Search

Background: In the PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 primary analysis, maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab demonstrated a significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer patients in clinical response after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, irrespective of surgical status. Prespecified, exploratory analyses by molecular biomarker status showed substantial benefit in patients with a BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation (BRCAm) or homologous recombination deficiency (HRD; BRCAm and/or genomic instability). We report the prespecified final overall survival (OS) analysis, including analyses by HRD status., Patients and Methods: Patients were randomized 2 : 1 to olaparib (300 mg twice daily; up to 24 months) plus bevacizumab (15 mg/kg every 3 weeks; 15 months total) or placebo plus bevacizumab. Analysis of OS, a key secondary endpoint in hierarchical testing, was planned for ∼60% maturity or 3 years after the primary analysis., Results: After median follow-up of 61.7 and 61.9 months in the olaparib and placebo arms, respectively, median OS was 56.5 versus 51.6 months in the intention-to-treat population [hazard ratio (HR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76-1.12; P = 0.4118]. Subsequent poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor therapy was received by 105 (19.6%) olaparib patients versus 123 (45.7%) placebo patients. In the HRD-positive population, OS was longer with olaparib plus bevacizumab (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45-0.85; 5-year OS rate, 65.5% versus 48.4%); at 5 years, updated PFS also showed a higher proportion of olaparib plus bevacizumab patients without relapse (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.32-0.54; 5-year PFS rate, 46.1% versus 19.2%). Myelodysplastic syndrome, acute myeloid leukemia, aplastic anemia, and new primary malignancy incidence remained low and balanced between arms., Conclusions: Olaparib plus bevacizumab provided clinically meaningful OS improvement for first-line patients with HRD-positive ovarian cancer. These prespecified exploratory analyses demonstrated improvement despite a high proportion of patients in the placebo arm receiving poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors after progression, confirming the combination as one of the standards of care in this setting with the potential to enhance cure., Competing Interests: Disclosure IRC reports honoraria (personal) from AbbVie, Agenus, Advaxis, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), PharmaMar, Genmab, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Deciphera, Mersana, Merck Sereno, Novartis, Amgen, Tesaro, and Clovis; honoraria (institution) from GSK, MSD, Roche, and BMS; advisory/consulting fees from AbbVie, Agenus, Advaxis, BMS, PharmaMar, Genmab, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, GSK, MSD, Deciphera, Mersana, Merck Sereno, Novartis, Amgen, Tesaro, and Clovis; research grant/funding (self) from MSD, Roche, and BMS; research grant/funding (institution) from MSD, Roche, BMS, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Merck Sereno; and travel support from Roche, AstraZeneca, and GSK. AL reports grants from AstraZeneca and Sanofi; consulting fees from Seattle Genetics; honoraria/reimbursement and advisory board fees from AstraZeneca; advisory board fees or continuing medical education from Ability Pharma, Biocad, Clovis Oncology, GSK, Medscape, Merck Serono, MSD, TouchCongress, and Zentalis; support for attending meetings and/or travel from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, and Roche; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for ARIEL4 and TROPHIMMUNE. SP reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Roche, MSD, Pfizer, Tesaro, Clovis Oncology, GSK, and PharmaMar; and research funding (institution) from Roche, MSD, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer. AGM reports advisory/consultancy fees (personal) from Alkermes, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Genmab, GSK, Hedera Dx, Illumina, ImmunoGen, MSD, Macrogenics, Mersana, Novartis, Oncoinvent, PharmaMar, Roche, Regeneron, Sotio, and Sutro; speaker bureau fees (personal) from AstraZeneca, Roche, GSK, MSD, Novocure, Takeda, Zai Lab, and Clovis; research grant/funding (institution) from Roche, Novartis, GSK, and Aravive; and steering committee member (personal) for MSD. CM reports honoraria/consulting fees (personal) from Roche, Novartis, Amgen, MSD, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, GSK, and Seagen; participation on an advisory board from Roche, Novartis, Amgen, MSD, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, GSK, and Seagen; and travel expenses from Roche and AstraZeneca. SN reports honoraria (self) from AstraZeneca, Chugai, Mochida, MSD, Takeda, and Terumo; and research grant (self) from AstraZeneca. IV reports consulting fees from Agenus, Akesobio, AstraZeneca, BMS, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Elevar Therapeutics, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Jazzpharma, Karyopharm, Mersana, MSD, Novocure, Novartis, Oncoinvent, OncXerna, Sanofi, Seagen, Sotio, Verastem Oncology, and Zentalis; contracted research funding (via KULeuven) from Oncoinvent AS; corporate sponsored research funding from Amgen and Roche; and accommodation and travel expenses from Karyopharm. NC reports research grants from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, and Roche; honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Novartis, Clovis Oncology, MSD, GSK, and Eisai; honoraria for advisory boards from Roche, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, MSD, GSK, Tesaro, Pfizer, BIOCAD, ImmunoGen, Mersana Therapeutics, Eisai, and OncXerna Therapeutics; and is a steering committee member on ESMO clinical guidelines and a scientific committee chair for Acto Onlus. JM reports honoraria from AstraZeneca and GSK. FS reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, GSK Tesaro, MSD, Sandoz (Novartis), and Clovis Oncology; and institutional financial support from Roche, GSK Tesaro, AstraZeneca, Immunogen, MSD, Incyte, and Agenus. JS reports grants or contracts from Roche Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis, GSK, Lilly, Tesaro, consulting fees from Tesaro, Merck, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Roche Pharma, GSK, MSD, Eisai, Novocure, Oncoinvent, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Tesaro, GSK, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Bayer, Roche, PharmaMar, Vifor Pharma, Hexal AG, Novartis Pharma. DL reports consultancy fees (personal) from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, MSD, PharmaMar, Novartis, and Seagen; membership on an advisory board (personal) from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Corcept, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, MSD, Oncoinvest, PharmaMar, Seagen, and Sutro; research funding (institutional) from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Incyte, MSD, Novartis, PharmaMar, Roche, and Seagen; and travel support from Roche, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, and GSK. EMGA reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca–MSD, Clovis Oncology, GSK–Tesaro, PharmaMar, and Roche; speaker bureau/expert testimony honorarium from AstraZeneca–MSD, PharmaMar, Roche, GSK–Tesaro, and Clovis Oncology; and travel support from Roche, GSK–Tesaro, and Baxter. GB reports consulting or advisory board roles for AstraZeneca, Roche, and GSK; and has received funding for medical conferences from AstraZeneca, Roche, and GSK. CLP reports advisory/consultancy honoraria from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Daiichi–Sanko; and other travel/accommodation/medical congress expenses from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, and MSD. PB reports honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, and GSK; and congress and travel support from GSK and PharmaMar. AL reports advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, MSD, and Tesaro; speaker honoraria from Clovis Oncology and Roche; and participation in a medical congress for Novartis, Pfizer, MSD, Lilly, and Roche. AB reports honoraria for lectures and advisory boards from AstraZeneca, Roche, and Tesaro. JM reports advisory board fees (personal) from Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, and Eli Lilly; and non-financial traveling facilities from Pfizer. AEB reports advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, MSD, and GSK; speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca and Olympus; and participation in a medical congress for PharmaMar and AstraZeneca. MR reports advisory board fees (personal) from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Immunocore; advisory board fees and research grant (personal/institution) from MSD; and research grant (institution) from BMS. TWPS reports honoraria (advisory role, expert testimony and lectures, participation in clinical trials, other financial relationships, e.g. travel) from AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Exact Sciences, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, MSD, NCO, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seagen. CD reports participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for MSD, Eisai, and AstraZeneca. DD reports consulting or advisory roles (personal) for AstraZeneca, GSK/Tesaro, Roche, Eisai Germany, and MSD Oncology; travel expenses from AstraZeneca; and honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, GSK/Tesaro, MSD, Intuitive Surgical, and KLS Martin. BY reports consulting fees (personal) from MSD, AstraZeneca, GSK–Tesaro, Bayer, Roche–Genentech, ECS Progastrin, Novartis, LEK, Amgen, Clovis Oncology, Merck Serono, BMS, SEAGEN, and Myriad. EPL reports lecture fees, speaker’s bureau fees, and travel support from AstraZeneca, Tesaro, and Roche; lecture fees from Clovis Oncology, Incyte, and Pfizer; and is employed by ARCAGY Research. PH reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Roche, Clovis Oncology, Stryker, MSD Oncology, Zai Lab, Lilly, Sotio, Eisai, and GSK; consulting/advisory roles from AstraZeneca, Roche, Tesaro, Merck, GSK, Clovis Oncology, and Immunogen; and research funding (institution) from AstraZeneca, Roche, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, and Clovis Oncology. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Early detection of ESR1 mutations is a key element for better personalization of the management of patients with HR+/HER2- Metastatic Breast Cancer (MBC). Analysis of circulating tumor DNA from liquid biopsies is a particularly well-suited strategy for longitudinal monitoring of such patients., Materials and Methods: Using the naica® three-color digital PCR platform, we developed a screening assay allowing the detection of 11 ESR1 mutations and designed a sequential strategy for precise mutation identification. We then applied this strategy in the analysis of plasma circulating cell-free DNA from 109 HR+/HER2- MBC patients and performed a double-blind comparison study on a subset of patients with the multiplex assay used at the Institut Curie (IC) for the PADA-1 study., Results: Thirty-one patients (28.4%) harboured at least one ESR1 mutation, with the following frequencies: D538G (41.03%), Y537S (25.64%), E380Q (10.26%), Y537N (10.26%), "(536-540)" (7.69%), Y537C (2.56%), and L536R (2.56%). The presence of ESR1 mutation(s) was significantly associated with liver metastases (p = 0.0091). A very good agreement (91%) was observed with the IC assay., Conclusion: Our assays have proven to be robust and highly sensitive and are very well-suited for monitoring ESR1 mutations in the plasma of MBC patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Leptomeningeal metastasis (LM) is a rare complication of metastatic breast cancer (MBC), with high morbidity/mortality rates. Our study aimed to