Search

Background: At the time of AtTEnd trial design, standard treatment for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer included carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy. This trial assessed whether combining atezolizumab with chemotherapy might improve outcomes in this population., Methods: AtTEnd was a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial done in 89 hospitals in 11 countries across Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Asia. Enrolled patients were aged 18 years or older, and had advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma or carcinosarcoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and received no previous systemic chemotherapy for recurrence. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) using an interactive web response system (block size of six) to either atezolizumab 1200 mg or placebo given intravenously with chemotherapy (carboplatin at area under the curve of 5 or 6 and paclitaxel 175 mg/m 2 intravenously on day 1 every 21 days) for 6-8 cycles, then continued until progression. Stratification factors were country, histological subtype, advanced or recurrent status, and mismatch repair (MMR) status. Participants and treating clinicians were masked to group allocation. The hierarchically tested co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (in patients with MMR-deficient [dMMR] tumours, and in the overall population) and overall survival (in the overall population). Primary analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomly assigned patients who gave their full consent to participation in the study and data processing. Safety was assessed in all patients included in the intention-to-treat population who received at least one dose of study treatment. Here, we report the primary progression-free survival and the interim overall survival results. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03603184., Findings: Between Oct 3, 2018, and Jan 7, 2022, 551 patients were randomly assigned to atezolizumab (n=362) or placebo (n=189). Two patients in the atezolizumab group were excluded from all analyses due to lack of consent. Median follow-up was 28·3 months (IQR 21·2-37·6). 81 (23%) patients in the atezolizumab group and 44 (23%) patients in the placebo group had dMMR disease by central assessment. In the dMMR population, median progression-free survival was not estimable (95% CI 12·4 months-not estimable [NE]) in the atezolizumab group and 6·9 months (6·3-10·1) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·36, 95% CI 0·23-0·57; p=0·0005). In the overall population, median progression-free survival was 10·1 months (95% CI 9·5-12·3) in the atezolizumab group and 8·9 months (8·1-9·6) in the placebo group (HR 0·74, 95% CI 0·61-0·91; p=0·022). Median overall survival was 38·7 months (95% CI 30·6-NE) in the atezolizumab group and 30·2 months (25·0-37·2) in the placebo group (HR 0·82, 95% CI 0·63-1·07; log-rank p=0·048). The p value for the interim analysis of overall survival did not cross the stopping boundary; therefore, the trial will continue until the required number of events are recorded. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (97 [27%] of 356 patients in the atezolizumab group vs 51 [28%] of 185 in the placebo group) and anaemia (49 [14%] vs 24 [13%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 46 (13%) patients in the atezolizumab group and six (3%) patients in the placebo group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in two patients (pneumonia in one patient in each group)., Interpretation: Atezolizumab plus chemotherapy increased progression-free survival in patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma, particularly in those with dMMR carcinomas, suggesting the addition of atezolizumab to standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment in this specific subgroup., Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests EB, FG, ER, and SU report grants from Roche to their institution to support the conduct of the study. NC reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, GSK, Immunogen, Mersana, MSD/Merck, Nuvation Bio, OncXerna, Pieris, Pfizer, Roche, and Novocure; and grants or research support from GSK and AstraZeneca. KH reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Chugai, Eisai, MSD/Merck, Taiho, and Takeda; and grants or research support from MSD/Merck, Chugai, Takeda, AstraZeneca, and Daiichi Sankyo. EH reports personal fees from GSK and Clovis. FM reports personal fees from Roche, Eisai, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD/Merck, GSK, Clovis, Gilead, Myriad Genetics, Seagen, and Stemline Menarini; grants or research support from Roche; and participation on data safety monitoring or advisory boards for Immutep, Amgen, and Palleos Healthcare. CM reports personal fees from Roche, Novartis, MSD/Merck, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, PharmaMar, ImmunoGen, Daiichi Sankyo, Novocure, BioNTtech, Eisai, and GSK. LF-M reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD/Merck, Eisai, and Pharma&. YCL reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, and grants or research support from BeiGene. EP reports personal fees from GSK and AstraZeneca. BP reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD/Merck, and Pharma&. CZ reports personal fees from Roche, Eisai, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, QuintilesIMS, Clovis, Eli Lilly, Istituto Gentili, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, MSD/Merck, GSK, and Gilead; and grants or research support from Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Eisai, Clovis, Gilead, Seagen, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, and MSD/Merck. KT reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharma, Takeda, MSD/Merck, Nippon Kayaku, Eisai, and Sanofi; and grants or research support from Chugai Pharma. AF reports personal fees from GSK, AstraZeneca, and MSD/Merck. MP reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Eisai, GSK, and MSD/Merck. MPBG reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD/Merck, PharmaMar, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Pharma&, and Kyowa Kirin; and a leadership role for Geico. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Objective: The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of different types of neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens, in terms of optimal pathological response and oncological outcomes, in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer., Methods: A systematic search of the literature was performed. MEDLINE through PubMed and Embase databases were searched from inception to June 2023. The study was registered in PROSPERO (ID number CRD42023389806). All women with a pathological diagnosis of locally advanced cervical cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 classification stages IB2-IVA), any age or histology, who underwent intravenous neoadjuvant chemotherapy before radical surgery, and articles only in English language, were included. We conducted a meta-analysis for optimal pathological response after surgery and survival outcomes. