Search

Background: In Part 1 of the phase III RUBY trial (NCT03981796) in patients with primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (EC), dostarlimab plus carboplatin–paclitaxel (CP) significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival compared with CP alone. Limited safety data have been reported for the combination of immunotherapies plus chemotherapy in this setting. Objectives: The objective of this analysis was to identify the occurrence of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) and immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and to describe irAE management in Part 1 of the RUBY trial. Design: RUBY is a phase III, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study of dostarlimab plus CP compared with CP alone in patients with primary advanced or recurrent EC. Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to dostarlimab 500 mg, or placebo, plus CP every 3 weeks for 6 cycles, followed by dostarlimab 1000 mg, or placebo, every 6 weeks for up to 3 years. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.03. Results: The safety population included 487 patients who received ⩾1 dose of treatment (241 dostarlimab plus CP; 246 placebo plus CP). Treatment-emergent AEs were experienced by 100% of patients in both arms. TRAEs occurred in 97.9% of the dostarlimab arm and 98.8% of the placebo arm. The most common TRAEs occurred at similar rates between arms and were mostly low grade. IrAEs occurred in 58.5% of patients in the dostarlimab arm and 37.0% of patients in the placebo arm. Dostarlimab- or placebo-related irAEs were reported in 40.7% of patients in the dostarlimab arm and 16.3% of the placebo arm. Conclusion: The safety profile of dostarlimab plus CP was generally consistent with that of the individual components. Dostarlimab plus CP has a favorable benefit–risk profile and is a new standard of care for patients with primary advanced or recurrent EC. Trial registration: NCT03981796. Plain language summary: Safety of dostarlimab plus carboplatin-paclitaxel compared with carboplatin-paclitaxel in primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer For many years, patients with primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer were treated with chemotherapy, specifically with a combination of carboplatin and paclitaxel. Recently, new treatments called immune checkpoint inhibitors have been used to treat endometrial cancer. Dostarlimab, an immune checkpoint inhibitor, is being tested to treat many types of cancer, including endometrial cancer. In the RUBY trial, a combination of dostarlimab plus chemotherapy was compared with chemotherapy alone as treatment for primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. Results showed that patients treated with dostarlimab plus chemotherapy had a lower risk of their cancer becoming worse and a lower risk of dying. Results in this article describe the safety of dostarlimab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone. All patients in the RUBY trial experienced at least one adverse event (an undesired effect that happens while receiving treatment or shortly after stopping treatment); most were determined to be caused by the cancer treatments. No differences in the frequency of the overall cancer treatment-related adverse events were seen in patients who received dostarlimab plus chemotherapy compared with those patients who received chemotherapy alone. Some patients experienced an immune-related adverse event. These are a specific type of undesired effect that can occur when patients are treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Immune-related adverse events occurred more frequently in patients who received dostarlimab plus chemotherapy than in those who received chemotherapy alone. Physicians were generally able to treat the immune-related adverse events, and only a low percentage of patients discontinued treatment because they experienced an immune-related adverse event. The types of adverse events seen were similar to a combination of those seen in patients who received dostarlimab alone or patients who received chemotherapy alone as treatment for endometrial cancer. Dostarlimab plus chemotherapy is a new standard of care for patients with primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of standard chemotherapy administered to patients >70 years with advanced ovarian cancer (OC). Methods: Medical records of 956 advanced-stage patients with OC treated between 2002-2020 with standard surgery and paclitaxel-carboplatin chemotherapy in a three-weekly (PC-3W) or weekly (PC-1W) regimen were reviewed. Treatment response and tolerability were compared between patients ≤70 years (N=723) and >70 years (N=233) with stratification to septuagenarians (>70-80 years) and octogenarians (>80 years). Results: Median overall survival (mOS) in patients >70 was 41.26 months (95% confidence interval [Cl], 37.22-45.14) and median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 11.04 months (95% Cl, 8.97-15.74). No statistically