scholarly journals Mortality and glycemic control among patients with diabetes mellitus and uterine or ovarian cancer

2020 ◽  
pp. FSO670
Author(s):  
Yael N Kusne ◽  
Heidi E Kosiorek ◽  
Matthew R Buras ◽  
Kyle E Coppola ◽  
Patricia M Verona ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Endometrial Cancer ◽  
Glycemic Control ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Patients With Diabetes

Aim: To evaluate associations between survival and glycemic control in age-matched patients with endometrial or ovarian cancer, with/without diabetes mellitus (DM). Patients & methods: Patients with newly diagnosed ovarian or endometrial cancer with and without DM were compared. Results: The study included 84 patients with ovarian cancer (28, DM); 96 with endometrial cancer (48 with, 48 without DM). DM patients did not have worse overall or progression-free survival than non-DM patients. Glycemic control was not associated with either cancer. Conclusion: There was no association between DM and survival for patients with uterine or ovarian cancer. In addition, there was no association between uterine and ovarian cancer and glycemic control. Additional studies to confirm these observations in larger populations are required.

Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors as maintenance treatment in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
pp. 585-596 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ezzeldin M Ibrahim ◽  
Ahmed A Refae ◽  
Ali M Bayer ◽  
Emad R Sagr
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Brca Mutation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Advanced Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Recurrent Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Polymerase Inhibitors

Aim: Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPIs) improved progression-free survival among patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. This meta-analysis examined the effectiveness of PARPIs as maintenance strategy for newly diagnosed patients with advanced high-grade ovarian cancer with or without mutations. Materials & methods: Using defined selection criteria, a literature search identified four eligible randomized clinical trials involving 2386 patients. Results: Compared with placebo maintenance, PARPIs achieved a 46% reduction in the risk of progression or death as compared with placebo (hazard ratio: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.39–0.73; p < 0.0001). That benefit was shown in all clinical subgroups: among those with BRCA mutation, with negative/unknown BRCA mutation, and in those with homologous recombination deficient tumors. Data about the effect on overall survival are still premature. Conclusion: In patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer, PARPIs maintenance after standard therapy achieved a significant improvement in progression-free survival as compared with placebo, overall and in all subgroups.

scholarly journals Atezolizumab, Bevacizumab, and Chemotherapy for Newly Diagnosed Stage III or IV Ovarian Cancer: Placebo-Controlled Randomized Phase III Trial (IMagyn050/GOG 3015/ENGOT-OV39)

2021 ◽  
pp. JCO.21.00306
Author(s):  
Kathleen N. Moore ◽  
Michael Bookman ◽  
Jalid Sehouli ◽  
Austin Miller ◽  
Charles Anderson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Figo Stage ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Stage Iii ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
To Receive

PURPOSE To evaluate the addition of the humanized monoclonal antiprogrammed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) antibody, atezolizumab, to platinum-based chemotherapy and bevacizumab in newly diagnosed stage III or IV ovarian cancer (OC). METHODS This multicenter placebo-controlled double-blind randomized phase III trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03038100 ) enrolled patients with newly diagnosed untreated International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III or IV OC who either had undergone primary cytoreductive surgery with macroscopic residual disease or were planned to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval surgery. Patients were stratified by FIGO stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, tumor immune cell PD-L1 staining, and treatment strategy and randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 3-weekly cycles of atezolizumab 1,200 mg or placebo (day 1, cycles 1-22), with paclitaxel plus carboplatin (day 1, cycles 1-6) plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg (day 1, cycles 2-22), omitting perioperative bevacizumab in neoadjuvant patients. The co-primary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival in the intention-to-treat and PD-L1–positive populations. RESULTS Between March 8, 2017, and March 26, 2019, 1,301 patients were enrolled. The median progression-free survival was 19.5 versus 18.4 months with atezolizumab versus placebo, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.07; stratified log-rank P = .28), in the intention-to-treat population and 20.8 versus 18.5 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.99; P = .038), in the PD-L1–positive population. The interim (immature) overall survival results showed no significant benefit from atezolizumab. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (21% with atezolizumab v 21% with placebo), hypertension (18% v 20%, respectively), and anemia (12% v 12%). CONCLUSION Current evidence does not support the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in newly diagnosed OC. Insight from this trial should inform further evaluation of immunotherapy in OC.

