Updated progression-free survival and final overall survival with maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab according to clinical risk in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer in the phase III PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trial.

OBJECTIVE: In the PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trial (NCT02477644), adding maintenance olaparib to bevacizumab provided a substantial progression-free survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-positive tumors, irrespective of clinical risk. Subsequently, a clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival was reported with olaparib plus bevacizumab in the HRD-positive subgroup. We report updated progression-free survival and overall survival by clinical risk and HRD status. METHODS: Patients in clinical response after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab received maintenance olaparib (up to 24 months) plus bevacizumab (up to 15 months in total) or placebo plus bevacizumab. This post hoc analysis evaluated 5-year progression-free survival and mature overall survival in patients classified by clinical risk and HRD status. RESULTS: Of 806 randomized patients, 74% were higher-risk and 26% were lower-risk. In higher-risk HRD-positive patients, the hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival was 0.46 (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.34 to 0.61), with 5-year progression-free survival of 35% with olaparib plus bevacizumab versus 15% with bevacizumab alone; and the HR for overall survival was 0.70 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.00), with 5-year overall survival of 55% versus 42%, respectively. In lower-risk HRD-positive patients, the HR for progression-free survival was 0.26 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.45), with 5-year progression-free survival of 72% with olaparib plus bevacizumab versus 28% with bevacizumab alone; and the HR for overall survival was 0.31 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.66), with 5-year overall survival of 88% versus 61%, respectively. No benefit was seen in HRD-negative patients regardless of clinical risk. CONCLUSION: This post hoc analysis indicates that in patients with newly diagnosed advanced HRD-positive ovarian cancer, maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab should not be limited to those considered at higher risk of disease progression. Five-year progression-free survival rates support long-term remission and suggest an increased potential for cure with particular benefit suggested in lower-risk HRD-positive patients.

Abiraterone plus prednisone added to androgen deprivation therapy and docetaxel in de novo metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (PEACE-1): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 study with a 2 × 2 factorial design.

BACKGROUND: Current standard of care for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer supplements androgen deprivation therapy with either docetaxel, second-generation hormonal therapy, or radiotherapy. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of abiraterone plus prednisone, with or without radiotherapy, in addition to standard of care. METHODS: We conducted an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study with a 2 × 2 factorial design (PEACE-1) at 77 hospitals across Belgium, France, Ireland, Italy, Romania, Spain, and Switzerland. Eligible patients were male, aged 18 years or older, with histologically confirmed or cytologically confirmed de novo metastatic prostate adenocarcinoma, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 (or 2 due to bone pain). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to standard of care (androgen deprivation therapy alone or with intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m2 once every 3 weeks), standard of care plus radiotherapy, standard of care plus abiraterone (oral 1000 mg abiraterone once daily plus oral 5 mg prednisone twice daily), or standard of care plus radiotherapy plus abiraterone. Neither the investigators nor the patients were masked to treatment allocation. The coprimary endpoints were radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival. Abiraterone efficacy was first assessed in the overall population and then in the population who received androgen deprivation therapy with docetaxel as standard of care (population of interest). This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01957436. FINDINGS: Between Nov 27, 2013, and Dec 20, 2018, 1173 patients were enrolled (one patient subsequently withdrew consent for analysis of his data) and assigned to receive standard of care (n=296), standard of care plus radiotherapy (n=293), standard of care plus abiraterone (n=292), or standard of care plus radiotherapy plus abiraterone (n=291). Median follow-up was 3·5 years (IQR 2·8-4·6) for radiographic progression-free survival and 4·4 years (3·5-5·4) for overall survival. Adjusted Cox regression modelling revealed no interaction between abiraterone and radiotherapy, enabling the pooled analysis of abiraterone efficacy. In the overall population, patients assigned to receive abiraterone (n=583) had longer radiographic progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·54, 99·9% CI 0·41-0·71; p<0·0001) and overall survival (0·82, 95·1% CI 0·69-0·98; p=0·030) than patients who did not receive abiraterone (n=589). In the androgen deprivation therapy with docetaxel population (n=355 in both with abiraterone and without abiraterone groups), the HRs were consistent (radiographic progression-free survival 0·50, 99·9% CI 0·34-0·71; p<0·0001; overall survival 0·75, 95·1% CI 0·59-0·95; p=0·017). In the androgen deprivation therapy with docetaxel population, grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 217 (63%) of 347 patients who received abiraterone and 181 (52%) of 350 who did not; hypertension had the largest difference in occurrence (76 [22%] patients and 45 [13%], respectively). Addition of abiraterone to androgen deprivation therapy plus docetaxel did not increase the rates of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, fatigue, or neuropathy compared with androgen deprivation therapy plus docetaxel alone. INTERPRETATION: Combining androgen deprivation therapy, docetaxel, and abiraterone in de novo metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer improved overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival with a modest increase in toxicity, mostly hypertension. This triplet therapy could become a standard of care for these patients. FUNDING: Janssen-Cilag, Ipsen, Sanofi, and the French Government.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without nintedanib for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: Lessons from the GINECO double-blind randomized phase II CHIVA trial.

