Search

Additional file 1. Supplementary Figures.

Additional file 2. Supplementary Tables.

Background Up to 60% of breast cancer patients treated with chemotherapy is confronted with cognitive problems, which can have a significant impact on daily activities and quality of life (QoL). We investigated whether exercise training improves cognition in chemotherapy-exposed breast cancer patients 2–4 years after diagnosis. Methods Chemotherapy-exposed breast cancer patients, with both self-reported cognitive problems and lower than expected performance on neuropsychological tests, were randomized to an exercise or control group. The 6-month exercise intervention consisted of supervised aerobic and strength training (2 h/week), and Nordic/power walking (2 h/week). Our primary outcome was memory functioning (Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised; HVLT-R). Secondary outcomes included online neuropsychological tests (Amsterdam Cognition Scan; ACS), self-reported cognition (MD Anderson Symptom Inventory for multiple myeloma; MDASI-MM), physical fitness (relative maximum oxygen uptake; VO2peak), fatigue (Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory), QoL (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire; EORTC QLQ C-30), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; HADS), and anxiety (HADS). HVLT-R total recall was analyzed with a Fisher exact test for clinically relevant improvement (≥ 5 words). Other outcomes were analyzed using multiple regression analyses adjusted for baseline and stratification factors. Results We randomized 181 patients to the exercise (n = 91) or control group (n = 90). Two-third of the patients attended ≥ 80% of the exercise sessions, and physical fitness significantly improved compared to control patients (B VO2peak 1.4 ml/min/kg, 95%CI:0.6;2.2). No difference in favor of the intervention group was seen on the primary outcome. Significant beneficial intervention effects were found for self-reported cognitive functioning [MDASI-MM severity (B-0.7, 95% CI − 1.2; − 0.1)], fatigue, QoL, and depression. A hypothesis-driven analysis in highly fatigued patients showed positive exercise effects on tested cognitive functioning [ACS Reaction Time (B-26.8, 95% CI − 52.9; − 0.6) and ACS Wordlist Learning (B4.4, 95% CI 0.5; 8.3)]. Conclusions A 6-month exercise intervention improved self-reported cognitive functioning, physical fitness, fatigue, QoL, and depression in chemotherapy-exposed breast cancer patients with cognitive problems. Tested cognitive functioning was not affected. However, subgroup analysis indicated a positive effect of exercise on tested cognitive functioning in highly fatigued patients. Trial Registration Netherlands Trial Registry: Trial NL5924 (NTR6104). Registered 24 October 2016, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/5924.

Additional file 1. Table S1. Intervention effects on cognitive functioning. Table S2. Intervention effects on cognitive functioning, per protocol. Table S3. Intervention effects, separately for patients with and without endocrine therapy. Table S4. Intervention effects, separately for patients of different age categories (30-44, 45-59, 60-75 years). Table S5. Intervention effects, separately for patients of with pre- and peri- menopausal status and patients with postmenopausal status. Table S6. Intervention effects on cognitive functioning, stratified for low versus high levels of fatigue measured with the EORTC QLQ C-30 fatigue scale. Table S7. Intervention effects on patient-reported outcomes.

