Real world outcomes in platinum sensitive relapsed ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer treated in routine clinical practice in the United Kingdom prior to poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (7) ◽  
pp. 1026-1033
Author(s):  
Rosemary Lord ◽  
Jyoti Rauniyar ◽  
Tamsin Morris ◽  
Orlaith Condon ◽  
Rachel Jones ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Real World ◽  
Index Date ◽  
Median Overall Survival ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Platinum Sensitive ◽  
Polymerase Inhibitors

IntroductionThe introduction of poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors in ovarian cancer has demonstrated significantly improved progression free survival in four randomized controlled clinical trials in patients with platinum sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer. While overall survival data remain immature, this real world evidence study sets a baseline for future evaluation of poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors.MethodsA retrospective chart review was undertaken to investigate real world survival outcomes across 13 National Health Service Trusts in England, Wales, and Scotland. Patients were included if they had platinum sensitive relapsed high grade serous ovarian cancer and had responded to secondline platinum based chemotherapy. Clinical data were collected retrospectively from electronic prescribing records and chart notes. The index date for overall survival analysis was defined as the later of (1) day 1 of the final secondline platinum based treatment or (2) date of response to secondline treatment. The primary objective was overall survival from the index date. Secondary objectives included progression free survival and overall survival by subsequent line of treatment. BRCA mutation status was collected where available. Quality of life questionnaires were not assessed within this study.Results233 patients were identified who met the study inclusion criteria. Patient characteristics were consistent with other published data, with a median age of 61 years (range 35–85). Sensitivity analysis of the primary objective demonstrated that the earliest point poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors may be initiated (following completion of secondline chemotherapy) is associated with a median overall survival of 19.8 months. Secondline median overall survival and progression free survival from the index date were 19.3±2.4 months and 7.3±1.2 months, respectively. 144 patients were treated with thirdline chemotherapy with median overall survival and progression free survival from the index date (either date of last cycle of thirdline treatment or date of response to thirdline treatment) of 8.3±2.6 and 4.4±1.8 months, respectively.ConclusionOverall survival was shown to be shorter in this real world study compared with randomized clinical trials, and underlines the differences in clinical outcomes of patients in a real life setting. This baseline real world study has demonstrated poor survival outcomes in this patient group prior to availability of poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors.

Real-world evidence of poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors in the treatment of ovarian cancer: A systematic literature review

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (8) ◽  
pp. 1977-1986
Author(s):  
Eric P Borrelli ◽  
Conor G McGladrigan
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Real World ◽  
Median Overall Survival ◽  
Advanced Disease ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
The Real ◽  
Median Progression Free Survival ◽  
Polymerase Inhibitors

Objective The treatment landscape for ovarian cancer has shifted in recent years with the approval of poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors in 2014. Most patients with ovarian cancer have advanced disease at diagnosis. Understanding how treatments for advanced disease work in real-world settings must be assessed to provide care for these patients. Therefore, the objective of this study was to locate and assess real-world studies measuring the safety and effectiveness of poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors and analyze the results. Data sources: A targeted systematic literature review was conducted in April 2020 of PubMed/Medline. Inclusion criteria consisted of observational studies using real-world data of olaparib, rucaparib, or niraparib as an intervention in the treatment of ovarian cancer. In addition, studies needed to assess either clinical effectiveness or safety. Once studies were identified, we aimed to narratively describe the studies’ patient population, intervention effectiveness, and/or safety. Data summary: Our systematic review identified six studies assessing the real-world effectiveness and/or safety of poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors, with five assessing olaparib, one assessing poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors as a composite, and none assessing either niraparib or rucaparib. The median progression free survival in the real-world trials for olaparib ranged from 12.7 to 15.6 months. The median overall survival in the real-world trials for olaparib ranged from 30.9 to 35.4 months. Rates of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events for olaparib ranged from 4.4% to 12.5%. Conclusions The identified studies showed slightly higher, but comparable results for median progression free survival, median overall survival, and discontinuation due to adverse events compared to the respective randomized controlled trials.

