There exist differences in the epidemiological characteristics, clinicopathological features, tumor biological characteristics, treatment patterns, and drug selections between gastric cancer patients from the Eastern and Western countries. The Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO) has organized a panel of senior experts specializing in all sub‐specialties of gastric cancer to compile a clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of gastric cancer since 2016 and renews it annually. Taking into account regional differences, giving full consideration to the accessibility of diagnosis and treatment resources, these experts have conducted expert consensus judgment on relevant evidence and made various grades of recommendations for the clinical diagnosis and treatment of gastric cancer to reflect the value of cancer treatment and meeting health economic indexes in China. The 2021 CSCO Clinical Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer covers the diagnosis, treatment, follow‐up, and screening of gastric cancer. Based on the 2020 version of the CSCO Chinese Gastric Cancer guidelines, this updated guideline integrates the results of major clinical studies from China and overseas for the past year, focused on the inclusion of research data from the Chinese population for more personalized and clinically relevant recommendations. For the comprehensive treatment of non‐metastatic gastric cancer, attentions were paid to neoadjuvant treatment. The value of perioperative chemotherapy is gradually becoming clearer and its recommendation level has been updated. For the comprehensive treatment of metastatic gastric cancer, recommendations for immunotherapy were included, and immune checkpoint inhibitors from third‐line to the first‐line of treatment for different patient groups with detailed notes are provided.

Purpose. This trial evaluated the addition of cetuximab to a modified FOLFOXIRI (mFOLFOXIRI: 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid, oxaliplatin, irinotecan) as conversion therapy in a two-group, nonrandomized, multicenter, phase II trial in patients with initially technically unresectable colorectal liver-limited metastases (CLM) and BRAF/RAS wild-type. Patients and Methods. Patients were enrolled to receive cetuximab (500 mg/m 2 ) plus mFOLFOXIRI (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m 2 , irinotecan 165 mg/m 2 , folinic acid 400 mg/m 2 , 5-fluorouracil 2,800 mg/m 2 46-hour infusion, every 2 weeks) (the cetuximab group) or the same regimen of mFOLFOXIRI alone (the control group), in a 2:1 ratio allocation. The primary endpoint was the rate of no evidence of disease (NED) achieved. Secondary endpoints included resection rate, objective response rate (ORR), survival, and safety. Results. Between February 2014 and July 2019, 117 patients were registered for screening at six centers in China, and 101 of these were enrolled (67 cetuximab group, 34 control group). The rate of NED achieved was 70.1% in the cetuximab group and 41.2% in the control group (difference 29.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.1%-48.8%; p = .005). Patients in the cetuximab group had improved ORR (95.5% vs. 76.5%;

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the POF regimen (biweekly 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin combined with paclitaxel and oxaliplatin) as first-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Twenty-seven previously untreated patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the gastric or gastroesophageal junction were eligible for this study. The chemotherapy regimen consisted of a 3-hour infusion of paclitaxel (135 mg/m(2)) followed by oxaliplatin (85 mg/m(2)) and leucovorin (400 mg/m(2)), administered simultaneously over a 2-hour infusion period, followed by an infusion of 5-fluorouracil (2400 mg/m(2)) over a 46-hour period. Twenty-one patients had measurable lesions: four complete responses, eight partial responses and seven stable diseases. At a median follow-up of 610 days, median survival was 348 days. Frequent grade 3 to 4 toxicities were: neutropenia (29.6%), stomatitis (7.4%), nausea (7.4%), vomiting (7.4%), hepatic dysfunction (3.7%), and fatigue (18.5%). No treatment-related deaths occurred. The POF regimen appears to be efficacious and is well tolerated in patients with AGC.

Background: Opioid titration is necessary to achieve rapid, safe pain relief. Medication can be administered via patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) or by a healthcare provider (non-PCA). We evaluated the efficacy of intravenous PCA versus non-PCA hydromorphone titration for severe cancer pain (≥7 at rest on the 11-point numeric rating scale [NRS]). Patients and Methods: Patients with severe cancer pain were randomized 1:1 to PCA or non-PCA titration, stratified by opioid-tolerant or opioid-naïve status. The PCA pump was set to no continuous dose, with a hydromorphone bolus dose 10% to 20% of the total previous 24-hour equianalgesic (for opioid-tolerant patients) or 0.5 mg (for opioid-naïve patients). For the non-PCA group, the initial hydromorphone bolus dose was identical to that in the PCA group, with the subsequent dose increased by 50% to 100% (for NRS unchanged or increased) or repeated at the current dose (for NRS 4–6). Hydromorphone delivery was initiated every 15 minutes (for NRS ≥4) or as needed (for NRS ≤3). The primary endpoint was time to successful titration (TST; time from first hydromorphone dose to first occurrence of NRS ≤3 in 2 consecutive 15-minute intervals). Results: Among 214 patients (PCA, n=106; non-PCA, n=108), median TSTs (95% CI) were 0.50 hours (0.25–0.50) and 0.79 hours (0.50–1.42) for the PCA and non-PCA groups, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 1.64; 95% CI, 1.23–2.17; P=.001). TSTs in opioid-tolerant patients were 0.50 hours (0.25–0.75) and 1.00 hours (0.50–2.00) for the PCA and non-PCA groups, respectively (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.32–2.78; P=.003); in opioid-naive patients, TST was not significantly different for the PCA versus non-PCA groups (HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.88–2.04; P=.162). Pain score (median NRS; interquartile range) over 24 hours was significantly lower in the PCA group (2.80; 2.15–3.22) than in the non-PCA group (3.00; 2.47–3.53; P=.020). PCA administration produces significantly higher patient satisfaction with pain control than non-PCA administration (P<.001). Conclusions: Intravenous hydromorphone titration for severe cancer pain was achieved more effectively with PCA than with non-PCA administration.