Search

Background After radical prostatectomy (RP), depending on stage, up to 40% of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) will experience biochemical failure (BF). Despite salvage therapy, approximately one-third of these patients will need permanent hormone therapy (pHT) and are at risk of progression to castration-resistant PCa (CRPC). Prognostic markers herald the need for neoadjuvant, adjuvant, or multimodal treatment. Objective To evaluate the added value of blood LRG1 in predicting treatment failure in patients who have undergone radical prostatectomy (RP). Design, setting, and participants We quantified LRG1 in serum or plasma sampled before radical prostatectomy from patients from the Martini-Klinik (Martini; n = 423), the Danish CuPCa cohort (CuPCa; n = 182), and Oslo University Hospital (OUH; n = 145). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis The endpoints were BF, pHT, and CRPC. The association between LRG1 and survival outcomes was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier estimation and Cox proportional-hazards modeling. The added predictive value of LRG1 in nested models was estimated using the concordance index, time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, and decision curve analysis. Results and limitations In multivariable Cox models using preoperative characteristics, LRG1 was associated with an estimated lower risk of BF in the Martini cohort (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52–0.90) and in the CuPCa cohort (aHR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30–0.73). Using preoperative prognostic variables, our data showed that doubling of LRG1 was also associated with a lower risk of pHT receipt in the CuPCa cohort (aHR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20–0.93) and of CRPC development in the OUH cohort (aHR 0.32, 95% CI 0.15–0.69). Similar aHR values were observed using either preoperative or postoperative variables for all endpoints. Conclusions PCa patients with high blood LRG1 are at lower risk of BF, pHT receipt, and progression to CRPC. Since LRG1 adds value to established prognostic models, new prognostic factor combinations including LRG1 should be considered in future studies. Patient summary We measured concentrations of the blood-based protein LRG1 before surgery for prostate cancer. Patients with high LRG1 levels had better disease-free survival, suggesting that LRG1 can help in predicting prognosis.

IntroductionThe PENELOPE trial evaluated pertuzumab added to chemotherapy for biomarker-selected platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. As previously reported, pertuzumab did not statistically significantly improve progression-free survival (primary end point: HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.11), although results in the paclitaxel and gemcitabine cohorts suggested activity. Here, we report final overall survival and patient-reported outcomes.Patients and methodsEligible patients had ovarian carcinoma that progressed during/within 6 months of completing ≥4 platinum cycles, low tumor human epidermal growth factor receptor 3 (HER3) mRNA expression, and ≤2 prior chemotherapy lines. Investigators selected single-agent topotecan, gemcitabine or weekly paclitaxel before patients were randomized to either placebo or pertuzumab (840→420 mg every 3 weeks), stratified by selected chemotherapy, prior anti-angiogenic therapy, and platinum-free interval. Final overall survival analysis (key secondary end point) was pre-specified after 129 deaths. Patient-reported outcomes (secondary end point) were assessed at baseline and every 9 weeks until disease progression.ResultsAt database lock (June 9, 2016), 130 (83%) of 156 randomized patients had died. Median follow-up was 27 months in the pertuzumab arm versus 26 months in the control arm. In the intent-to-treat population there was no overall survival difference between treatment arms (stratified HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.32; p=0.60). Results in subgroups defined by stratification factors indicated heterogeneity similar to previous progression-free survival results. Updated safety was similar to previously published results. Compliance with patient-reported outcomes questionnaire completion was >75% for all validated patient-reported outcomes measures. Pertuzumab demonstrated neither beneficial nor detrimental effects on patient-reported outcomes compared with placebo, except for increased diarrhea symptoms.DiscussionConsistent with the primary results, adding pertuzumab to chemotherapy for low tumor HER3 mRNA-expressing platinum-resistant ovarian cancer did not improve overall survival, but showed trends in some cohorts. Except for increased diarrhea symptoms, pertuzumab had no impact on patient-reported outcomes.ClinicalTrials.gov:ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT01684878.

