CINOVA: a phase II study of CPC634 (nanoparticulate docetaxel) in patients with platinum resistant recurrent ovarian cancer

Objective: Recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer has a poor prognosis with limited therapeutic options. Sub‐therapeutic intra-tumoral drug concentrations may add to therapy resistance. CPC634 (docetaxel entrapped in CriPec nanoparticles) was designed to enhance tumor accumulation of drug with localized drug release at the target site to increase therapeutic efficacy. This study investigated the therapeutic effect of CPC634 in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. / Methods: According to a Simon 2-stage design trial, the first stage included 13 patients, and 12 patients were enrolled in the second stage. Eligible patients had measurable disease and had progressed ≤6 months after the last platinum-based therapy. Platinum-refractory disease was excluded. In stage 1, the number of previous treatment lines was unlimited; in the second stage, a maximum of two prior lines altogether were allowed. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor (RECIST) V1.1. Secondary endpoints included safety, progression-free survival at 6 months, cancer antigen 125 (CA125) response, and disease control rate. / Results: The patients’ median age was 66 years (range 22–77) and most were International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III (56%). The median number of previous treatment lines was 3 (range 3–5) in stage I and 2 (range 1–4) in stage II of the study. None of the patients had an objective response, one patient had a CA125 response (5%), and seven patients had stable disease at first evaluation (35%). Median progression-free survival was 1.4 months in stage 1 and 3.0 months in stage 2. Adverse events (all grades) were mainly gastrointestinal in 24 patients (96%), fatigue in 11 (44%), dyspnea in 10 (40%), and infections in 10 (40%) of patients. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 14 patients (36%), including gastrointestinal in 4 (16%), anemia in 3 (12%), and febrile neutropenia, fatigue, chronic kidney disease, dehydration, and hypertension each in 1 (4%) patient. The trial was stopped prematurely due to futility. / Conclusions: Treatment with CPC634 was feasible, but without apparent clinical activity in patients with recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. Side effects were mainly gastrointestinal in 24 (96%) patients, including nausea, vomiting, and decreased appetite, fatigue, anemia, and dyspnea

Cinova: a phase II study of CPC634 (nanoparticulate docetaxel) in patients with platinum resistant recurrent ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVE: Recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer has a poor prognosis with limited therapeutic options. Sub-therapeutic intra-tumoral drug concentrations may add to therapy resistance. CPC634 (docetaxel entrapped in CriPec nanoparticles) was designed to enhance tumor accumulation of drug with localized drug release at the target site to increase therapeutic efficacy. This study investigated the therapeutic effect of CPC634 in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. METHODS: According to a Simon 2-stage design trial, the first stage included 13 patients, and 12 patients were enrolled in the second stage. Eligible patients had measurable disease and had progressed ≤6 months after the last platinum-based therapy. Platinum-refractory disease was excluded. In stage 1, the number of previous treatment lines was unlimited; in the second stage, a maximum of two prior lines altogether were allowed. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor (RECIST) V1.1. Secondary endpoints included safety, progression-free survival at 6 months, cancer antigen 125 (CA125) response, and disease control rate. RESULTS: The patients' median age was 66 years (range 22-77) and most were International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III (56%). The median number of previous treatment lines was 3 (range 3-5) in stage I and 2 (range 1-4) in stage II of the study. None of the patients had an objective response, one patient had a CA125 response (5%), and seven patients had stable disease at first evaluation (35%). Median progression-free survival was 1.4 months in stage 1 and 3.0 months in stage 2. Adverse events (all grades) were mainly gastrointestinal in 24 patients (96%), fatigue in 11 (44%), dyspnea in 10 (40%), and infections in 10 (40%) of patients. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 14 patients (36%), including gastrointestinal in 4 (16%), anemia in 3 (12%), and febrile neutropenia, fatigue, chronic kidney disease, dehydration, and hypertension each in 1 (4%) patient. The trial was stopped prematurely due to futility. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with CPC634 was feasible, but without apparent clinical activity in patients with recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. Side effects were mainly gastrointestinal in 24 (96%) patients, including nausea, vomiting, and decreased appetite, fatigue, anemia, and dyspnea

Treatment decision-making during outpatient clinic visit of patients with esophagogastric cancer. The perspectives of clinicians and patients, a mixed method, multiple case study

Background: The probability of undergoing treatment with curative intent according to the hospital of diagnosis varies for esophagogastric cancer in the Netherlands. Little is known about the factors contributing to this variation. This study aimed to improve the understanding of the differences between the multidisciplinary team meeting treatment proposal and the treatment that was actually carried out and to qualitatively investigate the differences in treatment decision-making after the multidisciplinary team meeting treatment proposal between hospitals. Methods: To gain an in-depth understanding of treatment decision-making, quantitative data (i.e., multidisciplinary team meeting proposal and treatment that was carried out) were collected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Changes in the multidisciplinary team meeting proposal and applied treatment comprised changes in the type of treatment option (i.e., curative or palliative, or no change) and were calculated according to the multivariable multilevel probability of undergoing treatment with curative intent (low, middle, and high). Qualitative data were collected from eight hospitals, including observations of 26 outpatient clinic consultations, 30 in-depth interviews with clinicians, seven focus groups with clinicians, and three focus groups with patients. Clinicians and patients' perspectives were assessed using thematic content analysis. Results: The multidisciplinary team meeting proposal and applied treatment were concordant in 97% of the cases. Clinicians' implementation of treatment decision-making in clinical practice varied, which was mentioned by the clinicians to be due to the clinician's personality and values. Differences between clinicians consisted of discussing all treatment options versus only the best fitting treatment option and the extent of discussing the benefits and harms. Most patients aimed to undergo curative treatment regardless of the consequences, since they believed this could prolong their life. Conclusion: Since changes in the multidisciplinary team meeting-proposed treatment and actual treatment were rarely observed, this study emphasizes the importance of an adequately formulated multidisciplinary team meeting proposal

High-Intensity Care in the End-of-Life Phase of Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Patients: Results from the Dutch CAPRI-Registry

Background: Intensive end-of-life care (i.e., the overuse of treatments and hospital resources in the last months of life), is undesirable since it has a minimal clinical benefit with a substantial financial burden. The aim was to investigate the care in the last three months of life (end-of-life [EOL]) in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Methods: Castration-resistant prostate cancer registry (CAPRI) is an investigator-initiated, observational multicenter cohort study in 20 hospitals retrospectively including patients diagnosed with CRPC between 2010 and 2016. High-intensity care was defined as the initiation of life-prolonging drugs (LPDs) in the last month, continuation of LPD in last 14 days, >1 admission, admission duration ≥14 days, and/or intensive care admission in last three months of life. Descriptive and binary logistic regression analyses were performed. Results: High-intensity care was experienced by 41% of 2429 patients in the EOL period. Multivariable analysis showed that age (odds ratio [OR] 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97–0.99), performance status (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.33–0.97), time from CRPC to EOL (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.97–0.98), referral to a medical oncologist (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.55–2.55), prior LPD treatment (>1 line OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.31–2.28), and opioid use (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.08–1.95) were significantly associated with high-intensity care. Conclusions: High-intensity care in EOL is not easily justifiable due to high economic cost and little effect on life span, but further research is awaited to give insight in the effect on patients' and their caregivers' quality of life