significant differences in mPFS and mOS were observed between septuagenarians and octogenarians. Patients >70 treated with PC-1W versus PC-3W had significantly longer mOS (57.17 versus 30.00 months) and mPFS (19.09 versus 8.15 months). Toxicity rates were mostly similar between younger and older patients. Among patients >70 treated with PC-1W, the rate of neutropenia (75.7% versus 51.8%, p=0.0005), thrombocytopenia (41.0% versus 22.2%, p=0.0042) and anemia (78.1% versus 51.9%, p<0.0001) were significantly higher and the rate of grade 2 alopecia was statistically significantly lower compared with those >70 treated with PC-3W. Significantly more patients treated with PC-1W completed ≥6 chemotherapy cycles, suggesting better tolerability of this regimen. Conclusions: Older patients with OC may benefit from improved OS with reasonable toxicity if treated with standard chemotherapy. Older patients treated with PC-1W are more likely to complete the full chemotherapy course and survive longer compared with those treated with conventional PC-3W. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Patients with early-stage cervical cancer treated by minimally invasive surgery show shorter progression-free and overall survival compared to open surgery. This study integrated minimally invasive and open surgery survival data with surgery costs and utilities and conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis, using a Markovian decision analysis model, to compare the two surgical approaches. Our results show that open radical hysterectomy is not only oncologically superior but also more cost-effective. Until new data regarding the safety of minimally invasive surgery and surgery costs are presented, open radical hysterectomy should be the preferred approach from both the oncological and financial standpoint. We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of open surgery, compared to minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer, using updated survival data. Costs and utilities of each surgical approach were compared using a Markovian decision analysis model. Survival data stratified by surgical approach and surgery costs were received from recently published data. Average costs were discounted at 3%. The value of health benefits for each strategy was calculated using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, calculated using the formula (average cost minimal invasive surgery—average cost open surgery)/(average QALY minimal invasive surgery—average QALY open surgery), was used for cost-effectiveness analysis. One-way sensitivity analysis was conducted for all variables. Open radical hysterectomy was found to be cost-saving compared to minimally invasive surgery with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of USD −66 and USD −373 for laparoscopic and robotic surgery, respectively. The most influential parameters in the model were surgery costs, followed by the disutility involved with open surgery. Until further data are generated regarding the survival of patients with early-stage cervical cancer treated by minimally invasive surgery, at current pricing, open radical hysterectomy is cost-saving compared to minimally invasive radical hysterectomy, both laparoscopic and robotic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Ovarian cancer is the third most common gynecologic cancer and the eighth most common cause of death from cancer in women. Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) is a test that checks hundreds of genes. Changes in these genes and may help to suggest which anti-cancer treatment may be the most effective for the tested individual. As the test is expensive, and the treatments aimed at treating specific genes related to cancer are both limited and expensive, CGP is not often used. In this study, we investigated whether women with ovarian cancer who had the CGP test had better outcomes (i.e., had longer times with no advancing of disease or lived longer) than women who did not have this test. Our results suggest that women who had the CGP test lived longer than those who did not, but more studies are needed to confirm this. Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) allows for the detection of driver alterations at high resolution, but the limited number of approved targeted therapies and their high costs have contributed to its limited clinical utilization. We retrospectively compared data of 946 women with ovarian cancer (11.4% were referred to CGP, and 88.6% served as control) to examine whether CGP provides a prognosis benefit. Patient baseline parameters were similar between the groups. Cox regression analysis adjusted for age, disease stage at diagnosis, and recurrence status showed statistically significantly longer median overall survival (mOS) in the CGP group versus the control (73.4 versus 54.5 months, p < 0.001). Fifty-four patients (52.9%) had actionable mutations with potential treatments; twenty-six (48.2%) were treated with matched targeted therapy, showing a trend for