511 research outputs found

    Medical treatment of early stage and rare histological variants of epithelial ovarian cancer

    Get PDF
    Epithelial ovarian cancer is often considered a single pathological entity, but increasing evidence suggests that it is rather a group of different neoplasms, each with unique pathological characteristics, molecular features, and clinical behaviours. This heterogeneity accounts for the different sensitivity to antineoplastic drugs and makes the treatment of ovarian tumours a challenge. For early-stage disease, as well as for heavily pre-treated patients with recurrent ovarian cancer, the benefit of chemotherapy remains uncertain. Clear-cell, mucinous, low-grade serous, and endometrioid carcinomas show different molecular characteristics, which require different therapeutic approaches. In the era of personalised cancer medicine, understanding the pathogenesis and the genetic background of each subtype of epithelial ovarian tumour may lead to a tailored therapy, maximising the benefits of specific treatments and possibly reducing the side effects. Furthermore, personal factors, such as the patient’s performance status, should be taken into account in the management of ovarian cancer, with the aim of safeguarding the patients’ quality of life

    clinical benefit and risk of death with endocrine therapy in ovarian cancer a comprehensive review and meta analysis

    Get PDF
    Abstract Background Steroid hormones promote epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) growth and their receptor expression is associated with disease outcome. Hormone therapy is frequently used in pretreated EOC, but the magnitude of activity overall and by specific agents or tumor characteristics is unknown. Methods Clinical Benefit Rates (CBR) and deaths from clinical trials of endocrine agents were meta-analyzed. Summary estimates of CBR (SCBR) and Odd Ratio for death (SOR) were calculated according with type of drug, ER and PgR status, platinum resistance, line of therapy, tumor grade and tamoxifen dose. Results Fifty-three trials in 2490 patients were analyzed. Overall, SCBR was 41% (95%CI, 0.34–0.48) for any endocrine treatment, 43% (95%CI, 0.30–0.56) for tamoxifen, 39% (95%CI, 0.29–0.50) for aromatase inhibitors and 37% (95%CI, 0.26–0.48) for progestins. The SCBR for ER + and/or PgR + tumors was 46% (95%CI, 0.34–0.57) versus 37% (95%CI, 0.27–0.48) in tumors with unknown receptors and 55% in platinum sensitive (95%CI, 0.28–0.80) versus 40% (95%CI, 0.29–0.51) in platinum resistant tumors The SOR for death calculated from 6 out of 9 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) showed a reduced mortality with endocrine therapy (SOR = 0.69, 95%CI, 0.50–0.97), with a possible tendency for a greater effect in first line and low grade tumors. The overall quality of the RCTs was low. Conclusions The activity of endocrine therapy in advanced EOC is worth considering and seems to support large properly designed randomized trials in the first treatment of hormone sensitive EOC

    Relacorilant + Nab-Paclitaxel in Patients With Recurrent, Platinum-Resistant Ovarian Cancer: A Three-Arm, Randomized, Controlled, Open-Label Phase II Study

    Get PDF
    Relacorilant; Cáncer de ovario recurrente; PlatinoRelacorilant; Càncer d'ovari recurrent; PlatíRelacorilant; Resistant ovarian cancer; PlatinumPURPOSE Despite therapeutic advances, outcomes for patients with platinum-resistant/refractory ovarian cancer remain poor. Selective glucocorticoid receptor modulation with relacorilant may restore chemosensitivity and enhance chemotherapy efficacy. METHODS This three-arm, randomized, controlled, open-label phase II study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03776812) enrolled women with recurrent, platinum-resistant/refractory, high-grade serous or endometrioid epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer, or ovarian carcinosarcoma treated with ≤4 prior chemotherapeutic regimens. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to (1) nab-paclitaxel (80 mg/m2) + intermittent relacorilant (150 mg the day before, of, and after nab-paclitaxel); (2) nab-paclitaxel (80 mg/m2) + continuous relacorilant (100 mg once daily); or (3) nab-paclitaxel monotherapy (100 mg/m2). Nab-paclitaxel was administered on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by investigator assessment; objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), overall survival (OS), and safety were secondary end points. RESULTS A total of 178 women were randomly assigned. Intermittent relacorilant + nab-paclitaxel improved PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; log-rank test P = .038; median follow-up, 11.1 months) and DOR (HR, 0.36; P = .006) versus nab-paclitaxel monotherapy, while ORR was similar across arms. At the preplanned OS analysis (median follow-up, 22.5 months), the OS HR was 0.67 (P = .066) for the intermittent arm versus nab-paclitaxel monotherapy. Continuous relacorilant + nab-paclitaxel showed numerically improved median PFS but did not result in significant improvement over nab-paclitaxel monotherapy. Adverse events were comparable across study arms, with neutropenia, anemia, peripheral neuropathy, and fatigue/asthenia being the most common grade ≥3 adverse events. CONCLUSION Intermittent relacorilant + nab-paclitaxel improved PFS, DOR, and OS compared with nab-paclitaxel monotherapy. On the basis of protocol-prespecified Hochberg step-up multiplicity adjustment, the primary end point did not reach statistical significance (P < .025). A phase III evaluation of this regimen is underway (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05257408)

