Pelvic insufficiency fractures after intensity modulated radiation therapy combined with chemotherapy for cervix carcinoma: Incidence and impact of bone mineral density

Background and Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence and predictive factors of Pelvic Insufficiency Fractures (PIFs) occurring after Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) combined with chemotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer (CC). Material and methods: Medical records of patients receiving radio-chemotherapy with IMRT between 2010 and 2020 for advanced CC were reviewed. PIFs were detected during follow-up on pelvic Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) or Computed Tomography (CT). The cumulative incidence rate of PIFs and its confidence interval were calculated at 2 and 5 years of follow-up. Pre-therapeutic Bone Mineral Density (BMD) (g/cm3) was evaluated on CT simulation for sacrum and the fourth lumbar (L4) vertebrae. Sacrum dosimetric parameters (V30Gy, V40Gy, D50%, Dmean) were analyzed. Results: 136 patients were included. The median follow-up was 4.4 years. Median dose of D50% and V40Gy sacrum were 35.2 Gy (20.6–46.4) and 32.2% (7.2–73.4) respectively. The 2-year and 5-year cumulative incidence rates were 15.7% (95% CI: 9.88–22.71) and 22% (95% CI: 14.58–30.45) respectively. Median time interval between RT completion and PIFs’ detection was 11.5 months (IQR: 7.4–22.3). Univariate analysis showed that older age (p < 0.01), postmenopausal status at baseline (p < 0.01), and lower sacral and spinal BMD at baseline (respectively p < 0.001 and p < 0.01) were significantly associated to all sites of PIFs, and lower sacral BMD with sacral fractures (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Post-IMRT PIFs were detected in 18.4% of patients with locally advanced CC. Individual predisposing factors as older age, postmenopausal status, decreased bone density on the CT simulation were mainly predictive

FcγR3A polymorphism influences natural killer cell activation and response to anti-PD-L1 (avelumab) in gestational trophoblastic neoplasia

International audienceAbstract Background While patient safety incident reporting is of key importance for patient safety in primary care, the reporting rate by healthcare professionals remains low. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a risk management program in increasing the reporting rate within multiprofessional primary care facilities. Methods A nation-wide cluster-randomised controlled trial was performed in France, with each cluster defined as a primary care facility. The intervention included professional e-learning training, identification of a risk management advisor, and multidisciplinary meetings to address incident analysis. In the first observational period, a patient safety incident reporting system for professionals was implemented in all facilities. Then, facilities were randomised, and the program was implemented. Incidents were reported over the 15-month study period. Quasi-Poisson models were used to compare reporting rates. Results Thirty-five facilities (intervention, n = 17; control, n = 18) were included, with 169 and 232 healthcare professionals, respectively, involved. Overall, 7 out of 17 facilities carried out the entire program (41.2%), while 6 did not hold meetings (35.3%); 48.5% of professionals logged on to the e-learning website. The relative rate of incidents reported was 2.7 (95% CI = [0.84–11.0]; p = 0.12). However, a statistically significant decrease in the incident rate between the pre-intervention and post-intervention periods was observed for the control arm (HR = 0.2; 95% CI = [0.05–0.54]; p = 0.02), but not for the intervention arm (HR = 0.54; 95% CI = [0.2–1.54]; p = 0.23). Conclusion This program didn’t lead to a significant improvement in the patient safety incident reporting rate by professionals but seemed to sustain reporting over time. Considering that the program was fully implemented in only 41% of facilities, this highlights the difficulty of implementing such multidisciplinary programs in primary care despite its adaptation to the setting. A better understanding of how risk management is currently organized in these multiprofessional facilities is of key importance to improve patient safety in primary care. Trial registrations The study has been registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02403388) on 30 March 2015

Updated progression-free survival and final overall survival with maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab according to clinical risk in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer in the phase III PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trial

International audienceObjective In the PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trial ( NCT02477644 ), adding maintenance olaparib to bevacizumab provided a substantial progression-free survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-positive tumors, irrespective of clinical risk. Subsequently, a clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival was reported with olaparib plus bevacizumab in the HRD-positive subgroup. We report updated progression-free survival and overall survival by clinical risk and HRD status. Methods Patients in clinical response after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab received maintenance olaparib (up to 24 months) plus bevacizumab (up to 15 months in total) or placebo plus bevacizumab. This post hoc analysis evaluated 5-year progression-free survival and mature overall survival in patients classified by clinical risk and HRD status. Results Of 806 randomized patients, 74% were higher-risk and 26% were lower-risk. In higher-risk HRD-positive patients, the hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival was 0.46 (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.34 to 0.61), with 5-year progression-free survival of 35% with olaparib plus bevacizumab versus 15% with bevacizumab alone; and the HR for overall survival was 0.70 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.00), with 5-year overall survival of 55% versus 42%, respectively. In lower-risk HRD-positive patients, the HR for progression-free survival was 0.26 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.45), with 5-year progression-free survival of 72% with olaparib plus bevacizumab versus 28% with bevacizumab alone; and the HR for overall survival was 0.31 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.66), with 5-year overall survival of 88% versus 61%, respectively. No benefit was seen in HRD-negative patients regardless of clinical risk. Conclusion This post hoc analysis indicates that in patients with newly diagnosed advanced HRD-positive ovarian cancer, maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab should not be limited to those considered at higher risk of disease progression. Five-year progression-free survival rates support long-term remission and suggest an increased potential for cure with particular benefit suggested in lower-risk HRD-positive patients

