Trametinib versus standard of care in patients with recurrent low-grade serous ovarian cancer (GOG 281/LOGS): an international, randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 2/3 trial

BACKGROUND: Low-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary or peritoneum is characterised by MAPK pathway aberrations and its reduced sensitivity to chemotherapy relative to high-grade serous carcinoma. We compared the MEK inhibitor trametinib to physician's choice standard of care in patients with recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma. METHODS: This international, randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 2/3 trial was done at 84 hospitals in the USA and UK. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma and measurable disease, as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1, had received at least one platinum-based regimen, but not all five standard-of-care drugs, and had received an unlimited number of previous regimens. Patients with serous borderline tumours or tumours containing low-grade serous and high-grade serous carcinoma were excluded. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral trametinib 2 mg once daily (trametinib group) or one of five standard-of-care treatment options (standard-of-care group): intravenous paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 by body surface area on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 28-day cycle; intravenous pegylated liposomal doxorubicin 40-50 mg/m2 by body surface area once every 4 weeks; intravenous topotecan 4 mg/m2 by body surface area on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 28-day cycle; oral letrozole 2·5 mg once daily; or oral tamoxifen 20 mg twice daily. Randomisation was stratified by geographical region (USA or UK), number of previous regimens (1, 2, or ≥3), performance status (0 or 1), and planned standard-of-care regimen. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival while receiving randomised therapy, as assessed by imaging at baseline, once every 8 weeks for 15 months, and then once every 3 months thereafter, in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study therapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02101788, and is active but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Feb 27, 2014, and April 10, 2018, 260 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the trametinib group (n=130) or the standard-of-care group (n=130). At the primary analysis, there were 217 progression-free survival events (101 [78%] in the trametinib group and 116 [89%] in the standard-of-care group). Median progression-free survival in the trametinib group was 13·0 months (95% CI 9·9-15·0) compared with 7·2 months (5·6-9·9) in the standard-of-care group (hazard ratio 0·48 [95% CI 0·36-0·64]; p<0·0001). The most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the trametinib group were skin rash (17 [13%] of 128), anaemia (16 [13%]), hypertension (15 [12%]), diarrhoea (13 [10%]), nausea (12 [9%]), and fatigue (ten [8%]). The most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the standard-of-care group were abdominal pain (22 [17%]), nausea (14 [11%]), anaemia (12 [10%]), and vomiting (ten [8%]). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Trametinib represents a new standard-of-care option for patients with recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma. FUNDING: NRG Oncology, Cancer Research UK, Target Ovarian Cancer, and Novartis

Conditioned Effects Produced by Naltrexone Doses That Reduce Ethanol-Reinforced Responding in Rhesus Monkeys

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/66264/1/j.1530-0277.1999.tb04173.x.pd

Rucaparib for patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian carcinoma (ARIEL3): post-progression outcomes and updated safety results from a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND: In ARIEL3, rucaparib maintenance treatment significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo. Here, we report prespecified, investigator-assessed, exploratory post-progression endpoints and updated safety data. METHODS: In this ongoing (enrolment complete) randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, patients aged 18 years or older who had platinum-sensitive, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 who had received at least two previous platinum-based chemotherapy regimens and responded to their last platinum-based regimen were randomly assigned (2:1) to oral rucaparib (600 mg twice daily) or placebo in 28-day cycles using a computer-generated sequence (block size of six with stratification based on homologous recombination repair gene mutation status, progression-free interval following penultimate platinum-based regimen, and best response to most recent platinum-based regimen). Patients, investigators, site staff, assessors, and the funder were masked to assignments. The primary endpoint of investigator-assessed progression-free survival has been previously reported. Prespecified, exploratory outcomes of chemotherapy-free interval (CFI), time to start of first subsequent therapy (TFST), time to disease progression on subsequent therapy or death (PFS2), and time to start of second subsequent therapy (TSST) and updated safety were analysed (visit cutoff Dec 31, 2017). Efficacy analyses were done in all patients randomised to three nested cohorts: patients with BRCA mutations, patients with homologous recombination deficiencies, and the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01968213. FINDINGS: Between April 7, 2014, and July 19, 2016, 564 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to rucaparib (n=375) or placebo (n=189). Median follow-up was 28·1 months (IQR 22·0-33·6). In the intention-to-treat population, median CFI was 14·3 months (95% CI 13·0-17·4) in the rucaparib group versus 8·8 months (8·0-10·3) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·43 [95% CI 0·35-0·53]; p<0·0001), median TFST was 12·4 months (11·1-15·2) versus 7·2 months (6·4-8·6; HR 0·43 [0·35-0·52]; p<0·0001), median PFS2 was 21·0 months (18·9-23·6) versus 16·5 months (15·2-18·4; HR 0·66 [0·53-0·82]; p=0·0002), and median TSST was 22·4 months (19·1-24·5) versus 17·3 months (14·9-19·4; HR 0·68 [0·54-0·85]; p=0·0007). CFI, TFST, PFS2, and TSST were also significantly longer with rucaparib than placebo in the BRCA-mutant and homologous recombination-deficient cohorts. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse event of grade 3 or higher was anaemia or decreased haemoglobin (80 [22%] patients in the rucaparib group vs one [1%] patient in the placebo group). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 83 (22%) patients in the rucaparib group and 20 (11%) patients in the placebo group. Two treatment-related deaths have been previously reported in this trial; there were no new treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: In these exploratory analyses over a median follow-up of more than 2 years, rucaparib maintenance treatment led to a clinically meaningful delay in starting subsequent therapy and provided lasting clinical benefits versus placebo in all three analysis cohorts. Updated safety data were consistent with previous reports. FUNDING: Clovis Oncology