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB) tools. The review methods and results were reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines., Results: 25 studies with a total number of 1984 patients fulfilled the eligibility criteria of our review and were included for data extraction and efficacy analysis. When compared with a two-drug regimen, the three-drug combination including cisplatin, paclitaxel, and ifosfamide or anthracyclines showed superior efficacy in terms of optimal pathological response with an odds ratio of 0.38 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.61, p<0.0001), with no difference in disease-free survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.72, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.03, I 2 =0%, p=0.07) and higher overall survival (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.97, I 2 =0%, p=0.03)., Conclusions: The three-drug combination of cisplatin, paclitaxel, and ifosfamide or anthracyclines showed a higher rate of complete or optimal partial response, with the triple regimens having an advantage over the platinum-based schedules in terms of overall survival. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical surgery should not be considered a standard of care in locally advanced cervical cancer., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© IGCS and ESGO 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Pharmacogenomics studies how genes influence a person's response to treatment. When complex phenotypes are influenced by multiple genetic variations with little effect, a single piece of genetic information is often insufficient to explain this variability. The application of machine learning (ML) in pharmacogenomics holds great potential - namely, it can be used to unravel complicated genetic relationships that could explain response to therapy. In this study, ML techniques were used to investigate the relationship between genetic variations affecting more than 60 candidate genes and carboplatin-induced, taxane-induced, and bevacizumab-induced toxicities in 171 patients with ovarian cancer enrolled in the MITO-16A/MaNGO-OV2A trial. Single-nucleotide variation (SNV, formerly SNP) profiles were examined using ML to find and prioritize those associated with drug-induced toxicities, specifically hypertension, hematological toxicity, nonhematological toxicity, and proteinuria. The Boruta algorithm was used in cross-validation to determine the significance of SNVs in predicting toxicities. Important SNVs were then used to train eXtreme gradient boosting models. During cross-validation, the models achieved reliable performance with a Matthews correlation coefficient ranging from 0.375 to 0.410. A total of 43 SNVs critical for predicting toxicity were identified. For each toxicity, key SNVs were used to create a polygenic toxicity risk score that effectively divided individuals into high-risk and low-risk categories. In particular, compared with low-risk individuals, high-risk patients were 28-fold more likely to develop hypertension. The proposed method provided insightful data to improve precision medicine for patients with ovarian cancer, which may be useful for reducing toxicities and improving toxicity management., (© 2023 The Authors. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics © 2023 American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Introduction: It is essential to choose a realistic anticipated intervention effect when calculating a sample size for a randomised clinical trial. Unfortunately, anticipated intervention effects are often inflated, when compared with the 'true' intervention effects. This is documented for mortality in critical care trials. A similar pattern might exist across different medical specialties. This study aims to estimate the range of observed intervention effects for all-cause mortality in trials included in Cochrane Reviews, within each Cochrane Review Group., Methods and Analysis: We will include randomised clinical trials assessing all-cause mortality as an outcome. Trials will be identified from Cochrane Reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Cochrane Reviews will be clustered according to the registered Cochrane Review Group (eg, Anaesthesia, Emergency and Critical Care) and the statistical analyses will be conducted for each Cochrane Review Group and overall. The median relative risk and IQR for all-cause mortality and the proportion of trials with a relative all-cause mortality risk within seven different ranges will be reported (relative risk below 0.70, 0.70-0.79, 0.80-0.89, 0.90-1.09, 1.10-1.19, 1.20-1.30 and above 1.30). Subgroup analyses will explore the effects of original design, sample size, risk of bias, disease, intervention type, follow-up length, participating centres, funding type, information size and outcome hierarchy., Ethics and Dissemination: Since we will use summary data from trials already approved by relevant ethical committees, this study does not require ethical approval. Regardless of our findings, the results will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

When conducting randomised clinical trials, the choice of methodology and statistical analyses will influence the results. If the planned methodology is not of optimal quality and predefined in detail, there is a risk of biased trial results and interpretation. Even though clinical trial methodology is already at a very high standard, there are many trials that deliver biased results due to the implementation of inadequate methodology, poor data quality and erroneous or biased analyses. To increase the internal and external validity of randomised clinical trial results, several international institutions within clinical intervention research have formed The Centre for Statistical and Methodological Excellence (CESAME). Based on international consensus, the CESAME initiative will develop recommendations for the proper methodological planning, conduct and analysis of clinical intervention research. CESAME aims to increase the validity of randomised clinical trial results which will ultimately benefit patients worldwide across medical specialities. The work of CESAME will be performed within 3 closely interconnected pillars: (1) planning randomised clinical trials; (2) conducting randomised clinical trials; and (3) analysing randomised clinical trials., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2023.)

