Search

Chemotherapy; Quality of life; Symptoms Quimioterapia; Calidad de vida; Síntomas Quimioteràpia; Qualitat de vida; Símptomes Background In a phase III, randomised, active-controlled study (EMPOWER-Cervical 1/GOG-3016/ENGOT-cx9; R2810-ONC-1676; NCT03257267) and cemiplimab significantly improved survival versus investigator's choice of chemotherapy among patients with recurrent cervical cancer who had progressed on platinum-based therapy. Here we report patient-reported outcomes in this pivotal study. Methods Patients were randomised 1:1 to open-label cemiplimab (350 mg intravenously every 3 weeks) or investigator's choice of chemotherapy in 6-week cycles. Patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 during cycles 1–16. Least-squares mean changes from baseline in global health status (GHS)/quality of life (QoL) and physical functioning (PF) were secondary end-points in the statistical hierarchy. Results Of 608 patients (304/arm), 77.8% patients had squamous cell carcinoma and 22.2% patients had adenocarcinoma. Questionnaire completion rates were ∼90% throughout. In the squamous cell carcinoma population, overall between-group differences statistically significantly favoured cemiplimab in GHS/QoL (8.49; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.77–13.21; P = 0.0003) and PF (8.35; 95% CI: 4.08–12.62; P < 0.0001). Treatment differences favoured cemiplimab in both histologic populations by cycle 2. Overall changes from baseline in most functioning and symptom scales favoured cemiplimab, with clinically meaningful treatment differences in role functioning, appetite loss and pain in both populations. The sensitivity analyses, responder analyses and time to definitive deterioration favoured cemiplimab in both populations. Conclusions Cemiplimab conferred favourable differences in GHS/QoL and PF compared with chemotherapy among patients with recurrent cervical cancer, with benefits in PF by cycle 2, and clinically meaningful differences favouring cemiplimab in role functioning, appetite loss, and pain. This work was supported by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sanofi.

ObjectivesCisplatin and mitomycin C exert high activity towards BRCA1-deficient cells. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a combination of these drugs in hereditary BRCA1-associated ovarian cancer (OC).MethodsTwelve OC patients, who could not be treated by primary debulking surgery owing to extensive tumor spread, were given neoadjuvant cisplatin (100 mg/m2) and mitomycin C (10 mg/m2) every 4 weeks for 3 (n = 9), 2 (n = 2), or 4 (n = 1) cycles.ResultsThe decrease of tumor burden and complete surgical cytoreduction were achieved in all patients. Pathologic complete response, defined as the absence of tumor cells in surgically removed tissues, was observed in 2 (17%) of 12 cases. Retrospective analysis of 62 OC in BRCA1 mutation carriers subjected to conventional neoadjuvant chemotherapy schemes revealed 36 objective tumor responses (58%) and 37 instances (60%) of complete cytoreductive surgery; however, none of these patients demonstrated pathologic complete response.ConclusionsThe combination of cisplatin plus mitomycin C showed promising results in BRCA1-driven OC and therefore deserves further clinical evaluation.

OBJECTIVES Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is critical in older patients with cancer. NEPA is an oral fixed combination of netupitant 300mg, a new NK1 receptor antagonist (RA), and palonosetron 0.5mg, a pharmacologically distinct 5-HT3 RA. This retrospective analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of NEPA in older patients. METHODS Patients aged ≥65 and ≥70years from one phase II and two phase III trials were considered. Chemotherapy-naive patients with malignant tumors were treated with anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC), non-AC-based moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (non-AC MEC), or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Following single-dose NEPA, patients received oral dexamethasone on day 1 (AC and non-AC MEC) or days 1-4 (HEC). Efficacy was evaluated through complete response (CR) in cycle 1. Safety was evaluated by AEs and ECGs. Data were summarized by descriptive statistics. RESULTS Overall, 214 patients were ≥65years and 80 were ≥70years. A higher CR was observed in older patients versus the total population; in the acute phase >90% of patients ≥65years experienced CR. Efficacy was maintained over multiple cycles of chemotherapy. No significant nausea rates were generally higher in the older patients versus total population. Similar rates of AEs in the first treatment cycle were reported for patients ≥65years, ≥70years, and total population (72.9% vs 67.5% vs 70.0%, respectively). No cardiac safety concerns were raised. CONCLUSION NEPA is highly effective in older patients receiving MEC or HEC regimens. NEPA is also well tolerated, demonstrating suitability for use in older patients who may have comorbidities