Purpose of the review: More than 50% of all gynaecological cancers can be classified as rare tumours (defined as an annual incidence of

BACKGROUND: Angiogenesis is a target in the treatment of ovarian cancer. Nintedanib, an oral triple angiokinase inhibitor of VEGF receptor, platelet-derived growth factor receptor, and fibroblast growth factor receptor, has shown activity in phase 2 trials in this setting. We investigated the combination of nintedanib with standard carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer.METHODS: In this double-blind phase 3 trial, chemotherapy-naive patients (aged 18 years or older) with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) IIB-IV ovarian cancer and upfront debulking surgery were stratified by postoperative resection status, FIGO stage, and planned carboplatin dose. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) via an interactive voice or web-based response system to receive six cycles of carboplatin (AUC 5 mg/mL per min or 6 mg/mL per min) and paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2)) in addition to either 200 mg of nintedanib (nintedanib group) or placebo (placebo group) twice daily on days 2-21 of every 3-week cycle for up to 120 weeks. Patients, investigators, and independent radiological reviewers were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01015118.FINDINGS: Between Dec 9, 2009, and July 27, 2011, 1503 patients were screened and 1366 randomly assigned by nine study groups in 22 countries: 911 to the nintedanib group and 455 to the placebo group. 486 (53%) of 911 patients in the nintedanib group experienced disease progression or death compared with 266 (58%) of 455 in the placebo group. Median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the nintedanib group than in the placebo group (17·2 months [95% CI 16·6-19·9] vs 16·6 months [13·9-19·1]; hazard ratio 0·84 [95% CI 0·72-0·98]; p=0·024). The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal (diarrhoea: nintedanib group 191 [21%] of 902 grade 3 and three [INTERPRETATION: Nintedanib in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel is an active first-line treatment that significantly increases progression-free survival for women with advanced ovarian cancer, but is associated with more gastrointestinal adverse events. Future studies should focus on improving patient selection and optimisation of tolerability.FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim.

Background The AURELIA trial demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) with bevacizumab added to chemotherapy for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC). Methods Patients with PROC were randomised to receive investigator-selected single-agent chemotherapy alone or with bevacizumab. Post-hoc exploratory analyses assessed efficacy, safety and patient-reported outcomes according to age

The European Network for Gynaecological Oncological Trial groups (ENGOT) is a research network of the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology and was founded in Berlin in October 2007. Earlier, we reported on the ENGOT minimal requirements for trials between academic groups and pharmaceutical companies. In this paper, we summarize the roadmap for performing trials in the ENGOT framework. In this roadmap, we define how an ENGOT trial should be set up and discuss the following items: What are the conditions to classify a study as an ENGOT trial? What is an ENGOT protocol? How are an ENGOT protocol, informed consent (ICF), and case report form (CRF) produced? How is the center selection and feasibility performed in ENGOT trials? How are regulatory and operational tasks handled? How should a confidentiality agreement between the industry and the whole ENGOT network be negotiated? How are contracts made between the industry and ENGOT and between ENGOT groups? How are funding, insurance, and communication flow arranged in ENGOT trials? What are the requirements for conducting substudies and what are the tasks for the leading group in an ENGOT trial? A template of a confidentiality agreement, a checklist of ENGOT criteria for new study proposals, and guidelines for authorship are also provided.

Contains fulltext : 88779.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) BACKGROUND: Serum CA125 concentration often rises several months before clinical or symptomatic relapse in women with ovarian cancer. In the MRC OV05/EORTC 55955 collaborative trial, we aimed to establish the benefits of early treatment on the basis of increased CA125 concentrations compared with delayed treatment on the basis of clinical recurrence. METHODS: Women with ovarian cancer in complete remission after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and a normal CA125 concentration were registered for this randomised controlled trial. Clinical examination and CA125 measurement were done every 3 months. Patients and investigators were masked to CA125 results, which were monitored by coordinating centres. If CA125 concentration exceeded twice the upper limit of normal, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by minimisation to early or delayed chemotherapy. Patients and clinical sites were informed of allocation to early treatment, and treatment was started as soon as possible within 28 days of the increased CA125 measurement. Patients assigned to delayed treatment continued masked CA125 measurements, with treatment commencing at clinical or symptomatic relapse. All patients were treated according to standard local practice. The primary outcome was overall survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, ISRCTN87786644. FINDINGS: 1442 patients were registered for the trial, of whom 529 were randomly assigned to treatment groups and were included in our analysis (265 early, 264 delayed). With a median follow-up of 56.9 months (IQR 37.4-81.8) from randomisation and 370 deaths (186 early, 184 delayed), there was no evidence of a difference in overall survival between early and delayed treatment (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80-1.20, p=0.85). Median survival from randomisation was 25.7 months (95% CI 23.0-27.9) for patients on early treatment and 27.1 months (22.8-30.9) for those on delayed treatment. INTERPRETATION: Our findings showed no evidence of a survival benefit with early treatment of relapse on the basis of a raised CA125 concentration alone, and therefore the value of routine measurement of CA125 in the follow-up of patients with ovarian cancer who attain a complete response after first-line treatment is not proven. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer.

