Search

Background: The ICON6 trial (ISRCTN68510403) is a phase III academic-led, international, randomized, three-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the addition of cediranib to chemotherapy in recurrent ovarian cancer. It investigated the use of placebo during chemotherapy and maintenance (arm A), cediranib alongside chemotherapy followed by placebo maintenance (arm B) and cediranib throughout both periods (arm C). Results of the primary comparison showed a meaningful gain in progression-free survival (time to progression or death from any cause) when comparing arm A (placebo) with arm C (cediranib). As a consequence of the positive results, AstraZeneca was engaged with the Medical Research Council trials unit to discuss regulatory submission using ICON6 as the single pivotal trial. Methods: A relatively limited level of on-site monitoring, single data entry and investigator's local evaluation of progression were used on trial. In order to submit a license application, it was decided that (a) extensive retrospective source data verification of medical records against case report forms should be performed, (b) further quality control checks for accuracy of data entry should be performed and (c) blinded independent central review of images used to define progression should be undertaken. To assess the value of these extra activities, we summarize the impact on both efficacy and safety outcomes. Results: Data point changes were minimal; those key to the primary results had a 0.47% error rate (36/7686), and supporting data points had a 0.18% error rate (109/59,261). The impact of the source data verification and quality control processes were analyzed jointly. The conclusion drawn for the primary outcome measure of progression-free survival between arm A and arm C was unchanged. The log-rank test p-value changed only at the sixth decimal place, the hazard ratio does not change from 0.57 with the exception of a marginal change in its upper bound (0.74–0.73) and the median progression-free survival benefit from arm C remained at 2.4 months. Separately, the blinded independent central review of progression scans was performed as a sensitivity analysis. Estimates and p values varied slightly but overall demonstrated a difference in arms, which is consistent with the initial result. Some increases in toxicity were observed, though these were generally minor, with the exception of hypertension. However, none of these increases were systematically biased toward one arm. Conclusion: The conduct of this pragmatic, academic-sponsored trial was sufficient given the robustness of the results, shown by the results remaining largely unchanged following retrospective verification despite not being designed for use in a marketing authorization. The burden of such comprehensive retrospective effort required to ensure the results of ICON6 were acceptable to regulators is difficult to justify. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Tumor ablation is often employed for unresectable colorectal liver metastases. However, no survival benefit has ever been demonstrated in prospective randomized studies. Here, we investigate the long-term benefits of such an aggressive approach.Methods: In this randomized phase II trial, 119 patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases (n < 10 and no extrahepatic disease) received systemic treatment alone or systemic treatment plus aggressive local treatment by radiofrequency ablation ± resection. Previously, we reported that the primary end point (30-month overall survival [OS] > 38%) was met. We now report on long-term OS results. All statistical tests were two-sided. The analyses were according to intention to treat.Results: At a median follow up of 9.7 years, 92 of 119 (77.3%) patients had died: 39 of 60 (65.0%) in the combined modality arm and 53 of 59 (89.8%) in the systemic treatment arm. Almost all patients died of progressive disease (35 patients in the combined modality arm, 49 patients in the systemic treatment arm). There was a statistically significant difference in OS in favor of the combined modality arm (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.38 to 0.88, P = .01). Three-, five-, and eight-year OS were 56.9% (95% CI = 43.3% to 68.5%), 43.1% (95% CI = 30.3% to 55.3%), 35.9% (95% CI = 23.8% to 48.2%), respectively, in the combined modality arm and 55.2% (95% CI = 41.6% to 66.9%), 30.3% (95% CI = 19.0% to 42.4%), 8.9% (95% CI = 3.3% to 18.1%), respectively, in the systemic treatment arm. Median OS was 45.6 months (95% CI = 30.3 to 67.8 months) in the combined modality arm vs 40.5 months (95% CI = 27.5 to 47.7 months) in the systemic treatment arm.Conclusions: This phase II trial is the first randomized study demonstrating that aggressive local treatment can prolong OS in patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The ICON6 trial showed that cediranib, an oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3, improved clinical outcomes for patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer when it was used with chemotherapy and was continued as maintenance therapy. This study describes health-related quality of life (QOL) during the first year of treatment.Methods: Four hundred fifty-six women were randomly allocated to receive standard chemotherapy only, chemotherapy with concurrent cediranib, or chemotherapy with cediranib administered concurrently and continued as maintenance. Patients completed QOL questionnaires until disease progression every 3 weeks during chemotherapy and then every 6 weeks to 1 year. Patients alive with disease progression completed a QOL form 1 year after randomization. The primary QOL endpoint was the global score from the Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer) at 1 year, with the standard chemotherapy group compared with the concurrent-maintenance cediranib group.Results: The rate of questionnaire compliance was 90% at the baseline and 76% at 1 year and was similar across the 3 groups. The mean global QOL score at 1 year was 62.6 points for the standard chemotherapy group and 68.7 points for the concurrent-maintenance group (+4.5; 95% confidence interval, -2.0 to 11.0; P = .18). Sensitivity analyses suggested that this finding was robust to the effect of missing data, and the improvement became statistically significant after adjustments for self-reported diarrhea.Conclusions: The 6th study by the International Collaboration in Ovarian Neoplasm (ICON6) showed a significant improvement in progression-free survival with cediranib as concurrent and maintenance therapy. No QOL detriment with cediranib was found 1 year after treatment was commenced. The maintenance of QOL along with prolonged cancer control suggests that cediranib has a valuable role in the treatment of relapsed ovarian cancer. Cancer 2017;123:2752-61. © 2017 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rucaparib is an orally available potent selective small-molecule inhibitor of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) 1 and 2. Rucaparib induces synthetic lethality in cancer cells defective in the homologous recombination repair pathway including BRCA-1/2. We investigated the efficacy and safety of single-agent rucaparib in germline (g) BRCA mutation carriers with advanced breast and ovarian cancers.Methods: Phase II, open-label, multicentre trial of rucaparib in proven BRCA-1/2 mutation carriers with advanced breast and or ovarian cancer, WHO PS 0-1 and normal organ function. Intravenous (i.v.) and subsequently oral rucaparib were assessed, using a range of dosing schedules, to determine the safety, tolerability, dose-limiting toxic effects and pharmacodynamic (PD) and pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles.Results: Rucaparib was well tolerated in patients up to doses of 480 mg per day and is a potent inhibitor of PARP, with sustained inhibition ⩾24 h after single doses. The i.v. rucaparib (intermittent dosing schedule) resulted in an objective response rate (ORR) of only 2% but with 41% (18 out of 44) patients achieved stable disease for ⩾12 weeks and 3 patients maintaining disease stabilisation for >52 weeks. The ORR for oral rucaparib (across all six dose levels) was 15%. In the oral cohorts, 81% (22 out of 27) of the patients had ovarian cancer and 12 out of 13, who were dosed continuously, achieved RECIST complete response/partial response (CR/PR) or stable disease (SD) ⩾12 weeks, with a median duration of response of 179 days (range 84-567 days).Conclusions: Rucaparib is well tolerated and results in high levels of PARP inhibition in surrogate tissues even at the lowest dose levels. Rucaparib is active in gBRCA-mutant ovarian cancer and this activity correlates with platinum-free interval. The key lessons learned from this study is that continuous rucaparib dosing is required for optimal response, the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) for continuous oral scheduling has not been established and requires further exploration and, thirdly, the use of a PD biomarker to evaluate dose-response has its limitations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Angiogenesis is a validated clinical target in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Cediranib is an oral antiangiogenic vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1-3 inhibitor that has shown antitumour activity in recurrent ovarian cancer. We assessed efficacy and safety of cediranib in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy and as continued maintenance treatment in patients with first relapse of platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer.Methods: In this randomised, three-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients aged 18 years or older with relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer at 63 centres in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Spain, and the UK. Participants received up to six cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy (once every 3 weeks) then entered a maintenance phase. Participants were randomly allocated (2:3:3), with five stratification factors and in alternating blocks, to receive placebo alongside chemotherapy and then placebo only maintenance (arm A; reference), cediranib 20 mg once-daily alongside chemotherapy then placebo only maintenance (arm B; concurrent), or