Niraparib maintenance in frontline management of ovarian cancer: a cost effectiveness analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (10) ◽  
pp. 1569-1575
Author(s):  
David A Barrington ◽  
Crystal Tubbs ◽  
Haller J Smith ◽  
J Michael Straughn, Jr ◽  
Leigha Senter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Homologous Recombination ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Homologous Recombination Deficiency ◽  
The Cost

ObjectivesNiraparib maintenance after frontline chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer extends progression free survival. The objective of this study was to determine the cost effectiveness of niraparib maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer.MethodsDecision analysis models compared the cost of observation versus niraparib maintenance following chemotherapy for five groups: all newly diagnosed ovarian cancer patients (overall), those with homologous recombination deficiency, those harboring BRCA mutations (BRCA), homologous recombination deficiency patients without BRCA mutations (homologous recombination deficiency non-BRCA), and non-homologous recombination deficiency patients. Drug costs were estimated using average wholesale prices. Progression free survival was estimated from published data and used to estimate projected overall survival. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios per quality adjusted life year were calculated. Sensitivity analyses varying the cost of niraparib were performed. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set at US$100 000 per quality adjusted life year saved.ResultsFor the overall group, the cost of observation was US$5.8 billion versus $20.5 billion for niraparib maintenance, with an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of $72 829. For the homologous recombination deficiency group, the observation cost was $3.0 billion versus $14.8 billion for niraparib maintenance (incremental cost effectiveness ratio $56 329). Incremental cost effectiveness ratios for the BRCA, homologous recombination deficiency non-BRCA, and non-homologous recombination deficiency groups were $58 348, $50 914, and $88 741, respectively. For the overall and homologous recombination deficiency groups, niraparib remained cost effective if projected overall survival was 2.2 and 1.5 times progression free survival, respectively.ConclusionsFor patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, maintenance therapy with niraparib was cost effective. Cost effectiveness was improved when analyzing those patients with homologous recombination deficiency and BRCA mutations. Efforts should continue to optimize poly-ADP-ribose polymerase utilization strategies.

scholarly journals ATHENA (GOG-3020/ENGOT-ov45): a randomized, phase III trial to evaluate rucaparib as monotherapy (ATHENA–MONO) and rucaparib in combination with nivolumab (ATHENA–COMBO) as maintenance treatment following frontline platinum-based chemotherapy in ovarian cancer

2021 ◽  
pp. ijgc-2021-002933
Author(s):  
Bradley J Monk ◽  
Robert L Coleman ◽  
Keiichi Fujiwara ◽  
Michelle K Wilson ◽  
Amit M Oza ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Maintenance Treatment ◽  
Standard Treatment ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Parp Inhibitors ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Platinum Based Chemotherapy

BackgroundThe optimal treatment strategy for women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer has yet to be determined. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have demonstrated substantial improvement in progression-free survival as monotherapy maintenance treatment in the frontline setting versus active surveillance. Furthermore, preclinical and early clinical studies have shown that PARP inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors have synergistic antitumor activity and may provide an additional therapeutic option for patients in this population.Primary ObjectivesIn women with newly diagnosed ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer, we wish to assess the efficacy of frontline maintenance treatment with the PARP inhibitor rucaparib versus placebo following response to platinum-based chemotherapy (ATHENA–MONO), and to assess the combination of rucaparib plus nivolumab (a programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1)–blocking monoclonal antibody) versus rucaparib alone (ATHENA–COMBO).Study Hypothesis(1) Maintenance therapy with rucaparib monotherapy may extend progression-free survival following standard treatment for ovarian cancer in the frontline setting. (2) The combination of nivolumab plus rucaparib may extend progression-free survival following standard treatment for ovarian cancer in the frontline setting compared with rucaparib alone.Trial DesignATHENA is an international, randomized, double-blind, phase III trial consisting of two independent comparisons (ATHENA–MONO and ATHENA–COMBO) in patients with newly diagnosed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Patients are randomized 4:4:1:1 to the following: oral rucaparib+ intravenous nivolumab (arm A); oral rucaparib + intravenous placebo (arm B); oral placebo+ intravenous nivolumab (arm C); and oral placebo + intravenous placebo (arm D). The starting dose of rucaparib is 600 mg orally twice a day and nivolumab 480 mg intravenously every 4 weeks. ATHENA–MONO compares arm B with arm D to evaluate rucaparib monotherapy versus placebo, and ATHENA–COMBO evaluates arm A versus arm B to investigate the effects of rucaparib and nivolumab in combination versus rucaparib monotherapy. ATHENA–MONO and ATHENA–COMBO share a common treatment arm (arm B) but each comparison is independently powered.Major Inclusion/Exclusion CriteriaPatients ≥18 years of age with newly diagnosed advanced, high-grade epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer who have achieved a response after completion of cytoreductive surgery and initial platinum-based chemotherapy are enrolled. No other prior treatment for ovarian cancer, other than the frontline platinum regimen, is permitted.Primary EndpointThe primary endpoint is investigator-assessed progression-free survival by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1.Sample SizeApproximately 1000 patients have been enrolled and randomized.Estimated Dates for Completing Accrual and Presenting ResultsThe trial completed accrual in 2020. While dependent on event rates, primary results of ATHENA–MONO are anticipated in early 2022 and results of ATHENA–COMBO are anticipated to mature at a later date.Trial RegistrationThis trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03522246).