    A randomized phase 2 study of sapanisertib in combination with paclitaxel versus paclitaxel alone in women with advanced, recurrent, or persistent endometrial cancer

    Get PDF
    Endometrial cancer; Metastatic; RecurrentCàncer d'endometri; Metastàtic; RecurrentCáncer endometrial; Metastásico; RecurrenteObjective This phase 2 study investigated sapanisertib (selective dual inhibitor of mTORC1/2) alone, or in combination with paclitaxel or TAK-117 (a selective small molecule inhibitor of PI3K), versus paclitaxel alone in advanced, recurrent, or persistent endometrial cancer. Methods Patients with histologic diagnosis of endometrial cancer (1–2 prior regimens) were randomized to 28-day cycles on four treatment arms: 1) weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 (days 1, 8, and 15); 2) weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 + oral sapanisertib 4 mg on days 2–4, 9–11, 16–18, and 23–25; 3) weekly sapanisertib 30 mg, or 4) sapanisertib 4 mg + TAK-117 200 mg on days 1–3, 8–10, 15–17, and 22–24. Results Of 241 patients randomized, 234 received treatment (paclitaxel, n = 87 [3 ongoing]; paclitaxel+sapanisertib, n = 86 [3 ongoing]; sapanisertib, n = 41; sapanisertib+TAK-117, n = 20). The sapanisertib and sapanisertib+TAK-117 arms were closed to enrollment after futility analyses. After a median follow-up of 14.4 (paclitaxel) versus 17.2 (paclitaxel+sapanisertib) months, median progression-free survival (PFS; primary endpoint) was 3.7 versus 5.6 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58–1.15; p = 0.139); in patients with endometrioid histology (n = 116), median PFS was 3.3 versus 5.7 months (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.43–1.03). Grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse event rates were 54.0% with paclitaxel versus 89.5% paclitaxel+sapanisertib. Conclusions Our findings support inclusion of chemotherapy combinations with investigational agents for advanced or metastatic disease. The primary endpoint was not met and toxicity was manageable. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02725268Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc., Lexington, MA, USA. This work was supported by funding from Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc. The study was designed by the authors in conjunction with the sponsors. Data were gathered and analyzed by the investigator and the sponsor; all the authors had access to the data. The authors received medical writing support for drafting the manuscript, which was funded by Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. Manuscript drafts were reviewed by all authors and the sponsor and all the authors made the decision to submit the manuscript for publication

    Emerging treatment strategies in recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer: focus on trabectedin.