Atezolizumab Combined With Bevacizumab and Platinum-Based Therapy for Platinum-Sensitive Ovarian Cancer: Placebo-Controlled Randomized Phase III ATALANTE/ENGOT-ov29 Trial

PURPOSE Platinum-based doublets with concurrent and maintenance bevacizumab are standard therapy for ovarian cancer (OC) relapsing after a platinum-free interval (PFI) >6 months. Immunotherapy may be synergistic with bevacizumab and chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS ATALANTE/ENGOT-ov29 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02891824 ), a placebo-controlled double-blinded randomized phase III trial, enrolled patients with recurrent epithelial OC, one to two previous chemotherapy lines, and PFI >6 months. Eligible patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to atezolizumab (1,200 mg once every 3 weeks or equivalent) or placebo for up to 24 months, combined with bevacizumab and six cycles of chemotherapy doublet, stratified by PFI, PD-L1 status, and chemotherapy regimen. Coprimary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and PD-L1–positive populations (alpha .025 for each population). RESULTS Between September 2016 and October 2019, 614 patients were randomly assigned: 410 to atezolizumab and 204 to placebo. Only 38% had PD-L1–positive tumors. After 3 years' median follow-up, the PFS difference between atezolizumab and placebo did not reach statistical significance in the ITT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.99; P = .041; median 13.5 v 11.3 months, respectively) or PD-L1–positive (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.16; P = .30; median 15.2 v 13.1 months, respectively) populations. The immature overall survival (OS) HR was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.65 to 1.01; median 35.5 v 30.6 months with atezolizumab v placebo, respectively). Global health-related quality of life did not differ between treatment arms. Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 88% of atezolizumab-treated and 87% of placebo-treated patients; grade ≥3 AEs typical of immunotherapy were more common with atezolizumab (13% v 8%, respectively). CONCLUSION ATALANTE/ENGOT-ov29 did not meet its coprimary PFS objectives in the ITT or PD-L1–positive populations. OS follow-up continues. Further research on biopsy samples is warranted to decipher the immunologic landscape of late-relapsing OC

Atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab and platinum-based therapy for platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer : placebo-controlled randomized phase III ATALANTE/ENGOT-ov29 trial

PURPOSE Platinum-based doublets with concurrent and maintenance bevacizumab are standard therapy for ovarian cancer (OC) relapsing after a platinum-free interval (PFI) >6 months. Immunotherapy may be synergistic with bevacizumab and chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS ATALANTE/ENGOT-ov29 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02891824), a placebo-controlled double-blinded randomized phase III trial, enrolled patients with recurrent epithelial OC, one to two previous chemotherapy lines, and PFI >6 months. Eligible patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to atezolizumab (1,200 mg once every 3 weeks or equivalent) or placebo for up to 24 months, combined with bevacizumab and six cycles of chemotherapy doublet, stratified by PFI, PD-L1 status, and chemotherapy regimen. Coprimary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and PD-L1-positive populations (alpha .025 for each population).RESULTS Between September 2016 and October 2019, 614 patients were randomly assigned: 410 to atezolizumab and 204 to placebo. Only 38% had PD-L1-positive tumors. After 3 years' median follow-up, the PFS difference between atezolizumab and placebo did not reach statistical significance in the ITT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.99; P = .041; median 13.5 v 11.3 months, respectively) or PD-L1-positive (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.16; P = .30; median 15.2 v 13.1 months, respectively) populations. The immature overall survival (OS) HR was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.65 to 1.01; median 35.5 v 30.6 months with atezolizumab v placebo, respectively). Global health-related quality of life did not differ between treatment arms. Grade >= 3 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 88% of atezolizumab-treated and 87% of placebo-treated patients; grade >= 3 AEs typical of immunotherapy were more common with atezolizumab (13% v 8%, respectively).CONCLUSION ATALANTE/ENGOT-ov29 did not meet its coprimary PFS objectives in the ITT or PD-L1-positive populations. OS follow-up continues. Further research on biopsy samples is warranted to decipher the immunologic landscape of late-relapsing OC