Nonplatinum Topotecan Combinations Versus Topotecan Alone for Recurrent Ovarian Cancer: Results of a Phase III Study of the North-Eastern German Society of Gynecological Oncology Ovarian Cancer Study Group

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (19) ◽  
pp. 3176-3182 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jalid Sehouli ◽  
Dirk Stengel ◽  
Guelten Oskay-Oezcelik ◽  
Alain G. Zeimet ◽  
Harald Sommer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Recurrent Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Platinum Sensitive ◽  
Platinum Refractory

PurposeThe management of recurrent ovarian cancer remains controversial. Single-agent topotecan is an established treatment option, and preliminary evidence suggests improved tumor control by combining topotecan with etoposide or gemcitabine.Patients and MethodsWomen with relapsed ovarian cancer after primary surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned to topotecan monotherapy 1.25 mg/m2/d, topotecan 1.0 mg/m2plus oral etoposide 50 mg/d, or topotecan 0.5 mg/m2/d plus gemcitabine 800 mg/m2on day 1 and 600 mg/m2on day 8 every 3 weeks. Patients were stratified for platinum-refractory and platinum-sensitive disease according to a recurrence-free interval of less or more than 12 months, respectively. The primary end point was overall survival. Secondary end points included progression-free survival, objective response rates, toxicity, and quality of life (as measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] 30-item Quality-of-Life Questionnaire).ResultsThe trial enrolled 502 patients with a mean age of 60.5 years (± 10.2 years), 208 of whom were platinum resistant. Median overall survival was 17.2 months (95% CI, 13.5 to 21.9 months) with topotecan, 17.8 months (95% CI, 13.7 to 20.0 months) with topotecan plus etoposide (log-rank P = .7647), and 15.2 months (95% CI, 11.3 to 20.9 months) with topotecan plus gemcitabine (log-rank P = .2344). Platinum-sensitive patients lived significantly longer than platinum-refractory patients (21.9 v 10.6 months). The median progression-free survival was 7.0, 7.8, and 6.3 months, respectively. Objective response rates were 27.8%, 36.1%, and 31.6%, respectively. Patients under combined treatment were at higher risk of severe thrombocytopenia.ConclusionNonplatinum topotecan combinations do not provide a survival advantage over topotecan alone in women with relapsed ovarian cancer.

scholarly journals Real-World Data for Lenvatinib in Hepatocellular Carcinoma (ELEVATOR): A retrospective multicenter study

Liver Cancer ◽  
2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabrina Welland ◽  
Catherine Leyh ◽  
Fabian Finkelmeier ◽  
André Jefremow ◽  
Kateryna Shmanko ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Real World ◽  
Median Overall Survival ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
First Line ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
First Line Treatment

Background Lenvatinib is approved as first-line treatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The efficacy of lenvatinib in Caucasian real-world patients is insufficiently defined. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of lenvatinib in a multi-center cohort (ELEVATOR) from Germany and Austria. Methods A retrospective data analysis of 205 patients treated with first-line systemic lenvatinib at 14 different sites was conducted. Overall survival, progression free survival, overall response rate and adverse event rates were assessed and analyzed. Results Patients receiving lenvatinib in the real-world setting reached a median overall survival of 12.8 months, which was comparable to the results reported from the REFLECT study. Median overall survival (mOS) and progression free survival (mPFS) was superior in those patients who met the inclusion criteria of the REFLECT study compared to patients who failed to meet the inclusion criteria (mOS 15.6 vs 10.2 months, HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.38-0.81, p=0.002; mPFS 8.1 vs 4.8 months HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.46-0.91, p=0.0015). For patients with an impaired liver function according to the Albumin-Bilirubin (ALBI) grade, or reduced ECOG performance status ≥2, survival was significantly shorter compared to patients with sustained liver function (ALBI grade 1) and good performance status (ECOG performance status 0), respectively (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.07-2.66, p=0.023; HR 2.25, 95% CI 1.19-4.23, p=0.012). Additionally, macrovascular invasion (HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.02-2.37, p=0.041) and an AFP ≥200 ng/mL (HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.03-2.34, p=0.034) were confirmed as independent negative prognostic factors in our cohort of patients with advanced HCC. Conclusion Overall, our data confirm the efficacy of lenvatinib as first-line treatment and did not reveal new or unexpected side effects in a large retrospective Caucasian real-world cohort, supporting the use of lenvatinib as meaningful alternative for patients that cannot be treated with IO-based combinations in first-line HCC.