    Get PDF
    Ovarian cancer (OC) is the leading cause of death from gynecological malignancies. In spite of high response rates to the standard front-line treatment for advanced disease with cytoreductive surgical debulking, followed by platinum/taxane-based chemotherapy, most patients eventually relapse developing drug-resistant disease. Owing to the molecular heterogeneity, genetic instability and mutagenicity of OC, increases in survival might be achieved by translating recent insights at the morpho-molecular levels to individual therapeutic strategies. Several emerging treatments have been shown to be active in platinum-sensitive (PS) recurrent OC (ROC), but an optimal strategy still has not been established. Based on the recent results, it is likely that the introduction of novel non-platinum based chemotherapies and molecular targeted therapies will have a major impact on the management of ROC. Some current strategies are focused on the extension of platinum-free interval (PFI) in patients with PS, particularly in those with partially PS disease. Apparently, the PFI extension by an effective non-platinum intervention, such as trabectedin plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD), may reduce cumulative platinum-induced toxicities leading to longer survival after the reintroduction of subsequent platinum. The introduction of novel therapies, such as the antiangiogenic monoclonal antibody bevacizumab, opens a new field of targeted therapies in this indication. In this review, we aim to outline the therapeutic potential of new emerging approaches, particularly the role of non-platinum therapy with trabectedin in combination with PLD in patients with PS ROC. © 2013 The Authors

    Prothrombotic mutations, family history and the risk of thrombosis in postmenopausal women: implications for hormone replacement therapy

    Get PDF
    Objective Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is acknowledged as the gold standard for the alleviation of climacteric vasomotor symptoms. Prothrombotic genetic variants have been suggested to increase thrombotic risk among HRT users. The aim of the study was to determine whether a positive family history may identify a genetic predisposition for thrombosis in women before prescribing HRT. Methods From January 2005 to May 2009, we consecutively enrolled 145 asymptomatic women (mean age 51.2+5.4 years) without previous episodes of venous and/or arterial thrombosis referred to our Genetics Research Unit before starting HRT. A detailed family history was reconstructed and we identified 48 women (33.1%) with a positive family history, defined as venous thromboembolism and/or stroke or heart attack, in first-degree relatives before 60 years for men and 65 years for women. A group of 121 women (mean age 54.0+9.1 years) with an episode of venous and/or arterial thrombosis was also included. Genetic screening for factor V Leiden, prothrombin G20210A and methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase C677T polymorphisms was performed. Results The frequency of factor V Leiden or prothrombin G20210A mutations was significantly higher both in asymptomatic women with a positive family history (16.7% vs. 2.1%, p?0.001) and in patients with thrombosis (12.4% vs. 2.1%; p?0.005) compared with asymptomatic women without a family history. Multivariate regression analysis showed a synergic effect between the presence of one prothrombotic mutation and family history on the risk of thrombosis (odds ratio 3.7, 95% confidence interval 1.9-7.2). Conclusions A positive family history of thrombosis is a sensitive indicator for selected genetic testing in high-risk women before starting HRT

    Overall Survival With Maintenance Olaparib at a 7-Year Follow-Up in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Advanced Ovarian Cancer and a BRCA Mutation: The SOLO1/GOG 3004 Trial

    Get PDF
    Overall survival; Olaparib; Ovarian cancerSupervivencia global; Olaparib; Cáncer de ovario avanzadoSupervivència global; Olaparib; Càncer d'ovari avançatPURPOSE In SOLO1/GOG 3004 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01844986), maintenance therapy with the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib provided a sustained progression-free survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 (BRCA) mutation. We report overall survival (OS) after a 7-year follow-up, a clinically relevant time point and the longest follow-up for any poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor in the first-line setting. METHODS This double-blind phase III trial randomly assigned patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation in clinical response to platinum-based chemotherapy to maintenance olaparib (n = 260) or placebo (n = 131) for up to 2 years. A prespecified descriptive analysis of OS, a secondary end point, was conducted after a 7-year follow-up. RESULTS The median duration of treatment was 24.6 months with olaparib and 13.9 months with placebo, and the median follow-up was 88.9 and 87.4 months, respectively. The hazard ratio for OS was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.40 to 0.76; P = .0004 [P < .0001 required to declare statistical significance]). At 7 years, 67.0% of olaparib patients versus 46.5% of placebo patients were alive, and 45.3% versus 20.6%, respectively, were alive and had not received a first subsequent treatment (Kaplan-Meier estimates). The incidence of myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukemia remained low, and new primary malignancies remained balanced between treatment groups. CONCLUSION Results indicate a clinically meaningful, albeit not statistically significant according to prespecified criteria, improvement in OS with maintenance olaparib in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation and support the use of maintenance olaparib to achieve long-term remission in this setting; the potential for cure may also be enhanced. No new safety signals were observed during long-term follow-up