Background: Previous findings showed that cediranib-olaparib increased PFS in women with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer compared to olaparib alone., Methods: BAROCCO trial randomized 123 patients: 80mg/m2 paclitaxel weekly up to 24 weeks (control), olaparib 300mg tablets twice daily together with 20mg cediranib daily (continuous schedule) or with 20mg cediranib 5 days/week (intermittent schedule) until progression. The primary objective was the PFS comparison between each experimental arm and the control (alpha one-sided 5%; power 80%; HR 0.5)., Results: The median platinum-free interval was 1.9 months, 60% of patients had been pretreated with 3 or more chemotherapy lines. Median PFS for paclitaxel, the continuous, and the intermittent schedules were 3.1, 5.6, and 3.8 months. The HR for PFS in the continuous arm vs control was 0.76 (90% CI: 0.50-1.14, p = 0.265). The HR for PFS in the intermittent arm vs control was 1.03 (90% CI: 0.68-1.55, p = 0.904). Treatment was discontinued due to adverse events in 15%, 20%, and 5% of patients in the control, continuous and intermittent arms. Grade ≥ 3 anemia and diarrhea and hypertension of any grade occurred only in the experimental arms, and peripheral neuropathies and alopecia only in the control arm. Five serious adverse drug reactions occurred and two were fatal: one in the control and one in the continuous arm., Conclusions: The combination of cediranib-olaparib was not superior to chemotherapy in terms of PFS in heavily pretreated platinum-resistant ovarian cancer patients. However, this oral doublet, is active and may offer a non-chemotherapy option in this difficult to treat population., Clinical Trial Identification: IRFMN-OVA-7289, EudraCT: 2016-003964-38, NCT03314740., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Precis: Central corneal thickness (CCT) may increase over time in children affected by primary congenital glaucoma and treated with latanoprost for at least 30 months., Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate CCT modification over time in a population of primary pediatric glaucoma (PPG) patients prescribed a monotherapy of latanoprost., Materials and Methods: The present paper reports the results of a post hoc analysis on patients enrolled in the Glaucoma Italian Pediatric Study (GIPSy). Children affected by PPG, with a postsurgical intraocular pressure between 22 and 26 mm Hg and treated with latanoprost monotherapy for at least 30 months were eligible for the analysis. CCT variation from baseline was investigated over the follow-up using univariable and multivariable longitudinal linear mixed models. The impact of age, sex, and intraocular pressure on CCT variation were evaluated taking into account the interaction of each variable with time., Results: Twenty-seven eyes (20 patients) were included in the analysis. Mean duration of latanoprost treatment was 36.6 months (SD 2.5) and mean CCT at baseline was 551 μm (SD 37.7). A significant increase of CCT over time was revealed by multivariable analysis, taking into account the impact of age at baseline and its interaction with time (P=0.03). The interaction between age and time was significant (P=0.04), indicating that older age at baseline was associated with lower increase of CCT over time. No variation of CCT was found in univariable analysis (P=0.28)., Conclusion: In this population of PPG patients treated with latanoprost for at least 30 months, CCT significantly increased over time, when the impact of age and its interaction with time were considered.

