matrisian LM (2002) Matrix metalloproteinase inhibitors and cancer: trials and tribulations. Science 295:2387–2392Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Shah MA, Starodub A, Sharma S et al (2018) Andecaliximab/GS-5745 alone and combined with mFOLFOX6 in advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: results from a Phase I study. Clin Cancer Res 24(16):3829–3837Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Shah MA, Ruiz EY, Bodoky G et al (2019) A Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of andecaliximab combined with mFOLFOX6 as first-line treatment in patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (GAMMA-1). J Clin Oncol 37(4):4Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Samuel JK, Johanna CB, Victoria MV, et al. safety and efficacy of a DKK1 inhibitor (DKN-01) in combination with pembrolizumab (P) in patients (Pts) with advanced gastroesophageal (GE) malignancies. Anna Oncol 29(8):viii205-viii270.  https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdy282
  58. 58.
    Niimi T, Nagashima K, Ward JM et al (2001) claudin-18, a novel downstream target gene for the T/EBP/NKX2.1 homeodomain transcription factor, encodes lung- and stomach-specific isoforms through alternative splicing. Mol Cell Biol 21(21):7380–7390Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Sahin U, Koslowski M, Dhaene K et al (2008) Claudin-18 splice variant 2 is a pan-cancer target suitable for therapeutic antibody development. Clin Cancer Res 14(23):7624–7634Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Tanaka A, Ishikawa A, Ushiku T et al (2018) Frequent CLDN18-ARHGAP fusion in highly metastatic diffuse-type gastric cancer with relatively early onset. Oncotarget 9(50):29336–29350Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Singh P, Toom S, Huang Y (2017) Anti-claudin 18.2 antibody as new targeted therapy for advanced gastric cancer. J Hematol Oncol 10(1):105Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Trarbach T, Schuler M, Zvirbule Z et al (2014) Efficacy and safety of multiple doses of IMAB362 in patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer: results of a phase II study. Ann Oncol 25(4 Supplement):218Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Al-Batran SE, Schuler MH, Zvirbule Z et al (2016) FAST: an international, multicenter, randomized, phase II trial of epirubicin, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine (EOX) with or without IMAB362, a first-in-class anti-CLDN18.2 antibody, as first-line therapy in patients with advanced CLDN18.2+ gastric and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma. J Clin Oncol 34:4001Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Topalian SL, Hodi FS, Brahmer JR et al (2012) Safety, activity, and immune correlates of anti-PD-1 antibody in cancer. N Engl J Med 366(26):2443–2454Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Robert C, Long GV, Brady B et al (2015) Nivolumab in previously untreated melanoma without BRAF mutation. N Engl J Med 372(4):320–330Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Reck M, Rodríguez-Abreu D, Robinson AG et al (2016) Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for PD-L1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 375(19):1823–1833Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Herbst RS, Baas P, Kim DW et al (2016) Pembrolizumab versus docetaxel for previously treated, PD-L1-positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-010): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 387(10027):1540–1550Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Charles SF, Doi T, Raymond WJJ et al (2017) KEYNOTE-059 cohort 1: Efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab (pembro) monotherapy in patients with previously treated advanced gastric cancer. J Clin Oncol 35(15_suppl):4003Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Motzer RJ, Escudier B, McDermott DF et al (2015) Nivolumab versus everolimus in advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 373(19):1803–1813Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Pardoll DM (2012) The blockade of immune checkpoints in cancer immunotherapy. Nat Rev Cancer 12(4):252–264Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Bang YJ, Ruiz EY, Van Cutsem E et al (2018) Phase III, randomised trial of avelumab versus physician’s choice of chemotherapy as third-line treatment of patients with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer: primary analysis of JAVELIN Gastric 300. Ann Oncol 29(10):2052–2060Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Shitara K, Ozguroglu M, Bang YJ et al (2018) Pembrolizumab versus paclitaxel for previously treated, advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (KEYNOTE-061): a