Search

Background: Parallel panel germline and somatic genetic testing of all patients with ovarian cancer (OC) can identify more pathogenic variants (PVs) that would benefit from PARP inhibitor (PARPi) therapy, and allow for precision prevention in unaffected relatives with PVs. In this study, we estimate the cost-effectiveness and population impact of parallel panel germline and somatic BRCA testing of all patients with OC incorporating PARPi therapy in the United Kingdom and the United States compared with clinical criteria/family history (FH)-based germline BRCA testing. We also evaluate the cost-effectiveness of multigene panel germline testing alone., Methods: Microsimulation cost-effectiveness modeling using data from 2,391 (UK: n=1,483; US: n=908) unselected, population-based patients with OC was used to compare lifetime costs and effects of panel germline and somatic BRCA testing of all OC cases (with PARPi therapy) (strategy A) versus clinical criteria/FH-based germline BRCA testing (strategy B). Unaffected relatives with germline BRCA1/BRCA2/RAD51C/RAD51D/BRIP1 PVs identified through cascade testing underwent appropriate OC and breast cancer (BC) risk-reduction interventions. We also compared the cost-effectiveness of multigene panel germline testing alone (without PARPi therapy) versus strategy B. Unaffected relatives with PVs could undergo risk-reducing interventions. Lifetime horizon with payer/societal perspectives, along with probabilistic/one-way sensitivity analyses, are presented. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained were compared with £30,000/QALY (UK) and $100,000/QALY (US) thresholds. OC incidence, BC incidence, and prevented deaths were estimated., Results: Compared with clinical criteria/FH-based BRCA testing, BRCA1/BRCA2/RAD51C/RAD51D/BRIP1 germline testing and BRCA1/BRCA2 somatic testing of all patients with OC incorporating PARPi therapy had a UK ICER of £51,175/QALY (payer perspective) and £50,202/QALY (societal perspective) and a US ICER of $175,232/QALY (payer perspective) and $174,667/QALY (societal perspective), above UK/NICE and US cost-effectiveness thresholds in the base case. However, strategy A becomes cost-effective if PARPi costs decrease by 45% to 46% or if overall survival with PARPi reaches a hazard ratio of 0.28. Unselected panel germline testing alone (without PARPi therapy) is cost-effective, with payer-perspective ICERs of £11,291/QALY or $68,808/QALY and societal-perspective ICERs of £6,923/QALY or $65,786/QALY. One year's testing could prevent 209 UK BC/OC cases and 192 deaths, and 560 US BC/OC cases and 460 deaths., Conclusions: Unselected panel germline and somatic BRCA testing can become cost-effective, with a 45% to 46% reduction in PARPi costs. Regarding germline testing, unselected panel germline testing is highly cost-effective and should replace BRCA testing alone.

Background: This is an update of a previous Cochrane Review, last updated in 2014. Ovarian cancer is the eighth most common cancer and seventh most common cause of death due to cancer in women worldwide. Traditionally, most women who have been treated for cancer undergo long-term follow-up in secondary care. However, it has been suggested that the use of routine review may not be effective in improving survival, or health-related quality of life (HRQOL), or relieving anxiety. In addition, traditional follow-up may not be cost-effective., Objectives: To compare the potential effects of different strategies of follow-up in women with epithelial ovarian cancer, following completion of primary treatment., Search Methods: For this update, we searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, CENTRAL 2022, Issue 11, MEDLINE, and Embase from August 2013 to November 2022. We also searched review articles and contacted experts in the field., Selection Criteria: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated follow-up strategies for women with epithelial ovarian cancer following completion of primary treatment., Data Collection and Analysis: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. Two review authors independently selected potentially relevant trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. They compared results, and resolved disagreements by discussion. We assessed the certainty of evidence, using the GRADE approach, for the outcomes of interest: overall survival (OS), health-related quality of life (HRQOL), psychological effects, and cost analysis., Main Results: For this update, we included one new RCT, including 112 women with ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer, who had completed primary treatment by surgery, with or without chemotherapy. This study reported the effect of individualised, i.e. individually tailored, nurse-led follow-up versus conventional medical follow-up on HRQOL, psychological outcomes, and cost-analysis. Individualised follow-up improved HRQOL in one of the two scales, with a decrease in mean difference (MD) in the QLQ-C30 discomfort scale following 12 months of individualised treatment compared to 12 months of conventional treatment (MD -5.76 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.92 to -0.60; 1 study, 112 participants; low-certainty evidence; minimal important difference 4 to 10 points). There may be little or no difference in the other HRQOL scale (QLQ-Ov28, MD -0.97 points, 95% CI -2.57 to 0.63; 1 study, 112 participants: low-certainty evidence); psychological outcome, measured with the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS; MD 0.10 point, 95% CI -0.81 to 1.02; 1 study, 112 participants: low-certainty evidence), or cost analysis (MD -GBP 695.00, 95% CI -1467.23 to 77.23; 1 study, 112 