Search

ObjectiveDrug repurposing is an alternative development pathway that utilizes the properties of drugs approved for other diseases and builds on available safety and pharmacological data to develop the drug as a potential treatment for other diseases. A literature-based approach was performed to identify drug repurposing opportunities in cervical cancer to inform future research and trials.MethodsWe queried PubMed for each drug included in two databases (ReDO_DB and CDcervix_DB, which include 300+ non-cancer drugs and 200+ cancer drugs not used in cervical cancer, respectively) and manually assessed all abstracts for relevance and activity in cervix cancer, and type of evidence. Subsequently, we also performed a search of clinical trial databases where we generated a list of registered trials in cervical cancer with all drugs from our databases.ResultsOf the 534 drugs from both databases, 174 (33%) had at least one relevant abstract or registered trial in cervical cancer. 94 (18%) drugs had at least human data available, and 52 (10%) drugs were evaluated in registered trials. To prioritize drugs to consider for future trials, all 174 drugs were further assessed for strength of scientific rationale, feasibility for integration in cervical cancer standard of care, evidence of radiosensitization, and potential mechanism of action. Out of the 174 drugs, 38 (22%) potential drug candidates were selected.ConclusionThis study resulted in a list of candidate drugs for potential evaluation in cervical cancer. Many drugs might warrant additional (pre)clinical investigation, which could be done in a coordinated manner using platform trials.

Although it is uncommon in general, breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer during pregnancy. While treatment for pregnant patients should adhere to treatment guidelines for non-pregnant patients, there exist specific considerations concerning diagnosis, staging, oncological treatment, and obstetrical care. Imaging and staging are preferably performed using breast ultrasound and mammography. Other ionizing radiation imaging modalities, including computed tomography (CT) and Positron Emission Tomography/ Computed Tomography (PET/CT), can be selectively performed when the estimated benefit for the mother outweighs the risks to the foetus, e.g., when the results will change clinical management. MRI is appropriate to stage for distant disease on the indication. Breast cancer during pregnancy is less often hormone receptor-positive and more frequently triple-negative breast cancer compared to age-matched controls. The basic principle is that women should receive state-of-the-art oncological treatment without delay if possible and that the pregnancy should be maintained as long as possible. Treatment strategy should be multidisciplinary defined, carefully weighing the selection, sequence, and timing of treatment modalities depending on patient-, tumour-, and pregnancy-related characteristics, as well as patient preferences. Initiating cancer treatment during pregnancy often decreases the risks of early delivery and prematurity. Breast cancer surgery is possible during all trimesters. Radiotherapy is possible during pregnancy in the first half of pregnancy. Chemotherapy can be safely administered starting from 12 weeks of gestational age, but endocrine and HER2 targeted therapy are contraindicated throughout the whole pregnancy. Importantly, foetal growth should be monitored and long-term follow-up of the children is encouraged in dedicated centres. ispartof: Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol vol:82 pages:46-59 ispartof: location:Netherlands status: published

Contains fulltext : 283536.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) The Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) sixth Ovarian Cancer Conference on Clinical Research was held virtually in October, 2021, following published consensus guidelines. The goal of the consensus meeting was to achieve harmonisation on the design elements of upcoming trials in ovarian cancer, to select important questions for future study, and to identify unmet needs. All 33 GCIG member groups participated in the development, refinement, and adoption of 20 statements within four topic groups on clinical research in ovarian cancer including first line treatment, recurrent disease, disease subgroups, and future trials. Unanimous consensus was obtained for 14 of 20 statements, with greater than 90% concordance in the remaining six statements. The high acceptance rate following active deliberation among the GCIG groups confirmed that a consensus process could be applied in a virtual setting. Together with detailed categorisation of unmet needs, these consensus statements will promote the harmonisation of international clinical research in ovarian cancer.

