Search

Purpose: To evaluate atezolizumab combined with platinum-based chemotherapy (CT) followed by maintenance niraparib for late-relapsing recurrent ovarian cancer., Methods: The multicenter placebo-controlled double-blind randomized phase III ENGOT-OV41/GEICO 69-O/ANITA trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03598270) enrolled patients with measurable high-grade serous, endometrioid, or undifferentiated recurrent ovarian cancer who had received one or two previous CT lines (most recent including platinum) and had a treatment-free interval since last platinum (TFIp) of >6 months. Patients were stratified by investigator-selected carboplatin doublet, TFIp, BRCA status, and PD-L1 status in de novo biopsy and randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either atezolizumab or placebo throughout standard therapy comprising six cycles of a carboplatin doublet followed (in patients with response/stable disease) by maintenance niraparib until progression. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST v1.1., Results: Between November 2018 and January 2022, 417 patients were randomly assigned (15% BRCA- mutated, 36% PD-L1-positive, 66% TFIp >12 months, 11% previous poly [ADP-ribose] polymerase inhibitor after frontline CT, and 53% previous bevacizumab). Median follow-up was 28.6 months (95% CI, 26.6 to 30.5 months). Atezolizumab did not significantly improve PFS (hazard ratio, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.71 to 1.10]; P = .28). Median PFS was 11.2 months (95% CI, 10.1 to 12.1 months) with atezolizumab versus 10.1 months (95% CI, 9.2 to 11.2 months) with standard therapy. Subgroup analyses generally showed consistent results, including analyses by PD-L1 status. The objective response rate (ORR) was 45% (95% CI, 39 to 52) with atezolizumab and 43% (95% CI, 36 to 49) with standard therapy. The safety profile was as expected from previous experience of these drugs., Conclusion: Combining atezolizumab with CT and maintenance niraparib for late-relapsing recurrent ovarian cancer did not significantly improve PFS or the ORR.

Objective: To identify characteristics associated with long-term progression-free survival (≥2 years) in patients with advanced ovarian cancer treated with niraparib first-line maintenance therapy in the phase III PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 study., Methods: In this post hoc analysis of PRIMA, patients randomized to niraparib were grouped based on investigator-assessed progression-free survival (progressive disease/censoring <2 years or ≥2 years after randomization). Variables assessed for predictive value were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage at diagnosis, clinical response to platinum-based chemotherapy, number of prior chemotherapy cycles, primary tumor location, body mass index, categorical age, debulking surgery type, number of baseline target lesions, number of baseline non-target lesions, BRCA /homologous recombination-deficiency status, residual disease status, and duration from end of chemotherapy to randomization. Logistic regression modeling using backward elimination (significance level=0.15) identified covariates associated with long-term progression-free survival (clinical cut-off date November 17, 2021)., Results: Of 487 patients randomized to niraparib, 152 (31%) had progressive disease/censoring ≥2 years after randomization. Multivariable logistic regression modeling using backward elimination identified BRCA1/2 mutation/homologous recombination deficiency status (p<0.0001), FIGO stage (p=0.041), primary tumor location (p=0.095), and number of baseline non-target lesions (p=0.0001) to be associated with long-term progression-free survival. Patients significantly more likely to achieve progression-free survival of ≥2 years in the final model were those with BRCA1 - and BRCA2 -mutated/homologous recombination-deficient tumors or BRCA wild-type/not determined/homologous recombination-deficient tumors (vs BRCA wild-type/homologous recombination-proficient/not determined tumors), FIGO stage III (vs IV), and 0 or 1 baseline non-target lesions (vs ≥2 baseline non-target lesions)., Conclusions: The hypothesis-generating results of this analysis suggest that BRCA1/2 mutation/homologous recombination-deficiency status, FIGO stage, and number of baseline non-target lesions may predict progression-free survival of ≥2 years in patients with advanced ovarian cancer receiving niraparib first-line maintenance therapy., Trial Registration Number: NCT02655016., Competing Interests: Competing interests: WSG reports consulting and speaker fees from GSK. BPB reports honoraria, support for attending meetings and/or travel from AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK, MSD, and PharmaMar and advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK, and MSD. DMO reports personal fees (consulting and/or advisory boards) and funding for clinical research from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Eisai, Genentech/Roche, GOG Foundation, Immunogen, Iovance, Janssen/J&J, Merck, Mersana, Novocure, Regeneron, SDP Oncology (BBI), Seagen, and Tesaro/GSK; funding for clinical research from Ajinomoto, Array Biopharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cerulean Pharma, EMD Serono, Ergomed, Genmab, INC Research, inVentiv Health Clinical, Ludwig Cancer Research, New Mexico Cancer Care Alliance, PRA Intl, Serono, Stemcentrx, TRACON Pharmaceuticals, VentiRx, and Yale University; personal fees from Myriad Genetics, Rubis, and Tarveda; personal fees and funding for clinical research from Agenus; and personal fees (consulting and/or advisory boards) from Ambry, Arquer Diagnostics, Celsion, Corcept Therapeutics, Elevar, InxMed, Novartis, Roche Diagnostics MSA, Sorrento, Takeda, and Toray. IV reports institutional payments for corporate-sponsored research from Amgen and Roche and contracted research from Genmab and Oncoinvent AS; institutional consulting fee payments from Amgen (Europe) GmbH, AstraZeneca, Carrick Therapeutics, Clovis Oncology, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Elevar Therapeutics, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Mersana, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Novocure, Octimet Oncology, Oncoinvent AS, Sotio AS, Verastem Oncology, and Zentalis; consulting fees from Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharma, and Oncoinvent AS; honoraria payment from Agenus, Aksebio, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Jazz Pharma, Karyopharm, MSD, Novartis, Novocure, Oncoinvent AS, Seagen, and Sotio AS; institutional travel support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, MSD, Roche, and Tesaro; and advisory board fees from Agenus, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals (2021), Eisai, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, MSD, Novartis, Novocure, Seagen (2021), and Sotio AS. BJM reports consulting fees from Agenus, Akeso Bio, Amgen, Aravive, Bayer, Elevar, EMD Merck, Genmab/Seagen, GOG Foundation, Gradalis, ImmunoGen, Iovance, Karyopharm, MacroGenics, Mersana, Myriad, Novartis, Novocure, Pfizer, Puma, Regeneron, Sorrento, US Oncology Research, VBL, and speakers’ bureau honoraria from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Eisai, Merck, Roche/Genentech, and Tesaro/GSK. AA reports advisory board fees from GSK and MSD. LJC reports institutional research funding from AbbVie, Advaxis, Agenus, Ajinomoto, Arcus Biosciences, Array BioPharma, AstraZeneca, BeiGene USA, BMS, Cerulean Pharma, Clovis Oncology, Deciphera Pharma, Eisai, EMD Serono, Ergomed Clinical Research, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Genmab, GSK, Hoffman–LaRoche, Immunogen, Incyte Corporation, Iovance Biotherapeutics, InVentiv Health Clinical, Jansen R&D, Karyopharm, Leap Therapeutics, Ludwig Institute of Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Mersana Therapeutics, Novocure, OncoQuest, OvaGene, Pfizer, PharmaMar, PRA International, Precision Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Serono, Stemcentrx, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Oncology, Sutro Biopharma, Tesaro (GSK), TRACON Pharm, and Verastem; personal advisory board fees from A28 Therapeutics, Celsion Corporation, Corcept Therapeutics, Elevar Therapeutics, GSK, Immunogen, InxMed, Luzsana Biotechnology, Myriad Genetics, Onconova, Rubius Therapeutics, Sorrento Therapeutics, Toray Industries, and VBL Therapeutics; and member of the data monitoring committee for Corcept Therapeutics. RS reports support for attending meetings from MSD and advisory board fees from Clovis Oncology, GSK, and MSD. TJH reports personal consulting fees from Aadi, AstraZeneca, Caris, Clovis, Eisai, Epsilogen, Genelux, Genentech, GSK, Immunogen, J&J, Merck, Mersana, and Seagen; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Corcept; and leadership role on the GOG Foundation Board and president of GOG Partners. PF reports payment or honoraria and payment for expert testimony from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Daiichi, GSK, and Novartis and support for attending meetings from AstraZeneca, Daiichi, GSK, and Novartis. BP reports institutional grant support from AstraZeneca, Celsion, Clovis Oncology, Duality Bio, Eisai, Genentech/Roche, Karyopharm, Merck, Mersana, Seagen, Sutro Biopharma, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Tesaro/GSK, Toray, and VBL Therapeutics; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, BioNtech, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, GOG Foundation, Lily, Merck, Mersana, Seagen, Sutro Biopharma, Tesaro/GSK, Onconova, and Toray; and travel support from GSK and BioNtech. EIB reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Merck; consulting or advisory roles at AstraZeneca and GSK; institutional research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis, Eisai, GSK, Merck, and Resolve; travel support from AstraZeneca; and relationship with medical director of the North Eastern German Society of Gynecological Oncology (NOGGO). CM reports advisory role fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK, ImmunoGen, and Merck. AY reports a GEICO grant by GSK. RGM reports personal fees from Fujirebio Diagnostics and research funding from Angle plc. PV reports payment of honoraria to self from MSD, Novartis, and Roche. NR-J reports advisory board fees from Eisai. WY and JH are employees of GSK. AG-M reports fees for different educational or advisory-related activities from Alkermes, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Eisai, Genmab, GSK, Hedera Dx, Immunogen, Illumina, Karyopharm, Mersana, MSD, Novartis, Novocure, Oncoinvent, PharmaMar, Regeneron, Roche, Seagen, Sotio, Sutro, Takeda, and Tubulis., (© IGCS and ESGO 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasms (PEComas) encompass a heterogeneous family of mesenchymal tumors. Previously described clinicopathologic features aimed at distinguishing benign from malignant variants but lacked prognostic value., Methods: This retrospective analysis examined clinicopathologic data from patients who had localized PEComa across French Sarcoma Network centers. The authors analyzed 12 clinicopathologic features in a Cox proportional hazard framework to derive a multivariate prognostic risk model for event-free survival (EFS). They built the PEComa prognostic score (PEC-PRO), in which scores ranged from 0 to 5, based on the coefficients of the multivariate model. Three groups were identified: low risk (score = 0), intermediate risk (score = 1), and high risk (score ≥ 2)., Results: Analyzing 87 patients who had a median 46-month follow-up (interquartile range, 20-74 months), the median EFS was 96.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 47.1 months to not applicable), with 2-year and 5-year EFS rates of 64.7% and 58%, respectively. The median overall survival was unreached, with 2-year and 5-year overall survival rates of 82.3% and 69.3%, respectively. The simplified Folpe classification did not correlate with EFS. Multivariate analysis identified three factors affecting EFS: positive surgical margins (hazard ratio [HR], 5.17; 95% CI, 1.65-16.24; p = .008), necrosis (HR, 3.94; 95% CI, 1.16-13.43; p = .030), and male sex (HR, 3.13; 95% CI, 1.19-8.27; p = 0.023). Four variables were retained in the prognostic model. Patients with low-risk PEC-PRO scores had a 2-year EFS rate of 93.7% (95% CI, 83.8%-100.0%), those with intermediate-risk PEC-PRO scores had a 2-year EFS rate of 67.4% (95% CI, 53.9%-80.9%), and those with high-risk PEC-PRO scores had a 2-year EFS rate of 2.3% (95% CI, 0.0%-18.3%)., Conclusions: The PEC-PRO score reliably predicts the risk of postoperative recurrence in patients with localized PEComa. It has the potential to improve follow-up strategies but requires validation in a prospective trial., (© 2024 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Cancer Society.)

