METHODS: We searched PubMed-MEDLINE, Embase and Scopus, from inception to 20 Sep 2019, and reviewed major conferences' abstracts, for randomised controlled trials of ICI in advanced-stage NSCLC (Stage IIIB or IV) without EGFR mutation that reported hazard ratios (HRs) stratified by geographical region including the region "Asia" or "East Asia". The primary outcome measures were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The pooled HR and its 95% confidence interval (CI) for OS and PFS in East Asians and non-East Asians were calculated using a random effect model and the difference compared using an interaction test.

RESULTS: A total of 5,465 patients from 7 randomised controlled trials involving CTLA-4 and/or PD-1/L1 inhibitors were included, with 1,740 (32%) East Asians and 3,725 (68%) non-East Asians. ICI was associated with an improvement in OS and PFS for both East Asian (OS HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65-0.85; PFS HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.40-0.79) and non-East Asian patients (OS HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.72-0.85; PFS HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56-0.85), with no significant difference between the two groups (Pinteraction=0.55 for OS; Pinteraction=0.33 for PFS). Subgroup analyses showed a statistically significant superior PFS (but not OS) for East Asians than non-East Asians in trials that used immune checkpoint inhibitor in the first-line treatment (Pinteraction=0.02). No significant regional difference was found in further subgroups of pure ICI and combination of ICI with chemotherapy.

METHODS: Patients with advanced solid cancers were randomized 1:1 to 3-weekly docetaxel 75 mg/m2, with or without sunitinib 12.5 mg daily for 7 days prior to docetaxel, stratified by primary tumour site. Primary endpoints were objective-response (ORR:CR + PR) and clinical-benefit rate (CBR:CR + PR + SD); secondary endpoints were toxicity and progression-free-survival (PFS).

RESULTS: We enrolled 68 patients from 2 study sites; 33 received docetaxel-sunitinib and 35 docetaxel alone, with 33 breast, 25 lung and 10 patients with other cancers. There was no difference in ORR (30.3% vs 28.6%, p = 0.432, odds-ratio [OR] 1.10, 95% CI 0.38-3.18); CBR was lower in the docetaxel-sunitinib arm (48.5% vs 71.4%, p = 0.027 OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.14-1.01). Median PFS was shorter in the docetaxel-sunitinib arm (2.9 vs 4.9 months, hazard-ratio [HR] 2.00, 95% CI 1.15-3.48, p = 0.014) overall, as well as in breast (4.2 vs 5.6 months, p = 0.048) and other cancers (2.0 vs 5.3 months, p = 0.009), but not in lung cancers (2.9 vs 4.1 months, p = 0.597). Median OS was similar in both arms overall (9.9 vs 10.5 months, HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.51-1.67, p = 0.789), and in the breast (18.9 vs 25.8 months, p = 0.354), lung (7.0 vs 6.7 months, p = 0.970) and other cancers (4.5 vs 8.8 months, p = 0.449) subgroups. Grade 3/4 haematological toxicities were lower with docetaxel-sunitinib (18.2% vs 34.3%, p = 0.132), attributed to greater discretionary use of prophylactic G-CSF (90.9% vs 63.0%, p = 0.024). Grade 3/4 non-haematological toxicities were similar (12.1% vs 14.3%, p = 0.792).

CONCLUSIONS: The addition of sunitinib to docetaxel was well-tolerated but did not improve outcomes. The possible negative impact in metastatic breast cancer patients is contrary to results of adding sunitinib to neoadjuvant AC. These negative results suggest that the intermittent administration of sunitinib in the current dose and schedule with docetaxel in advanced solid tumours, particularly breast cancers, is not beneficial.

METHODS: An open-label, non-inferiority, 1:1 randomized trial was conducted at three academic hospitals in South East Asia, involving 322 ethnically diverse patients newly indicated for warfarin (NCT00700895). Clinical follow-up was 90 days. The primary efficacy measure was the number of dose titrations within the first 2 weeks of therapy, with a mean non-inferiority margin of 0.5 over the first 14 days of therapy.

METHODS: In this open-label, phase 3, multicentre randomised trial, patients aged 21-80 years with cT3 or cT4 gastric cancer undergoing curative resection were enrolled at 22 centres from South Korea, China, Japan, Malaysia, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Patients were randomly assigned to receive surgery and EIPL (EIPL group) or surgery alone (standard surgery group) via a web-based programme in random permuted blocks in varying block sizes of four and six, assuming equal allocation between treatment groups. Randomisation was stratified according to study site and the sequence was generated using a computer program and concealed until the interventions were assigned. After surgery in the EIPL group, peritoneal lavage was done with 1 L of warm (42°C) normal 0·9% saline followed by complete aspiration; this procedure was repeated ten times. The primary endpoint was overall survival. All analyses were done assuming intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02140034.

FINDINGS: Between Sept 16, 2012, and Aug 3, 2018, 800 patients were randomly assigned to the EIPL group (n=398) or the standard surgery group (n=402). Two patients in the EIPL group and one in the standard surgery group withdrew from the trial immediately after randomisation and were excluded from the intention-to-treat analysis. At the third interim analysis on Aug 28, 2019, the predictive probability of overall survival being significantly higher in the EIPL group was less than 0·5%; therefore, the trial was terminated on the basis of futility. With a median follow-up of 2·4 years (IQR 1·5-3·0), the two groups were similar in terms of overall survival (hazard ratio 1·09 [95% CI 0·78-1·52; p=0·62). 3-year overall survival was 77·0% (95% CI 71·4-81·6) for the EIPL group and 76·7% (71·0-81·5) for the standard surgery group. 60 adverse events were reported in the EIPL group and 41 were reported in the standard surgery group. The most common adverse events included anastomotic leak (ten [3%] of 346 patients in the EIPL group vs six [2%] of 362 patients in the standard surgery group), bleeding (six [2%] vs six [2%]), intra-abdominal abscess (four [1%] vs five [1%]), superficial wound infection (seven [2%] vs one [<1%]), and abnormal liver function (six [2%] vs one [<1%]). Ten of the reported adverse events (eight in the EIPL group and two in the standard surgery group) resulted in death.

INTERPRETATION: EIPL and surgery did not have a survival benefit compared with surgery alone and is not recommended for patients undergoing curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective database review was conducted of patients undergoing primary laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy between 2009 and 2013 in 14 centres from Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, Switzerland, and the USA. All patients with available follow-up data at 12 months and 36 months post-surgery were included in this study. Outcome measures used were percentage excess weight loss (%EWL) and percentage total weight loss (%TWL). Differences in outcomes between ethnicities were analysed after adjusting for age, gender, baseline body mass index (BMI), and presence of diabetes.