Cytoreductive surgery followed by chemotherapy and olaparib maintenance in BRCA 1/2 mutated recurrent ovarian cancer: a retrospective MITO group study

2021 ◽  
pp. ijgc-2020-002343
Author(s):  
Sabrina Chiara Cecere ◽  
Lucia Musacchio ◽  
Michele Bartoletti ◽  
Vanda Salutari ◽  
Laura Arenare ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Cytoreductive Surgery ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Recurrent Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Platinum Sensitive ◽  
Free Interval ◽  
Platinum Based Chemotherapy

IntroductionThe role of cytoreductive surgery in the poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors era is not fully investigated. We evaluated the impact of surgery performed prior to platinum-based chemotherapy followed by olaparib maintenance in platinum-sensitive BRCA-mutated recurrent ovarian cancer.MethodsThis retrospective study included platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer BRCA-mutated patients from 13 Multicenter Italian Trials in Ovarian cancer and gynecological malignancies centers treated between September 2015 and May 2019. The primary outcomes were progression-free survival and overall survival. Data on post-progression treatment was also assessed.ResultsAmong 209 patients, 72 patients (34.5%) underwent cytoreductive surgery followed by platinum-based chemotherapy and olaparib maintenance, while 137 patients (65.5%) underwent chemotherapy treatment alone. After a median follow-up of 37.3 months (95% CI: 33.4 to 40.8), median progression-free survival in the surgery group was not reached, compared with 11 months in patients receiving chemotherapy alone (P<0.001). Median overall survival was nearly double in patients undergoing surgery before chemotherapy (55 vs 28 months, P<0.001). Post-progression therapy was assessed in 127 patients: response rate to chemotherapy was 29.2%, 8.8%, and 9.0% in patients with platinum-free interval >12 months, between 6 and 12 months, and <6 months, respectively.ConclusionCytoreductive surgery performed before platinum therapy and olaparib maintenance was associated with longer progression-free survival and overall survival in BRCA-mutated platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer patients. In accordance with our preliminary results, the response rate to chemotherapy given after progression during olaparib was associated with platinum-free interval.

scholarly journals DUETTE: a phase II randomized, multicenter study to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of a second maintenance treatment in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer, who have previously received poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor maintenance treatment

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (11) ◽  
pp. 1824-1828
Author(s):  
Michelle McMullen ◽  
Katherine Karakasis ◽  
Bienvenu Loembe ◽  
Emma Dean ◽  
Graem Parr ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Maintenance Treatment ◽  
Parp Inhibitor ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Platinum Sensitive ◽  
Recist 1.1

BackgroundWith the success of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor therapy in the first-line and second-line treatment settings, a new patient population is emerging with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer, who have previously received a PARP inhibitor in the maintenance setting and for whom no second maintenance standard of care exists. DUETTE (NCT04239014) will evaluate the combination of ceralasertib (a potent, selective inhibitor of the serine/threonine kinase ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related protein (ATR) + olaparib, or olaparib monotherapy, compared with placebo, in this patient population of unmet need.Primary ObjectiveThe primary objective is to assess the efficacy of ceralasertib + olaparib combination, and olaparib monotherapy, compared with placebo, as second maintenance therapy in platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer.Study HypothesisThis study will test the hypothesis that ceralasertib + olaparib, or olaparib monotherapy, is tolerable, and effective at prolonging progression-free survival compared with placebo.Trial DesignThis is a phase II, multicenter study where patients will be randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive either (Arm 1) ceralasertib + olaparib, (Arm 2) olaparib monotherapy, or (Arm 3) placebo. The olaparib and placebo arms will be double-blinded, whereas the ceralasertib + olaparib arm will be open label. Patients will be stratified according to BRCA status, and response to platinum-based chemotherapy.Major Inclusion/Exclusion CriteriaEligible patients will have histologically diagnosed high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer, with platinum-sensitive relapse on, or after, completion of at least 6 months of any prior PARP inhibitor maintenance therapy (a minimum of 12 months is required if the patient received PARP inhibitor maintenance following first-line chemotherapy). If the prior PARP inhibitor used was olaparib then patients must have received treatment without significant toxicity or the need for a permanent dose reduction. Disease relapse in the second-line or third-line setting is allowed. Patients who have received secondary debulking surgery are potentially eligible if they meet all other inclusion criteria.Primary EndpointsThe primary endpoint is progression-free survival determined by blinded independent central review according to RECIST 1.1, with sensitivity analysis of progression-free survival using investigator assessments according to RECIST 1.1.Sample Size192 patients.Estimated Dates for Completing Accrual and Presenting ResultsDecember 2022.Trial RegistrationNCT04239014.