Objective: To assess patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with ovarian cancer (OC) who received niraparib as first-line maintenance therapy., Methods: PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 (NCT02655016) enrolled patients with newly diagnosed advanced OC who responded to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomized (2:1) to niraparib or placebo once daily in 28-day cycles until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or death. HRQoL was assessed as a prespecified secondary end point using patient-reported responses to the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QOL Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), the EORTC QLQ Ovarian Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-OV28), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovarian Symptom Index (FOSI), and EQ-5D-5L questionnaires. Assessments were collected at baseline and every 8 weeks (±7 days) for 56 weeks, beginning on cycle 1/day 1, then every 12 weeks (±7 days) thereafter while the patient received study treatment., Results: Among trial participants (niraparib, n = 487; placebo, n = 246), PRO adherence exceeded 80% for all instruments across all cycles. Patients reported no decline over time in HRQoL measured via EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/QoL and FOSI overall scores. Scores for abdominal/gastrointestinal symptoms (EORTC QLQ-OV28) and nausea and vomiting, appetite loss, and constipation (EORTC QLQ-C30) were higher (worse symptoms) in niraparib-treated patients than placebo-treated patients; except for constipation, these differences resolved over time. Patients did not self-report any worsening from baseline of fatigue, headache, insomnia, or abdominal pain on questionnaires., Conclusions: Despite some early, largely transient increases in gastrointestinal symptoms, patients with OC treated with niraparib first-line maintenance therapy reported no worsening in overall HRQoL., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. Pothuri reports institutional grant support from AstraZeneca, Celsion, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Genentech/Roche, GSK, I-Mab, Immunogen, Incyte, Karyopharm, Merck, Mersana, Onconova, Seagen, Sutro Biopharma, and Toray; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, GOG Foundation, Merck, and Seagen; support for attending meetings from GOG Partners; advisory board fees from Arquer Diagnostics, Atossa, Clovis Oncology, Deciphera, Eisai, Elevar Therapeutics, GOG Foundation, I-Mab, Immunogen, Lily, Merck, Mersana, Natera, Onconova, Regeneron, Sutro Biopharma, Tesaro/GSK, Toray, and VBL Therapeutic. Dr. Han has nothing to disclose. Dr. Chase reports consultant fees from AstraZeneca and GSK, and honoraria from AstraZeneca, GSK, Immunogen, and Seagen/Genmab. Dr. Heitz reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, GSK, Roche, and Tesaro; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Roche, and Tesaro. Dr. Burger reports receiving travel support from Genentech and Mersana Therapeutics, stock from Genentech and Mersana Therapeutics, and is an employee of Genentech and Mersana Therapeutics. Dr. Gaba reports consulting fees, advisory board, and honoraria fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD, and PharmaMar, and support for attending meetings from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, and MSD. Dr. Van Le has nothing to disclose. Dr. Guerra reports AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, Merck, Pharmamar, Roche, and Tesaro; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK/Tesaro, and Merck; payment for expert testimony from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, Merck, Tesaro; travel support from GSK, Roche, and Tesaro; advisory board participation for AstraZeneca, GSK, Merck, and Tesaro. Dr. Bender reports institutional grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology Inc., Genentech, MSD, and Tesaro. Dr. Korach serves in a leadership role for ISGO. Dr. Cloven reports advisory board fees from Aadii, GSK, Kartos 2022, Novita Pharmaceuticals 2023, Tarveda Therapeutics, Toray, Umoja 2022, and Zentalis. Dr. Churruca reports payment for expert testimony from PharmaMar and support for attending meetings from GSK, and MSD. Dr. Follana reports payment for expert testimony from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Daiichi, GSK, and Novartis; and support for attending meetings from AstraZeneca, Daiichi, GSK, and Novartis. Dr. DiSilvestro reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Immunogen; travel support from AstraZeneca; and leadership roles in the GOG Foundation Board of Directors and NRG Oncology Board of Directors. Dr. Baurain reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GSK, Immunocore, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Sun Pharma. Dr. Jardon has nothing to disclose (deceased). Dr. Pisano has nothing to disclose. Dr. Peen has nothing to disclose. Dr. Mäenpää reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eisai, and GSK. Dr. Gupta was an employee of GSK at the time the analysis was conducted; currently an employee of Mersana Therapeutics. Dr. Bacqué was an employee of GSK at the time the analysis was conducted; currently an employee of Repare Therapeutics. Dr. Li was an employee of GSK at the time the analysis was conducted and reports GSK stock ownership; currently an employee of Adagio Therapeutics. Ms. Compton is a former employee of GSK and currently receiving consulting fees from GSK. Dr. Antonova is a former employee of GSK. Dr. Monk reports consulting fees from Agenus, Akeso Biopharma, Amgen, Aravive, Bayer, Elevar, EMD Merck, Genmab/Seagen, GOG Foundation, Gradalis, ImmunoGen, Iovance, Karyopharm, MacroGenics, Mersana, Myriad, Novartis, Novocure, Pfizer, Puma, Regeneron, Sorrento, US Oncology Research, and VBL; and speakers' bureau honoraria from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Eisai, Merck, Roche/Genentech, and Tesaro/GSK. Dr. González-Martín reports manuscript funding from GSK; research/grant funding from Roche and Tesaro/GSK; advisory/consulting fees from Alkermes, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, HederaDx, ImmunoGen, Illunina, MacroGenics, Mersana, MSD, Novartis, Novocure, Oncoinvent, Pfizer/Merck, PharmaMar, Roche, Seagen, Sotio, Sutro, Takeda, and Tubuli; speaker bureau fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, PharmaMar, and Roche; and support for attending meetings from AstraZeneca, GSK, PharmaMar, and Roche., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The GOG240 trial established bevacizumab with chemotherapy as standard first-line therapy for metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer. In the BEATcc trial (ENGOT-Cx10-GEICO 68-C-JGOG1084-GOG-3030), we aimed to evaluate the addition of an immune checkpoint inhibitor to this standard backbone., Methods: In this investigator-initiated, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial, patients from 92 sites in Europe, Japan, and the USA with metastatic (stage IVB), persistent, or recurrent cervical cancer that was measurable, previously untreated, and not amenable to curative surgery or radiation were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive standard therapy (cisplatin 50 mg/m 2 or carboplatin area under the curve of 5, paclitaxel 175 mg/m 2 , and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg, all on day 1 of every 3-week cycle) with or without atezolizumab 1200 mg. Treatment was continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, patient withdrawal, or death. Stratification factors were previous concomitant chemoradiation (yes vs no), histology (squamous cell carcinoma vs adenocarcinoma including adenosquamous carcinoma), and platinum backbone (cisplatin vs carboplatin). Dual primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1 and overall survival analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03556839, and is ongoing., Findings: Between Oct 8, 2018, and Aug 20, 2021, 410 of 519 patients assessed for eligibility were enrolled. Median progression-free survival was 13·7 months (95% CI 12·3-16·6) with atezolizumab and 10·4 months (9·7-11·7) with standard therapy (hazard ratio [HR]=0·62 [95% CI 0·49-0·78]; p<0·0001); at the interim overall survival analysis, median overall survival was 32·1 months (95% CI 25·3-36·8) versus 22·8 months (20·3-28·0), respectively (HR 0·68 [95% CI 0·52-0·88]; p=0·0046). Grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 79% of patients in the experimental group and in 75% of patients in the standard group. Grade 1-2 diarrhoea, arthralgia, pyrexia, and rash were increased with atezolizumab., Interpretation: Adding atezolizumab to a standard bevacizumab plus platinum regimen for metastatic, persistent, or recurrent cervical cancer significantly improves progression-free and overall survival and should be considered as a new first-line therapy option., Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests AO reports personal fees for participation in the advisory boards of AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Deciphera, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Mersana Therapeutics, PharmaMar, MSD de España, Agenus, Sutro, Corcept Therapeutics, EMD Serono, Novocure, Shattuck Labs, iTeos, and Eisai; travel and accommodation support from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, and Roche; and funding paid to institution from AbbVie Deutschland, Advaxis, Aeterna Zentaris, Amgen, Aprea Therapeutics AB, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Immunogen, MSD de España, Takeda, PharmaMar, Tesaro, and Bristol Myers Squibb. LG reports support for attending meetings or travel from Viatris, GSK, and MSD; consulting fees paid to institution for participation in the advisory boards of Clovis, GSK, AstraZeneca, and Seagen; and speaker honoraria paid to institution from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Eisai. JM-G reports personal fees for participation in the advisory boards of AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK, and PharmaMar; research grants paid to institution from GSK and Roche; and travel and accommodation expenses from GSK−Tesaro, Pfizer, and PharmaMar. GV reports honoraria for speaker engagements from MSD, Pierre Fabre, GSK, and Pfizer; and consulting fees from Reveal Genomics. UDG reports personal consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, BMS, Clovis Oncology, Dompé Farmaceutici, Merck, MSD, PharmaMar, Astellas, Bayer, Ipsen, Novartis, Eisai, and Janssen; other funding paid to institution from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, and Roche; and support for attending meetings or travel from Pfizer, Ipsen, and AstraZeneca. KL reports personal honoraria from Eisai; participation on data safety monitoring or advisory boards of Eisai, MSD, Nykode, AstraZeneca, and GSK (honoraria paid to institution); and funding paid to institution from GSK. LW reports personal honoraria for participation in the advisory boards of AstraZeneca, Pfizer, GSK, Roche, MSD–Merck, Eisai, and Seagen; personal honoraria for speaker engagements from AstraZeneca, Eisai, GSK, Pfizer, Roche, MSD–Merck, and Seagen; and support for attending meetings or travel from GSK and MSD. NC reports consultancy or advisory roles for AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, GSK, Immunogen, Mersana, MSD−Merck, Nuvation Bio, OncXerna, Pfizer, Pieris, and Roche; promotional speaker roles for AstraZeneca, Novartis, Clovis Oncology, MSD−Merck, and GSK; research grants from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Roche; and support for attending meetings or travel from AstraZeneca and GSK. LD reports personal fees for scientific advisory boards from Aadi Bioscience and Regeneron; fees paid to institution for scientific advisory boards from Merck; membership of the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Editorial Board; personal royalties for writing expert content for UpToDate, Wiley, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology; personal fees for continuing medical education activities for Advance Medical, CEA Group, and Clinical Care Options; research funding paid to institution for investigator-initiated trials from Merck; clinical trial grants paid to institution from Genentech−Roche, AbbVie (GOG 3005), Acrivon, Advaxis, Aduro BioTech, Alkermes, Blueprint, Constellation, Eisai, GSK–Novartis, Immunogen, Inovio, Iovance, Karyopharm, KSQ Therapeutics, Lycera, Merck, Morab, MorphoTek, Naveris, Nurix, OncoQuest, Pfizer, Syndax, Tesaro, and Zentalis; and fees paid to institution for membership of data and safety monitoring committees for Agenus and Inovio. AL reports personal fees for presentations or educational events from Medscape and PeerVoice; consulting fees paid to institution from Owkin; speaker honoraria paid to institution from MSD, GSK, AstraZeneca, and Eisai; fees paid to institution for participation in the advisory boards of AstraZeneca, MSD, Seagen, GSK, Genmab, Zentalis, and Blueprint; non-remunerated independent data safety monitoring board participation for Clovis and BMS; an educational grant paid to institution from AstraZeneca; and support for attending meetings or travel from OSE Immunotherapeutics. AG-O reports honoraria paid to institution for participation in the advisory board of Novartis; personal honoraria for speaker engagements from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, and Lilly; and support for attending meetings or travel from Pfizer and Novartis. MJR reports personal fees for participation in the advisory boards of AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, PharmaMar, MSD de España, Eisai, and Roche; personal fees for speaker engagements from MSD, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, and PharmaMar; and travel and accommodation from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, Roche, GSK, and MSD de España. LF-M reports honoraria paid to institution for participation in the advisory boards of GSK; honoraria paid to institution for speaker engagements from GSK, AstraZeneca–MSD, and Eisai; and support for attending meetings or travel from AstraZeneca–MSD and GSK. DL reports personal fees for participation in the advisory boards of AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Corcept, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, MSD, Oncoinvent, PharmaMar, Seagen, and Sutro; personal fees for consultancy roles from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, MSD, Novartis, PharmaMar, and Seagen; clinical trial or research funding to institution from Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD, and PharmaMar; other financial or non-financial interests from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Corcept, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Incyte, MSD, Novartis, Oncoinvent, PharmaMar, Roche, Seagen, and Sutro; and travel grants from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, and GSK. IR-C reports personal honoraria for participation in the advisory boards of Adaptimmune, Agenus, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Deciphera, Eisai, EQRx, GSK, Merck Serono, MacroGenics, Mersana, Novartis, Onxeo, Roche, and Sutro Biopharma; honoraria paid to institution for participation in the advisory boards of MSD (translational research); and funding paid to institution for translational research from BMS. LM reports participation in the advisory board of Roche; and honoraria for speaker engagements from Roche, GSK, Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, and Lilly. FJ reports honoraria for lectures, expert boards, and educational events from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, and Seagen; travel and accommodation support from GSK, Eisai, and MSD; and financial support for national academic GINECO trials from GSK and AstraZeneca. JA reports honoraria for speaker bureaus from GSK, Roche, AstraZeneca, MSD, PharmaMar, and Clovis; and advisory boards for GSK, MSD, AstraZeneca, and Clovis. PF reports personal fees for expert testimony from Daiichi; personal fees for invited speaker engagements from GSK and MSD; and support for attending meetings or travel from Lilly, Novartis, and GSK. IR reports personal fees for advisory boards from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, PharmaMar, Roche, and MSD; and travel and accommodation from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, Roche, and GSK. CL reports honoraria for advisory board participation from GSK; personal honoraria for speaker engagements from GSK, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, and MSD; and support for attending meetings or travel from MSD and GSK. JAP-F reports honoraria for speaker engagements from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, Pharma&, Clovis, and GSK; payment for expert testimony from AstraZeneca, GSK, Roche, and PharmaMar; support for attending meetings or travel from Karyopharm, AstraZeneca, Roche, and PharmaMar; grants paid to institution from GSK and PharmaMar; equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts, or other services paid to institution from GSK; participation on data safety monitoring or advisory boards for Ability Pharma; and has a patent pending in breast cancer. HD reports personal honoraria for advisory board participation from AstraZeneca. LMR reports honoraria for speaker engagements from Genmab−Seagen, Blueprint Oncology, Curio Science, and Physicians Education Resource; honoraria for participation in the advisory boards of AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GOG Foundation, Aadi Biosciences, Seagen, OnTarget Laboratories, Merck, Mersana, Rubius Therapeutics, Myriad Genetics, Genentech−Roche, Eisai, Novocure, and Immunogen; consulting fees from the GOG Foundation; and funding paid to institution from Genentech−Roche, On Target Laboratories, Pfizer, Aivita Biomedical, Tesaro, AstraZeneca, Merck, Akeso Biopharma, and Grupo Español de Investigación en Cáncer ginecologico. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: In October 2020, the French Health Authority granted early access outside of the clinical trial setting for dostarlimab, a programmed death-1 inhibitor. Dostarlimab was approved by the European Medicines Agency (in April 2021) as monotherapy for patients with post-platinum mismatch repair deficient/microsatellite instability-high advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer, based on the results of the GARNET trial (NCT02715284)., Methods: This was a real-world descriptive analysis of patients granted cohort temporary authorization of use to receive dostarlimab between November 2020 and June 2021. Physicians could complete follow-up forms at each treatment cycle to provide clinical information, safety, and efficacy data. Safety and disease progression data were also captured through pharmacovigilance reports., Results: Of 95 temporary authorization of use requests made by 80 oncologists in 59 French hospitals, 87 patients were eligible, and 80 received≥1 dose of dostarlimab. Based on treatment response assessments received (n=43), the mean (standard deviation) time from treatment initiation to response evaluation was 11 (6) weeks. The disease control rate (complete plus partial responses plus stable disease rates) was 56% (n=24/43), and the overall response rate was 35% (n=15/43); both consistent with those reported in the GARNET trial. No new safety signals were reported., Discussion: The enrolment of 80 patients in an 8-month period highlights the need for access to novel treatment regimens in France for these patients post-platinum. Prospective randomized studies are ongoing to assess the efficacy and safety of dostarlimab and other checkpoint inhibitors as first-line treatment in patients with endometrial cancer., (Copyright © 2023 Société Française du Cancer. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: The PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 (NCT02655016) trial was amended to prospectively evaluate the safety and efficacy of an individualized starting dose (ISD) regimen of niraparib for first-line maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer., Methods: In the phase 3 PRIMA trial, patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer with a complete/partial response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy (N = 733) were initially treated with a fixed starting dose (FSD) regimen of 300 mg once daily. Subsequently, the protocol was amended so newly enrolled patients received an ISD: 200 mg once daily in patients with baseline body weight < 77 kg or baseline platelet count < 150,000/µL, and 300 mg once daily in all other patients. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed by starting dose., Results: Overall, 475 (64.8%) patients were assigned to an FSD (niraparib, n = 317; placebo, n = 158) and 258 (35.2%) were assigned to an ISD (niraparib, n = 170; placebo, n = 88). Efficacy in patients who received FSD or ISD was similar for the overall (FSD hazard ratio [HR], 0.59 [95% CI, 0.46-0.76] vs. ISD HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.48-0.98]) and the homologous recombination-deficient (FSD HR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.30-0.64] vs. ISD HR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.22-0.72]) populations. In patients with low body weight/platelet count, rates of grades ≥3 and 4 hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events, dose interruptions, and dose reductions were lower for those who received ISD than for those who received FSD., Conclusions: In PRIMA, similar dose intensity, similar efficacy, and improved safety were observed with the ISD compared with the FSD regimen., (© 2023 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Cancer Society.)