    Maintenance treatment with rucaparib for recurrent ovarian carcinoma in ARIEL3, a randomized phase 3 trial: The effects of best response to last platinum-based regimen and disease at baseline on efficacy and safety

    Get PDF
    Assaigs clínics; Oncologia ginecològica; Càncer de les donesEnsayos clínicos; Oncología ginecológica; Cáncer de las mujeresClinical trials; Gynecological oncology; Women's cancerBackground The efficacy and safety of rucaparib maintenance treatment in ARIEL3 were evaluated in subgroups based on best response to most recent platinum-based chemotherapy and baseline disease. Methods Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive either oral rucaparib at a dosage of 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Investigator-assessed PFS was assessed in prespecified, nested cohorts: BRCA-mutated, homologous recombination deficient (HRD; BRCA mutated or wild-type BRCA/high loss of heterozygosity), and the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Results Median PFS for patients in the ITT population with a complete response to most recent platinum-based chemotherapy was 11.1 months in the rucaparib arm (126 patients) versus 5.6 months in the placebo arm (64 patients) (HR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.23–0.48]), and in patients with a partial response (249 vs. 125), it was 9.0 versus 5.3 months (HR, 0.38 [0.30–0.49]). In subgroups of the ITT population based on baseline disease, median PFS was 8.2 versus 5.3 months (HR, 0.40 [0.28–0.57]) in patients with measurable disease (141 rucaparib vs. 66 placebo), 10.4 versus 4.5 months (HR, 0.31 [0.20–0.48]) in those with nonmeasurable but evaluable disease (104 vs. 56), and 14.1 versus 7.3 months (HR, 0.35 [0.24–0.51]) in those with no residual disease (130 vs. 67). Across subgroups, significantly longer median PFS was observed with rucaparib versus placebo in the BRCA-mutated and HRD cohorts. Objective responses were reported in patients with measurable disease and in patients with nonmeasurable but evaluable baseline disease. Safety was consistent across subgroups. Conclusion Rucaparib maintenance treatment provided clinically meaningful efficacy benefits across subgroups based on response to last platinum-based chemotherapy or baseline disease.A.O. has served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Deciphera, Genmab/Seattle Genetics, GlaxoSmithKline/Tesaro, ImmunoGen, Merck/Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mersana Therapeutics, PharmaMar, and Roche; has received support for travel or accommodation from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, and Roche; and reports institutional research grant support from Clovis Oncology, AbbVie Deutschland, Ability Pharmaceuticals, Advaxis, Aeterna Zentaris, Amgen, Aprea Therapeutics, Eisai, ImmunoGen, Merck/Merck Sharp & Dohme, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, PharmaMar, Roche, and Tesaro

    Tolerability of maintenance olaparib in newly diagnosed patients with advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation in the randomized phase III SOLO1 trial

    Get PDF
    Olaparib; Ovarian cancer; TolerabilityOlaparib; Cáncer de ovarios; TolerabilidadOlaparib; Càncer d'ovaris; TolerabilitatObjectives In the phase III SOLO1 trial (NCT01844986), maintenance olaparib provided a substantial progression-free survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation who were in response after platinum-based chemotherapy. We analyzed the timing, duration and grade of the most common hematologic and non-hematologic adverse events in SOLO1. Methods Eligible patients were randomized to olaparib tablets 300 mg twice daily (N = 260) or placebo (N = 131), with a 2-year treatment cap in most patients. Safety outcomes were analyzed in detail in randomized patients who received at least one dose of study drug (olaparib, n = 260; placebo, n = 130). Results Median time to first onset of the most common hematologic (anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia) and non-hematologic (nausea, fatigue/asthenia, vomiting) adverse events was <3 months in olaparib-treated patients. The first event of anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, nausea and vomiting lasted a median of <2 months and the first event of fatigue/asthenia lasted a median of 3.48 months in the olaparib group. These adverse events were manageable with supportive treatment and/or olaparib dose modification in most patients, with few patients requiring discontinuation of olaparib. Of 162 patients still receiving olaparib at month 24, 64.2% were receiving the recommended starting dose of olaparib 300 mg twice daily. Conclusions Maintenance olaparib had a predictable and manageable adverse event profile in the newly diagnosed setting with no new safety signals identified. Adverse events usually occurred early, were largely manageable and led to discontinuation in a minority of patients.This work was supported by AstraZeneca and is part of an alliance between AstraZeneca and MSD

