Search

Background: The GOG240 trial established bevacizumab with chemotherapy as standard first-line therapy for metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer. In the BEATcc trial (ENGOT-Cx10–GEICO 68-C–JGOG1084–GOG-3030), we aimed to evaluate the addition of an immune checkpoint inhibitor to this standard backbone. Methods: In this investigator-initiated, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial, patients from 92 sites in Europe, Japan, and the USA with metastatic (stage IVB), persistent, or recurrent cervical cancer that was measurable, previously untreated, and not amenable to curative surgery or radiation were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive standard therapy (cisplatin 50 mg/m2 or carboplatin area under the curve of 5, paclitaxel 175 mg/m2, and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg, all on day 1 of every 3-week cycle) with or without atezolizumab 1200 mg. Treatment was continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, patient withdrawal, or death. Stratification factors were previous concomitant chemoradiation (yes vs no), histology (squamous cell carcinoma vs adenocarcinoma including adenosquamous carcinoma), and platinum backbone (cisplatin vs carboplatin). Dual primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1 and overall survival analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03556839, and is ongoing. Findings: Between Oct 8, 2018, and Aug 20, 2021, 410 of 519 patients assessed for eligibility were enrolled. Median progression-free survival was 13·7 months (95% CI 12·3–16·6) with atezolizumab and 10·4 months (9·7–11·7) with standard therapy (hazard ratio [HR]=0·62 [95% CI 0·49–0·78]; p<0·0001); at the interim overall survival analysis, median overall survival was 32·1 months (95% CI 25·3–36·8) versus 22·8 months (20·3–28·0), respectively (HR 0·68 [95% CI 0·52–0·88]; p=0·0046). Grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 79% of patient

There are conflicting narratives over what drives demand for add-ons. We undertook an online survey of IVF patients to determine whether patients perceive that use of IVF add-ons is driven by patients or practitioners. People who underwent IVF in the UK in the previous five years were recruited via social media Survey questions focussed on the roles of clinician offer and patient request, including who first suggested use of add-ons in IVF consultations, where patients first heard about them, and which information sources they trusted. From a total of 261 responses, 224 met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 67% of respondents had used one or more IVF add-ons, most commonly: time-lapse imaging (27%), EmbryoGlue (27%), and endometrial scratching (26%). Overall, 81% of the add-ons used were offered to participants by clinicians (compared to 19% requested by themselves). Half (54%) reported being offered add-ons during consultations, compared to 24% who initiated discussion about add-ons. Higher proportions of private patients reported being offered (90%), requesting (47%) and using (74%) add-ons than those with NHS funding (74%, 29%, 52%, respectively). The main limitations of this study are the small sample size, recruitment via a convenience sample, and the self-reported data capture which is subject to recall bias.

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: This study aimed to describe the treatment strategies and outcomes for women with newly diagnosed advanced high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer (OC). METHODS: This observational study collected real-world medical record data from eight Western countries on the diagnostic workup, clinical outcomes, and treatment of adult women with newly diagnosed advanced (Stage III-IV) high-grade serous or endometrioid OC. Patients were selected backward in time from April 1, 2018 (the index date), with a target of 120 patients set per country, followed for ≥20 months. RESULTS: Of the 1119 women included, 66.9% had Stage III disease, 11.7% had a deleterious BRCA mutation, and 26.6% received bevacizumab; 40.8% and 39.3% underwent primary debulking surgery (PDS) and interval debulking surgery (IDS), respectively. Of the patients who underwent PDS, 55.5% had no visible residual disease (VRD); 63.9% of the IDS patients had no VRD. According to physician-assessed responses (at the first assessment after diagnosis and treatment), 53.2% of the total population had a complete response and 25.7% had a partial response to first-line chemotherapy after surgery. After ≥20 months of follow-up, 32.9% of the patients were disease-free, 46.4% had progressive disease, and 20.6% had died. Bevacizumab use had a significant positive effect on overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.42-0.91; p = .01). A deleterious BRCA status had a significant positive effect on progression-free survival (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.41-0.84; p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Women with advanced high-grade serous or endometrioid OC have a poor prognosis. Bevacizumab use and a deleterious BRCA status were found to improve survival in this real-world population. LAY SUMMARY: Patients with advanced (Stage III or IV) ovarian cancer (OC) have a poor prognosis. The standard treatment options of surgery and chemotherapy extend life beyond diagnosis for 5 years or more in only approximately 45% of patients. T

Objective: The phase IIIb OPINION trial (NCT03402841) investigated olaparib maintenance monotherapy in patients without a deleterious or suspected deleterious germline BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation (gBRCAm) who had platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSROC) and had received ≥2 previous lines of platinum-based chemotherapy. Methods: In this single-arm, open-label, international study, patients who had responded to platinum-based chemotherapy received maintenance olaparib tablets (300 mg twice daily) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) (modified RECIST version 1.1). A key secondary endpoint was PFS by homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) and somatic BRCAm (sBRCAm) status. The primary analysis of PFS was planned for 18 months after the last patient received their first dose. Results: Two hundred and seventy-nine patients were enrolled and received olaparib. At data cutoff (October 2, 2020), 210 PFS events had occurred (75.3% maturity) and median PFS was 9.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.6–10.9) in the overall population. At 12 and 18 months, 38.5% and 24.3% of patients were progression-free, respectively. In the predefined biomarker subgroups, median PFS was 16.4, 11.1, 9.7, and 7.3 months in sBRCAm, HRD-positive including sBRCAm, HRD-positive excluding sBRCAm, and HRD-negative patients, respectively. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were nausea (48.4%) and fatigue/asthenia (44.1%). TEAEs led to dose interruption, dose reduction, and treatment discontinuation in 47.0%, 22.6%, and 7.5% of patients, respectively. Conclusion: Maintenance olaparib demonstrated clinical benefit in patients without a gBRCAm, and across all subgroups, compared with historical placebo controls. There were no new safety signals.

Introduction: Poorer end-of-life (EOL) care for elderly cancer patients has been reported. We assessed the impact of age on 13 indicators for the quality of EOL care as well as adherence to 6 national quality indicators in gynaecological cancer patients. Methods: Age-dependent differences in 13 palliative care quality indicators were studied in gynaecological cancer patients registered in the population-based Swedish Register of Palliative Care. Association between the patient's age and each quality indicator was analyzed by logistic regression, adjusted for place of death where appropriate. Adherence to six national quality indicators determined by the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare was estimated in all patients. Results: We included 3940 patients with the following age distribution: 1.6% were 18-39 years of age, 12.3% 40-59 years, 37.2% 60-74 years, 28.9% 75-84 years and 20% were ≥85 years. Age-dependent differences in implementation rate were present for some of the 13 quality indicators. Compared to elderly cancer patients, younger patients were more likely to be cared for by a specialized palliative care service, more often informed about imminent death as well as assessed for pain. For most national quality indicators, the goal level was not met. Only for the 'on demand prescription for pain', the goal level was reached. Conclusions: EOL care did not meet national quality indicators in this population-based data from Sweden, in particular in the elderly population. Elderly gynaecological cancer patients are at high risk of poorer EOL care without the involvement of specialized palliative care services. Palliative care services need to be implemented across all institutions of EOL care to ensure good and equal care.