Background: Current standards for toxicity reporting do not fully capture the impact of adverse events (AEs) on patients' quality of life (QoL). This study aimed to evaluate the association between toxicity and QoL by using toxicity scores that take into account CTCAE grade grouping and AE duration and cumulation., Methods: Analyses were performed on the AURELIA trial dataset, including 361 patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer treated with chemotherapy alone or with bevacizumab. Global and physical functioning QoL were issued from the EORTC QoL Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30), collected at baseline and 8/9 and 16/18 weeks after treatment initiation. Four toxicity scores were computed: the total number of AEs, multiplied by their grade and not, and the cumulative duration of AEs, weighted by their grade and not. Each score included all AEs or only grade 3/4 nonlaboratory or treatment-related AEs. The relationship between toxicity scores and QoL was assessed through linear mixed regression., Results: We found that 171 (47.5%) and 43 (11.9%) patients experienced at least one grade 3 or 4 AE, respectively, whereas 113 (31.4%) experienced grade 2 AEs only. Physical QoL was negatively associated with all toxicity scores when computed with all grades of AEs (all P<.01), with a weaker association when treatment-related AEs were considered. Global QoL was negatively associated with toxicity scores computed with nonlaboratory all-grade AEs only (β, -3.42 to -3.13; all P<.01). Degrees of association were lower when considering the AE duration., Conclusions: In this analysis of patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer, toxicity scores based on the cumulative number of AEs, modulated or not by grade, were more effective at predicting QoL changes than those based on AE duration. Toxicity impact on QoL was better reflected when grade 2 AEs were taken into account together with grade 3/4 AEs, whatever their treatment imputability, and when laboratory AEs were excluded.

Aim: The oral anti-angiogenic therapy nintedanib prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) when combined with chemotherapy after primary surgery for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. The randomized phase II CHIVA trial evaluated the impact of combining nintedanib with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for epithelial ovarian cancer., Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed unresectable FIGO stage IIIC-IV epithelial ovarian cancer received 3-4 cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel every 3 weeks as NACT before interval debulking surgery (IDS), followed by 2-3 post-operative cycles. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive either nintedanib 200 mg twice daily or placebo on days 2-21 every 3 weeks during NACT (omitting peri-operative cycles), and then as maintenance therapy for up to 2 years. The primary endpoint was PFS., Results: Between January 2013 and May 2015, 188 patients were randomized (124 to nintedanib, 64 to placebo). PFS was significantly inferior with nintedanib (median 14.4 versus 16.8 months with placebo; hazard ratio 1.50, p = 0.02). Overall survival (OS) was also inferior (median 37.7 versus 44.1 months, respectively; hazard ratio 1.54, p = 0.054). Nintedanib was associated with increased toxicity (grade 3/4 adverse events: 92% versus 69%, predominantly hematologic and gastrointestinal), lower response rate by RECIST (35% versus 56% before IDS), and lower IDS feasibility (58% versus 77%) versus placebo., Conclusions: Adding nintedanib to chemotherapy and in maintenance as part of NACT for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer cannot be recommended as it increases toxicity and compromises chemotherapy efficacy (IDS, PFS, OS)., Clinicaltrials: govregistration: NCT01583322., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Gwénaël Ferron: Advisory boards (Clovis, AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD, Roche, RanD Biotech, Olympus), lectures/symposia (AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK, MSD, PharmaMar). Nicolas Delanoy: Advisory boards/honoraria (GSK, AstraZeneca, MSD, Clovis Oncology). Florence Joly: Advisory boards (Clovis, AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD, Seagen), lectures/symposia (AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK, MSD); non-gynecology: Ipsen, Janssen, Sanofi, Bayer, Astellas, Pfizer, Amgen. Alain Lortholary: Advisory board fees (AstraZeneca, MSD Tesaro), speaker honoraria (Clovis Oncology, Roche), congress participation (Novartis, Pfizer, MSD, Lilly, Roche), member of CS3 sein UNICANCER. Benoît You: Consulting (MSD, AstraZeneca, GSK–Tesaro, Bayer, Roche/Genentech, ECS Progastrin, Novartis, LEK, Amgen, Clovis Oncology, Merck Serono, BMS, Seagen, Myriad). Nadine Dohollou: Consulting/expert (Daiichi, Lilly, Roche, Seagen), conferences/training (Daiichi, Lilly, Roche, Seagen), research grants/clinical trials (AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genomic Health, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche). Anne Floquet: Advisory boards (MSD, AstraZeneca, GSK, Clovis Oncology), congress participation (AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD, PharmaMar, Roche). Michel Fabbro: AstraZeneca, GSK, Clovis. Jérôme Alexandre: AstraZeneca, GSK, Clovis, MSD, Eisai, Novartis. Isabelle Ray-Coquard: Advisory/consultancy (Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, ImmunoGen, Mersana, Deciphera, Novocure, Eisai, Sutro Pharma, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer/Merck Serono, PharmaMar, Roche), research grant/funding (Roche, BMS, MSD, GSK), travel/accommodation/expenses (AstraZeneca, Roche, GSK, Clovis)., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: Despite an increasing number of therapeutic indications, there are no specific recommendations regarding the management of PARP inhibitors other than what is specified in the SmPC of each substance. A Delphi French consensus was conducted to establish practical guidelines to meet the needs identified by healthcare professionals and patients., Method: Following the Delphi method, statements to optimize PARP inhibitor management were drafted by a multidisciplinary Steering Committee made up of 17 experts. These statements were submitted to the independent and anonymous vote of clinicians involved in treating patients on PARP inhibitors., Results: This article presents 52 statements on the following topics: initiation and treatment; management of adverse events (hematological effects, gastrointestinal effects, renal effects, pulmonary effects, cutaneous effects, hypertension, insomnia, fatigue, dizziness); special populations and situations; communication with the patient; adherence. Forty-nine statements obtained voter consensus after 3 voting rounds. A hematologist and a nephrologist supplemented this task by drafting an expert opinion on the risk of occurrence of secondary leukemia and nephrological toxicity., Conclusions: This paper is the first Delphi consensus on the practical management of PARP inhibitors. The pragmatic recommendations resulting from this paper should make it possible to manage the side effects of PARP inhibitors better and thus prevent early treatment discontinuation and improve patient adherence by preserving quality of life., (Copyright © 2022 Société Française du Cancer. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