longer mOS than the eighty-six women in the CGP group who were not given a suggested treatment (105.5 versus 63.6 months, p = 0.066). None of the genomic alterations predicted metastasis location. CCNE1 amplification and KRAS mutations were associated with shorter mOS. Patients with tumor mutation burden ≥4 mutations/megabase had longer mOS. High loss of heterozygosity was associated with longer mOS (99.0 versus 48.2 months, p = 0.004). CGP testing may provide both prognostic and predictive insights for treatment of patients with ovarian cancer. Prospective studies of larger cohorts are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Brain metastasis (BM) are uncommon among women with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). The frequency, risk factors and clinical repercussions of BM in these patients are not well described. We retrospectively evaluated EOC patients treated at our center from 2002 to 2020 and assessed their clinical parameters, risk for BM development and association with overall survival (OS). This cohort has a known high frequency of BRCA mutation carriers (BRCAm) due to women of Ashkenazi Jewish descent. Among 1035 EOC patients, 29 (2.8%) were diagnosed with BM. The prevalence of BRCA mutations was more common among women with BM (56.5% vs. 34.3%, p = 0.033). The BM rate in patients with BRCAm was higher than the BM rate in those with wildtype BRCA (BRCAw; 5.1% vs. 2.1%, OR = 2.6; 95% CI: 1.2–5.4, p = 0.013). Median time from diagnosis to BM and from disease recurrence to BM was longer among patients with BRCAm. Median OS was not significantly different among patients with BM versus those without BM (59.4 vs. 73.4 months, p = 0.243). After BM diagnosis, median OS was not statistically significantly different between patients with BRCAm and those with BRCAw (20.6 vs. 12.3 months, p = 0.441). Treatment with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors and bevacizumab had no impact on subsequent development of BM. BM are rare among EOC patients. However, the risk is three-fold higher among patients with BRCAm. BM do not significantly alter OS among EOC patients. The higher rate of BM in patients with BRCAm may be related to longer OS in this subpopulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We evaluated the incidence of breast cancer and overall survival in a multi-center cohort of ovarian cancer patients carrying BRCA1/2 mutations in order to assess risks and formulate optimal preventive interventions and/or surveillance. Medical records of 502 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers diagnosed with ovarian cancer between 2000 and 2018 at 7 medical centers in Israel and one in New York were retrospectively analyzed for breast cancer diagnosis. Data included demographics, type of BRCA mutations, surveillance methods, timing of breast cancer diagnosis, and family history of cancer. The median age at diagnosis of ovarian cancer was 55.8 years (range, 23.9–90.1). A third (31.5%) had a family history of breast cancer and 17.1% of ovarian cancer. Most patients (67.3%) were Ashkenazi Jews, 72.9% were BRCA1 carriers. Breast cancer preceded ovarian cancer in 17.5% and was diagnosed after ovarian cancer in 6.2%; an additional 2.2% had a synchronous presentation. Median time to breast cancer diagnosis after ovarian cancer was 46.0 months (range, 11–168). Of those diagnosed with both breast cancer and ovarian cancer (n = 31), 83.9% and 16.1% harbored BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, respectively. No deaths from breast cancer were recorded. Overall survival did not differ statistically between patients with an ovarian cancer diagnosis only and those diagnosed with breast cancer after ovarian cancer. The low incidence of breast cancer after ovarian cancer in women carrying BRCA1/2 mutations suggests that routine breast surveillance, rather than risk-reducing surgical interventions, may be sufficient in ovarian cancer survivors. • Breast cancer incidence was assessed in ovarian cancer patients carrying BRCA mutations. • Breast cancer was diagnosed after ovarian cancer in 6.2% of patients. • Overall survival was not statistically different in the patient groups analyzed. • Routine breast surveillance may be sufficient in ovarian cancer survivors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The use of telemedicine in oncology practice is rapidly expanding and is considered safe and cost effective. However, the implications of telemedicine on patient‐physician interaction, patient satisfaction, and absence of the personal touch have not been studied to date. Following the spread of COVID‐19, telemedicine services were rapidly incorporated at the Oncology Division of Tel Aviv Medical Center. We aimed to evaluate patients' perspectives and preferences regarding telemedicine and to assess whether this virtual communication platform affects the patient‐physician relationship. Methods: Between March 2020 and May 2020, adult cancer patients who conducted at least one successful telemedicine