randomised, open-label, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet 392:123–133Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Le DT, Uram JN, Wang H et al (2015) PD-1 blockade in tumors with mismatch-repair deficiency. N Engl J Med 372(26):2509–2520Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Le DT, Durham JN, Smith KN et al (2017) Mismatch repair deficiency predicts response of solid tumors to PD-1 blockade. Science 357:409–413Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Diaz LA Jr, Marabelle A, Delord JP et al (2017) Pembrolizumab therapy for microsatellite instability high (MSI-H) colorectal cancer (CRC) and non-CRC. J Clin Oncol 35(15 suppl):3071Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Llosa NJ, Cruise M, Tam A et al (2015) The vigorous immune microenvironment of microsatellite instable colon cancer is balanced by multiple counter-inhibitory checkpoints. Cancer Discov 5(1):43–51Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Schellens JHM, MaraBelle A, Zeigenfuss S et al (2017) Pembrolizumab for previously treated advanced cervical squamous cell cancer: Preliminary results from the phase 2 KEYNOTE-158 study. J Clin Oncol 35(15_suppl):5514Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Muro K, Van Cutsem E, Narita Y et al (2019) Pan-Asian adapted ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic gastric cancer; a JSMO-ESMO initiative endorsed by CSCO, KSMO, MOS, SSO and TOS. Ann Oncol 30(1):19–33Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Kim ST, Cristescu R, Bass AJ et al (2018) Comprehensive molecular characterization of clinical responses to PD-1 inhibition in metastatic gastric cancer. Nat Med 24(9):1449–1458Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Panda A, Mehnert JM, Hirshfield KM et al (2017) Immune activation and benefit from avelumab in EBV-positive gastric cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 110(3):316–320Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Mishima S, Kawazoe A, Nakamura N et al. Clinicopathological and molecular features of responders to nivolumab for patients with advanced gastric cancer. J Immun Cancer 7(1):24Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Fukuoka S, Motooka D, Togashi Y et al (2018) Association of gut microbiome with immune status and clinical response in solid tumor patients who received on anti-PD-1 therapies. J Clin Oncol 36(15_suppl):3011Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Kang YK, Satoh T, Chao Y (2019) Evaluation of Efficacy of Nivolumab by Baseline Factors from ATTRACTION-2. J Clin Oncol 37(suppl 4):8Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Champiat S, Dercle L, Ammari S et al (2017) Hyperprogressive disease is a new pattern of progression in cancer patients treated by anti-PD-1/PD-L1. Clin Cancer Res 23:1920–1928Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Saada-Bouzid E, Defaucheux C, Karabajakian A et al (2017) Hyperprogression during anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Ann Oncol 28:1605–1611Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Kato S, Goodman A, Walavalkar V et al (2017) Hyperprogressors after immunotherapy: analysis of genomic alterations associated with accelerated growth rate. Clin Cancer Res 23:4242–4250Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Kurman JS, Murgu SD (2018) Hyperprogressive disease in patients with non-small cell lung cancer on immunotherapy. J Thoracic Dis 10:1124–1128Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Sasaki A, Nakamura Y, Mishima S et al (2018) Predictive factors for hyperprogression during nivolumab treatment in patients with advanced gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-018-00922-8
  89. 89.
    Togashi Y KT, Sasaki A et al (2018) Clinicopathological, genomic and immunological features of hyperprogressive disease during PD-1 blockade in gastric cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 36(15 suppl):4106Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Lo Russo G, Moro M, Sommariva M et al (2018) Antibody-Fc/FcR interaction on macrophages as a mechanism for hyperprogressive disease in non-small cell lung cancer subsequent to PD-1/PD-L1 blockade. Clin Cancer Res 25(3):989–999Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Roland CL, Lynn KD, Toombs JE et al (2009) Cytokine levels correlate with immune cell infiltration after anti-VEGF therapy in preclinical mouse models of breast cancer. PLoS One 4(11):e7669Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Society of Clinical Oncology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Takahiro Ishii
    • 1
  • Akihito Kawazoe
    • 1
  • Kohei Shitara
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Gastroenterology and Gastrointestinal OncologyNational Cancer Center Hospital EastKashiwaJapan

Personalised recommendations