Contains fulltext : 241226.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) BACKGROUND: Olaparib, a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, has previously been shown to extend progression-free survival versus placebo when given to patients with relapsed high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer who were platinum sensitive and who had a BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation, as part of the SOLO2/ENGOT-Ov21 trial. The aim of this final analysis is to investigate the effect of olaparib on overall survival. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial was done across 123 medical centres in 16 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at baseline of 0-1, had histologically confirmed, relapsed, high-grade serous or high-grade endometrioid ovarian cancer, including primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer, and had received two or more previous platinum regimens. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive olaparib tablets (300 mg in two 150 mg tablets twice daily) or matching placebo tablets using an interactive web or voice-response system. Stratification was by response to previous chemotherapy and length of platinum-free interval. Treatment assignment was masked to patients, treatment providers, and data assessors. The primary endpoint of progression-free survival has been reported previously. Overall survival was a key secondary endpoint and was analysed in all patients as randomly allocated. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one treatment dose. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01874353, and is no longer recruiting patients. FINDINGS: Between Sept 3, 2013 and Nov 21, 2014, 295 patients were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either olaparib (n=196 [66%]) or placebo (n=99 [34%]). One patient, randomised in error, did not receive olaparib. Median follow-up was 65·7 months (IQR 63·6-69·3) with olaparib and 64·5 months (63·4-68·7) with placebo. Median overall survival was 51·7 months (95% CI 41·5-59·1) with olaparib and 38·8 months (31·4-48·6) with placebo (hazard ratio 0·74 [95% CI 0·54-1·00]; p=0·054), unadjusted for the 38% of patients in the placebo group who received subsequent PARP inhibitor therapy. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse event was anaemia (which occurred in 41 [21%] of 195 patients in the olaparib group and two [2%] of 99 patients in the placebo group). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 50 (26%) of 195 patients receiving olaparib and eight (8%) of 99 patients receiving placebo. Treatment-emergent adverse events with a fatal outcome occurred in eight (4%) of the 195 patients receiving olaparib, six of which were judged to be treatment-related (attributed to myelodysplastic syndrome [n=3] and acute myeloid leukaemia [n=3]). INTERPRETATION: Olaparib provided a median overall survival benefit of 12·9 months compared with placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation. Although statistical significance was not reached, these findings are arguably clinically meaningful and support the use of maintenance olaparib in these patients. FUNDING: AstraZeneca and Merck.

ObjectiveRecurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer has a poor prognosis with limited therapeutic options. Sub‐therapeutic intra-tumoral drug concentrations may add to therapy resistance. CPC634 (docetaxel entrapped in CriPec nanoparticles) was designed to enhance tumor accumulation of drug with localized drug release at the target site to increase therapeutic efficacy. This study investigated the therapeutic effect of CPC634 in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.MethodsAccording to a Simon 2-stage design trial, the first stage included 13 patients, and 12 patients were enrolled in the second stage. Eligible patients had measurable disease and had progressed ≤6 months after the last platinum-based therapy. Platinum-refractory disease was excluded. In stage 1, the number of previous treatment lines was unlimited; in the second stage, a maximum of two prior lines altogether were allowed. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor (RECIST) V1.1. Secondary endpoints included safety, progression-free survival at 6 months, cancer antigen 125 (CA125) response, and disease control rate.ResultsThe patients’ median age was 66 years (range 22–77) and most were International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III (56%). The median number of previous treatment lines was 3 (range 3–5) in stage I and 2 (range 1–4) in stage II of the study. None of the patients had an objective response, one patient had a CA125 response (5%), and seven patients had stable disease at first evaluation (35%). Median progression-free survival was 1.4 months in stage 1 and 3.0 months in stage 2. Adverse events (all grades) were mainly gastrointestinal in 24 patients (96%), fatigue in 11 (44%), dyspnea in 10 (40%), and infections in 10 (40%) of patients. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 14 patients (36%), including gastrointestinal in 4 (16%), anemia in 3 (12%), and febrile neutropenia, fatigue, chronic kidney disease, dehydration, and hypertension each in 1 (4%) patient. The trial was stopped prematurely due to futility.ConclusionsTreatment with CPC634 was feasible, but without apparent clinical activity in patients with recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. Side effects were mainly gastrointestinal in 24 (96%) patients, including nausea, vomiting, and decreased appetite, fatigue, anemia, and dyspnea.