AIM: The oral anti-angiogenic therapy nintedanib prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) when combined with chemotherapy after primary surgery for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. The randomized phase II CHIVA trial evaluated the impact of combining nintedanib with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed unresectable FIGO stage IIIC-IV epithelial ovarian cancer received 3-4 cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel every 3 weeks as NACT before interval debulking surgery (IDS), followed by 2-3 post-operative cycles. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive either nintedanib 200 mg twice daily or placebo on days 2-21 every 3 weeks during NACT (omitting peri-operative cycles), and then as maintenance therapy for up to 2 years. The primary endpoint was PFS. RESULTS: Between January 2013 and May 2015, 188 patients were randomized (124 to nintedanib, 64 to placebo). PFS was significantly inferior with nintedanib (median 14.4 versus 16.8 months with placebo; hazard ratio 1.50, p = 0.02). Overall survival (OS) was also inferior (median 37.7 versus 44.1 months, respectively; hazard ratio 1.54, p = 0.054). Nintedanib was associated with increased toxicity (grade 3/4 adverse events: 92% versus 69%, predominantly hematologic and gastrointestinal), lower response rate by RECIST (35% versus 56% before IDS), and lower IDS feasibility (58% versus 77%) versus placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Adding nintedanib to chemotherapy and in maintenance as part of NACT for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer cannot be recommended as it increases toxicity and compromises chemotherapy efficacy (IDS, PFS, OS). CLINICALTRIALS: govregistration: NCT01583322.

A phase II study of Navitoclax (ABT-263) as single agent in women heavily pretreated for recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer: The MONAVI - GINECO study.

BACKGROUND: There are limited treatment options for ovarian cancer patients with early relapse after platinum chemotherapy. In preclinical studies, we previously demonstrated the promising activity of ABT-737, a Bcl-2/Bcl-xL anti-apoptotic protein inhibitor, in chemo-resistant ovarian cancer cells and tumors, suggesting its potential activity in platinum-resistant patients. METHODS: We conducted a prospective multicenter single-arm phase II study to assess the efficacy of Navitoclax (orally available ABT-737 analogue) monotherapy in 46 heavily pretreated (2-12 lines, median = 4) patients with high-grade serous platinum-resistant ovarian tumors. Navitoclax was administered at the daily dose of 150 mg during a lead-in period (7-14 days) and then increased to 250 mg daily in the absence of dose-limiting thrombocytopenia (

Long survival of patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Results of real life study of 344 patients.

The treatment landscape in metastatic renal cell carcinoma has changed fundamentally over the last decade by the development of antiangiogenic agents, mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors and immunotherapy. Outside of the context of a clinical trial, the treatments are used sequentially. We describe results under real-life conditions of a sequential treatment strategy, before the era of immunotherapy. All patients were treated according to their prognostic score (either Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center or International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium) for advanced renal cell carcinoma. A treatment strategy involving 1 to 4 lines was determined including a rechallenge criterion for the repeat use of a treatment class. Three hundred forty-four patients were included over 3 years. Overall survival was 57 months in patients with good or intermediate prognosis and 19 months in patients with poor prognosis. In the former group, the proportions of patients treated with 2 to 4 treatment lines were 70%, 38% and 16%, respectively. The best objective response rates for lines 1 to 4 were 46%, 36%, 16% and 17%, respectively. Grade III/IV toxicity did not appear to be cumulative. The recommended strategy was followed in 68% of patients. A large proportion of patients with good or intermediate prognosis who progress after two lines of treatment still have a performance status good enough to receive a systemic treatment, which justifies such a strategy. Overall survival of patients with good and intermediate prognosis was long, suggesting a benefit from the applied approach. These results might be used as selection criterion for the treatment of patients in the era of immune checkpoint inhibitors.