describe the largest-to-date real-life population of MBC patients treated with intrathecal (IT) therapy and to evaluate prognostic models., Methods: The Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics (ESME) MBC database (NCT03275311) includes all consecutive patients who have initiated treatment for MBC since 2008. Overall survival (OS) of patients treated with IT therapy was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Prognostic models were constructed using Cox proportional hazards models. Performance was evaluated using C-index and calibration plots., Results: Of the 22 266 patients included in the database between 2008 and 2016, 312 received IT therapy and were selected for our analysis. Compared with non-IT-treated patients, IT-treated patients were younger at MBC relapse (median age: 52 years versus 61 years) and more often had lobular histology (23.4% versus 12.7%) or triple-negative subtype (24.7% versus 13.3%) (all P < 0.001). Median OS was 4.5 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.8-5.6] and 1-year survival rate was 25.6%. Significant prognostic factors associated with poorer outcome on multivariable analysis were triple-negative subtype (hazard ratio 1.81, 95% CI 1.32-2.47), treatment line ≥3 (hazard ratio 1.88, 95% CI 1.30-2.73), ≥3 other metastatic sites (hazard ratio 1.33, 95% CI 1.01-1.74) and IT cytarabine or thiotepa versus methotrexate (hazard ratio 1.68, 95% CI 1.28-2.22), while concomitant systemic therapy was associated with better OS (hazard ratio 0.47, 95% CI 0.35-0.62) (all P < 0.001). We validated two previously published prognostic scores, the Curie score and the Breast-graded prognostic assessment, both with C-index of 0.57., Conclusions: MBC patients with LM treated with IT therapy have a poor prognosis. We could identify a subgroup of patients with better prognosis, when concomitant systemic therapy and IT methotrexate were used., Competing Interests: Disclosure MCapone reports personal fees (consulting, advisory) from Lilly, Novartis, GT1, Daiichi Sankyo and fees to the institution from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Servier and AbbVie, outside the submitted work. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Rare ovarian tumors represent >20% of all ovarian cancers. Given the rarity of these tumors, natural history, prognostic factors are not clearly identified. The extreme variability of patients (age, histological subtypes, stage) induces multiple and complex therapeutic strategies., Methods: Since 2011, a national network with a dedicated system for referral, up to 22 regional and three national reference centers (RC) has been supported by the French National Cancer Institute (INCa). The network aims to prospectively monitor the management of rare ovarian tumors and provide an equal access to medical expertise and innovative treatments to all French patients through a dedicated website, www.ovaire-rare.org., Results: Over a 5-year activity, 4612 patients have been included. Patients' inclusions increased from 553 in 2011 to 1202 in 2015. Expert pathology review and patients' files discussion in dedicated multidisciplinary tumor boards increased from 166 cases in 2011 (25%) to 538 (45%) in 2015. Pathology review consistently modified the medical strategy in 5-9% every year. The rate of patients' files discussed in RC similarly increased from 294 (53%) to 789 (66%). An increasing number (357 in 5 years) of gynecologic (non-ovarian) rare tumors were also registered by physicians seeking for pathological or medical advice from expert tumor boards., Conclusion: Such a nation-wide organization for rare gynecological tumors has invaluable benefits, not only for patients, but also for epidemiological, clinical and biological research., (© The Author 2017. 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.)

Background: In a randomized phase III study, trametinib prolonged progression-free survival and improved overall survival versus chemotherapy in patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma., Patients and Methods: Patients' quality of life (QOL) was assessed at baseline and follow-up visits using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core QOL questionnaire., Results: In the primary efficacy population (BRAF V600E+, no brain metastases) from baseline to weeks 6 and 12, patients' global health status scores worsened by 4-5 points with chemotherapy but improved by 2-3 points with trametinib. Rapid and substantive reductions in QOL functionality (e.g. role functioning, 8-11 points at weeks 6 and 12) and symptom exacerbation (e.g. fatigue, 4-8 points; nausea and vomiting, 5 points, both at weeks 6 and 12) were observed in chemotherapy-treated patients. In contrast, trametinib-treated patients reported small improvements or slight worsening from baseline at week 12, depending on the functional dimension and symptom. The mean symptom-scale scores for chemotherapy-treated patients increased from baseline (symptoms worsened) for seven of eight symptoms at week 6 (except insomnia) and six of eight symptoms at week 12 (except dyspnea and insomnia). In contrast, at weeks 6 and 12, the mean symptom-scale scores for trametinib decreased from baseline (symptoms improved) for pain (11-12 points), insomnia (10-12 points), and appetite loss (1-5 points), whereas those for diarrhea worsened (15-16 points). Mixed-model repeated-measures analyses showed significant (P < 0.05) and/or clinically meaningful improvements (small to moderate) from baseline in favor of trametinib for global health; physical, role, and social functioning; fatigue; pain; insomnia; nausea and vomiting; constipation; dyspnea; and appetite at weeks 6 and/or 12. QOL results for the intent-to-treat population were consistent., Conclusions: This first QOL assessment for a MEK inhibitor in metastatic melanoma demonstrated that trametinib was associated with less functional impairment, smaller declines in health status, and less exacerbation of symptoms versus chemotherapy.