cediranib 20 mg once-daily alongside chemotherapy then cediranib 20 mg once-daily maintenance (arm C; maintenance). Patients continued treatment to progression or excessive toxic effects. The primary efficacy endpoint was progression-free survival between arms A and C. Efficacy analysis was by intention to treat. Safety was assessed in all patients who received the allocated study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00532194; the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN68510403; and ANZ Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN1261000016003.Findings: We randomly assigned 486 [corrected] women between Nov 13, 2007, and Dec 23, 2011; results presented are for 456 patients randomly assigned subsequent to the 30mg safety phase. During a median of 19·5 months (IQR 14-26) follow-up, 113 (96%) of 118 women assigned to arm A and 141 (86%) of 164 assigned to arm C had disease progression. Median progression-free survival was 11·0 months (95% CI 10·4-11·7) in arm C and 8·7 months (7·7-9·4) in arm A (hazard ratio 0·56, 0·44-0·72, p<0·0001). 156 (90%) of 174 patients in arm B had disease progression, and median progression-free survival was 9·9 months (95% CI 9·4-10·5). Diarrhoea, neutropenia, hypertension, and voice changes were significantly more common, during chemotherapy with cediranib, and diarrhoea, hypothyroidism and voice changes were more common during maintenance. Poor compliance with cediranib was noted during maintenance treatment with toxic effects being the most common cause for discontinuation.Interpretation: Cediranib, when given orally with chemotherapy and continued as maintenance, yielded a meaningful improvement [corrected] in progression-free survival in women with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer, albeit with added toxic effects. The positive results in ICON6 could provide women with a new therapeutic option for recurrent ovarian cancer. Assessment of the secondary endpoint of overall survival will need longer follow-up.Funding: Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, Cancer Australia, National Gynecological Cancer Centre, and AstraZeneca. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is now a greater understanding of the molecular pathways in ovarian cancer, and using this knowledge, a large number of new therapeutic agents can be tested. The success of these drugs will depend on selecting drugs that target known key dysfunctional molecular pathways. To make best use of these compounds, prognostic and predictive biomarkers need to be identified. Novel methods of assessment such as functional imaging need to be developed as additional biological end points to evaluate these therapies. Promising antitumor activity has been observed with some drugs, and careful consideration is needed to determine in what circumstances new agents, such as antiangiogenic compounds, could be considered as a standard therapy. These areas were discussed at the 4th Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The last five years has seen a major expansion in the number of clinical trials with molecular targeted agents in ovarian cancer. Most of the studies are with anti-angiogenic agents. This review discusses the rationale for molecular targeted therapy in ovarian cancer and the current randomized trials. It focuses on anti-angiogenic agents, particularly bevacizumab and small molecule VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and EGFR, α-folate receptor, PARP, src kinase and IGFR inhibitors. The results of first-line trials and studies in recurrent disease with bevacizumab will soon be available. Results of many other trials with molecular targeted therapy will follow over the next 2–3years. We highlight some of the complex issues about sequencing, duration of therapy and selection of agents to aid the debate about the best use of molecular targeted agents in the treatment of ovarian cancer. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Many women with ovarian cancer present with advanced disease, and although most respond to treatment, the majority relapse and eventually die of the disease. Therapy targeted against angiogenesis is a new strategy being investigated in ovarian cancer. We review current trials directed against vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), the dominant proangiogenic vascular growth factor in ovarian cancer. Two main groups of inhibitors are being investigated in randomized trials. In the first group is bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody (MoAb) that targets VEGF and is being evaluated in the first-line treatment of ovarian cancer. In the second group are VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TK; TKIs). Cediranib (AZD2171) is one agent now being studied in a randomized trial (ICON6) in women with platinumsensitive first relapse. ICON6 is a 3-arm study investigating cediranib in combination with platinum-paclitaxel and as maintenance after chemotherapy. The trial design is novel with 3 sequential phases assessing toxicity, activity, and survival combined within a single randomized, placebo-controlled trial to improve the speed of evaluation of