Intraperitoneal paclitaxel and cisplatin compared with dose-dense paclitaxel and carboplatin for patients with stage III ovarian cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (7) ◽  
pp. 1566-1574 ◽  
Author(s):  
Madison Murphy ◽  
Grace Martin ◽  
Zahra Mahmoudjafari ◽  
Cory Bivona ◽  
Dennis Grauer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Stage Iii ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Intraperitoneal Therapy ◽  
Dose Dense

Introduction Patients diagnosed with stage III ovarian cancer are at high risk of recurrence and optimal adjuvant therapy is often debated. There is limited literature that directly compares intraperitoneal paclitaxel and cisplatin with dose-dense paclitaxel and carboplatin. Objectives The primary objective was to compare progression-free survival, overall survival, and tolerability of adjuvant intraperitoneal paclitaxel and cisplatin to dose-dense paclitaxel and carboplatin in stage III ovarian cancer patients. Methods A retrospective, IRB-approved, single center chart review was conducted reviewing adult patients with stage III ovarian cancer undergoing adjuvant intraperitoneal therapy or dose-dense therapy between 2010 and 2018. Results Eighty-two patients were included in the final analysis; 44 in the intraperitoneal group and 38 in the dose-dense group. Intraperitoneal therapy was not associated with a longer progression-free survival (35.4 vs. 31.1 months; P = 0.97). The duration of overall survival did not differ between intraperitoneal and dose-dense (56.3 vs. 54.5 months; P = 0.55). Dose reductions were less frequent with intraperitoneal than dose-dense (11.36% vs. 31.58%; P = 0.02). No difference in treatment delays (45.5% vs. 65.8%; P = 0.07), dose cancellations (59.1% vs. 57.9%; P = 0.91), supportive care additions (95.5% vs. 84.2%; P = 0.09), or therapy discontinuation (59.1% vs. 39.5%; P = 0.07) between groups was noted. Conclusions Intraperitoneal therapy with paclitaxel and cisplatin, as compared with dose-dense paclitaxel and carboplatin, did not prolong progression-free or overall survival in the adjuvant setting among stage III ovarian cancer patients. A trend towards decreased tolerability was noted with intraperitoneal therapy.

Real-world progression-free survival among patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer: Does maintenance therapy work?

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18707-e18707
Author(s):  
Jinan Liu ◽  
John Chan ◽  
Janvi Sah ◽  
Eric M. Maiese ◽  
Oscar Bee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Real World ◽  
Maintenance Treatment ◽  
Index Date ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Tumor Biomarker ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Debulking Surgery ◽  
Free Survival

e18707 Background: Options for first-line (1L) maintenance therapy in ovarian cancer (OC) have evolved in the US in recent years, particularly with FDA approvals of poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi). Olaparib was approved in 2018 for 1L maintenance treatment of patients (pts) with advanced OC with BRCA mutation and in 2020 as combination therapy with bevacizumab for 1L maintenance treatment of pts with homologous recombination deficient (HRd)–positive tumors. Additionally, the FDA approved niraparib in 2020 for maintenance treatment of pts with advanced OC regardless of tumor biomarker status. This study aimed to describe use and outcomes of 1L maintenance vs. active surveillance (AS) among PARPi-eligible pts with OC in a real-world setting prior to the most recent 2020 FDA approvals. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included pts with newly diagnosed stage III/IV OC who received 6–9 cycles of 1L platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) and either primary debulking surgery or interval debulking surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy between January 1, 2016, and February 29, 2020, regardless of biomarker status, from the Flatiron Health database, a longitudinal electronic health record-derived database consisting of de-identified patient-level data that are curated via technology-enabled abstraction. The end of the last cycle of 1L PBC was defined as the index date. Pts who started second-line (2L) treatment within 2 months of the index date were excluded. Primary endpoint was time to initiation of 2L systemic therapy (as a surrogate for progression) or death. Inverse probability of treatment weighting and Cox proportional hazard model were used to adjust for baseline differences among pts on maintenance therapy and pts on AS. Results: A total of 463 pts were included in the study, 87.7% from community practices and 12.3% from academic institutions. Of the pts included, 21.0% received maintenance therapy, while 79.0% did not. Of those who received maintenance therapy, 48.5% received bevacizumab, 40.2% received PARPi (olaparib, rucaparib), and 11.3% received paclitaxel. Median progression-free survival (PFS) for pts who received 1L maintenance therapy was 16.1 months, compared with 12.2 months in pts who did not receive 1L maintenance therapy. After adjusting for baseline differences in characteristics and demographics, including age, race, stage of cancer, and BRCA status, pts on maintenance therapy had a statistically significant, 29% lower risk of progression or death than those receiving AS (hazard ratio: 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52–0.99; P= 0.04). Conclusions: In this real-world analysis, the majority of pts did not receive maintenance therapy; however, a PFS benefit was found in those receiving maintenance therapy. Further studies are needed to understand how biomarker status drives practice patterns.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document