Rucaparib maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian carcinoma: the effects of progression-free interval and prior therapies on efficacy and safety in the randomized phase III trial ARIEL3

INTRODUCTION: In ARIEL3 (NCT01968213), the poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo regardless of biomarker status when used as maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian cancer. The aim of the current analyses was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rucaparib in subgroups based on progression-free interval following penultimate platinum, number of prior chemotherapies, and prior use of bevacizumab. METHODS: Patients were randomized 2:1 to rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Within subgroups, progression-free survival was assessed in prespecified, nested cohorts: BRCA-mutant, homologous recombination deficient (BRCA-mutant or wild-type BRCA/high genomic loss of heterozygosity), and the intent-to-treat population. RESULTS: In the intent-to-treat population, median investigator-assessed progression-free survival was 8.2 months with rucaparib versus 4.1 months with placebo (n=151 vs n=76; HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.46, p12 months. Median progression-free survival was 10.4 versus 5.4 months (n=231 vs n=124; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.54, p<0.0001) for patients who had received two prior chemotherapies, and 11.1 versus 5.3 months (n=144 vs n=65; HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.41, p<0.0001) for those who had received ≥3 prior chemotherapies. Median progression-free survival was 10.3 versus 5.4 months (n=83 vs n=43; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.68, p=0.0004) for patients who had received prior bevacizumab, and 10.9 versus 5.4 months (n=292 vs n=146; HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.45, p<0.0001) for those who had not. Across subgroups, median progression-free survival was also significantly longer with rucaparib versus placebo in the BRCA-mutant and homologous recombination deficient cohorts. Safety was consistent across subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Rucaparib maintenance treatment significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo irrespective of progression-free interval following penultimate platinum, number of lines of prior chemotherapy, and previous use of bevacizumab

Why do patients want to have their blood tested? A qualitative study of patient expectations in general practice

BACKGROUND: General practitioners often take their impression of patients' expectations into account in their decision to have blood tests done. It is commonly recommended to involve patients in decision-making during consultations. The study aimed to obtain detailed information on patients' expectations about blood tests. METHODS: Qualitative study among patients in waiting rooms of general practices. Each patient was presented with a short questionnaire about their preferences in terms of diagnostics. Patients who would like blood tests to be done were interviewed. RESULTS: Fifty-seven (26%) of the 224 respondents wanted blood tests. Twenty-two were interviewed. Patients overestimated the qualities of blood tests. Favourable test results were regarded as proof of good health. Patients regarded blood tests as a useful instrument to screen for serious disorders, and were confirmed in this belief by people in their social environment and by the media. Many patients expected their GP to take an active test ordering approach, though some indicated that they might be convinced if their GP proposed a wait-and-see policy. CONCLUSIONS: GPs' perceptions about patient expectations seem justified: patients appear to have high hopes for testing as a diagnostic tool. They expect diagnostic certainty without mistakes and a proof of good health. The question is whether it would be desirable to remove patients' misconceptions, allowing them to participate in policy decisions on the basis of sound information, or whether it would be better to leave the misconceptions uncontested, in order to retain the 'magic' of additional tests and reassure patients. We expect that clarifying the precise nature of patients' expectations by the GP may be helpful in creating a diagnostic strategy that satisfies both patients and GPs. GPs will have to balance the benefits of reassuring their patients by means of blood tests which may be unnecessary against the benefits of avoiding unnecessary tests. Further research is needed into the effects of different types of patient information and the effects of testing on satisfaction and anxiety