In this analysis, we examined the relationship between progression-free survival (PFS) and mutation status of 18 homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes in patients in the non-germline BRCA -mutated (non-g BRCA m) cohort of the ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial (NCT01847274), which evaluated niraparib maintenance therapy for patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. This post hoc exploratory biomarker analysis was performed using tumor samples collected from 331 patients enrolled in the phase III ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial's non-g BRCA m cohort. Niraparib demonstrated PFS benefit in patients with either somatic BRCA- mutated (s BRCA m; HR, 0.27; 95% confidence interval, CI, 0.08-0.88) or BRCA wild-type ( BRCA wt; HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.34-0.64) tumors. Patients with BRCA wt tumors with other non- BRCA HRR mutations also derived benefit from niraparib (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.13-0.77), as did patients with BRCA wt/HRRwt (HRR wild-type) tumors (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.35-0.70). When patients with BRCA wt/HRRwt tumors were further categorized by genomic instability score (GIS), clinical benefit was observed in patients with homologous recombination-deficient (GIS ≥ 42; HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.18-0.61) and in patients with homologous recombination-proficient (HRp; GIS < 42; HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.36-0.99) disease. Although patients with s BRCA m, other non- BRCA HRR mutations, or GIS ≥ 42 benefited the most from niraparib treatment, PFS benefit was also seen in HRp (GIS < 42) patients without HRR mutations. These results support the use of niraparib in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer regardless of BRCA /HRR mutation status or myChoice CDx GIS., Significance: We retrospectively evaluated the mutational profile of HRR genes in tumor samples from 331 patients from the non-germline BRCA -mutated cohort of the phase III NOVA trial of patients with platinum-sensitive high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Patients with non- BRCA HRR mutations generally benefited from second-line maintenance treatment with niraparib compared with placebo., Competing Interests: G. Lindahl reports personal fees from Honoraria for lectures outside the submitted work. S. Mahner reports grants, personal fees, and other from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Eisai, GSK, Hubro, Medac, MSD, Novartis, Nykode, Olympus, PharmaMar, Pfizer, Roche, Sensor Kinesis, Teva, and Tesaro outside the submitted work. A. Redondo reports personal fees from GSK, MSD; personal fees and other from AstraZeneca; other from Clovis; grants and personal fees from Pharmamar; and grants from Eisai outside the submitted work. M. Fabbro reports personal fees from GSK and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. B.J. Rimel reports other from GSK, Merck, Immunogen, and personal fees from Deep6AI outside the submitted work. A.M. Oza reports PI and Steering Committees with AstraZeneca, GSK, and Clovis; advisory Board member with AstraZeneca and Morphosys. U. Canzler reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Roche outside the submitted work. J.S. Berek reports grants from Tesaro during the conduct of the study. A. González-Martín reports personal fees from Alkermes, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, ImmunoGen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, MacroGenics, Novartis, Oncoinvent, Pfizer/Merck, PharmaMar, Roche, Sotio, Sutro and grants from GSK and Roche outside the submitted work. P. Follana reports personal fees from GSK, AstraZeneca, and Clovis outside the submitted work. R. Lord reports personal fees from GSK outside the submitted work. Z. Wang reports other from GSK during the conduct of the study; other from GSK outside the submitted work. D. Gupta reports other from GSK during the conduct of the study; other from GSK outside the submitted work; and D. Gupta is an employee of GSK which sponsored the NOVA trial. U. Matulonis reports personal fees from GSK, AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, Next Cure, Agenus, 2X oncology, Symphogen, Alkermes, and Morphosys during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Clearity Foundation and Ovarian Cancer Research Alliance outside the submitted work. B. Feng is an employee of GSK. No disclosures were reported by the other authors., (© 2022 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: There are limited treatment options for ovarian cancer patients with early relapse after platinum chemotherapy. In preclinical studies, we previously demonstrated the promising activity of ABT-737, a Bcl-2/Bcl-x L anti-apoptotic protein inhibitor, in chemo-resistant ovarian cancer cells and tumors, suggesting its potential activity in platinum-resistant patients., Methods: We conducted a prospective multicenter single-arm phase II study to assess the efficacy of Navitoclax (orally available ABT-737 analogue) monotherapy in 46 heavily pretreated (2-12 lines, median = 4) patients with high-grade serous platinum-resistant ovarian tumors. Navitoclax was administered at the daily dose of 150 mg during a lead-in period (7-14 days) and then increased to 250 mg daily in the absence of dose-limiting thrombocytopenia (95% CI: 13.2-39.2], median PFS was 1.64 months [ 95% CI: 1.58-2.30]. There were 16 (35.6%, 95% CI: 22.3-51.3) overall responses (RECIST v1.1): 1 partial response and 15 stable diseases. No correlation between the expression of Bim, Mcl-1 and P-ERK with clinical response was found in this study. Thrombocytopenia was the major side-effect (G3/4: n = 12; 26%), leading to pursue at the daily dose of 150 mg in 8 patients and to discontinue treatment in 3 patients. Neither significant bleeding nor toxic death were observed., Conclusions: Navitoclax monotherapy had poor activity that was not correlated with the expression of Bim, Mcl-1 and P-ERK, without unacceptable toxicity., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02591095., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest F. Joly: Abbvie for Navitoclax provision, consulting for Roche, GSK, Astra Zeneca, Clovis, MSD, Ipsen, Janssen, Astellas, Pfizer, Sanofi, BMS, Bayer. M. Fabbro: Consulting for GSK, Astra-Zeneca, and Clovis Oncology. P. Follana: GSK, Astra Zeneca, Clovis, MSD, Novartis, DAIICHI. J.S. Frenel: Consulting for Novartis, Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Lilly, Roche, BIOCAD, DAIICHI, GSK-Tesaro, Pierre Fabre, and Clovis oncology. B.You: Consulting for MSD, Astra-Zeneca, GSK-TESARO, BAYER, Roche-Genentech, ECS Progastrine, Novartis, LEK, Amgen, Clovis Oncology, Merck Serono, BMS, SEAGEN, and Myriad. J. Lequesne, J. Medioni, A. Lesoin, S. Abadie-Lacourtoisie, A. Floquet, L. Gladieff, C. Gavoille, E. Kalbacher, M. Briand, P.E. Brachet, F. Giffard, L-B. Weiswald, P.A. Just, C. Blanc-Fournier, A. Leconte, B. Clarisse, A. Leary, L. Poulain: no conflicts of interest to disclose in relation with this work., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: We have previously shown that epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) and its treatments have negative effects on long-term quality of life (QoL) and fatigue. The present multicenter study investigated the main menopausal symptoms and gynecological management of EOC survivors (EOCS)., Methods: 166 patients with relapse-free ≥3 years after the end of treatment attended a consultation with a gynecologist, including a questionnaire related to vasomotor symptoms (VMS) and sexuality, a clinical examination, a blood sample and an osteodensitometry. QoL, fatigue, insomnia and mood disorders were measured with validated questionnaires and correlated to VMS. VMS and QoL were assessed according to natural menopause (NM) or surgical menopause (SM)., Results: Mean age at the survey was 62 [21-83] years and stage III/IV (48%). Mean delay since the end of treatment was 6 years. Fifty-nine patients (36%) had SM. Half of patients reported VMS. Seventy-two percent of EOCS with SM had VMS compared to 41% with NM (P < .001). VMS were not associated with poor global QoL, fatigue, insomnia or mood disorders. Two-thirds of EOCS reported a decrease in libido. Patients with SM showed a greater decrease in libido than NM (P < .02). Fourteen percent of them had osteoporosis and 50% osteopenia. Among the 85 patients with VMS, 80 did not receive HRT after cancer treatment. At the time of the survey, only 7 (4%) patients were receiving hormone replacement therapy (HRT)., Conclusions: VMS and sexual disorders are frequently reported by EOCS, particularly among patients with SM. Most EOCS with menopausal symptoms could benefit from HRT to improve these symptoms., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Bevacizumab-containing therapy is considered a standard-of-care front-line option for stage IIIB-IV ovarian cancer based on results of randomized phase 3 trials. The multicenter non-interventional ENCOURAGE prospective cohort study assessed treatment administration and outcomes in the French real-world setting. Patients and Methods: Eligible patients were aged ≥ 18 years with planned bevacizumab-containing therapy for newly diagnosed ovarian cancer. The primary objective was to assess the safety profile of front-line bevacizumab in routine clinical practice; secondary objectives were to describe patient characteristics, indications/contraindications for bevacizumab, treatment regimens and co-medications, follow-up and monitoring, progression-free survival, and treatment at recurrence. In this non-interventional study, treatment was administered as chosen by the investigator and participation in the trial had no influence on the management of the disease. Results: Of 1,290 patients screened between April 2013 and February 2015, 468 were eligible. Most patients (86%) received bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks or equivalent, typically with carboplatin (99%) and paclitaxel (98%). The median duration of bevacizumab was 12.2 (range 0-28, interquartile range 6.9-14.9) months; 8% of patients discontinued bevacizumab because of toxicity. The most common adverse events were hypertension (38% of patients), fatigue (35%), and bleeding (32%). There were no treatment-related deaths. Most physicians (90%) reported blood pressure measurement immediately before each bevacizumab infusion and almost all (97%) reported monitoring for proteinuria before each bevacizumab infusion. Median progression-free survival was 17.4 (95% CI, 16.4-19.1) months. The 3-year overall survival rate was 62% (95% CI, 58-67%). The most commonly administered chemotherapies at recurrence were carboplatin and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin. Discussion: Clinical outcomes and tolerability with bevacizumab in this real-life setting are consistent with randomized trial results, notwithstanding differences in the treated patient population and treatment schedule. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier NCT01832415., Competing Interests: AF reports honoraria and travel/accommodation/expenses from AstraZeneca, Clovis, and GSK, and non-remunerated activities for MSD and Roche. PT reports honoraria from MSD, Tesaro/GSK, and Pfizer, and advisory/consultancy roles for MSD and Tesaro/GSK. JA reports honoraria from GSK, AstraZeneca, MSD, PharmaMar, and Eisai; travel/accommodation/expenses from Novartis, Janssen, and GSK; and research grant/funding to his institution from Janssen and MSD. CG-T reports honoraria from and advisory/consultancy roles for Pfizer; speaker bureau/expert testimony for AstraZeneca and MSD; travel/accommodation/expenses from MSD, Pfizer, and Mylan; and research grant/funding to her institution from Roche. PF reports honoraria from and advisory/consultancy roles for Novartis, AstraZeneca, GSK, and Clovis, and travel/accommodation/expenses from Novartis, AstraZeneca, and GSK. CBL reports honoraria (paid to his institution) from Roche, Novartis, Isofol, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, BMS, and Celgene. FS reports honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Clovis, MSD, PharmaMar, and GlaxoSmithKline; advisory/consultancy role for Roche; speaker bureau/expert testimony for Roche, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, and GlaxoSmithKline; and travel/accommodation/expenses from Roche, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, MSD, and PharmaMar. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Berton, Floquet, Lescaut, Baron, Kaminsky, Toussaint, Largillier, Savoye, Alexandre, Delbaldo, Malaurie, Barletta, Bosacki, Garnier-Tixidre, Follana, Laharie-Mineur, Briac Levache, Valenza, Dechartres, Mollon-Grange and Selle.)