6 months versus 12 months of adjuvant trastuzumab in early breast cancer (PHARE): final analysis of a multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: In 2013, the interim analysis of the Protocol for Herceptin as Adjuvant therapy with Reduced Exposure (PHARE) trial could not show that 6 months of adjuvant trastuzumab was non-inferior to 12 months. Here, we report the planned final analysis based on the prespecified number of occurring events. METHODS: PHARE is an open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority randomised trial of patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer comparing 6 months versus 12 months of trastuzumab treatment concomitant with or following standard neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. The study was undertaken in 156 centres in France. Eligible patients were women aged 18 years or older with non-metastatic, operable, histologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the breast and either positive axillary nodes or negative axillary nodes but a tumour of at least 10 mm. Participants must have received at least four cycles of a chemotherapy for this breast cancer and have started receiving adjuvant trastuzumab-treatment. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to either 6 months or 12 months of trastuzumab therapy duration between the third and sixth months of adjuvant trastuzumab. The randomisation was stratified by concomitant or sequential treatment with chemotherapy, oestrogen receptor status, and centre. The primary objective was non-inferiority in the intention-to-treat population in the 6-month group in terms of disease-free survival with a prespecified hazard margin of 1·15. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00381901. FINDINGS: 3384 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to either 12 months (n=1691) or 6 months (n=1693) of adjuvant trastuzumab. One patient in the 12-month group and three patients in the 6-month group were excluded, so 1690 patients in each group were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At a median follow-up of 7·5 years (IQR 5·3-8·8), 704 events relevant to disease-free survival were observed (345 [20·4%] in the 12-month group and 359 [21·2%] in the 6-month group). The adjusted hazard ratio for disease-free survival in the 12-month group versus the 6-month group was 1·08 (95% CI 0·93-1·25; p=0·39). The non-inferiority margin was included in the 95% CI. No differences in effects pertaining to trastuzumab duration were found in any of the subgroups. After the completion of trastuzumab treatment, rare adverse events occurred over time and the safety analysis remained similar to the previously published report. In particular, we found no change in the cardiac safety comparison, and only three additional cases in which the left ventricular ejection fraction decreased to less than 50% have been reported in the 12-month group. INTERPRETATION: The PHARE study did not show the non-inferiority of 6 months versus 12 months of adjuvant trastuzumab. Hence, adjuvant trastuzumab standard duration should remain 12 months. FUNDING: The French National Cancer Institute.

Feasibility and efficacy of a supervised home-based physical exercise program for metastatic cancer patients receiving oral targeted therapy: study protocol for the phase II/III - UNICANCER SdS 01 QUALIOR trial.

BACKGROUND: Currently, oral targeted therapies are known to be effective and are frequently used to treat metastatic cancer patients, but fatigue is a frequently reported early side effect of these treatments. This fatigue may impact the patient's treatment adherence and result in a negative impact on quality of life. Physical exercise significantly improved the general well-being and quality of life of advanced cancer patients. However, there is no specific physical activity program adapted for patients with advanced disease. METHODS: QUALIOR is a two-part, randomized, open-label, and multicenter with two arms phase II/III trial. Patients (phase II: n = 120; phase III: n = 312) with metastatic cancer (breast cancer, kidney cancer, lung cancer, and other cancers [including but not limited to colon cancer, melanoma, sarcoma, or hepatocarcinoma]) treated with a first- or second-line oral targeted therapy without chemotherapy will be included. Patients will be randomized (2:1) to a 3-month supervised home-based standardized physical activity program or to a recommended adapted physical activity (via a booklet). The primary objective of the phase II is to evaluate the feasibility of the supervised program. The primary objective of the phase III is the evaluation of the benefit of the supervised home-based program compare to the recommended program in terms of fatigue and quality of life at 3 months. The secondary objectives aim to evaluate the impact of the supervised program on fatigue over time, pain, physical capacities, psychosocial and cognitive functions, general quality of life, frequency of dose reduction and patients' adherence to the targeted therapy, overall survival, and progression-free survival. This study will also evaluate the medico-economic impact of supervised program compared to the recommended adapted physical activity program. DISCUSSION: The aim of this study is to evaluate home-based physical exercise program for metastatic cancer patients treated with oral targeted therapies to help patients to cope with fatigue and improve quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov since May 2017 ( NCT03169075 ).

Non-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (NPLD, Myocet®) + carboplatin in patients with platinum sensitive ovarian cancers: A ARCAGY-GINECO phase IB-II trial.