meeting were interviewed by trained medical personnel. The interview was based on validated patient satisfaction questionnaires and focused on patient‐physician interaction in relation to the last in‐patient visit. Results: Of 236 patients, 172 (74%) patients agreed to participate. The study population comprised mainly patients with gastrointestinal malignancies (n = 79, 46%) with a median age of 63 years (range 21–88). The majority of patients were male (n = 93, 54%). Eighty‐nine (51.7%) patients were receiving active oncologic treatment, and 58 (33.7%) were under routine surveillance following completion of active therapy. Almost all had a sense of secured privacy (n = 171, 96%), the majority of patients affirmed that their concerns were met (n = 166, 93%) and perceived that eye contact with the treating physician was perceived (n = 156, 87%). Only a minority felt that the absence of physical clinic visits harmed their treatment (n = 36, 20%). Most patients (n = 146, 84.9%) wished to continue telemedicine services. A multivariate analysis revealed that higher satisfaction and visits for routine surveillance were both predictors of willingness to continue future telemedicine meetings over physical encounters (odds ratio [OR] = 2.41, p =.01; OR = 3.34, p =.03, respectively). Conclusion: Telemedicine is perceived as safe and effective, and patients did not feel that it compromised medical care or the patient‐physician relationship. Integration of telemedicine is ideal for patients under surveillance after completion of active oncologic treatment. Physician communication skills workshops are warranted with implementing this platform. Implications for Practice: During the COVID‐19 pandemic, telemedicine was rapidly implemented worldwide to facilitate continuity of quality care and treatment. Despite many potential setbacks, telemedicine has become a useful and safe tool for oncology practitioners to care for their patients. The use of telemedicine regarding patients' perspectives, emotions, and patient‐physician communication in daily oncology practice has not been studied to date. This study demonstrated telemedicine is perceived as safe and effective and does not compromise medical care or the patient‐physician relationship. Its use is ideal for surveillance after completion of active oncologic treatment. Physician communication skills workshops are warranted with implementing this platform. The use of telemedicine in oncology practice is rapidly expanding; however, the implications for patient‐physician interaction and patient satisfaction have not been well studied. This article evaluates patients' perspectives and preferences regarding telemedicine and whether a virtual communication platform affects the patient‐physician relationship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Conventional first‐line combination therapy for ovarian cancer comprises 6 cycles of adjuvant or neoadjuvant carboplatin (AUC5‐6) with paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) every 3 weeks (PC‐3W). Weekly scheduling of paclitaxel may maximize its antiangiogenic effect and reduce adverse effects. We compared the efficacy and safety of PC‐3W with a modified protocol of weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 and weekly carboplatin AUC2 administered on days 1, 8, and 15 in a 28‐day cycle (i.e., with 1 week off‐treatment [PC‐W]). Materials and Methods: Medical records of consecutive patients treated between 2000 and 2018 were reviewed; 707 patients were analyzed for demographic and clinical characteristics, effectiveness and toxicity. Results: PC‐3W was administered to 402 patients (median age, 60.5 years) and PC‐W to 305 patients (median age, 62.5 years). Most patients (91.4%) were diagnosed at stage III–IV. Notwithstanding a higher proportion of residual disease and older patients in the PC‐W group, median progression‐free survival was 21.4 months and 13.2 months for PC‐W and PC‐3W, respectively; median overall survival was 75.2 and 54.0 months for PC‐W and PC‐3W, respectively. Cox proportional hazards model indicated improved survival for patients treated with PC‐W (hazard ratio, 0.54). Similar results were observed for older patients diagnosed at ≥75 years. PC‐W demonstrated a better safety profile, with lower incidence of neuropathy, neutropenia, and alopecia. Conclusion: PC‐W is as active and better tolerated than the standard PC‐3W regimen. PC‐W may serve as an alternative option for elderly or frail patients. Implications for Practice: Weekly scheduling of paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 and carboplatin AUC2, administered on days 1, 8, and 15 in a 28‐day cycle (PC‐W) for first‐line therapy for advanced ovarian cancer, is as active and better tolerated than the standard regimen of carboplatin and paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) every 3 weeks (PC‐3W). It is possible that the weekly holiday on day 21 in the PC‐W regimen may ensure better completion rates (which may result in treatment delays for toxicity in