Objective: This meta-analysis investigated the effectiveness of PARP inhibitors (PARPis) as maintenance treatment in platinum sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC), stratifying results based on BRCA mutational status into five different categories: whole population, germ-line BRCA mutated patients, somatic BRCA mutated patients, HRD patients and wild type population., Methods: PubMed, Medline, Scopus, EMBASE and clinicaltrials.gov, as well as meeting proceedings were searched for eligible studies that described RCTs testing the efficacy of PARPis as maintenance treatment in platinum sensitive ROC. Data were extracted independently and analysed using RevMan statistical software version 5.3. Primary end-point was progression free survival (PFS)., Results: The analysis confirmed the positive effect of PARPis in patients with platinum sensitive ROC in case of germinal or somatic BRCA mutations. Specifically, HR for PFS was 0.26, 95% CI 0.21-0.31, p < 0.00001 for the mutation of BRCA gene and 0.24, 95%, CI 0.12-0.48, p < 0.0001 for the somatic alteration. In addition, in the HRD population, studies that analysed the efficacy of PARPis  reported a PFS improvement with HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.26-0.43, p < 0.00001. Finally, our analysis confirms the role of these drugs in prolonging PFS in the whole population with HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.32-0.42, p < 0.00001, although to a lesser extent, with a significant improvement even in wild type cancers with HR 0.49, 95%, CI 0.41-0.59, p < 0.00001)., Conclusions: PARPis are effective regardless of BRCA mutational status. Future investigations are necessary to explore the use of different PARPis as monotherapy, comparing them among each other in terms of efficacy and toxicity, and exploring their potential re-use., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Trabectedin, in addition to its antiproliferative effect, can modify the tumour microenvironment and this could be synergistic with bevacizumab. The efficacy and safety of trabectedin and bevacizumab ± carboplatin have never been investigated., Methods: In this phase 2 study, women progressing between 6 and 12 months since their last platinum-based therapy were randomised to Arm BT: bevacizumab, trabectedin every 21 days, or Arm BT+C: bevacizumab, trabectedin and carboplatin every 28 days, from cycles 1 to 6, then trabectedin and bevacizumab as in Arm BT. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival rate (PFS-6) and severe toxicity rate (ST-6) at 6 months, assuming a PFS-6 ≤35% for BT and ≤40% for BT+C as not of therapeutic interest and, for both arms, a ST-6  ≥ 30% as unacceptable., Results: BT+C (21 patients) did not meet the safety criteria for the second stage (ST-6 45%; 95%CI: 23%-69%) but PFS-6 was 85% (95%CI: 62%-97%). BT (50 patients) had 75% PFS-6 (95%CI: 60%-87%) and 16% ST-6 (95%CI 7%-30%)., Conclusions: BT compared favourably with other platinum- and non-platinum-based regimens. The combination with carboplatin needs to be assessed further in a re-modulated safer schedule to confirm its apparent strong activity., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01735071 (Clinicaltrials.gov).

Introduction: The CoQun ® study is a multicenter, controlled trial aimed to evaluate the neuroprotective effects of Coqun ® , an ophthalmic solution of Coenzyme q10 (CoQ10) and Vitamin E (VitE), in patients affected by primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). Pre-clinical studies and small non-controlled clinical trials have previously shown a potential role of CoQ10 and VitE in glaucoma neuroprotection, both in vitro and in vivo., Methods: Randomized, parallel arm, multicenter, double-blind study. POAG patients with an IOP ranging from 17 to 21 mm Hg on monotherapy with a prostaglandin analogue (PGA) will be considered for study enrollment. Inclusion criteria will be visual field (VF) mean deviation between - 4 and - 10 dB and VF Pattern Standard Deviation between 4 and 10 dB. Eligible patients will be randomized to receive CoQun ® (Arm A) or placebo (Arm B), in addition to PGA monotherapy., Planned Outcomes: Primary outcome will be time to progression, defined as the time between the baseline visit and the visit with confirmed VF progression. A total of 612 patients are planned to be enrolled, to detect a hazard ratio of 0.65, with a power of 80% and an alpha error of 0.05 (two-sided). For study power calculation, 10% non-evaluable patients are assumed. This is the first study investigating, in a randomized, double-blind and controlled fashion, the neuroprotective effects of CoQ10 and VitE in POAG patients., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03611530.