BACKGROUND: Carboplatin and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin combination is a standard regimen in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer patients. The pegylated liposomal doxorubicin shortage from 2011 to 2013 urged assessment of the efficacy and tolerance of non-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in combination with carboplatin. METHODS: MYCA was a multicenter 2-step phase Ib-II single arm trial meant to assess the safety and efficacy of carboplatin AUC 5 mg/min.mL combined with non-pegylated liposomal (dose escalation from 40 to 50 mg/m2 during phase Ib step; and 50 mg/m2 during phase II step), every 4 weeks in patients with platinum-sensitive relapse. The primary objective was disease control rate (DCR) at 12 months. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2014, 87 patients were enrolled. They were treated as second (78%) or third line (22%) treatment. Total of 67 patients (78%) completed 6 cycles. G-CSF support was prescribed to 58% patients. The DCR at 12 months was 30.0% (95% CI, 20.3-39.7); the median PFS was 10.0 months (95% CI, 8.6-11.0). The median overall survival was 28.1 months (95% CI, 22.3-32.5); and the objective response rate was 58% (95% CI, 47-68). Grade 3-4 neutropenia, anemia and thrombocytopenia were observed in 17%, 13% and 1%, respectively; febrile neutropenia in 6%. One patient who did not receive GCSF support died from febrile neutropenia. CONCLUSION: Non-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin-carboplatin combination exhibits an acceptable safety profile, with GCSF prophylaxis. Acknowledging the lack of direct comparison, efficacy in terms of 12 month DCR was comparable with standard treatments.

6 months versus 12 months of adjuvant trastuzumab for patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer (PHARE): a randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Since 2005, 12 months of adjuvant trastuzumab has been the standard treatment for patients with HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer. However, the optimum duration of treatment has been debated. We did a non-inferiority trial of a shorter exposure of 6 months versus the standard 12 months of trastuzumab for patients with early breast cancer. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial in 156 centres in France. Patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer who had received at least four cycles of chemotherapy, had breast-axillary surgery, and had received up to 6 months of trastuzumab (administered by intravenous infusions over 30-90 min every 3 weeks; initial loading dose 8 mg/kg; 6 mg/kg thereafter) before randomisation were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned via central randomisation procedure with web-based software to continue trastuzumab for another 6 months (12 months total duration; control group) or to discontinue trastuzumab at 6 months (6 months total duration; experimental group). Randomisation was stratified by concomitant or sequential administration of trastuzumab with chemotherapy, oestrogen-receptor status, and centre using a minimisation algorithm. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival, with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1·15. Analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00381901. FINDINGS: 1691 patients were randomly assigned to receive 12 months of trastuzumab and 1693 to receive 6 months of trastuzumab; 1690 patients in each group were included in the intention-to-treat analyses. After a median follow-up of 42·5 months (IQR 30·1-51·6), 175 disease-free survival events were noted in the 12-month group and 219 in the 6-month group. 2-year disease-free survival was 93·8% (95% CI 92·6-94·9) in the 12-month group and 91·1% (89·7-92·4) in the 6-month group (hazard ratio 1·28, 95% CI 1·05-1·56; p=0·29). 119 (93%) of the 128 cardiac events (clinical or based on assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction) occurred while patients were receiving trastuzumab. Significantly more patients in the 12-month group experienced a cardiac event than did those in the 6-month group (96 [5·7%] of 1690 patients vs 32 [1·9%] of 1690 patients, p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: After 3·5 years follow-up, we failed to show that 6 months of treatment with trastuzumab was non-inferior to 12 months of trastuzumab. Despite the higher rates of cardiac events, 12 months of adjuvant trastuzmab should remain the standard of care. FUNDING: French National Cancer Institute.

Geriatric Assessment Implementation before Chemotherapy in MEtastatic Prostate Cancer, Results from the Real-Life Study GAMERS.

Geriatric assessment (GA) can predict and improve treatment tolerance and estimate overall survival in older patients with cancer. Several international organizations promote GA; however, data related to its implementation in daily clinical practice are still limited. We aimed to describe GA implementation in patients over 75 years old with metastatic prostate cancer treated with docetaxel as first-line treatment, and with positive G8 screening test or frailty criteria. This retrospective real-world study included 224 patients treated from 2014 to 2021 in four French centers, including 131 patients with a theoretical indication of GA. Among the latter, 51 (38.9%) patients had GA. The main barriers to GA were the lack of systematic screening (32/80, 40.0%), unavailability of geriatric physician (20/80, 25.0%), and absence of referral despite a positive screening test (12/80, 15.0%). With GA performed in only one-third of the patients with a theoretical indication in daily clinical practice, mostly due to an absence of screening test, the use of GA is currently sub-optimal.

Ribosome biogenesis-based predictive biomarkers in endocrine therapy (Anastrozole) combined with mTOR inhibitor (Vistusertib) in endometrial cancer: translational study from the VICTORIA trial in collaboration with the GINECO group.

