Search

Background: Cediranib, an oral anti-angiogenic VEGFR 1-3 inhibitor, was studied at a daily dose of 20 mg in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy and as maintenance in a randomised trial in patients with first relapse of 'platinum-sensitive' ovarian cancer and has been shown to improve progression-free survival (PFS)., Patients and Methods: ICON6 (NCT00532194) was an international three-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial. Between December 2007 and December 2011, 456 women were randomised, using stratification, to receive either chemotherapy with placebo throughout (arm A, reference); chemotherapy with concurrent cediranib, followed by maintenance placebo (arm B, concurrent); or chemotherapy with concurrent cediranib, followed by maintenance cediranib (arm C, maintenance). Due to an enforced redesign of the trial in September 2011, the primary endpoint became PFS between arms A and C which we have previously published, and the overall survival (OS) was defined as a secondary endpoint, which is reported here., Results: After a median follow-up of 25.6 months, strong evidence of an effect of concurrent plus maintenance cediranib on PFS was observed [hazard ratio (HR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44-0.72, P < 0.0001]. In this final update of the survival analysis, 90% of patients have died. There was a 7.4-month difference in median survival and an HR of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.67-1.11, P = 0.24) in favour of arm C. There was strong evidence of a departure from the assumption of non-proportionality using the Grambsch-Therneau test (P = 0.0031), making the HR difficult to interpret. Consequently, the restricted mean survival time (RMST) was used and the estimated difference over 6 years by the RMST was 4.8 months (95% CI: -0.09 to 9.74 months)., Conclusions: Although a statistically significant difference in time to progression was seen, the enforced curtailment in recruitment meant that the secondary analysis of OS was underpowered. The relative reduction in the risk of death of 14% risk of death was not conventionally statistically significant, but this improvement and the increase in the mean survival time in this analysis suggest that cediranib may have worthwhile activity in the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer and that further research should be undertaken., Competing Interests: Disclosure ACE-T, HH, MV, ED, BP, LF, and AMS declare no conflicts of interest. JAL has attended AstraZeneca, GSK, Clovis Oncology, MSD, Eisai, Pfizer advisory boards and spoken at symposia with remuneration and has institutional grants from AstraZeneca and MSD. TJP reports grants, personal fees, non-financial support from Roche; personal fees from Novartis; personal fees from AstraZeneca, other fees paid to the institution from multiple other pharmaceutical companies and research organisations in connection with the costs of running a broad research portfolio, outside the submitted work. GCJ attended AstraZeneca advisory board and has received research funding for investigator-led trials. Also research grant from Roche. GJSR has attended advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Amgen and OXiGENE, in addition to data management costs from the MRC. SBK has attended an AstraZeneca advisory board. AO is Principal Investigator for investigator-initiated trials with AstraZeneca and has institutional grants from AstraZeneca outside the submitted work, and non compensated membership of steering committees with AstraZeneca and Clovis and a noncompensated advisory role with AstraZeneca and GSK. MF has attended advisory board meetings for AstraZeneca, Takeda, Novartis, MSD and Lilly and received personal fees. Travel support from AstraZeneca, research funding to institution for investigator-initiated trials. AG-M reports personal fees for advisory boards to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Genmab, GSK-TESARO, Novartis, MSD, Oncoinvent, PharmaMar, Pfizer-Merck, Roche, SOTIO. RSK reports grants from Cancer Research UK and AstraZeneca, as well as drug supply from AstraZeneca. MKBP reports an educational grant from AstraZeneca., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death among cancers of the female genital tract, with poor outcomes despite chemotherapy. There was a persistent socioeconomic gradient in 1-year survival in England and Wales for more than 3 decades (1971-2001). Inequalities in 5-year survival persisted for more than 20 years but have been smaller for women diagnosed around 2000. We explored one possible explanation., Methods: We analysed data on 1406 women diagnosed with ovarian cancer during 1991-1998 and recruited to one of two randomised clinical trials. In the second International Collaborative Ovarian Neoplasm (ICON2) trial, women diagnosed between 1991 and 1996 were randomised to receive either the three-drug combination cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and cisplatin (CAP) or single-agent carboplatin given at optimal dose. In the ICON3 trial, women diagnosed during 1995-1998 were randomised to receive either the same treatments as ICON2, or paclitaxel plus carboplatin.Relative survival at 1, 5 and 10 years was estimated for women in five categories of socioeconomic deprivation. The excess hazard of death over and above background mortality was estimated by fitting multivariable regression models with Poisson error structure and a dedicated link function in a generalised linear model framework, adjusting for the duration of follow-up and the confounding effects of age, Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage and calendar period., Results: Unlike women with ovarian cancer in the general population, no statistically significant socioeconomic gradient was seen for women with ovarian cancer treated in the two randomised controlled trials. The deprivation gap in 1-year relative survival in the general population was statistically significant at -6.7% (95% CI (-8.1, -5.3)), compared with -3.6% (95% CI (-10.4, +3.2)) in the trial population., Conclusions: Although ovarian cancer survival is significantly lower among poor women than rich women in England and Wales, there was no evidence of an association between socioeconomic deprivation and survival among women with ovarian cancer who were treated and followed up consistently in two well-conducted randomised controlled trials. We conclude that the persistent socioeconomic gradient in survival among women with ovarian cancer, at least for 1-year survival, may be due to differences in access to treatment and standards of care.