PC‐3W). The results of this retrospective analysis highlight the weekly regimen as a valid treatment option, especially for elderly patients and those with significant comorbidities. Conventional first‐line combination therapy for ovarian cancer is 6 cycles of adjuvant or neoadjuvant carboplatin with paclitaxel every three weeks. Weekly scheduling of paclitaxel may maximize its antiangiogenic effect and reduce adverse effects. This study compared the efficacy and safety of a weekly versus the three‐weekly protocol in a large cohort of patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Light-based modalities appear to be effective for ameliorating surgical scar appearance; however, protocols for achieving such outcomes have yet to be established. We studied the safety and efficacy of a combination of pulsed dye laser (PDL) and fractional ablative CO2 laser (FACL) for the attenuation of post-lumpectomy scarring. We conducted a prospective, evaluator-blinded, comparative split-scar study in post-lumpectomy patients. One-half of the scar was treated with three sessions of 595-nm PDL and FACL at 1-month intervals, starting within 6 weeks after suture removal. The entire scar was also treated with standard moisturizers and silicone gels. Six months after the last treatment, the two halves of the scar were assessed by three uninvolved physicians who used the Observer Scar Assessment Scale as well as by the patients who used the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale. Eighteen female patients (mean age, 51.3 years) with a mean scar length of 7.8 cm completed the treatment and follow-up. Six months after the last treatment, both the physician evaluators and the patients noted significant improvements for all assessed scar parameters in the laser-treated scar area compared with the untreated scar area. The treatment was well tolerated, and no remarkable adverse events were reported. All 18 participants were satisfied with the treated scar areas. A combination PDL and FACL protocol starting up to 6 weeks after suture removal is a safe and effective method for the attenuation of post-lumpectomy scar formation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In Study 19, maintenance monotherapy with olaparib significantly prolonged progression-free survival vs placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent high-grade serous ovarian cancer.Methods: Study 19 was a randomised, placebo-controlled, Phase II trial enrolling 265 patients who had received at least two platinum-based chemotherapy regimens and were in complete or partial response to their most recent regimen. Patients were randomised to olaparib (capsules; 400 mg bid) or placebo. We present long-term safety and final mature overall survival (OS; 79% maturity) data, from the last data cut-off (9 May 2016).Results: Thirty-two patients (24%) received maintenance olaparib for over 2 years; 15 (11%) did so for over 6 years. No new tolerability signals were identified with long-term treatment and adverse events were generally low grade. The incidence of discontinuations due to adverse events was low (6%). An apparent OS advantage was observed with olaparib vs placebo (hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.55‒0.95, P = 0.02138) irrespective of BRCA1/2 mutation status, although the predefined threshold for statistical significance was not met.Conclusions: Study 19 showed a favourable final OS result irrespective of BRCA1/2 mutation status and unprecedented long-term benefit with maintenance olaparib for a subset of platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background:Maintenance monotherapy with the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib significantly prolongs progression-free survival over placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed serous ovarian cancer, with greatest benefit seen in patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation (BRCAm). Preservation of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is important during maintenance therapy; we evaluated the effect of olaparib on HRQoL in this Phase II trial (NCT00753545, Study 19).Methods:Patients received olaparib 400 mg b.i.d. (capsules) or placebo until progression. Patient-reported HRQoL and disease-related symptoms were evaluated using the FACT-Ovarian (FACT-O) questionnaire (completed at baseline and every 28 days until progression), the FACT/NCCN Ovarian Symptom Index (FOSI) and the Trial Outcome Index (TOI). TOI of the FACT-O was the primary measure.Results:Overall, 265 women were randomised to maintenance olaparib (n=136) or placebo (n=129). Compliance for HRQoL assessment was high (∼80% over time). Most patients in both arms reported a best response of 'no change' on TOI (81%) and other HRQoL measures. There were no statistically significant differences in time to worsening or improvement rates of TOI, FOSI and FACT-O scores in the overall, BRCAm and germline BRCAm populations.Conclusions:Maintenance treatment with olaparib was well tolerated and had no