Review
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2018.
World J Gastrointest Oncol. Jul 15, 2018; 10(7): 172-183
Published online Jul 15, 2018. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v10.i7.172
Table 1 Molecular subtypes of gastric cancer according to the Cancer Genome Atlas and Asian Cancer Research Group
Molecular subtypes of gastric cancer
TCGAACRG

CIN (50%)MSS/TP53− (35.7%)
MSI-Η (21%)MSS/TP53+ (26.3%)
GS (20%)MSI-H (22.7%)
EBV + (9%)MSS-EMT (15.3%)
Table 2 Main targeted agents evaluated in metastatic gastric cancer
Biologic targetTargeted agentName/type of trialLine of therapyStudy armsResultsRef.
c-METRilutumumabRILOMET-1 Phase III1stECX + RilNegative effect[58]
EGFRCetuximabEXPAND Phase III1stXP ± CetNo benefit[48]
AIO Phase II1stFOLFOX + Cet> 4 EGFR gene copies: Increased OS (log-rank P = 0.011; HR = 0.2, 95%CI: 0-0.8; P = 0.022)[50]
PanitumumabREAL-3 Phase III1stEOX ± PaniNo benefit[49]
HER-2TrastuzumabToGA Phase III1stXP/FP ± HOS: 13.8 vs 11.1, P = 0.0046 OS (IHC+3, IHC+2/FISH+): 16 mo vs 11.8 mo, P = 0.0036[18]
PertuzumabJACOB Phase III1stFP + H ± PertNo benefit[19]
LapatinibTytan Phase III2ndPac w ± LapNo benefit (unselected population) OS (IHC: 3+): 14 mo vs 7.6 mo, P = 0.0176[21]
Trastuzumab emtansineGATSBY Phase II-III2ndTDM-1 vs taxaneNo superiority[22]
mTOREverolimusGRANITE-1 Phase III2nd, 3rdEverolimus vs placeboNo benefit[55]
VEGF, VEGFRBevacizumabAVAGAST Phase III1stXP ± BevPrimary endpoint (OS) was not met PFS: 6.7 mo vs 5.3 mo, P = 0.0037 ORR: 46% vs 37.4%, P = 0.0315[25]
RamucirumabREGARD Phase III2ndRam vs placeboOS: 5.2 mo vs 3.8 mo, P = 0.047[26]
RAINBOW Phase III2ndPac w ± RamOS: 9.6 mo vs 7.4 mo, P = 0.017[27]
Phase II1stFOLFOX ± RamNo benefit[28]
ApatinibPhase IIIbeyond 2nd lineApa vs placeboOS: 6.5 mo vs 4.7 mo, P = 0.0149 PFS: 2.6 mo vs 1.8, mo, P < 0.001[30]