scholarly journals Survival and glycemic control in patients with coexisting lymphoma and diabetes: a case–control analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. FSO641
Author(s):  
Bria J Rice ◽  
Matthew R Buras ◽  
Heidi E Kosiorek ◽  
Kyle E Coppola ◽  
Shailja B Amin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Glycemic Control ◽  
Mixed Models ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Control Analysis ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Glucose Levels ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Patients With Diabetes ◽  
After Cancer ◽  
Case Control Analysis

Aim: We examined the effect of diabetes on survival in patients with lymphoma and the effect of lymphoma on glycemic control. Patients & methods: Patients with lymphoma with and without diabetes (2005–2016) were retrospectively identified and matched 1:1. Overall survival and progression-free survival were estimated by the Kaplan–Meier method. Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and glucose levels during the year after cancer diagnosis were compared by mixed models. Results: For patients with diabetes, mean HbA1c during the year after lymphoma diagnosis was 6.7%. Estimated 5-year progression-free survival for patients with versus without diabetes was 63% (95% CI: 53–76%) versus 58% (95% CI: 46–71%) (p = 0.42). Conclusion: Lymphoma and its treatment did not affect glycemic control. Diabetes did not decrease lymphoma-specific survival.

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.

scholarly journals Estimating long-term overall survival with olaparib as maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer with BRCA mutations

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 97-105
Author(s):  
N. A. Avxentyev ◽  
S. V. Khokhlova ◽  
M. Yu. Frolov ◽  
A. S. Makarov
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Advanced Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
First Line ◽  
Brca Mutations ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Platinum Sensitive ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

Background. According to randomized clinical trial SOLO1 olaparib statistically significantly improves progression-free survival versus placebo as a maintenance monotherapy in patients aged 18 and over with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer with BRCA mutations, who had response to first-line chemotherapy. As the data on overall survival (OS) in this trial remains interim it is still uncertain whether treatment with olaparib can provide any benefits in terms of OS.Objective: to evaluate a long-term OS for olaparib versus placebo as a maintenance monotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer with BRCA mutations, who had response to first-line chemotherapy.Materials and methods. A 10-year mathematic model of disease progression and survival on olaparib versus placebo was developed. Modelling was based on data on progression-free survival from SOLO1 trial and data on OS after platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant relapses from OCEANS and AURELIA trials. Additionally, patients who haven’t been treated with olaparib after first-line therapy in base-case scenario were assumed to get olaparib as a second-line treatment after platinum-sensitive relapse; mortality modelling for these patients was based on data from SOLO2 trial.Results. Median OS for olaparib was 107 months versus 66 months for placebo. 46 % of patients treated with olaparib were alive by the end of 10-year modelling period, but only 28 % patients from the placebo group. Hazard ratio of death for olaparib versus placebo was 0.64 (95 % confidence interval 0.49–0.84). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed robustness of these results.Conclusion. Using olaparib as a maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer with BRCA mutations, who had response on first line chemotherapy, statistically significantly reduces risk of death by 36 %, compared to placebo.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document