Li Sun, Zhimin Gong, Lei Wang, Li Kuang, Qiao Huang, Bo Pei, Xianglin Yuan, Hong Qiu
{"title":"Multi-Center Phase II Study of Nab-Paclitaxel Plus Camrelizumab Versus Nab-Paclitaxel Alone as Second-Line Treatment for Advanced Gastric Cancer.","authors":"Li Sun, Zhimin Gong, Lei Wang, Li Kuang, Qiao Huang, Bo Pei, Xianglin Yuan, Hong Qiu","doi":"10.1093/oncolo/oyaf189","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Nab-paclitaxel is a standard second-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer, but the role of PD-1 inhibitors remains uncertain. This multicenter, randomized phase II trial evaluated the efficacy of nab-paclitaxel plus camrelizumab (Cam-NP) versus nab-paclitaxel alone (NP) in patients with advanced gastric adenocarcinoma resistant to prior treatment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients were randomized to receive either Cam-NP or NP until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. The primary endpoint was the overall response rate (ORR), with secondary endpoints including progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>61 patients were randomized, with 58 receiving treatments. At a median follow-up of 34.5 months, the Cam-NP group achieved a significantly higher ORR (33.3% vs. 10.7%; p = 0.039) and longer median PFS (5.62 vs. 4.21 months; p = 0.006). Median response duration also favored Cam-NP (4.64 vs. 2.96 months; p = 0.058). While the Cam-NP group showed a longer OS (9.8 vs. 7.2 months; p = 0.087), this was not statistically significant. The most common grade 3-4 adverse event was hematological toxicity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Cam-NP significantly improved ORR and PFS compared to NP as a second-line treatment for advanced gastric adenocarcinoma. Larger studies and biomarker exploration are needed to validate these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":54686,"journal":{"name":"Oncologist","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oncologist","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oncolo/oyaf189","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Nab-paclitaxel is a standard second-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer, but the role of PD-1 inhibitors remains uncertain. This multicenter, randomized phase II trial evaluated the efficacy of nab-paclitaxel plus camrelizumab (Cam-NP) versus nab-paclitaxel alone (NP) in patients with advanced gastric adenocarcinoma resistant to prior treatment.
Methods: Patients were randomized to receive either Cam-NP or NP until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. The primary endpoint was the overall response rate (ORR), with secondary endpoints including progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety.
Results: 61 patients were randomized, with 58 receiving treatments. At a median follow-up of 34.5 months, the Cam-NP group achieved a significantly higher ORR (33.3% vs. 10.7%; p = 0.039) and longer median PFS (5.62 vs. 4.21 months; p = 0.006). Median response duration also favored Cam-NP (4.64 vs. 2.96 months; p = 0.058). While the Cam-NP group showed a longer OS (9.8 vs. 7.2 months; p = 0.087), this was not statistically significant. The most common grade 3-4 adverse event was hematological toxicity.
Conclusions: Cam-NP significantly improved ORR and PFS compared to NP as a second-line treatment for advanced gastric adenocarcinoma. Larger studies and biomarker exploration are needed to validate these findings.
期刊介绍:
The Oncologist® is dedicated to translating the latest research developments into the best multidimensional care for cancer patients. Thus, The Oncologist is committed to helping physicians excel in this ever-expanding environment through the publication of timely reviews, original studies, and commentaries on important developments. We believe that the practice of oncology requires both an understanding of a range of disciplines encompassing basic science related to cancer, translational research, and clinical practice, but also the socioeconomic and psychosocial factors that determine access to care and quality of life and function following cancer treatment.