Background: Data on CA-125 as a predictor of disease progression (PD) in ovarian cancer come predominantly from patients with platinum-sensitive disease receiving chemotherapy alone. We assessed concordance between CA-125-defined and RECIST-defined PD using data from the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) randomized phase III AURELIA trial in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC). Patients and methods: Patients with PROC were randomized to receive single-agent chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. PD by CA-125 was defined according to GCIG criteria (except that confirmatory CA-125 measurement was not required). This exploratory analysis included patients with RECIST PD and a CA-125 reading ≤28 days before and ≤21 days after RECIST-defined PD. Results: Of 218 eligible patients, only 94 (43%, 95% confidence interval 36% to 50%) had concordant RECIST and CA-125 PD status (42% in the chemotherapy-alone arm; 45% in the bevacizumab combination arm, P = 0.6). There was no evidence of CA-125-defined PD in the remaining 124 patients despite PD according to imaging. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between patients with PD defined by both RECIST and CA-125 and those with RECIST-only PD. CA-125 was even less sensitive in detecting PD in patients with early (

Background: Progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were significantly improved by adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC) in the phase III AURELIA trial. We explored treatment outcomes according to primary platinum resistance (PPR) versus secondary platinum resistance (SPR). Patients and methods: Patients were categorized as PPR (disease progression

BACKGROUND: The ICON7 trial previously reported improved progression-free survival in women with ovarian cancer with the addition of bevacizumab to standard chemotherapy, with the greatest effect in patients at high risk of disease progression. We report the final overall survival results of the trial.METHODS: ICON7 was an international, phase 3, open-label, randomised trial undertaken at 263 centres in 11 countries across Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Eligible adult women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer that was either high-risk early-stage disease (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics [FIGO] stage I-IIa, grade 3 or clear cell histology) or more advanced disease (FIGO stage IIb-IV), with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, were enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to standard chemotherapy (six 3-weekly cycles of intravenous carboplatin [AUC 5 or 6] and paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) of body surface area) or the same chemotherapy regimen plus bevacizumab 7·5 mg per kg bodyweight intravenously every 3 weeks, given concurrently and continued with up to 12 further 3-weekly cycles of maintenance therapy. Randomisation was done by a minimisation algorithm stratified by FIGO stage, residual disease, interval between surgery and chemotherapy, and Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup group. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival; the study was also powered to detect a difference in overall survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN91273375.FINDINGS: Between Dec 18, 2006, and Feb 16, 2009, 1528 women were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy (n=764) or chemotherapy plus bevacizumab (n=764). Median follow-up at the end of the trial on March 31, 2013, was 48·9 months (IQR 26·6-56·2), at which point 714 patients had died (352 in the chemotherapy group and 362 in the bevacizumab group). Our results showed evidence of non-proportional hazards, so we used the difference in restricted mean survival time as the primary estimate of effect. No overall survival benefit of bevacizumab was recorded (restricted mean survival time 44·6 months [95% CI 43·2-45·9] in the standard chemotherapy group vs 45·5 months [44·2-46·7] in the bevacizumab group; log-rank p=0·85). In an exploratory analysis of a predefined subgroup of 502 patients with poor prognosis disease, 332 (66%) died (174 in the standard chemotherapy group and 158 in the bevacizumab group), and a significant difference in overall survival was noted between women who received bevacizumab plus chemotherapy and those who received chemotherapy alone (restricted mean survival time 34·5 months [95% CI 32·0-37·0] with standard chemotherapy vs 39·3 months [37·0-41·7] with bevacizumab; log-rank p=0·03). However, in non-high-risk patients, the restricted mean survival time did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups (49·7 months [95% CI 48·3-51·1]) in the standard chemotherapy group vs 48·4 months [47·0-49·9] in the bevacizumab group; p=0·20). An updated analysis of progression-free survival showed no difference between treatment groups. During extended follow-up, one further treatment-related grade 3 event (gastrointestinal fistula in a bevacizumab-treated patient), three grade 2 treatment-related events (cardiac failure, sarcoidosis, and foot fracture, all in bevacizumab-treated patients), and one grade 1 treatment-related event (vaginal haemorrhage, in a patient treated with standard chemotherapy) were reported.INTERPRETATION: Bevacizumab, added to platinum-based chemotherapy, did not increase overall survival in the study population as a whole. However, an overall survival benefit was recorded in poor-prognosis patients, which is concordant with the progression-free survival results from ICON7 and GOG-218, and provides further evidence towards the optimum use of bevacizumab in the treatment of ovarian cancer.FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research through the UK National Cancer Research Network, the Medical Research Council, and Roche.