Purpose: In patients with ovarian cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the first-line treatment success will depend on both the tumor-primary chemosensitivity and the completeness of interval debulking surgery (IDS). The modeled CA-125 ELIMination rate constant K (KELIM), calculated with the CA-125 longitudinal kinetics during the first 100 chemotherapy days, is a validated early marker of tumor chemosensitivity. The objective was to investigate the role of the chemosensitivity relative to the success of first-line medical-surgical treatment., Experimental Design: The CA-125 concentrations were prospectively measured in the randomized phase II trial CHIVA (NCT01583322, carboplatin-paclitaxel regimen ± nintedanib, and IDS, n = 188 patients). The KELIM predictive value regarding the tumor response rate, likelihood of complete IDS, risk of subsequent platinum-resistant relapse (PtRR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) was assessed using univariate and multivariate tests., Results: The data from 134 patients were analyzed. KELIM was an independent and major predictor of subsequent PtRR risk, and of survivals. The final logistic regression model, including KELIM [OR = 0.13; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.03-0.49] and complete IDS (no vs. yes, OR = 0.30; 95% CI, 0.11-0.76) highlights the preponderant role of chemosensitivity on the success of the first-line treatment. In patients with highly chemosensitive diseases, the patient prognosis was driven more by the chemotherapy-induced antitumor effects than by the surgery., Conclusions: The tumor-primary chemosensitivity, assessed by the modeled CA-125 KELIM calculated during neoadjuvant chemotherapy (http://www.biomarker-kinetics.org/CA-125-neo), may be a major parameter to consider for decision-making regarding IDS attempt, and selecting patients for treatments meant to reverse the primary chemoresistance. See related commentary by May and Oza, p. 4432 ., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to platinum salts (PS) and taxanes (TX) are a challenge to cancer management. Allergy evaluation based on skin tests (ST) and graded challenges can provide a diagnosis of an allergy to a suspected drug and indicate possible treatment with alternative same-class drugs., Objective: This study aimed to estimate the negative predictive value of ST in the diagnosis of HSRs to TX and PS., Methods: This multicenter study prospectively enrolled patients with a suspected HSR to PS and TX. ST were performed for chemotherapy, drugs of the same pharmacological class, and other agents (latex or cotreatments). For patients with negative ST, a graded challenge was performed by the cancer teams trained in allergy management., Results: A total of 119 consecutive patients were included during a 6-year period. ST results were positive for 58% of the cohort: for TX in 7 patients and for PS in 62 patients. Other agents were responsible for 4.2% of cases. Skin cross-reactivity was 50% for TX and 30% for PS. A graded challenge was performed in 14 patients for TX and in 50 patients for PS. Negative predictive values (NPVs) for ST were 100% for TX and 92% for PS, with NPVs for individuals PS of 100% for cisplatin, 89% for oxaliplatin, and 87% for carboplatin., Conclusions: ST to PS or TX offered a high NPV, making allergy evaluation a key element in the management of patients with cancer. Graded challenges can be safely performed by oncology teams trained in anaphylaxis management., (Copyright © 2020 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Anemia is common in oncology and negatively impacts quality of life. However, there is lack of knowledge about iron deficiency (ID) epidemiology. The aim of this study was to prospectively assess iron status in patients with locally advanced or metastatic cancer beginning chemotherapy., Methods: In this prospective, multicenter cohort study, anemia and ID were evaluated in patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors and lymphoma before starting chemotherapy. Blood samples were collected at inclusion (W0), 6 weeks (W6), and 12 weeks (W12). Prevalence was evaluated in the general population, according to tumor location and was correlated with tumor response., Results: One hundred twenty-nine patients were enrolled between 2013 and 2015; 119 had solid tumors and 10 lymphomas. At W0, there were no significant difference between locations with a prevalence around 50-60% (range 47.2-70.4%) and only a trend for colorectal cancer (70.4%, P = 0.069) due to a higher prevalence of absolute ID (18.5%). Prevalence of ID+ decreased between W0 and W6 and remained stable until W12 due to the proportion of patients with ID and without anemia. However, anemia prevalence increased during W0 and W6 and remained stable to W6 from W12 due to patients with anemia but without ID. A significant correlation between tumor response and ID prevalence was found (P = 0.036)., Conclusions: We confirm the high prevalence of ID and anemia in cancer patients. ID status is correlated to tumor response providing a strong rationale for iron monitoring during cancer management.

Purpose: In the ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01847274), maintenance therapy with niraparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, prolonged progression-free survival in patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer who had a response to their last platinum-based chemotherapy. The objective of the study was to assess the clinical benefit and patient-reported outcomes in patients who had a partial response (PR) and complete response (CR) to their last platinum-based therapy., Patients and Methods: A total of 553 patients were enrolled in the trial. Of 203 patients with a germline BRCA mutation (g BRCA mut), 99 had a PR and 104 had a CR to their last platinum-based therapy; of 350 patients without a confirmed g BRCA mut (non-g BRCA mut), 173 had a PR and 177 had a CR. Post hoc analyses were carried out to evaluate safety and the risk of progression in these patients according to g BRCA mut status and response to their last platinum-based therapy. Ovarian cancer-specific symptoms and quality of life were assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovarian Symptom Index., Results: Progression-free survival was improved in patients treated with niraparib compared with placebo in both the g BRCA mut cohort (PR: hazard ratio [HR], 0.24; 95% CI, 0.131 to 0.441; P < .0001; CR: HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.160 to 0.546; P < .0001) and the non-g BRCA mut cohort (PR: HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.230 to 0.532; P < .0001; CR: HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.383 to 0.868; P = .0082). The incidence of any-grade and grade 3 or greater adverse events was manageable. No meaningful differences were observed between niraparib and placebo in PR and CR subgroups with respect to patient-reported outcomes., Conclusion: Patients achieved clinical benefit from maintenance treatment with niraparib regardless of response to the last platinum-based therapy.

Background: Few data are available on long-term fatigue (LTF) and quality of life (QoL) among epithelial ovarian cancer survivors (EOCS). In this case-control study, we compared LTF, symptoms and several QoL domains in EOCS relapse-free ≥3 years after first-line treatment and age-matched healthy women., Patients and Methods: EOCS were recruited from 25 cooperative GINECO centers in France. Controls were randomly selected from the electoral rolls. All participants completed validated self-reported questionnaires: fatigue (FACIT-F), QoL (FACT-G/O), neurotoxicity (FACT-Ntx), anxiety/depression (HADS), sleep disturbance (ISI), and physical activity (IPAQ). Severe LTF (SLTF) was defined as a FACIT-F score <37/52. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were conducted to analyze SLTF and its influencing factors in EOCS., Results: A total of 318 EOCS and 318 controls were included. EOCS were 63-year-old on average, with FIGO stage I/II (50%), III/IV (48%); 99% had received platinum and taxane chemotherapy, with an average 6-year follow-up. There were no differences between the two groups in socio-demographic characteristics and global QoL. EOCS had poorer FACIT-F scores (40 versus 45, P < 0.0001), lower functional well-being scores (18 versus 20, P = 0.0002), poorer FACT-O scores (31 versus 34 P < 0.0001), and poorer FACT-Ntx scores (35 versus 39, P < 0.0001). They also reported more SLTF (26% versus 13%, P = 0.0004), poorer sleep quality (63% versus 47%, P = 0.0003), and more depression (22% versus 13%, P = 0.01). Fewer than 20% of EOCS and controls exercised regularly. In multivariate analyses, EOCS with high levels of depression, neurotoxicity, and sleep disturbance had an increased risk of developing SLTF (P < 0.01)., Conclusion: Compared with controls, EOCS presented similar QoL but persistent LTF, EOC-related symptoms, neurotoxicity, depression, and sleep disturbance. Depression, neuropathy, and sleep disturbance are the main conditions associated with severe LTF., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: To analyze the safety and efficacy of niraparib in patients aged ≥70 years with recurrent ovarian cancer in the ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial., Methods: The trial enrolled 2 independent cohorts with histologically diagnosed recurrent ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer who responded to platinum rechallenge, on the basis of germline breast cancer susceptibility gene mutation (gBRCAmut) status. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive niraparib (300 mg) or placebo once daily until disease progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review. Adverse events (AEs) of special interest were based on the known safety profile of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors., Results: Patients aged ≥70 years in the gBRCAmut cohort receiving niraparib (n = 14) had not yet reached a median PFS compared with a median PFS of 3.7 months for the same age group in the placebo arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.09 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.01 to 0.73]). Non-gBRCAmut patients aged ≥70 years receiving niraparib (n = 47) had a median PFS of 11.3 months compared with 3.8 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.18 to 0.71]). Median duration of follow-up in the niraparib arm was 17.3 months in patients ≥70 years and 17.2 months in patients <70 years. Frequency, severity of AEs, and dose reductions in the niraparib arm were similar in patients aged <70 and ≥ 70 years population. The most common grade ≥ 3 AEs in patients ≥70 years were hematologic: thrombocytopenia event (34.4%), anemia event (13.1%), and neutropenia event (16.4%)., Conclusions: For patients ≥70 years of age receiving niraparib as maintenance treatment in the ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial, PFS benefits and incidence of any grade or serious treatment-emergent AEs were comparable to results in the younger population. Use of niraparib should be considered in this population., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Because of the rarity of the condition, studies concerning the management of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the anus with distant metastasis are scarce. The available studies indicate poor outcomes with exclusive chemotherapy., Objective: Our aim was to evaluate the impact of multidisciplinary treatment on overall survival among patients presenting with metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the anus., Design: This was a retrospective study., Settings: The study was conducted at a single French institution between 2000 and 2014., Patients: Consecutive patients with histologically proven, newly diagnosed, or recurrent metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the anus were included., Interventions: Study interventions included multimodal therapy combining systemic chemotherapy and local ablative treatment to remove all metastases through surgery, radiofrequency ablation, or radiotherapy., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was overall survival., Results: Fifty patients (median age, 62 years; men/women: 8/42) fulfilled the inclusion criteria, and 39 were available for Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Forty had metastatic relapse after previous treatment of localized disease, and 10 presented with synchronous metastasis. P16 status was not available. Patients received at least 1 chemotherapy regimen, including 5-fluorouracil-mitomycin C (n = 22), cisplatin-5-fluorouracil (n = 20), or 5-fluorouracil alone (n = 3). Thirteen also had surgical metastasectomy, 11 had radiotherapy, and 6 had radiofrequency ablation. Median overall survival was 20.0 months (95% CI, 18.2-21.8 mo), and median time to failure of strategy was 6.0 months (95% CI, 2.9-9.1 mo). Overall response rate was 56% (95% CI, 40%-73%). Outcomes from the 5-fluorouracil-mitomycin C and cisplatin regimens did not statistically differ. Patients treated with multimodal therapy had a median overall survival of 22.0 months (95% CI, 15.3-28.6 mo) versus 13.0 months (95% CI, 9.5-16.5 mo; p = 0.002). Median time to failure of strategy was 10.0 months (95% CI, 4.2-15.7 mo) versus 5.0 months (95% CI, 2.8-7.2; p = 0.007). After 2 years, 40% of patients with multimodal treatment and 20% of those without ablative treatment were alive., Limitations: This study is limited by its retrospective design and modest sample size., Conclusions: Stage IV squamous cell carcinoma of the anus outcomes are poor, but first-line chemotherapy can enable good response rates. Other treatment modalities, including surgery, radiotherapy, and thermoablation, should be considered, because they may provide a survival advantage. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A336.

Background: Deficiency in dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) enzyme is the main cause of severe and lethal fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity. Various approaches have been developed for DPD-deficiency screening, including DPYD genotyping and phenotyping. The goal of this prospective observational study was to perform exhaustive exome DPYD sequencing and to examine relationships between DPYD variants and toxicity in advanced breast cancer patients receiving capecitabine., Methods: Two-hundred forty-three patients were analysed (88.5% capecitabine monotherapy). Grade 3 and grade 4 capecitabine-related digestive and/or neurologic and/or hemato-toxicities were observed in 10.3% and 2.1% of patients, respectively. DPYD exome, along with flanking intronic regions 3'UTR and 5'UTR, were sequenced on MiSeq Illumina. DPD phenotype was assessed by pre-treatment plasma uracil (U) and dihydrouracil (UH2) measurement., Results: Among the 48 SNPs identified, 19 were located in coding regions, including 3 novel variations, each observed in a single patient (among which, F100L and A26T, both pathogenic in silico). Combined analysis of deleterious variants *2A, I560S (*13) and D949V showed significant association with grade 3-4 toxicity (sensitivity 16.7%, positive predictive value (PPV) 71.4%, relative risk (RR) 6.7, p<0.001) but not with grade 4 toxicity. Considering additional deleterious coding variants D342G, S492L, R592W and F100L increased the sensitivity to 26.7% for grade 3-4 toxicity (PPV 72.7%, RR 7.6, p<0.001), and was significantly associated with grade 4 toxicity (sensitivity 60%, PPV 27.3%, RR 31.4, p = 0.001), suggesting the clinical relevance of extended targeted DPYD genotyping. As compared to extended genotype, combining genotyping (7 variants) and phenotyping (U>16 ng/ml) did not substantially increase the sensitivity, while impairing PPV and RR., Conclusions: Exploring an extended set of deleterious DPYD variants improves the performance of DPYD genotyping for predicting both grade 3-4 and grade 4 toxicities (digestive and/or neurologic and/or hematotoxicities) related to capecitabine, as compared to conventional genotyping restricted to consensual variants *2A, *13 and D949V.