We investigated whether the addition of adjuvant chemotherapy to chemoradiation improves overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. Systematic searches in the databases of PubMed, Embase and Web of Science yielded 881 articles. Two reviewer authors independently selected 31 articles for full text review and deemed eight studies eligible for inclusion. Two were randomised controlled trials (RCT), one was a large (n = 609) matched-case study and the remaining were small retrospective cohort studies; in total 2150 patients. Risk of bias assessment showed that the RCTs were at low risk and all other studies were at high risk of bias. Pooled hazard ratios for OS and PFS were 0.78 (95%CI 0.45-1.33, p = 0.36) and 0.85 (95%CI 0.65-1.10, p = 0.22), respectively. Analysis stratified by study design and sensitivity analysis showed similar results. Funnel plots showed significant publication bias due to a lack of small studies with negative outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Angiopoietin 1 and 2 regulate angiogenesis and vascular remodelling by interacting with the tyrosine kinase receptor Tie2, and inhibition of angiogenesis has shown promise in the treatment of ovarian cancer. We aimed to assess whether trebananib, a peptibody that inhibits binding of angiopoietin 1 and 2 to Tie2, improved progression-free survival when added to carboplatin and paclitaxel as first-line therapy in advanced epithelial ovarian, primary fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer in a phase 3 clinical trial. METHODS: TRINOVA-3, a multicentre, multinational, phase 3, double-blind study, was done at 206 investigational sites (hospitals and cancer centres) in 14 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with biopsy-confirmed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III to IV epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancers, and an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (2:1) using a permuted block method (block size of six patients) to receive six cycles of paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) and carboplatin (area under the serum concentration-time curve 5 or 6) every 3 weeks, plus weekly intravenous trebananib 15 mg/kg or placebo. Maintenance therapy with trebananib or placebo continued for up to 18 additional months. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, as assessed by the investigators, in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses included patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01493505, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Jan 30, 2012, and Feb 25, 2014, 1164 patients were screened and 1015 eligible patients were randomly allocated to treatment (678 to trebananib and 337 to placebo). After a median follow-up of 27·4 months (IQR 17·7-34·2), 626 patients had progression-free survival events (405 [60%] of 678 in the trebananib group and 221 [66%] of 337 in the placebo group). Median progression-free survival did not differ between the trebananib group (15·9 months [15·0-17·6]) and the placebo group (15·0 months [12·6-16·1]) groups (hazard ratio 0·93 [95% CI 0·79-1·09]; p=0·36). 512 (76%) of 675 patients in the trebananib group and 237 (71%) of 336 in the placebo group had grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events; of which the most common events were neutropenia (trebananib 238 [35%] vs placebo 126 [38%]) anaemia (76 [11%] vs 40 [12%]), and leucopenia (81 [12%] vs 35 [10%]). 269 (40%) patients in the trebananib group and 104 (31%) in the placebo group had serious adverse events. Two fatal adverse events in the trebananib group were considered related to trebananib, paclitaxel, and carboplatin (lung infection and neutropenic colitis); two were considered to be related to paclitaxel and carboplatin (general physical health deterioration and platelet count decreased). No treatment-related fatal adverse events occurred in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Trebananib plus carboplatin and paclitaxel did not improve progression-free survival as first-line treatment for advanced ovarian cancer. The combination of trebananib plus carboplatin and paclitaxel did not produce new safety signals. These results show that trebananib in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel is minimally effective in this patient population. FUNDING: Amgen. ispartof: LANCET ONCOLOGY vol:20 issue:6 pages:862-876 ispartof: location:England status: published

Background Olaparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, has previously shown efficacy in a phase 2 study when given in capsule formulation to all-comer patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed high-grade serous ovarian cancer. We aimed to confirm these findings in patients with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation using a tablet formulation of olaparib. Methods This international, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial evaluated olaparib tablet maintenance treatment in platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation who had received at least two lines of previous chemotherapy. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at baseline of 0–1 and histologically confirmed, relapsed, high-grade serous ovarian cancer or high-grade endometrioid cancer, including primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to olaparib (300 mg in two 150 mg tablets, twice daily) or matching placebo tablets using an interactive voice and web response system. Randomisation was stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy (complete vs partial) and length of platinum-free interval (6–12 months vs ≥12 months) and treatment assignment was masked for patients, those giving the interventions, data collectors, and data analysers. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival and we report the primary analysis from this ongoing study. The efficacy analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population; safety analyses included patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01874353, and is ongoing and no longer recruiting patients. Findings Between Sept 3, 2013, and Nov 21, 2014, we enrolled 295 eligible patients who were randomly assigned to receive olaparib (n=196) or placebo (n=99). One patient in the olaparib group was randomised in error and did not receive study treatment. Investigator-assessed median progression-free survival was significantly longer with olaparib (19·1 months [95% CI 16·3–25·7]) than with placebo (5·5 months [5·2–5·8]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·30 [95% CI 0·22–0·41], p

We present a patient with recurrent bacterial cholangitis. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography did not show evidence for choledocholithiasis or obstructing abnormalities of the common bile duct. However, a juxtapapillary diverticulum was situated at the edge of the papilla of Vater. We postulate that a juxtapapillary diverticulum can obstruct biliary flow due to its anatomical relation with the papilla, which may predispose to bacterial cholangitis. This might be prevented by sphincterotomy of the papilla.