A National Cancer Institute (NCI) clinical announcement recommended i.p. therapy for women with optimally debulked ovarian cancer. Its basis was a summary of eight randomised controlled trials and two systematic reviews, which appear to indicate benefit of i.p. therapy. However, the systematic reviews that inform the recommendations have been inappropriately presented and interpreted. The systematic reviews inappropriately pooled results from 'confounded' trials in which different drugs and different doses of drugs were given in the control and i.p. treatment arms. Therefore, it is not possible to assess which component of treatment is responsible for improving outcome. In addition, none of the trials use a control arm of the internationally accepted standard of care. Using just the unconfounded trials, indirect comparisons show that the magnitude of benefit observed when i.p. regimens are compared with older i.v. regimens [hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS) 0.75; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-0.92, P = 0.006] is smaller than the magnitude of benefit achieved with modern day standard of i.v. treatment compared with the same i.v. regimen used as control in the unconfounded i.p. trials (HR for OS 0.68; 95% CI 0.58-0.80, P < 0.001). A further difficulty is that the reviews cannot recommend an i.p. regimen for standard use. Drug-related toxicity and catheter complications that occur with i.p. therapy are considerable. The NCI recommendations have major implications for the treatment of women with ovarian cancer and for the next generation of clinical trials. We do not believe that the body of evidence currently available supports the recommendation that i.p. therapy should form part of routine care. The choice of treatment of women with newly diagnosed, optimally debulked, ovarian cancer, where therapy has the best chance of influencing OS, is too important to be left with this uncertainty. A clinical trial that investigates a practical and acceptable regimen which gives some or all chemotherapy by the i.p. route and compares this with standard i.v. chemotherapy should be a priority for those who wish to promote its use.

Background: Despite improvements in the treatment of ovarian cancer, most patients develop recurrent disease within 3 years of diagnosis. There is no agreed second-line treatment at relapse. We assessed paclitaxel plus platinum chemotherapy as such treatment., Methods: In parallel international, multicentre, randomised trials, between January, 1996, and March, 2002, 802 patients with platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer relapsing after 6 months of being treatment-free were enrolled from 119 hospitals in five countries. Patients were randomly assigned paclitaxel plus platinum chemotherapy or conventional platinum-based chemotherapy. Analysis was by intention to treat, except for toxic effects., Findings: With a median follow-up of 42 months, 530 patients have died. Survival curves showed a difference in favour of paclitaxel plus platinum (hazard ratio 0.82 [95% CI 0.69-0.97], p=0.02), corresponding to an absolute difference in 2-year survival of 7% between the paclitaxel and conventional treatment groups (57 vs 50% [95% CI for difference 1-12]), and median survival of 5 months (29 vs 24 months [1-11). 717 patients developed progressive disease or died. The progression-free survival curves show a difference in favour of paclitaxel plus platinum (hazard ratio 0.76 [0.66-0.89], p=0.0004), corresponding to an absolute difference in 1-year progression-free survival of 10% (50 vs 40% [4-15]) and in median progression-free survival of 3 months (13 vs 10 months [1-5])., Interpretation: Paclitaxel plus platinum chemotherapy seems to improve survival and progression-free survival among patients with relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer compared with conventional platinum-based chemotherapy.

Four large randomised trials of paclitaxel in combination with platinum against a platinum-based control treatment have now been published in full, representing around 88% (3588 out of 4057) of patients randomised into the eight known trials of this question. There is substantial heterogeneity in the results of these four trials. Four main explanations for this heterogeneity have been proposed: differences in the extent and timing of 'crossover' to taxanes in the control groups; differences in the types of patient included; differences in the effectiveness of the research regimens used; differences in the effectiveness of the control regimens used. In this study we examine whether any of these explanations is consistent with the pattern of results seen in these trials. Each explanation suggests that a particular characteristic of each trial was responsible for the results observed. For each explanation the trials were split into groups according to that characteristic, in order to partition the total heterogeneity into that seen 'within' and 'between' groups of trials. If a particular explanation was consistent with the pattern of results, we would expect to see relatively little heterogeneity within each group of trial results viewed in this way, with most of the heterogeneity being between groups which are dissimilar with respect to the key characteristic. Heterogeneity 'within' and 'between' groups was formally compared using the F-ratio. If any explanation appeared to be consistent with the results of the trials, it was considered whether the explanation was also consistent with other evidence available about these regimens. Only one explanation appeared to be consistent with the pattern of results seen in these trials, and that was differences in effectiveness of the control arms used in these trials. This suggests that the very positive results in favour of paclitaxel/cisplatin seen in two of the trials may have been due to the use of a suboptimal control arm. There is no direct evidence about the relative effectiveness of the control arms used in these trials, but indirect evidence is consistent with the conclusion that the cyclophosphamide/cisplatin regimen used in two of the trials may be less effective than the control regimens used in the other trials. Specific concerns about the choice of a cyclophosphamide/cisplatin control arm in the first of these trials to report were raised before the results of the other trials were known, i.e. before any heterogeneity had been observed. Further investigation of this question would be useful. In the meantime, given all of the randomised evidence on the efficacy and toxicity associated with the regimens used in these trials, we conclude that single agent carboplatin is a safe and effective first-line treatment for women with advanced ovarian cancer., (Copyright 2002 Cancer Research UK)