Contains fulltext : 291410.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) BACKGROUND: Physical exercise in cancer patients is a promising intervention to improve cognition and increase brain volume, including hippocampal volume. We investigated whether a 6-month exercise intervention primarily impacts total hippocampal volume and additionally hippocampal subfield volumes, cortical thickness and grey matter volume in previously physically inactive breast cancer patients. Furthermore, we evaluated associations with verbal memory. METHODS: Chemotherapy-exposed breast cancer patients (stage I-III, 2-4 years post diagnosis) with cognitive problems were included and randomized in an exercise intervention (n = 70, age = 52.5 ± 9.0 years) or control group (n = 72, age = 53.2 ± 8.6 years). The intervention consisted of 2x1 hours/week of supervised aerobic and strength training and 2x1 hours/week Nordic or power walking. At baseline and at 6-month follow-up, volumetric brain measures were derived from 3D T1-weighted 3T magnetic resonance imaging scans, including hippocampal (subfield) volume (FreeSurfer), cortical thickness (CAT12), and grey matter volume (voxel-based morphometry CAT12). Physical fitness was measured with a cardiopulmonary exercise test. Memory functioning was measured with the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised (HVLT-R total recall) and Wordlist Learning of an online cognitive test battery, the Amsterdam Cognition Scan (ACS Wordlist Learning). An explorative analysis was conducted in highly fatigued patients (score of ≥ 39 on the symptom scale 'fatigue' of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire), as previous research in this dataset has shown that the intervention improved cognition only in these patients. RESULTS: Multiple regression analyses and voxel-based morphometry revealed no significant intervention effects on brain volume, although at baseline increased physical fitness was significantly related to larger brain volume (e.g., total hippocampal volume: R = 0.32, B = 21.7 mm(3), 95 % CI = 3.0 - 40.4). Subgroup analyses showed an intervention effect in highly fatigued patients. Unexpectedly, these patients had significant reductions in hippocampal volume, compared to the control group (e.g., total hippocampal volume: B = -52.3 mm(3), 95 % CI = -100.3 - -4.4)), which was related to improved memory functioning (HVLT-R total recall: B = -0.022, 95 % CI = -0.039 - -0.005; ACS Wordlist Learning: B = -0.039, 95 % CI = -0.062 - -0.015). CONCLUSIONS: No exercise intervention effects were found on hippocampal volume, hippocampal subfield volumes, cortical thickness or grey matter volume for the entire intervention group. Contrary to what we expected, in highly fatigued patients a reduction in hippocampal volume was found after the intervention, which was related to improved memory functioning. These results suggest that physical fitness may benefit cognition in specific groups and stress the importance of further research into the biological basis of this finding.

BackgroundPoly (ADP-ribose) Polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are promising novel radiosensitisers. Pre-clinical models have demonstrated potent and tumour-specific radiosensitisation by PARP inhibitors. Olaparib is a PARP inhibitor with a favourable safety profile in comparison to clinically used radiosensitisers including cisplatin when used as single agent. However, data on safety, tolerability and efficacy of olaparib in combination with radiotherapy are limited.MethodsOlaparib is dose escalated in combination with radical (chemo-)radiotherapy regimens for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), breast cancer and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) in three parallel single institution phase 1 trials. All trials investigate a combination treatment of olaparib and radiotherapy, the NSCLC trial also investigates a triple combination of olaparib, radiotherapy and concurrent low dose cisplatin. The primary objective is to identify the maximum tolerated dose of olaparib in these combination treatments, defined as the dose closest to but not exceeding a 15% probability of dose limiting toxicity. Each trial has a separate dose limiting toxicity definition, taking into account incidence, duration and severity of expected toxicities without olaparib. Dose escalation is performed using a time-to-event continual reassessment method (TITE-CRM). TITE-CRM enables the incorporation of late onset toxicity until one year after treatment in the dose limiting toxicity definition while maintaining an acceptable trial duration. Olaparib treatment starts two days before radiotherapy and continues during weekends until two days after radiotherapy. Olaparib will also be given two weeks and one week before radiotherapy in the breast cancer trial and HNSCC trial respectively to allow for translational research. Toxicity is scored using common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) version 4.03. Blood samples, and tumour biopsies in the breast cancer trial, are collected for pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analyses.DiscussionWe designed three parallel phase 1 trials to assess the safety and tolerability of the PARP inhibitor olaparib in combination with radical (chemo-)radiotherapy treatment regimens. PARP inhibitors have the potential to improve outcomes in patients treated with radical (chemo-)radiotherapy, by achieving higher locoregional control rates and/or less treatment associated toxicity.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.govIdentifiers: NCT01562210 (registered March 23, 2012), NCT02227082 (retrospectively registered August 27, 2014), NCT02229656 (registered September 1, 2014).