adverse impact on HRQoL in this study of patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed serous ovarian cancer who had responded to their most recent platinum-based therapy (partial or complete response). Interpretation of the HRQoL results in this population may differ from patients who have not responded to their most recent platinum-based therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Variation in the worldwide prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations is well recognized. We analyzed BRCA mutation type variability in 585 BRCA-tested epithelial ovarian cancer patients from different ethnic populations. Of these patients, 98 (16.8%) were carriers of the BRCA1 mutation, and 34 (5.8%) were carriers of BRCA2. Among the BRCA1/2 carriers, there were 29 mutation types. The widest variation in mutation types was in non-Jewish Caucasians. Our analysis showed statistically improved overall survival and a tendency towards improved first progression-free survival across all BRCA mutation subtypes, compared to non-carriers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Maintenance treatment with the oral poly(adenosine diphosphate ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza) in Study 19 (study number, D0810C00019; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00753545) significantly improved progression-free survival in comparison with a placebo for patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed serous ovarian cancer with a BRCA1/2 mutation (BRCAm), but an interim analysis revealed no statistically significant overall survival (OS) benefit. However, 23% of the patients receiving the placebo switched to a PARP inhibitor after progression. To investigate whether this had a confounding effect on OS, this article reports an exploratory post hoc analysis that excluded all patients from sites where 1 or more placebo patients received postprogression PARP inhibitor treatment.Methods: In Study 19, 136 of the 265 patients receiving olaparib or a placebo had a BRCAm. Sixteen patients treated at 11 of the 82 investigational sites received a PARP inhibitor after progression; these sites were excluded from this analysis, and 97 BRCAm patients at 50 sites were included. OS was assessed with a Cox proportional hazards model analogous to the primary study analysis. A supporting rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) model analysis was undertaken for all 136 BRCAm patients.Results: The OS hazard ratio (HR) was 0.52 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.97) for the 97 BRCAm patients, whereas for the interim OS analysis with all 136 BRCAm patients, it was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.45-1.17). The supportive RPSFT analysis HR was approximately 0.66.Conclusions: The numerical improvement in the OS HR suggests that in Study 19, postprogression PARP inhibitor treatment had a confounding influence on the interim OS analysis for BRCAm patients. There is a degree of uncertainty due to the small sample size and the lack of data maturity. Cancer 2016;122:1844-52. © 2016 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The treatment of recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer (rEOC) remains a major challenge because of the development of platinum resistance. To identify treatment regimens associated with better outcomes in BRCA mutation carriers compared with patients with nonhereditary (NH) disease, we summarized the experience after chemotherapy treatment of rEOC in 1 institution and compared the outcome in BRCA mutation carriers versus NH subsets.We retrospectively analyzed 256 patient records with rEOC who were treated with second-, third-, and fourth-line treatment with the usual sequential regimens consisting of either pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD), taxanes, gemcitabine, or topotecan (alone or in combination with platinum) between 2002 and 2012 at our institution. The analysis of founder mutations in 8 hotspots was performed. The outcome in BRCA mutation carriers was compared with that of patients with NH disease.BRCA mutation carriers treated with PLD (with or without platinum) or with gemcitabine + platinum had improved progression-free survival (PFS) and a lower risk for disease progression (adjusted for age, line of treatment, and platinum sensitivity) compared with patients with NH disease. By contrast, treatment with taxanes (with or without platinum) or topotecan led to similar PFS in BRCA mutation carriers and in patients with NH disease. Under all treatment regimens, BRCA mutation carriers showed improved overall survival after adjusting for age, line of treatment, and platinum sensitivity.This single-institution experience provides indications of an enhanced benefit in PFS for BRCA mutation carriers compared with patients with NH disease across a number of drug regimens (PLD, platinum, or gemcitabine + platinum) regardless of platinum sensitivity and line of therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]