Aim: To investigate whether adding bevacizumab to neoadjuvant carboplatin-paclitaxel (CP) helps achieve optimal debulking, measured by complete resection rate (CRR) at interval debulking surgery (IDS), in patients with initially unresectable International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IIIC/IV ovarian, tubal or peritoneal adenocarcinoma., Methods: Multicentre, open-label, non-comparative phase II study. Ninety-five patients randomised (2:1) to receive four cycles of neoadjuvant CP ±3 concomitant cycles of bevacizumab 15 mg/kg (BCP) followed by IDS. Primary objective is to evaluate the CRR at IDS in the BCP group (reference CRR rate defined as 45% CRR). A stopping rule based on bevacizumab-related adverse events (AEs) of special interest was implemented., Results: In the BCP group (N = 58), IDS was performed in 40 (69%) patients, of whom 85% had a complete resection. The CRR of this group was therefore 58.6% (34 patients), statistically over pre-defined 45%. The CRR in the CP group was 51.4%: 22 (60%) patients underwent IDS (85% had a complete resection). Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 62% of the BCP-treated patients and 63% of the CP-treated patients: mainly blood and lymphatic, gastrointestinal and vascular disorders, without more toxicity with BCP. Postoperative complications (mainly wound, infectious and gastrointestinal complications) occurred in 28% and 36% of the patients, respectively. The pre-specified safety stopping rule was not reached., Conclusion: The primary objective was met as the CRR with BCP was significantly higher than the reference rate. Bevacizumab may be safely added to a preoperative program in patients deemed non-optimally resectable, whatever the final surgical decision. Bevacizumab's role in this setting should be further investigated., (Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Niraparib is an oral poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase (PARP) 1/2 inhibitor that has shown clinical activity in patients with ovarian cancer. We sought to evaluate the efficacy of niraparib versus placebo as maintenance treatment for patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer., Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial, patients were categorized according to the presence or absence of a germline BRCA mutation (gBRCA cohort and non-gBRCA cohort) and the type of non-gBRCA mutation and were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive niraparib (300 mg) or placebo once daily. The primary end point was progression-free survival., Results: Of 553 enrolled patients, 203 were in the gBRCA cohort (with 138 assigned to niraparib and 65 to placebo), and 350 patients were in the non-gBRCA cohort (with 234 assigned to niraparib and 116 to placebo). Patients in the niraparib group had a significantly longer median duration of progression-free survival than did those in the placebo group, including 21.0 vs. 5.5 months in the gBRCA cohort (hazard ratio, 0.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17 to 0.41), as compared with 12.9 months vs. 3.8 months in the non-gBRCA cohort for patients who had tumors with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.59) and 9.3 months vs. 3.9 months in the overall non-gBRCA cohort (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.61; P<0.001 for all three comparisons). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events that were reported in the niraparib group were thrombocytopenia (in 33.8%), anemia (in 25.3%), and neutropenia (in 19.6%), which were managed with dose modifications., Conclusions: Among patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer, the median duration of progression-free survival was significantly longer among those receiving niraparib than among those receiving placebo, regardless of the presence or absence of gBRCA mutations or HRD status, with moderate bone marrow toxicity. (Funded by Tesaro; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01847274 .).

Background: The current study was performed to determine the efficacy and safety of first-line combination therapy with bevacizumab, paclitaxel, and capecitabine for triple-negative, locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer (LA/MBC)., Methods: Patients with measurable triple-negative LA/MBC who had received no prior chemotherapy for their disease received 4-weekly cycles of paclitaxel (80 mg/m 2 on days 1, 8, and 15 for up to 6 cycles) combined with capecitabine (800 mg/m 2 twice daily on days 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19) and bevacizumab (10 mg/kg on days 1 and 14) repeated every 4 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate; secondary endpoints were progression-free survival, duration of response, overall survival, and safety., Results: Between April 2010 and March 2012, 62 eligible patients were enrolled. The median age of the patients was 57 years, 74% had received adjuvant chemotherapy, and 65% had visceral metastases. Patients received a median of 6 cycles (range, 1-45 cycles). The objective response rate was 77% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 66%-88%), including complete response in 19% of patients. The median duration of response was 5.6 months (range, 1.3-27.6 months). The median progression-free survival was 7.6 months (95% CI, 6.3-9.0 months) and the median overall survival was 19.2 months (95% CI, 17.4-20.9 months). The most common grade ≥3 adverse events were hypertension (35% of patients) and neutropenia (23% of patients); 5% of patients experienced febrile neutropenia. Grade ≥2 hand-foot syndrome, alopecia, and nail toxicity each occurred in 40% of patients (adverse events were recorded before every cycle and graded according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 4.0]). Treatment was interrupted because of toxicity in 22% of patients., Conclusions: A triplet regimen of paclitaxel, capecitabine, and bevacizumab followed by maintenance therapy with capecitabine and bevacizumab demonstrated high activity and manageable safety in this difficult-to-treat population. Cancer 2016;122:3119-26. © 2016 American Cancer Society., (© 2016 American Cancer Society.)

Background: Maintenance strategies beyond response or tumor stabilization with first-line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) have not been extensively studied. Endocrine therapy combined with continued bevacizumab may be a helpful option for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive MBC., Patients and Methods: In this prospective, open-label, phase III study, patients with histologically confirmed ER-positive, HER2-negative MBC and non-progressive disease after 16-24 weeks of taxane plus bevacizumab (T + BEV) were randomized to continuation of T + BEV or maintenance bevacizumab plus exemestane (E + BEV). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) from randomization. To have 80% power to detect an improvement in the 6-month PFS rate (PFS6m) from 50% to 65%, 186 assessable patients were needed for a total of 141 PFS events. An interim analysis was planned after 40% of the required events., Results: The interim analysis with 98 patients showed that the probability of reaching a statistically significant improvement in PFS by the end of the study was only 7%. This led the Independent Data and Monitoring Committee to recommend termination of patient enrollment. After a median of 21-month follow-up of all randomized patients (117 in total), PFS6m from randomization was 67.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 53.6-77.7] with T + BEV and 55.2% (95% CI 41.5-66.9) with E + BEV [hazard ratio (HR): 1.0, 95% CI 0.7-1.5, P = 0.998]. Median PFS from BEV initiation was 12.5 and 12.3 months in the T + BEV and E + BEV arms, respectively. In the T + BEV arm, taxane was prematurely stopped for the majority of patients (94.9%), mainly due to toxicity (49.2%). Updated data after 35 months' median follow-up showed death rates of 44% and 55% in T + BEV and E + BEV arms, respectively., Conclusion: In this trial, maintenance therapy with E + BEV in ER-positive, HER2-negative MBC patients with no evidence of progression after first-line T + BEV did not achieve longer PFS compared with continuation of T + BEV., Clinicaltrialsgov: NCT01303679., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Purpose: Volasertib is a potent and selective cell-cycle kinase inhibitor that induces mitotic arrest and apoptosis by targeting Polo-like kinase. This phase II trial evaluated volasertib or single-agent chemotherapy in patients with platinum-resistant or -refractory ovarian cancer who experienced failure after treatment with two or three therapy lines., Patients and Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either volasertib 300 mg by intravenous infusion every 3 weeks or an investigator's choice of single-agent, nonplatinum, cytotoxic chemotherapy. The primary end point was 24-week disease control rate. Secondary end points included best overall response, progression-free survival (PFS), safety, quality of life, and exploratory biomarker analyses., Results: Of the 109 patients receiving treatment, 54 received volasertib and 55 received chemotherapy; demographics were well balanced. The 24-week disease control rates for volasertib and chemotherapy were 30.6% (95% CI, 18.0% to 43.2%) and 43.1% (95% CI, 29.6% to 56.7%), respectively, with partial responses in seven (13.0%) and eight (14.5%) patients, respectively. Median PFS was 13.1 weeks and 20.6 weeks for volasertib and chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.53). Six patients (11%) receiving volasertib achieved PFS fore more than 1 year, whereas no patient receiving chemotherapy achieved PFS greater than 1 year. No relationship between the expression of the biomarkers tested and their response was determined. Patients treated with volasertib experienced more grade 3 and 4 drug-related hematologic adverse events (AEs) and fewer nonhematologic AEs than did patients receiving chemotherapy. Discontinuation resulting from AEs occurred in seven (13.0%) and 15 (27.3%) patients in the volasertib and chemotherapy arms, respectively. Both arms showed similar effects on quality of life., Conclusion: Single-agent volasertib showed antitumor activity in patients with ovarian cancer. AEs in patients receiving volasertib were mainly hematologic and manageable., (© 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Objective: Treating metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC) remains a challenging issue. Maintenance therapy is a growing concept used in different types of cancer. Our retrospective analysis aims to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of early maintenance capecitabine administrated to patients with MPC treated with first-line FOLFIRINOX., Methods: 103 patients treated for MPC between November 2009 and July 2014 were retrospectively identified in our institution. Among them, 30 patients initially treated with a minimum of 4 and no more than 8 cycles of FOLFIRINOX, without signs of progression (every 14 days), received maintenance therapy with capecitabine until progression. Upon first progression (first progression-free survival, PFS1), patients were retreated with FOLFIRINOX or another scheme until second progression (second progression-free survival, PFS2)., Results: Median OS was 17 months. Survival rates were 73% at 1 year (95% CI 0.59-0.91) and 25% at 2 years (95% CI 0.13-0.50). Median PFS1 was 5 months. Twenty-nine patients experienced disease progression during capecitabine treatment (96.7%). After disease progression, median PFS2 was 10 months. Considering the interval between the starting date of FOLFIRINOX treatment and second disease progression, the median time to treatment failure is 17 months., Conclusions: Maintenance with capecitabine seems effective without compromising FOLFIRINOX efficacy and allows obtaining very promising OS and PFS., (© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: The aim of this study was to assess the rate of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) in patients for whom mastectomy (MT) was, initially, the only conceivable surgical option., Patients and Methods: Between 2007 and 2012, 168 patients from a single center received nCT. Among these patients, we focused on the ones who received nCT (n = 119, [70.8%]) to decrease tumor size and thus to potentially allow a conservative surgical treatment. For these patients, MT was initially the only possible surgical treatment., Results: Among the 119 patients included, 118 presented with an invasive ductal carcinoma. The mean tumor size before nCT, measured using magnetic resonance imaging, was 41.6 mm (range, 15-110 mm) and 25.3 mm (range, 0-90 mm) after nCT. Eighty-six patients (72.3%) underwent BCS, and oncoplastic techniques were used in 29 patients (33.6%). Only 4.3% (5 patients) of patients who were treated with BCS needed additional surgery because of positive surgical margins. The median follow-up was 41.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 35.2-48.3). Five-year overall survival after BCS and MT were 77% (95% CI, 63-92) and 77% (95% CI, 63-95) respectively. Five-year disease-free survival after BCS and MT were 74% (95% CI, 64-86) and 59% (95% CI, 40-89) (not significant), respectively., Conclusion: nCT for selective patients with "chemosensitive" breast tumor leads to a significant "MT to BCS" conversion rate. The type of surgery does not seem to affect the patient's overall and disease-free survival rates. Oncoplastic procedures can help to extend BCS after nCT., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Angiogenesis is a key process in cancer development and has been described has a hallmark of cancer. Two dose-intensities were approved for cancer treatment by the Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency: 2.5mg/kg/week dose equivalent and 5mg/kg/week dose equivalent. While bevacizumab has shown its effectiveness in clinical trials, pharmacodynamics is not fully understood and a dose-effect relationship has not been proven in vivo. Direct trials comparing high or low doses are rare with potential dose-effect toxicity. Discordant data have been reported on the efficacy of doses. This review discusses the dose of bevacizumab via the analysis of studies that led to the approval of bevacizumab in clinical practice. Optimization of doses schemes could reduce potential dose-effect toxicities, potentiate synergetic effects with chemotherapy and permit the prescription to a larger population with a better cost-effectiveness ratio., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Docetaxel/cisplatin/infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU; DCF) is a standard chemotherapy regimen for patients with advanced gastric cancer (GC). This phase II study evaluated docetaxel/oxaliplatin (TE), docetaxel/oxaliplatin/5-FU (TEF), and docetaxel/oxaliplatin/capecitabine (TEX) in patients with advanced GC., Patients and Methods: Patients with metastatic or locally recurrent gastric adenocarcinoma (including carcinoma of the gastro-oesophageal junction) were randomly assigned (1 : 1 : 1) to TE, TEF, or TEX. Each regimen was tested at two doses before full evaluation at optimized dose levels. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Overall survival (OS), tumour response, and safety were also assessed. A therapeutic index (median PFS relative to the incidence of febrile neutropenia) was calculated for each regimen and compared with DCF (historical data)., Results: Overall, 248 patients were randomly assigned to receive optimized dose treatment. Median PFS was longer with TEF (7.66 [95% confidence interval (CI): 6.97-9.40] months) versus TE (4.50 [3.68-5.32] months) and TEX (5.55 [4.30-6.37] months). Median OS was 14.59 (95% CI: 11.70-21.78) months for TEF versus 8.97 (7.79-10.87) months for TE and 11.30 (8.08-14.03) months for TEX. The rate of tumour response (complete or partial) was 46.6% (95% CI 35.9-57.5) for TEF versus 23.1% (14.3-34.0) for TE and 25.6% (16.6-36.4) for TEX. The frequency and type of adverse events (AEs) were similar across the three arms. Common grade 3/4 AEs were fatigue (21%), sensory neuropathy (14%), and diarrhoea (13%). Febrile neutropenia was reported in 2% (TEF), 14% (TE), and 9% (TEX) of patients. The therapeutic index was improved with TEF versus TEX, TE, or DCF., Conclusion: These results suggest that TEF is worthy of evaluation as an arm in a phase III trial or as a backbone regimen for new targeted agents in advanced GC. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: Identifier Trial registration number: NCT00382720.