Resistance of advanced hormone-dependent endometrial carcinoma to endocrine therapy remains a worldwide clinical issue. We recently reported that the combination of Vistusertib (V, mTOR inhibitor) and Anastrozole (A, aromatase inhibitor) improves the progression-free rate compared to Anastrozole alone. However, a better patient selection based on biomarkers would improve patient outcome. We evaluate for the first time the usage of ribosome biogenesis (RiBi) factors as a source of innovative markers. Using 47 FFPE tumours (A n = 18; V + A n = 29), 32 blood samples (A n = 13; V + A n = 19) and 30 samples of total RNAs (A n = 12; V + A n = 18) from the VICTORIA clinical trial, we observed an association between RiBi-associated markers and drug activity or prediction of treatment response. NOP10 and NHP2 mRNA levels were significantly higher in non-responders compared to responders in the Vistusertib + Anastrozole arm (P = 0.0194 and P = 0.0002 respectively; i.e. 8 weeks progression-free survival as endpoint). This study provides RiBi-based markers relevant for a better selection of patients with advanced endometrial carcinoma by predicting the response of endocrine therapy combined with mTOR inhibitor.

Validation of the geriatric vulnerability score in older patients with ovarian cancer: an analysis from the GCIG-ENGOT-GINECO EWOC-1 study.

BACKGROUND: Older patients with ovarian cancer represent a heterogeneous population. The French National Group of Investigators for the Study of Ovarian and Breast Cancer developed the geriatric vulnerability score (GVS) to identify geriatric parameters predictive of poor outcomes. A prospective validation of the GVS was needed. METHODS: The EWOC-1 study (NCT02001272) was an international, open-label, phase 2, three-arm trial designed according to a two-step process. Patients aged 70 years or older with newly diagnosed stage III or IV ovarian cancer were identified and the GVS determined. Those with a GVS of 3 or greater were randomly assigned to the EWOC-1 trial, stratified by country and surgical outcome, to receive three different carboplatin with or without paclitaxel regimens; those not included in the EWOC-1 trial were followed up in the EWOC-1 registry. External validation of the GVS was a secondary endpoint of the trial. Three validation cohorts were identified: the total population (validation cohort 1 [V1], n=447), the registry-only population (validation cohort 2 [V2], n=327), and the carboplatin-paclitaxel-treated population (validation cohort 3 [V3], n=320). FINDINGS: From Dec 11, 2013, to Nov 16, 2018, 447 patients were included in 48 academic centres in six countries; 120 in the EWOC-1 trial and 327 in the EWOC-1 registry. Median follow-up was 19·7 (95% CI 8·5-29·7) months for the total cohort; missing values were low (<2%). According to the maximum likelihood analysis, the hazard ratio (HR) of death in V1 was 1·8 (95% CI 1·1-3·1, p=0·029) for those with a GVS of 1; 2·4 (1·4-4·0, p=0·0009) with a GVS of 2; 4·1 (2·5-7·0, p<0·0001) for a GVS of 3; 5·5 (3·3-9·3, p<0·0001) for a GVS of 4; and 9·1 (4·7-17·5, p<0·0001) for a GVS of 5 compared with a score of 0. Whatever the validation cohort, GVS of 3 or more significantly segregated two groups with different overall survival: V1 (median 13·2 [95% CI: 10·8-18·7] vs 40·8 [32·0-45·6] months; HR 2·8 [95% CI 2·2-3·7]; p<0·0001); V2 (11·9 [95% CI 8·8-18·1] vs 40·8 [32·0-45·6] months, HR 3·5 [2·5-4·9]; p<0·0001); and V3 (18·1 [95% CI 15·8-31·8] vs 43·0 [40·6-49·7] months, HR 2·6 [1·9 to 3·7]; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: The GVS has high prognostic performance for overall survival in patients with advanced ovarian cancer, independently of geographic and historic effect (V1), as well as treatment patterns (V3), validated in an international population. Even though the GVS is time consuming it will allow the stratification of populations for clinical research and might permit the orientation of the geriatric intervention to specific domains. FUNDING: French National Cancer Institute. TRANSLATION: For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Quality-adjusted time without symptoms of disease or toxicity and quality-adjusted progression-free survival with niraparib maintenance in first-line ovarian cancer in the PRIMA trial.