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

Background: Olaparib has significantly improved outcome and patient-centered endpoints in BRCA1/2-mutated patients with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer (PSOC). Specific information on efficacy and safety of olaparib for older patients appears of special interest. Methods: 295 patients from the SOLO2 trial randomly assigned to olaparib or placebo were categorized according to age-cutoff at 65 years. Efficacy, tolerability, and quality of life (QoL) of olaparib relative to placebo within in each age group was analyzed. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar in patients ≥65 years (N = 62;21.0%) compared to patients

Olaparib; Ovarian cancer; Tolerability Olaparib; Cáncer de ovarios; Tolerabilidad Olaparib; Càncer d'ovaris; Tolerabilitat Objectives In the phase III SOLO1 trial (NCT01844986), maintenance olaparib provided a substantial progression-free survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation who were in response after platinum-based chemotherapy. We analyzed the timing, duration and grade of the most common hematologic and non-hematologic adverse events in SOLO1. Methods Eligible patients were randomized to olaparib tablets 300 mg twice daily (N = 260) or placebo (N = 131), with a 2-year treatment cap in most patients. Safety outcomes were analyzed in detail in randomized patients who received at least one dose of study drug (olaparib, n = 260; placebo, n = 130). Results Median time to first onset of the most common hematologic (anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia) and non-hematologic (nausea, fatigue/asthenia, vomiting) adverse events was

BACKGROUND: Most women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer have a relapse within 3 years after standard treatment with surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy. The benefit of the oral poly(adenosine diphosphate–ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib in relapsed disease has been well established, but the benefit of olaparib as maintenance therapy in newly diagnosed disease is uncertain.METHODS: We conducted an international, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy of olaparib as maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage III or IV) high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer, primary peritoneal cancer, or fallopian-tube cancer (or a combination thereof) with a mutation in BRCA1, BRCA2, or both (BRCA1/2) who had a complete or partial clinical response after platinum-based chemotherapy. The patients were randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive olaparib tablets (300 mg twice daily) or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival.RESULTS: Of the 391 patients who underwent randomization, 260 were assigned to receive olaparib and 131 to receive placebo. A total of 388 patients had a centrally confirmed germline BRCA1/2 mutation, and 2 patients had a centrally confirmed somatic BRCA1/2 mutation. After a median follow-up of 41 months, the risk of disease progression or death was 70% lower with olaparib than with placebo (Kaplan–Meier estimate of the rate of freedom from disease progression and from death at 3 years, 60% vs. 27%; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.23 to 0.41; PCONCLUSIONS: The use of maintenance therapy with olaparib provided a substantial benefit with regard to progression-free survival among women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation, with a 70% lower risk of disease progression or death with olaparib than with placebo. (Funded by AstraZeneca and Merck; SOLO1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844986. opens in new tab.)

Purpose This phase III study evaluated ribociclib plus fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor–positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative advanced breast cancer who were treatment naïve or had received up to one line of prior endocrine therapy in the advanced setting. Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned at a two-to-one ratio to ribociclib plus fulvestrant or placebo plus fulvestrant. The primary end point was locally assessed progression-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, overall response rate, and safety. Results A total of 484 postmenopausal women were randomly assigned to ribociclib plus fulvestrant, and 242 were assigned to placebo plus fulvestrant. Median progression-free survival was significantly improved with ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus placebo plus fulvestrant: 20.5 months (95% CI, 18.5 to 23.5 months) versus 12.8 months (95% CI, 10.9 to 16.3 months), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.593; 95% CI, 0.480 to 0.732; P < .001). Consistent treatment effects were observed in patients who were treatment naïve in the advanced setting (hazard ratio, 0.577; 95% CI, 0.415 to 0.802), as well as in patients who had received up to one line of prior endocrine therapy for advanced disease (hazard ratio, 0.565; 95% CI, 0.428 to 0.744). Among patients with measurable disease, the overall response rate was 40.9% for the ribociclib plus fulvestrant arm and 28.7% for placebo plus fulvestrant. Grade 3 adverse events reported in ≥ 10% of patients in either arm (ribociclib plus fulvestrant v placebo plus fulvestrant) were neutropenia (46.6% v 0%) and leukopenia (13.5% v 0%); the only grade 4 event reported in ≥ 5% of patients was neutropenia (6.8% v 0%). Conclusion Ribociclib plus fulvestrant might represent a new first- or second-line treatment option in hormone receptor–positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative advanced breast cancer.