Background: Information concerning management of anal canal cancer among the elderly is scarce and much less abundant than for younger subjects., Population and Methods: We retrospectively analysed 115 patients treated for anal epidermoid cancer between 2000 and 2010. The population was divided according to age (<70 years and ≥70 years)., Results: Of the 115 patients, 81 (70.4%) were <70 years old and 34 were ≥70 years (29.6%). Tumour characteristics were identical between the two groups and median follow-up was 62 months. Elderly patients had a less favourable performance status (p=0.001) and fewer had received radiochemotherapy (61.8% vs 82.5%, p=0.004). Treatment-related grade 3 and 4 hematologic toxicity was observed more often among elderly subjects. The results at 5 years were less favourable for overall, disease-specific, and disease-free survival (respectively p=0.002, p=0.001, and p=0.001). For patients treated with a curative intent, at 5 years there was no difference between the two groups in terms of overall survival (p=0.2). However, there was a statistically significant difference in favour of the younger group for disease-free survival and metastasis-free survival., Conclusion: If radiochemotherapy can be delivered to elderly subjects with a good general status, the effects appear less favourable than in younger patients., (Copyright © 2014 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: In platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (OC), single-agent chemotherapy is standard. Bevacizumab is active alone and in combination. AURELIA is the first randomized phase III trial to our knowledge combining bevacizumab with chemotherapy in platinum-resistant OC., Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had measurable/assessable OC that had progressed < 6 months after completing platinum-based therapy. Patients with refractory disease, history of bowel obstruction, or > two prior anticancer regimens were ineligible. After investigators selected chemotherapy (pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, weekly paclitaxel, or topotecan), patients were randomly assigned to single-agent chemotherapy alone or with bevacizumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks or 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks) until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. Crossover to single-agent bevacizumab was permitted after progression with chemotherapy alone. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by RECIST. Secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), safety, and patient-reported outcomes., Results: The PFS hazard ratio (HR) after PFS events in 301 of 361 patients was 0.48 (95% CI, 0.38 to 0.60; unstratified log-rank P < .001). Median PFS was 3.4 months with chemotherapy alone versus 6.7 months with bevacizumab-containing therapy. RECIST ORR was 11.8% versus 27.3%, respectively (P = .001). The OS HR was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.66 to 1.08; P < .174; median OS, 13.3 v 16.6 months, respectively). Grade ≥ 2 hypertension and proteinuria were more common with bevacizumab. GI perforation occurred in 2.2% of bevacizumab-treated patients., Conclusion: Adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy statistically significantly improved PFS and ORR; the OS trend was not significant. No new safety signals were observed.

Background: Epithelioid hemangio-endothelioma (EHE) is a rare malignant tumor of vascular origin that electively metastasizes to lungs and liver., Case Report: We report the case of a 51-year-old woman with metastatic and progressive EHE of the liver. She was successfully treated with daily administration of sunitinib malate, an oral multi-target tyrosine kinase inhibitor, which particularly targets vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors. Stabilization has lasted 6 years. We discuss the rationale for using antiangiogenic treatment for EHE., Conclusion: This case adds to a growing body of evidence that suggests that antiangiogenic agents should be considered in patients who present with advanced EHE.

Background: Elderly patients with metastatic breast cancer have a prognosis and outcome that may be dependent on a host of factors., Patients and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 401 female breast cancer patients who developed metastatic disease after the age of 70 years in order to define potential prognostic factors for specific survival at the time of first recurrence., Results: With a median follow-up of 60 months from the time of recurrence, the median specific survival was 21.0 months (95% CI 17.0-23.0). In multivariate analysis we demonstrated that negative hormonal receptor status (p = 0.002), presence of positive lymph nodes at initial cancer diagnosis (hazard ratio, HR = 1.37; 95% CI 1.07-1.75; p = 0.01), site of metastasis (p < 10(-4)) and metastasis-free interval (HR = 0.99; 95% CI 0.95-0.99; p = 0.008) constituted unfavorable independent prognostic factors able to predict specific survival from the time of metastatic occurrence. Age at initial diagnosis, Scarff-Bloom Richardson grade and adjuvant treatments were significant only in univariate analysis., Conclusion: These survival prognostic factors associated with the use of a specific geriatric questionnaire to assess frailty may assist physicians in evaluating the patient's survival potential and choose a tailored treatment to this cancer population.

Background: The treatment of anal cancer is based on concomitant radiotherapy and chemotherapy and is associated with a nonnegligible rate of local severe toxicities that can strongly impair the quality of life., Objective: A retrospective analysis was performed to screen the following factors as potential predictive factors for local skin and digestive toxicities, and as potential prognostic factors for cumulative colostomy incidence: sex, age, tumor size, clinical T and N stage, circumferential extension, invasion of anal margin, HIV status, type of chemotherapy, and type of radiotherapy and dose delivered., Methods: One hundred five patients in our database treated between January 2000 and February 2010 met the eligibility criteria., Results: Median follow-up was 54.1 months (range, 1-133). Early and late severe local toxicities occurred in 33 patients (31.4%) and 18 patients (17.1%). The 5-year cumulative rate of colostomy was 26.6%. Predictive factors for local severe early toxicities were as follows: clinical stage III/IV (p = 0.01), no brachytherapy boost (p = 0.003), and use of chemotherapy (p = 0.01). Only brachytherapy retained its independence in multivariate analysis (OR = 4.8 (1.4-16.3), p = 0.01). Human immunodeficiency virus positivity (p = 0.04) was the only predictive factor for late toxicities in univariate analysis; it was linked independently to the occurrence of ulcer (OR = 0.1 (0.01-0.66), p = 0.01). Tumor size ≥4 cm (p < 0.001) and occurrence of grade 2 to 3 ulcers (p < 0.001) were correlated with greater cumulative colostomy incidence., Conclusions: In this cohort, nonuse of brachytherapy was an independent predictive factor for local acute toxicity. Human immunodeficiency virus positivity was the only predictive factor for local late toxicities and strongly influenced the onset of ulcer.

We investigated the efficacy and safety of oral Uracil/tegafur (UFT) with leucovorin and mitomycin C (MMC) as third-line treatment for patients with extensively pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This was a multicenter, prospective phase II study. Patients received MMC 7 mg/m² on day 1 and UFT 300 mg/m² with leucovorin 90 mg, both divided into three daily doses, on days 1-28 every 5 weeks. All patients had failed prior treatment with irinotecan, oxaliplatin, fluoropyrimidine, bevacizumab, and cetuximab. The primary endpoint was tumor control rate evaluated after 2 cycles. Twenty-one patients were included: median age was 66 years (41.1-87.8 years). Tumor control rate was observed in 26.7% of the 15 patients evaluable for response. Median overall survival was 6.4 months. Grade 3 adverse events were asthenia, anorexia, and vomiting. In patients with mCRC who have progressed after as many as two prior therapies, the combination of UFT/leucovorin and MMC is safe and may produce a short stabilization of disease in approximately 25% of patients.

Background: The aim of this phase I trial was to define the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) and the recommended dose of erlotinib combined with capecitabine and gemcitabine in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer (APC)., Methods: Gemcitabine was administered intravenously at 1,000 mg/m(2)/week (days 1, 8 and 15) and oral capecitabine from day 1 to day 21 at 1,660 mg/m(2)/day. Oral erlotinib was administered daily continuously at escalating doses (28-day cycle). Dose levels (DLs) 1, 2, 3 and 4 were 50, 75, 100 and 125 mg/day, respectively. Pharmacokinetic analysis of the three drugs was performed in the first cycle., Results: Nineteen patients were enrolled. At the MTD (DL4; 125 mg/day erlotinib), 100% of patients developed DLT consisting of grade 4 febrile neutropenia and nonhematological grade 3 events (vomiting, diarrhea, stomatitis, rash). The most common toxicities, regardless of grade, were neutropenia, anemia, rash and diarrhea. Erlotinib systemic exposure was significantly related to the administered dose. Of note, toxicity was significantly associated with elevated systemic exposure of capecitabine anabolites., Conclusion: When combined concurrently with 1,000 mg/m(2)/week gemcitabine and 1,660 mg/m(2)/day capecitabine, erlotinib can be administered safely at a daily dose of 100 mg in APC patients., (Copyright © 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Malignant ascites are the cancer-associated accumulation of fluids in the peritoneal cavity. The neoplasms most frequently associated with ascites are ovarian, breast, colon, stomach and pancreas adenocarcinomas. Symptoms are abdominal distention, nausea, vomiting, anorexia, dyspnea and limbs oedemas. Several pathophysiological mechanisms might be implicated such as peritoneal carcinomatosis, lymphatic vessels' obstruction, portal hypertension or heart failure. Its diagnosis is most often performed in a context of already known neoplasia. Malignant ascites are associated with a pejorative evolution. Ascites which cannot be mobilized or show early recurrence and cannot be prevented by medical treatment are defined as refractory ascites. Therefore, management of refractory malignant ascites takes place in the context of palliative care and aims at improving the quality of life of these patients. This review lists the current data reported on the pathophysiology of malignant ascites and describes the present and future options for refractory malignant ascites management.