Background: The PRIMA phase 3 trial showed niraparib significantly prolongs median progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo in patients with advanced ovarian cancer (OC) responsive to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, including those who had tumors with homologous recombination deficiency (HRd). This analysis of PRIMA examined the quality-adjusted PFS (QA-PFS) and quality-adjusted time without symptoms of disease or toxicity (Q-TWiST) of patients on maintenance niraparib versus placebo. Methods: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive once-daily maintenance niraparib (n = 487) or placebo (n = 246). QA-PFS was defined as the PFS of patients adjusted for their health-related quality of life (HRQoL) prior to disease progression, measured using European Quality of Life Five-Dimension (EQ-5D) questionnaire index scores from the PRIMA trial. Q-TWiST was calculated by combining data on PFS, duration of symptomatic grade ⩾2 adverse events (fatigue or asthenia, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and abdominal bloating) prior to disease progression, and EQ-5D index scores. Analyses used data collected up to the last date of PFS assessment (May 17, 2019). Results: The restricted mean QA-PFS was significantly longer with niraparib versus placebo in the HRd (n = 373) and overall intention-to-treat (ITT; n = 733) populations (mean gains of 6.5 [95% confidence interval; CI, 3.9-8.9] and 4.1 [95% CI, 2.2-5.8] months, respectively). There were also significant improvements in restricted mean Q-TWiST for niraparib versus placebo (mean gains of 5.9 [95% CI, 3.5-8.6] and 3.5 [95% CI, 1.7-5.6] months, respectively) in the HRd and ITT populations. Conclusions: In patients with advanced OC, first-line niraparib maintenance was associated with significant gains in QA-PFS and Q-TWiST versus placebo. These findings demonstrate that niraparib maintenance treatment is associated with a PFS improvement and that treatment benefit is maintained even when HRQoL and/or toxicity data are combined with PFS in a single measure. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02655016; trial registration date: January 13, 2016. Plain language summary: Background: In a large clinical trial called PRIMA, patients with advanced cancer of the ovary (ovarian cancer) were given either niraparib (a type of cancer medicine) or placebo (a pill containing no medicine/active substances) after having chemotherapy (another type of cancer medicine). Taking niraparib after chemotherapy is called maintenance therapy and aims to give patients more time before their cancer returns or gets worse than if they were not given any further treatment. In the PRIMA trial, patients who took niraparib did have more time before their cancer progressed than if they took placebo. However, it is important to consider patients' quality of life, which can be made worse by cancer symptoms and/or side effects of treatment. Here, we assessed the overall benefit of niraparib for patients in PRIMA.Methods: Both the length of time before disease progression (or survival time) and quality of life were considered using two different analyses:● The first analysis was called quality-adjusted PFS (QA-PFS) and looked at how long patients survived with good quality of life.● The second analysis was called quality-adjusted time without symptoms of disease or toxicity (Q-TWiST) and looked at how long patients survived without cancer symptoms or treatment side effects.Results: The PRIMA trial included 733 patients; 487 took niraparib and 246 took placebo. Around half of the patients in both groups had a type of ovarian cancer that responds particularly well to drugs like niraparib - they are known as homologous recombination deficiency (HRd) patients.● When information on quality of life (collected from patient questionnaires) and survival was combined in the QA-PFS analysis, HRd patients who took niraparib had approximately 6.5 months longer with a good quality of life before disease progression than those who took placebo. In the overall group of patients (including HRd patients and non-HRd patients), those who took niraparib had approximately 4 months longer than with placebo.● Using the second analysis (Q-TWiST) to combine information on survival with cancer symptoms and treatment side effects, the HRd patients taking niraparib had approximately 6 months longer without cancer symptoms or treatment side effects (such as nausea or vomiting) than patients taking placebo. In the overall group of patients, those taking niraparib had approximately 3.5 months longer without these cancer symptoms/side effects than patients receiving placebo.Conclusions: These results show that the survival benefits of niraparib treatment remain when accounting for patients' quality of life. These benefits were seen not only in HRd patients who are known to respond better to niraparib, but in the overall group of patients who took niraparib.

Treatment and outcomes of older versus younger women with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in the real-world national ESME database.

BACKGROUND: Treatment and outcomes of patients with HER2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) have dramatically improved over the past 20 years. This work evaluated treatment patterns and outcomes according to age. METHODS: Women who initiated a treatment for HER2+ MBC between 2008 and 2016 in one of the 18 French comprehensive centers part of the ESME program were included. Objectives were the description of first-line treatment patterns, overall survival (OS), first-line progression-free survival (PFS), and prognostic factors among patients aged 70 years or more (70+), or less than 70 (<70). RESULTS: Of 4045 women diagnosed with an HER2+ MBC, 814 (20%) were 70+. Standard first-line treatment (chemotherapy combined with an anti-HER2 therapy) was prescribed in 65% of 70+ versus 89% of <70 patients (p < 0.01). Median OS was 49.2 (95% CI, 47.1-52.4), 35.3 (95% CI, 31.5-37.0) and 54.2 months (95% CI, 50.8-55.7) in the whole population, in patients 70+ and <70, respectively. Corresponding median PFS1 were 12.8 (95% CI, 12.3-13.3), 11.1 (95% CI, 10.0-12.3) and 13.2 months (95% CI, 12.7-13.9), respectively. In 70+ women, initiation of non-standard first-line treatment had an independent detrimental time-varying effect on both OS and PFS (HR on OS at 1 year: chemotherapy without anti-HER2 2.79 [95% CI: 2.05-3.79]; endocrine therapy and/or anti-HER2 1.96 [95% CI: 1.43-2.69]). CONCLUSIONS: In this large retrospective real-life database, older women with HER2+ MBC received standard first-line treatment less frequently than younger ones. This was independently associated with a worse outcome, but confounding factors and usual selection biases cannot be ruled out.