the new compound, saving costs and using patient data efficiently. VEGF inhibitors are more cytostatic than cytotoxic, and stable disease (SD) rather than overall response is often the best "response." Novel trial designs to assess antiangiogenic agents are needed to unravel questions about dose and scheduling of the growing number of antiangiogenic agents in a rapid and efficient manner. International collaboration is essential as is a close partnership between academia and industry to make such trials feasible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The majority of women with advanced ovarian cancer will relapse after first-line chemotherapy. Treatment decisions are based most commonly on the probability of a further response to platinum-based therapy. Many women will respond to second and subsequent lines of therapy with platinum and other drugs such as liposomal doxorubicin, topotecan, paclitaxel, gemcitabine, and etoposide. The decision to include platinum drugs is based mainly on a categorization of patients into those with a partially platinum-sensitive relapse (platinum-free interval of 6–12 months) or a platinum-sensitive relapse (platinum-free interval of >12 months). These categories are based on empirical observations made >15 years ago. Most trials with newer agents have been either non-randomized phase II studies or performed in a heterogeneous population of women, including those with platinum-resistant tumors. Interpretation of the activity of these new drugs is often difficult, and this affects decision-making in clinical practice. Recent randomized trials comparing platinum-based combinations with platinum alone (mainly carboplatin) have shown a benefit in favor of combination therapy. The prolonged chemosensitivity in many cases of ovarian cancer and the use of serum CA125 antigen levels as a surrogate marker of response provide an opportunity to study the activity of new anticancer agents in relapsed disease. However, future studies need to be randomized to reduce selection bias and should stratify for factors known to influence response. Many patients with relapsed ovarian cancer will survive for many years and knowledge of the disease, its response to different treatments, and the appropriate timing of drug delivery and length of treatment requires considerable clinical judgment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Decisions about the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer are usually based on the treatment-free interval. Patients relapsing with an interval of more than six months are usually retreated with platinum-based chemotherapy. Non platinum drugs (such as paclitaxel, gemcitabine, liposomal doxorubicin or topotecan) are also active in relapsed disease. A high response rate is consistently seen with combinations of platinum and these drugs in phase II trials. ICON 4, the first large-scale randomised trial in 'platinum-sensitive' relapsed ovarian cancer demonstrated a survival benefit for using platinum-based therapy in combination with paclitaxel. More studies are needed to explore other combinations of treatment in this group of women as the choice and timing of second-line therapy needs to take account of the benefits and toxicity of treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To compare NFOSI-18 Disease Related Symptoms – Physical (DRS P), Total score, and side effect bother between maintenance rucaparib (600 mg twice daily) vs. placebo in the phase III ARIEL3 trial. ARIEL3 (NCT01968213) included patients with ovarian carcinoma who responded to second-line or later platinum-based chemotherapy. The NFOSI-18 DRS-P and Total scales were secondary endpoints. The NFOSI-18 contains a side effect impact item (GP5): "I am bothered by side effects of treatment." We compared treatment arms on change from baseline of DRS-P and Total scores using mixed models with repeated measures (MRMM). Time to first and confirmed deterioration of NFOSI-18 DRS-P and Total scales were analyzed using Cox regression. We also calculated the proportion of patients reporting moderate to high side effect bother on GP5. In the intention-to-treat (ITT) cohort, mean change from baseline favored the placebo. Compared to placebo, rucaparib was associated with higher risk of deterioration [e.g., 4-point deteriorator definition hazard ratio (HR): 1.85; 95% CI: 1.46, 2.36; median time to first deterioration on DRS P: 1.9 vs. 7.0 months]. Confirmed deterioration results resembled those for first deterioration. Proportions of patients reporting moderate/high side effect bother on GP5 fluctuated around 20% across treatment cycles. Results in BRCA mutant and homologous recombination deficient cohorts were generally similar to those from the ITT cohort. This placebo-controlled study in the maintenance therapy setting provides a unique view of the impact of PARP inhibition on the patient-reported outcomes that are commonly used in ovarian cancer clinical trials. Information regarding the adverse side effect impact of PARP inhibitors should be weighed against their clinical benefit. • This study used the NFOSI-18, which has more questions on relevant side effects of rucaparib than