Summary Background The poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib has shown antitumour activity in patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent, high-grade serous ovarian cancer with or without BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of olaparib in combination with chemotherapy, followed by olaparib maintenance monotherapy, versus chemotherapy alone in patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent, high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Methods In this randomised, open-label, phase 2 study, adult patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent, high-grade serous ovarian cancer who had received up to three previous courses of platinum-based chemotherapy and who were progression free for at least 6 months before randomisation received either olaparib (200 mg capsules twice daily, administered orally on days 1–10 of each 21-day cycle) plus paclitaxel (175 mg/m 2 , administered intravenously on day 1) and carboplatin (area under the curve [AUC] 4 mg/mL per min, according to the Calvert formula, administered intravenously on day 1), then olaparib monotherapy (400 mg capsules twice daily, given continuously) until progression (the olaparib plus chemotherapy group), or paclitaxel (175 mg/m 2 on day 1) and carboplatin (AUC 6 mg/mL per min on day 1) then no further treatment (the chemotherapy alone group). Randomisation was done by an interactive voice response system, stratified by number of previous platinum-containing regimens received and time to disease progression after the previous platinum regimen. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1, analysed by intention to treat. Prespecified exploratory analyses included efficacy by BRCA mutation status, assessed retrospectively. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01081951, and has been completed. Findings Between Feb 12 and July 30, 2010, 173 patients at 43 investigational sites in 12 countries were enrolled into the study, of whom 162 were eligible and were randomly assigned to the two treatment groups (81 to the olaparib plus chemotherapy group and 81 to the chemotherapy alone group). Of these randomised patients, 156 were treated in the combination phase (81 in the olaparib plus chemotherapy group and 75 in the chemotherapy alone group) and 121 continued to the maintenance or no further treatment phase (66 in the olaparib plus chemotherapy group and 55 in the chemotherapy alone group). BRCA mutation status was known for 107 patients (either at baseline or determined retrospectively): 41 (38%) of 107 had a BRCA mutation (20 in the olaparib plus chemotherapy group and 21 in the chemotherapy alone group). Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the olaparib plus chemotherapy group (median 12·2 months [95% CI 9·7–15·0]) than in the chemotherapy alone group (median 9·6 months [95% CI 9·1–9·7) (HR 0·51 [95% CI 0·34–0·77]; p=0·0012), especially in patients with BRCA mutations (HR 0·21 [0·08–0·55]; p=0·0015). In the combination phase, adverse events that were reported at least 10% more frequently with olaparib plus chemotherapy than with chemotherapy alone were alopecia (60 [74%] of 81 vs 44 [59%] of 75), nausea (56 [69%] vs 43 [57%]), neutropenia (40 [49%] vs 29 [39%]), diarrhoea (34 [42%] vs 20 [27%]), headache (27 [33%] vs seven [9%]), peripheral neuropathy (25 [31%] vs 14 [19%]), and dyspepsia (21 [26%] vs 9 [12%]); most were of mild-to-moderate intensity. The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events during the combination phase were neutropenia (in 35 [43%] of 81 patients in the olaparib plus chemotherapy group vs 26 [35%] of 75 in the chemotherapy alone group) and anaemia (seven [9%] vs five [7%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 12 (15%) of 81 patients in the olaparib plus chemotherapy group and 16 of 75 (21%) patients in the chemotherapy alone group. Interpretation Olaparib plus paclitaxel and carboplatin followed by maintenance monotherapy significantly improved progression-free survival versus paclitaxel plus carboplatin alone, with the greatest clinical benefit in BRCA -mutated patients, and had an acceptable and manageable tolerability profile. Funding AstraZeneca.