Chemotherapy for Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer: Impact of Cisplatin Delivery on Renal Function and Local Control Rate in the Randomized Phase III VESPER (GETUG-AFU V05) Trial.

BACKGROUND: Cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy before surgery is the standard of care for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. However, the optimal chemotherapy modalities have not been precisely defined to date. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the VESPER trial, patients received after randomization either gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC, 4 cycles) or methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin and cisplatin (dose dense [dd]-MVAC, 6 cycles). Creatinine clearance (CrCl) was calculated before each cycle according to the Cockroft and Gault formula. Definition criteria for local control after neoadjuvant chemotherapy included pathological complete response (ypT0N0), pathological downstaging (

Analysis of the StoRM cohort reveals physical activity to be associated with survival in metastatic breast cancer.

Benefits of physical activity are widely demonstrated for early stage cancers but few studies have focused on metastatic disease. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of physical activity on survival in patients with metastatic breast cancer. We conducted a secondary analysis of the national, multicentric, non-randomized, prospective cohort SNPs to Risk of Metastasis (StoRM) study. The level of physical activity was self-reported at inclusion and divided into three categories of physical activity: light level, moderate level, and vigorous level. Overall, 833 patients (56.2%) completed the physical activity questionnaire at baseline on average physical activity during the previous year: 11.6% had a light level of physical activity, 69.0% achieved moderate levels of physical activity and 19.3% reported vigorous levels of physical activity. After adjustment for confounding, physical activity was not statistically significantly associated with overall survival in the whole population. Subgroup analysis identified that both vigorous and moderate physical activity were associated with statistically significantly improved overall survival compared to light physical activity level only in the HER2 positive subgroup (HR 0.23; 95% CI 0.07-0.70, p = 0.01 and HR 0.38; 95% CI 0.15-0.96, p = 0.04). Physical activity done during the previous year was associated with survival in HER2 positive metastatic breast cancer patients. These results suggest that overall survival in metastatic breast cancer patients could be improved through physical activity which should be considered as a complementary intervention for these individuals. The study showed that moderate/vigorous levels of physical activity were associated with better overall survival, and that these associations remained statistically significant in multivariate analysis in the HER2 positive subgroup. These results have clinical relevance and justify the recommendations for physical activity interventions in metastatic breast cancer.

CA-125 ELIMination Rate Constant K (KELIM) Is a Marker of Chemosensitivity in Patients with Ovarian Cancer: Results from the Phase II CHIVA Trial.

PURPOSE: In patients with ovarian cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the first-line treatment success will depend on both the tumor-primary chemosensitivity and the completeness of interval debulking surgery (IDS). The modeled CA-125 ELIMination rate constant K (KELIM), calculated with the CA-125 longitudinal kinetics during the first 100 chemotherapy days, is a validated early marker of tumor chemosensitivity. The objective was to investigate the role of the chemosensitivity relative to the success of first-line medical-surgical treatment. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The CA-125 concentrations were prospectively measured in the randomized phase II trial CHIVA (NCT01583322, carboplatin-paclitaxel regimen ± nintedanib, and IDS, n = 188 patients). The KELIM predictive value regarding the tumor response rate, likelihood of complete IDS, risk of subsequent platinum-resistant relapse (PtRR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) was assessed using univariate and multivariate tests. RESULTS: The data from 134 patients were analyzed. KELIM was an independent and major predictor of subsequent PtRR risk, and of survivals. The final logistic regression model, including KELIM [OR = 0.13; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.03-0.49] and complete IDS (no vs. yes, OR = 0.30; 95% CI, 0.11-0.76) highlights the preponderant role of chemosensitivity on the success of the first-line treatment. In patients with highly chemosensitive diseases, the patient prognosis was driven more by the chemotherapy-induced antitumor effects than by the surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The tumor-primary chemosensitivity, assessed by the modeled CA-125 KELIM calculated during neoadjuvant chemotherapy (http://www.biomarker-kinetics.org/CA-125-neo), may be a major parameter to consider for decision-making regarding IDS attempt, and selecting patients for treatments meant to reverse the primary chemoresistance.See related commentary by May and Oza, p. 4432.