other QOL measures. • On the NFOSI-18, patients receiving rucaparib had a higher risk of deterioration than those receiving the placebo. • Patients receiving rucaparib reported high-moderate side effect bother on the FACT item GP5 approximately 20% of the time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Ovarian Task Force of the Gynecologic Cancer Steering Committee convened a clinical trials planning meeting on October 28–29, 2011, with the goals to identify key tumor types, associated molecular pathways, and biomarkers for targeted drug intervention; review strategies to improve early-phase screening, therapeutic evaluation, and comparison of new agents; and optimize design of randomized trials in response to an evolving landscape of scientific, regulatory, and funding priorities. The meeting was attended by international clinical and translational investigators, pharmaceutical industry representatives, government regulators, and patient advocates. Panel discussions focused on disease types, early-phase trials, and randomized trials. A manuscript team summarized the discussions and assisted with formulating key recommendations. A more integrated and efficient approach for screening new agents using smaller selective randomized trials in specific disease-type settings was endorsed, together with collaborative funding models between industry and the evolving national clinical trials network, as well as efforts to enhance public awareness and study enrollment through advocacy. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Abstract: The proportion of patients with advanced ovarian cancer who relapse has remained high and fairly constant over the last decade. Choosing treatment for recurrent ovarian cancer is complex. Many active therapeutic agents are available, and there are challenges in defining the optimal timing and sequencing of treatments. Furthermore, the explosion in the number of biological agents presents additional challenges in identifying their activity and place in the pathway of treatment. Establishing optimal treatment as monotherapy, or in combination with chemotherapy, or as maintenance treatment requires new approaches to trial design, selecting meaningful endpoints and conducting carefully conducted trials with translational studies. Patients with relapsed ovarian cancer can now survive several years; the aim is to increase this further. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: The ICON8 study reported no significant improvement in progression-free survival (a primary endpoint) with weekly chemotherapy compared with standard 3-weekly treatment among patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. All ICON8 patients were eligible to take part in the accompanying health-related quality-of-life study, which measured the effect of treatment on self-reported wellbeing, reported here.Methods: In this open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3, three-arm, Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup (GCIG) trial done at 117 hospital sites in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, South Korea, and Republic of Ireland, women (aged at least 18 years) with newly diagnosed, histologically confirmed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IC-IV ovarian cancer and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were randomly assigned (1:1:1) centrally using minimisation to group 1 (intravenous carboplatin area under the curve [AUC]5 or AUC6 and 175 mg/m2 intravenous paclitaxel every 3 weeks), group 2 (carboplatin AUC5 or AUC6 every 3 weeks and 80 mg/m2 paclitaxel weekly), or group 3 (carboplatin AUC2 weekly and 80 mg/m2 paclitaxel weekly). Randomisation was stratified by GCIG group, disease stage, and outcome and timing of surgery. Patients and clinicians were not masked to treatment assignment. Patients underwent immediate or delayed primary surgery according to clinicians' choice. Patients were asked to complete European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OV28 questionnaires at enrolment, before each chemotherapy cycle, then 6-weekly up to 9 months, 3-monthly up to 2 years, and 6-monthly up to 5 years. Quality of life was a prespecified secondary outcome of the ICON8 study. Within the quality-of-life study, the co-primary endpoints were QLQ-C30 global health score at 9 months (cross-sectional analysis) and mean QLQ-C30 global health score from randomisation to 9 months (longitudinal analysis). Data analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01654146 and ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN10356387, and is currently in long-term follow up.Findings: Between June 6, 2011, and Nov 28, 2014, 1566 patients were recruited into ICON8 (522 were included in group 1, 523 in group 2, and 521 in group 3). Baseline quality-of-life questionnaires were completed by 1438 (92%) of 1566 patients and 9-month questionnaires by 882 (69%) of 1280 patients. We observed no significant difference in global health score at 9 months (cross-sectional analysis) between study groups (group 2 vs group 1, difference in mean score 2·3, 95% CI -0·4 to 4·9, p=0·095; group 3 vs group 1, -0·8, -3·8 to 