    FOLLOW-UP OF EPITHELIAL OVARIAN CANCER PATIENT AFTER PRIMARY TREATMENT (Controversies and actual guidelines)

    Get PDF
    SAŽETAK. Objavljene smjernice vezane za follow-up pacijentica primarno liječenih od karcinoma jajnika, ali i drugih ginekoloških malignoma, temelje se na podacima samo nekoliko studija koje nisu randomizirane i koje ne prikazuju učinkovitost i utrošak/dobrobit pretraga što su korištene za dijagnozu recidiva bolesti. Te studije/preporuke nisu usuglašene po vrsti pretraga i vremenskoga intervala pregleda. Uz to kod detekcije recidiva u pacijentica primarno liječenih od karcinoma jajnika, ostaje još terapijska dilema s obzirom na to da će gotovo svaka pacijentica s recidivom bolesti umrijeti. Follow-up asimptomatskih pacijentica najčešće obuhvaća uvid u povijest bolesti, serumski CA 125, ginekološki fizikalni pregled i često ultrazvučni pregled, a koriste se i druge radiološke pretrage kada simptomi i znakovi ukazuju na mogući recidiv bolesti. U literaturi nalazimo dvije oprečne tendencije. Prva koja vodi minimalističkome praćenju i druga koja, na osnovi novih procedura, lijekova i tehnologija, potiče kliničara da se koristi skupim pretragama koje još nisu znanstveno opravdane. Potrebna su velika prospektivna randominizirana ispitivanja koja uspoređuju minimalistički follow-up s intenzivnim skupim pristupom pretraga. Studije moraju voditi računa o ciljevima liječnika (dobri i učinkoviti rezultati koji jamče najbolju kliničku praksu), potrebama pacijentica (percepcija da je liječenje vođeno na odgovarajući način) i realnim mogućnostima zdravstvenoga sustava. Te studije trebale bi jasnije usporediti objektivni klinički ishod (sveukupno preživljenje, vremenski interval bez bolesti i komplikacije) te subjektivni ishod (kvalitetu života i očekivanja pacijentica).All the guidelines published regarding the follow up of patient primary treated for ovarian cancer and other gynecological cancer, are the results only of few studies not randomised and in absence of evidence of effectiveness and cost/benefit of the procedure used for diagnosis of recurrent disease. Few formal guidelines exist regarding the surveillance of these patients, and there is no agreement in the literature about the type and timing of examinations to perform. Moreover, the objective of follow-up is unclear as recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer continues to be a therapeutic dilemma and quite all the relapsed patients will eventually die of their ¬disease. The follow-up of asymptomatic patients generally include complete clinical history, serum cancer antigen (CA 125) assay, physical examination, and often ultrasound examination, whereas additional radiologic imaging techniques are usually performed when symptoms or signs appear. Currently, there exist two opposite tendencies suggesting different follow-up modalities. On one side »minimalistic« follow-up and on the other side, the introduction of new drugs and new technologies induce the physician to prescribe expensive examinations without proved utility. Prospective randomised clinical trials have to be planned in order to ¬compare minimalistic and intensive follow-up policies. These trials have to evaluate the relationship between the gynecological oncologist’s needs (good quality scentific data available, which leads the best clinical practice), patient’s need (according to the satisfaction degree they feel about the treatments and follow-up) and possibility of health care system. New clinical trials also are needed in order to evaluate the relationship between the objective clinical outcome (overall survival, disease-free interval, and complications) and the subjective outcome (quality of life and expentacies of the patient)
    • …
    corecore