Molecular and clinical determinants of response and resistance to rucaparib for recurrent ovarian cancer treatment in ARIEL2 (Parts 1 and 2)

ARIEL2 (NCT01891344) is a single-arm, open-label phase 2 study of the PARP inhibitor (PARPi) rucaparib in relapsed high-grade ovarian carcinoma. In this post hoc exploratory biomarker analysis of pre- and post-platinum ARIEL2 samples, RAD51C and RAD51D mutations and high-level BRCA1 promoter methylation predict response to rucaparib, similar to BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations. BRCA1 methylation loss may be a major cross-resistance mechanism to platinum and PARPi. Genomic scars associated with homologous recombination deficiency are irreversible, persisting even as platinum resistance develops, and therefore are predictive of rucaparib response only in platinum-sensitive disease. The RAS, AKT, and cell cycle pathways may be additional modulators of PARPi sensitivity

A randomized, phase III trial to evaluate rucaparib monotherapy as maintenance treatment in patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer (ATHENA–MONO/GOG-3020/ENGOT-ov45)

PURPOSE: ATHENA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03522246) was designed to evaluate rucaparib first-line maintenance treatment in a broad patient population, including those without BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA) mutations or other evidence of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), or high-risk clinical characteristics such as residual disease. We report the results from the ATHENA–MONO comparison of rucaparib versus placebo. METHODS: Patients with stage III-IV high-grade ovarian cancer undergoing surgical cytoreduction (R0/complete resection permitted) and responding to first-line platinum-doublet chemotherapy were randomly assigned 4:1 to oral rucaparib 600 mg twice a day or placebo. Stratification factors were HRD test status, residual disease after chemotherapy, and timing of surgery. The primary end point of investigator-assessed progression-free survival was assessed in a step-down procedure, first in the HRD population (BRCA-mutant or BRCA wild-type/loss of heterozygosity high tumor), and then in the intent-to-treat population. RESULTS: As of March 23, 2022 (data cutoff), 427 and 111 patients were randomly assigned to rucaparib or placebo, respectively (HRD population: 185 v 49). Median progression-free survival (95% CI) was 28.7 months (23.0 to not reached) with rucaparib versus 11.3 months (9.1 to 22.1) with placebo in the HRD population (log-rank P = .0004; hazard ratio [HR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.72); 20.2 months (15.2 to 24.7) versus 9.2 months (8.3 to 12.2) in the intent-to-treat population (log-rank P < .0001; HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.68); and 12.1 months (11.1 to 17.7) versus 9.1 months (4.0 to 12.2) in the HRD-negative population (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.95). The most common grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events were anemia (rucaparib, 28.7% v placebo, 0%) and neutropenia (14.6% v 0.9%). CONCLUSION: Rucaparib monotherapy is effective as first-line maintenance, conferring significant benefit versus placebo in patients with advanced ovarian cancer with and without HRD

Individual-level socioeconomic status is associated with worse asthma morbidity in patients with asthma

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Low socioeconomic status (SES) has been linked to higher morbidity in patients with chronic diseases, but may be particularly relevant to asthma, as asthmatics of lower SES may have higher exposures to indoor (e.g., cockroaches, tobacco smoke) and outdoor (e.g., urban pollution) allergens, thus increasing risk for exacerbations.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This study assessed associations between adult SES (measured according to educational level) and asthma morbidity, including asthma control; asthma-related emergency health service use; asthma self-efficacy, and asthma-related quality of life, in a Canadian cohort of 781 adult asthmatics. All patients underwent a sociodemographic and medical history interview and pulmonary function testing on the day of their asthma clinic visit, and completed a battery of questionnaires (Asthma Control Questionnaire, Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, and Asthma Self-Efficacy Scale). General Linear Models assessed associations between SES and each morbidity measure.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Lower SES was associated with worse asthma control (F = 11.63, p < .001), greater emergency health service use (F = 5.09, p = .024), and worse asthma self-efficacy (F = 12.04, p < .01), independent of covariates. Logistic regression analyses revealed that patients with <12 years of education were 55% more likely to report an asthma-related emergency health service visit in the last year (OR = 1.55, 95%CI = 1.05-2.27). Lower SES was not related to worse asthma-related quality of life.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Results suggest that lower SES (measured according to education level), is associated with several indices of worse asthma morbidity, particularly worse asthma control, in adult asthmatics independent of disease severity. Results are consistent with previous studies linking lower SES to worse asthma in children, and add asthma to the list of chronic diseases affected by individual-level SES.</p