2·2, p=0·61). Using longitudinal analysis, we found lower global health scores for those receiving weekly paclitaxel than for those receiving 3-weekly chemotherapy (group 2 vs group 1, mean difference -1·8, 95% CI -3·6 to -0·1, p=0·043; group 3 vs group 1, -2·9, -4·7 to -1·1, p=0·0018).Interpretation: We found no evidence of a difference in global quality of life between treatment groups at 9 months; however, patients receiving weekly treatment reported lower mean quality of life across the 9-month period after randomisation. Taken together with the lack of progression-free survival benefit, these findings do not support routine use of weekly paclitaxel-containing regimens in the management of newly diagnosed ovarian cancer.Funding: Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Health Research Board Ireland, Irish Cancer Society, and Cancer Australia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: About 15% of patients with endometrial cancer have high-risk features and are at increased risk of distant metastases and endometrial cancer-related death. We designed the PORTEC-3 trial to investigate the benefit of adjuvant chemoradiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone for women with high-risk endometrial cancer.Methods: PORTEC-3 was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, international trial. Women with high-risk endometrial cancer were randomly allocated (1:1) to radiotherapy alone (48·6 Gy) in 1·8 Gy fractions five times a week or chemoradiotherapy (two cycles concurrent cisplatin 50 mg/m(2) and four adjuvant cycles of carboplatin area under the curve [AUC] 5 and paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2)) using a biased coin minimisation procedure with stratification for participating centre, lymphadenectomy, stage of cancer, and histological type. The primary endpoints of the PORTEC-3 trial were overall survival and failure-free survival analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This analysis focuses on 2-year toxicity and health-related quality of life as secondary endpoints; analysis was done according to treatment received. Health-related quality of life was assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) the cervix cancer module and chemotherapy and neuropathy subscales of the ovarian cancer module at baseline, after radiotherapy and at 6, 12, 24, 36, and 60 months after randomisation. Adverse events were graded with Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0. The study was closed on Dec 20, 2013, after achieving complete accrual, and follow-up remains ongoing for the primary outcomes analysis. This trial is registered with ISRCTN.com, number ISRCTN14387080, and with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00411138.Findings: Between Sept 15, 2006, and Dec 20, 2013, 686 women were randomly allocated in the PORTEC-3 trial. Of these, 660 met eligibility criteria, and 570 (86%) were evaluable for health-related quality of life. Median follow-up was 42·3 months (IQR 25·8-55·1). At completion of radiotherapy and at 6 months, EORTC QLQ-C30 functioning scales were significantly lower (worse functioning) and health-related quality of life symptom scores higher (worse symptoms) for the chemoradiotherapy group compared with radiotherapy alone, improving with time. At 12 and 24 months, global health or quality of life was similar between groups, whereas physical functioning scores remained slightly lower in patients who received chemoradiotherapy compared with patients who received radiotherapy alone. At 24 months, 48 (25%) of 194 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group reported severe tingling or numbness compared with 11 (6%) of 170 patients in the radiotherapy alone group (p<0·0001). Grade 2 or worse adverse events were found during treatment in 309 (94%) of 327 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group versus 145 (44%) of 326 patients in the radiotherapy alone group, and grade 3 or worse events were found in 198 (61%) of 327 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group versus 42 (13%) of 326 patients in the radiotherapy alone group (p<0·0001), with most of the grade 3 adverse events being haematological (45%). At 12 and 24 months, no significant differences in grade 3 or worse adverse events were found between groups; only grade 2 or higher sensory neuropathy adverse events persisted at 24 months (25 [10%] of 240 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group vs one [<1%] of 247 patients in the radiotherapy alone group; p<0·0001).Interpretation: Despite the increased physician and patient-reported toxicities, this schedule of adjuvant chemotherapy given during and after radiotherapy in patients with high-risk endometrial cancer is feasible, with rapid recovery after treatment, but with persistence of patient-reported sensory neurological symptoms in 25% of patients. We await the analysis of primary endpoints before final conclusions are made.Funding: Dutch Cancer Society, Cancer Research UK, National Health and Medical Research Council, Project Grant, Cancer Australia Grant, Italian Medicines Agency, and Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]