Purpose: To assess early clinical results and evaluate patient satisfaction in case of second conservative treatment (2nd CT) combining lumpectomy plus high-dose rate (HDR) interstitial brachytherapy for patients (pts) presenting with ipsilateral breast cancer recurrence (IBCR)., Methods and Materials: From June 2005 to July 2009, 42 pts presenting with an IBCR underwent a second lumpectomy with intraoperative implantation of plastic tubes in the tumor bed. After performing the dose distribution analysis on the postimplant CT scan, a total dose of 34 Gy in 10 fractions over 5 consecutive days was delivered. Toxicity evaluation was based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0 criteria. Applying a visual analogic scale (VAS) analysis, patient satisfaction regarding cosmetic result and 2nd CT possibility was performed after the end of brachytherapy., Results: Median followup was 21 months (range, 6-50 months) and median age at the time of local recurrence was 65 years (range, 30-85 years). Median delay between primary and recurrence was 11 years (range, 1-35 years). Median recurrence tumor size was 12 mm (range, 2-30 mm). Median number of plastic tubes and planes were nine (range, 5-12) and two (range, 1-3), respectively. Median clinical target volume was 68 cc (range, 31.2-146 cc). Second local control rate was 97%. Twenty-two pts (60%) developed complications. Cutaneous and subcutaneous fibrosis was the most frequent side effect. Median VAS satisfaction score regarding cosmetic result was 7 of 10 (range, 4-9), whereas median VAS satisfaction score for 2nd CT was 10 of 10 (range, 8-10)., Conclusion: A 2nd CT for IBCR using high-dose rate brachytherapy seems feasible with encouraging results in terms of second local control with an acceptable toxicity. Patient satisfaction regarding the possibility of second breast preservation should be considered., (Copyright © 2011 American Brachytherapy Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite current treatment options, metastatic breast cancer (MBC) remains essentially incurable, requiring research on new drugs or combinations to improve survival and quality of life., Patients and Methods: This phase I study was designed to define the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) and recommended dose of all-oral tegafur-uracil (UFT)/folinic acid combined with vinorelbine as chemotherapy for MBC. Starting doses were 40 mg/m(2)/week of oral vinorelbine administered continuously and 250 mg/m(2)/day of UFT plus 90 mg/day of folinic acid from day 1 to day 28, followed by a 1-week rest period., Results: Ten patients were included. Eight were evaluable for toxicity and antitumor response. The second dose level was shown to be the MTD. At this dose, 2 out of 5 patients receiving oral vinorelbine at 40 mg/m(2)/week and UFT at 300 mg/m(2)/day developed DLT consisting of grade 3 asthenia and grade 3 nausea despite standard prophylaxis. Other toxicities were grade 1 diarrhea and anemia. There were no treatment-related deaths., Conclusions: The recommended dose for this combination seems to be the first dose level. A stable response was observed for 6 patients (average 33 weeks). This combination appears to be well-tolerated and offers an alternative to intravenous chemotherapy., (Copyright © 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Purpose: We report the experience of two French cancer centers in the treatment of oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in patients aged 80 years., Materials and Methods: Two hundred and sixty patients aged 80 years with a primary oral cavity SCC were included in this retrospective analysis., Results: Sex ratio was near to 1. Tobacco or alcohol intoxication was the main risk factor for 66% of men and 16% of women and leukoplakia, lichen planus, or oral traumatism for 55% of women and 11% of men (p<0.0001). Two hundred patients received a loco-regional (LR) treatment with a curative intent (surgery and/or radiotherapy), 29 with a palliative intent and 31 did not receive a LR treatment. Curative treatments were initially planned to be adapted to age in 118 patients (59%). The median disease-specific survival (DSS) was 29 months. In multivariate analysis, the independent prognostic factors for DSS were stage (HR=0.42 [0.24-0.72]), age (HR=0.43 [0.24-0.75]) and performance status (HR=0.50 [0.27-0.95]). The median overall survival (OS) was 14 months. In multivariate analysis, the independent prognostic factors for OS were age (HR=0.52 [0.35-0.79]), stage (HR=0.56 [0.38-0.84]), tumor differentiation (HR=0.60 [0.33-0.93]) and performance status (HR=0.6 [0.37-0.97]). In patients treated with a curative intent, treatment adapted to age was not associated with a decreased overall survival or disease-specific survival as compared with the standard treatment. However, prophylactic lymph node treatment in stages I-II tumors decreased the rate of nodal recurrence from 38% to 6% (p=0.01)., Conclusion: This study emphasizes the need for prospective evaluation of standard and adapted schedules in elderly patients with oral cavity cancer.

Background: Peripheral primitive neuroectodermal tumors (PNET) belong to the rare family of primary bone neoplasms. Recent clinicopathological studies have revealed that Ewing's sarcoma and PNET have overlapping features and they are now included in the same classification, the Ewing's sarcoma family of tumors (EFTs). PNET have a marked predilection for the extremities and are very rare in the pelvis. These tumors can occur at any age with a peak of incidence in the second and third decades but are very rare in patients over 40 years., Case Report: We report the case of a 69-year-old man with PNET sarcoma. Outcome was favorable after combined modality treatment including chemotherapy based on the Memphis protocol - adapted from that used for Ewing's sarcoma in children - and surgery., Conclusion: Our case is uncommon because of the age at diagnosis, the fortuitous way of revelation, and the choice of dose-intense chemotherapy adapted from the Memphis protocol (cyclophosphamide- and doxorubicin-based) for children, which was efficient and safe. It supports the fact that an adult, and even an old patient, with good physical status, may be treated safely and radically even with dose-adapted aggressive chemotherapy.

Objective: To evaluate quality of life (QOL) after radial forearm free flap (RFFF) reconstruction of the oral cavity and oropharynx in head and neck cancer patients., Design: Prospective study., Setting: Academic, tertiary referral centre., Methods: Between January 2004 and May 2005, 47 patients underwent immediate RFFF reconstruction of the oral cavity and oropharynx following ablative surgery for a previously untreated head and neck cancer and were initially included in this study. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Core Quality of Life Questionnaire and the EORTC Head and Neck Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire were completed before surgery and at 6 and 12 months thereafter., Main Outcome Measures: QOL scores obtained at the three assessment dates. Predictive factors of QOL scores at 6 months researched among the following: age, gender, comorbidity, radiotherapy, tumour stage, and tumour site., Results: Global QOL remained stable over time. Social and role functioning scores deteriorated significantly after treatment. Social eating and speech difficulties, trismus, and salivary problems increased significantly in the postoperative period and were among the main complaints of our patients., Conclusions: Despite some functional impairment, global QOL was preserved after RFFF reconstruction following extensive ablative surgery in patients with oral and oropharyngeal cancer.

Conclusions: Radical ablative surgery and radial forearm free flap (RFFF) reconstruction provide promising oncologic and functional results in patients with oral or oropharyngeal cancer., Objectives: To assess the postoperative outcomes and the oncologic and functional results, with their main predictive factors, after radical ablative surgery and RFFF reconstruction for patients with oral or oropharyngeal cancer., Patients and Methods: Between 2000 and 2006, we prospectively analyzed the postoperative, oncologic and functional outcomes of all previously untreated patients who underwent this type of surgery., Results: A total of 132 patients were enrolled in this study. There were three RFFF failures. The rate of surgical complications was 20%. The 5-year locoregional control and overall survival rates were 68% and 52%, respectively. Advanced age, high comorbidity index, elevated overall stage and tumoral involvement of the inner part of the cheek were correlated with a lower overall survival rate. A good functional result was obtained for oral diet, speech, mouth opening and aesthetic outcome in 87%, 80%, 86% and 88% of the patients, respectively. High comorbidity index, large flap surface, radiotherapy and tumoral involvement of the mobile tongue were significant predictors of poorer functional or aesthetic outcomes.

Purpose: The mathematical relationship between the dose to the parotid glands and salivary gland production needs to be elucidated. This study, which included data from patients included in a French prospective study assessing the benefit of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (RT), sought to elaborate a convenient and original model of salivary recovery., Methods and Materials: Between January 2001 and December 2004, 44 patients were included (35 with oropharyngeal and 9 with nasopharyngeal cancer). Of the 44 patients, 24 were treated with intensity-modulated RT, 17 with three-dimensional conformal RT, and 2 with two-dimensional RT. Stimulated salivary production was collected for 40 Gy., Conclusion: The results of this study show that the recommendation of a dose constraint for intensity-modulated RT planning should be established at the volume of the contralateral parotid gland receiving >40 Gy rather than the mean dose. For complete salivary production recovery after 24 months, the volume of the contralateral parotid gland receiving >40 Gy should be <33%. Our results permitted us to establish two convenient tools to predict the saliva production recovery function according to the dose received by the contralateral parotid gland.

Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) is a rare, dermal neoplasm of intermediate malignancy. It is made of spindle-shaped tumor cells in a storiform pattern positive for CD34. Cytogenetically, DFSP cells are characterized by either supernumerary ring chromosomes composed of sequences derived from chromosomes 17 and 22 or more rarely of translocations t(17;22). These chromosomal rearrangements lead to the formation of a specific chimeric gene fusing COL1A1 to PDGFB. So far, the COL1A1-PDGFB fusion gene remains the sole fusion gene identified in DFSP. However, some observations suggest that genes, other than COL1A1 and PDGFB, might be involved in some DFSP cases. We report in this paper a DFSP case presenting as a unique chromosomal abnormality a complex translocation between chromosomes 5 and 8. This is the first report of a DFSP case where the lack of chromosomes 17 and 22 rearrangement and the absence of COL1A1-PDGFB fusion gene have been demonstrated. Using fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis, we showed that the CSPG2 gene at 5q14.3 and the PTK2B gene at 8p21.2 were disrupted by this rearrangement. Although rare, the existence of cases of DFSP negative for the COL1A1-PDGFB fusion has to be taken in consideration when performing molecular diagnosis for a tumor suspected to be a DFSP.

Objectives: This prospective study was designed to evaluate quality of life (QOL) after free-flap head and neck reconstruction., Study Design: Prospective study., Methods: : Between January 2004 and December 2005, a total of 95 patients underwent microvascular reconstruction of the head and neck at our Institution (Centre Antoine-Lacassagne, Nice, France) and were initially included in this study. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Core Quality of Life Questionnaire and the EORTC Head and Neck Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire were completed before surgery, and at 6 and 12 months thereafter. Sixty-five patients completed the questionnaires on at least two of the assessment dates. Predictive factors of Quality of Life (QOL) scores at 6 months were researched among the following: age, sex, comorbidity, radiotherapy, tumor recurrence, tumor stage, and type of surgery., Results: Global QOL remained stable over time. Physical, social, and role functioning deteriorated significantly after treatment. Pain decreased markedly. Social eating, senses, and speech difficulties increased significantly at 6 months, but stabilized between 6 and 12 months. Problems concerning mouth opening and social contact augmented progressively until the 12th postoperative month. Sex, type of surgery, and radiotherapy were the main factors influencing QOL 6 months after treatment., Conclusions: Despite some functional impairments, global QOL was preserved after major head and neck ablative surgery and microvascular free-flap reconstruction.

Background: EGFR (epidermal growth factor receptor) gene gain assessed by FISH (fluorescence in situ hybridization) has been shown to be predictive of response to EGFR-targeted therapies in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. The aim or our study was to relate the EGFR gene copy number to therapeutic results in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) treated with a cetuximab-containing regimen., Methods: Forty-seven patients with metastatic CRC treated with a cetuximab-containing regimen between August 2004 and September 2006 were included in our study. EGFR status was assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and by FISH on fixed paraffin-embedded sections of tumor specimens., Results: By IHC (n = 47), 39 patients (83%) had EGFR-positive tumors. EGFR gene copy gain was detected in 8 (19.5%) of 41 tumors. Neither EGFR expression assessed by IHC nor EGFR gene copy gain assessed by FISH were statistically significantly correlated with objective response rate, disease control rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival. Of the 33 patients whose tumors were FISH negative, 8 patients (24.2%) had a partial response, and 10 (30.3%) had stable disease., Conclusions: EGFR FISH analysis does not seem to be a sufficiently robust test for selecting candidate CRC patients for cetuximab therapy.

Up to date, standard treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer is preoperative radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy. Results of FFCD and EORTC French randomised trials showed that preoperative radiochemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil (5FU) compared with radiotherapy increases operative specimen sterilisation and local control, without any benefit on overall survival. One of the greatest challenges in rectal cancer is to improve schedules of pre operative chemoradiotherapy. Oxaliplatin is proved to be a radiosentitizer and to be effective on advanced colorectal cancer. Consequently it is an adequate drug to associate with 5FU and radiation. Several phases I and II studied the association between 5FU infusion-oxaliplatin-radiation therapy or capecitabine-oxaliplatin-radiation therapy with a moderate toxicity (essentially diarrhoea) and a promising tumoral activity. All the studied schedules seem to have a similar efficiency with a questionable increased toxicity with continuous administration of 5FU or capecitabine. Only randomized trials comparing 5FU to 5FU or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin will attest the benefit of oxaliplatin on local control, sphincter preservation and overall survival, and will estimate its toxicity compared with monochemotherapy.