participants: moderate-certainty evidence). Our previous review included one RCT, with 529 women in a confirmed remission, with normal CA125 concentration and no radiological evidence of disease, after surgery and first-line chemotherapy for ovarian cancer. This study evaluated immediate treatment of ovarian cancer relapse following a rise of serum CA125 levels versus delaying treatment until symptoms developed for OS, and HRQOL. There was little or no difference in OS between the immediate and delayed arms after a median follow-up of 56.9 months (unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.20; 1 study, 529 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Time from randomisation to first deterioration in global health score or death was shorter in the immediate treatment group than in the delayed treatment group (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.88)., Authors' Conclusions: Limited evidence from one trial suggests that routine surveillance with CA125 in asymptomatic women and treatment at CA125-defined relapse does not seem to offer survival advantage when compared to treatment at symptomatic relapse. However, this study pre-dates the use of PARPi maintenance treatment and the increased use of secondary cytoreductive surgery, so the results may be limited in their applicability to current practice. Limited evidence from one trial suggests that individualised nurse-led follow-up may improve HRQOL in women with ovarian cancer following completion of primary treatment. Large RCTs are needed to compare different types of follow-up, looking at survival, HRQOL, psychological effects, and cost as outcomes., (Copyright © 2023 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Two novel biological agents-cediranib targeting angiogenesis, and olaparib targeting DNA repair processes-have individually led to an improvement in ovarian cancer control. The aim of ICON9 is to investigate the combination of cediranib and olaparib maintenance in recurrent ovarian cancer following platinum-based therapy., Primary Objective: To assess the efficacy of maintenance treatment with olaparib in combination with cediranib compared with olaparib alone following a response to platinum-based chemotherapy in women with platinum-sensitive ovarian, fallopian tube or peritoneal cancer during first relapse., Study Hypothesis: Maintenance therapy with cediranib and olaparib in combination is associated with improved patient outcomes compared with olaparib alone., Trial Design: International phase III randomized controlled trial. Following a response to platinum-based chemotherapy patients are randomized 1:1 to either oral olaparib and cediranib (intervention arm) or oral olaparib alone (control arm)., Major Inclusion Criteria: Patients with a known diagnosis of high grade serous or endometrioid carcinoma of the ovary, fallopian tube or peritoneum, progressing more than 6 months after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, who have responded to second-line platinum-based chemotherapy., Primary Endpoints: Progression-free and overall survival. Co-primary endpoints to be assessed using a fixed-sequence gatekeeping approach: (1) progression-free survival, all patients; (2) progression-free survival, BRCA wild type; (3) overall survival, all patients; (4) overall survival, BRCA wild type., Sample Size: 618 patients will be recruited., Estimated Dates for Completing Accrual and Presenting Results: Accrual is expected to be completed in 2024 with presentation of results in 2025., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03278717., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© IGCS and ESGO 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: Indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase-1 (IDO1) is a key regulator of immune tolerance in ovarian cancer. This study investigated efficacy and safety of the IDO1 enzyme inhibitor epacadostat versus tamoxifen in patients with biochemical-only recurrence (CA-125 elevation) following complete remission after first-line chemotherapy for advanced epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer., Methods: In this open-label, phase 2 study (NCT01685255), patients were randomised 1:1 to epacadostat 600mg or tamoxifen 20mg twice daily for successive 28-day cycles and stratified by time since completion of first-line chemotherapy to first CA-125 elevation (3 to <12 or ≥12months). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS; RECIST v1.1). Secondary endpoints included CA-125 response (Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup criteria), overall survival, safety, and tolerability., Results: The study was terminated primarily due to slow accrual and lack of evidence of superiority. Median PFS was 3.75months for epacadostat (n=22) versus 5.56months for tamoxifen (n=20; HR, 1.34 [95% CI, 0.58-3.14]; P=0.54). Of evaluable patients, 1 (5.0%) epacadostat and 3 (15.8%) tamoxifen patients had confirmed CA-125 responses. The most common treatment-emergent adverse event was fatigue (epacadostat, 36.4%; tamoxifen, 40.0%). Immune-related adverse events, observed with epacadostat only, were primarily rash (18.2%) and pruritus (9.1%). Epacadostat pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics were consistent with its known mechanism of action. IDO1 expression was observed in 94% of archival tumour samples., Conclusions: This first report of immunotherapy evaluation in biochemical-only relapse ovarian cancer and of IDO1 inhibitor monotherapy in ovarian cancer found no significant difference in efficacy between epacadostat and tamoxifen. Epacadostat was generally well tolerated., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)