Sunitinib Prior to Planned Nephrectomy in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Angiogenesis Biomarkers Predict Clinical Outcome in the Prospective Phase II PREINSUT Trial.

Purpose: The PREINSUT study characterized factors predictive of response to sunitinib given before planned nephrectomy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).Patients and Methods: This French multicenter, prospective, open-label, phase II trial (NCT00930345) included treatment-naïve patients with clear-cell mRCC. Patients received two cycles of sunitinib before nephrectomy. The primary objective was to evaluate the potential of circulating angiogenesis-related biomarkers measured before and on treatment for identifying responders based on primary renal tumor (PRT) size change. Secondary objectives were to evaluate the ability of biomarkers to predict progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).Results: Thirty-two patients were enrolled. The median PFS was 4.5 months, and the median OS was 12.4 months. OS was significantly longer in responding patients (28.8 vs. 11.1 months; P = 0.03). Of 27 patients evaluable for PRT response, nine (33.3%) had a ≥10% decrease in PRT size. Baseline biomarkers significantly associated with outcome were endothelial progenitor cells (PRT response); vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-A, stromal cell-derived factor-1 (SDF-1), soluble VEGF receptors (sVEGFR)1 and 2 (PFS); and SDF-1 and sVEGFR1 (OS). During treatment, changes in biomarkers associated with outcome were SDF-1 and platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF)-BB (PRT response), sVEGFR2 (PFS), and SDF-1 and sVEGFR1 (OS). There was no correlation between plasma sunitinib or its active metabolite steady-state trough concentrations and clinical outcome.Conclusions: Angiogenesis-related parameters that could reflect hypoxia seem to be associated with worse outcome in mRCC. As blood biomarkers are not subjected to tumor heterogeneity and allow longitudinal follow-up, circulating angiogenesis profile has a promising place in antiangiogenic therapy guidance. Clin Cancer Res; 24(22); 5534-42. ©2018 AACR.

Hormonoresistance in advanced breast cancer: a new revolution in endocrine therapy.

Endocrine therapy is the mainstay of treatment of estrogen-receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer with an overall survival benefit. However, some adaptive mechanisms in the tumor emerge leading to the development of a resistance to this therapy. A better characterization of this process is needed to overcome this resistance and to develop new tailored therapies. Mechanisms of resistance to hormone therapy result in activation of transduction signal pathways, including the cell cycle regulation with cyclin D/CDK4/6/Rb pathway. The strategy of combined hormone therapy with targeted agents has shown an improvement of progression-free survival (PFS) in several phase II or III trials, including three different classes of drugs: mTOR inhibitors, PI3K and CDK4/6 inhibitors. A recent phase III trial has shown that fulvestrant combined with a CDK 4/6 inhibitor doubles PFS in aromatase inhibitor-pretreated postmenopausal ER+ breast cancer. Other combinations are ongoing to disrupt the interaction between PI3K/AKT/mTOR and cyclin D/CDK4/6/Rb pathways. Despite these successful strategies, reliable and reproducible biomarkers are needed. Tumor genomics are dynamic over time, and blood-based biomarkers such as circulating tumor DNA represent a major hope to elucidate the adaptive mechanisms of endocrine resistance. The optimal combinations and biomarkers to guide this strategy need to be determined.

Clinical activity of sunitinib rechallenge in metastatic renal cell carcinoma-Results of the REchallenge with SUnitinib in MEtastatic RCC (RESUME) Study.

AIM: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of sunitinib rechallenge in the third-line or later setting in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This observational study comprised 61 mRCC patients at 19 centres in France who received sunitinib rechallenge between January 2006 and May 2013. Patients received first-line sunitinib, ≥1 different targeted therapies, and then sunitinib rechallenge. Patient/disease characteristics, tolerability, treatment modalities, and outcomes of therapeutic lines were recorded. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS) in sunitinib rechallenge. RESULTS: Analyses included 52 patients; median age was 59 years, 75% were male, and 98% had clear-cell mRCC and prior nephrectomy. At sunitinib rechallenge versus first-line, patients had poorer performance (Karnofsky performance status 90-100: 30% versus 81%) and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre prognostic risk (poor risk: 18% versus 3%). Overall, 20%, 65%, 12%, and 4% received sunitinib rechallenge as third-, fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-line therapy, respectively, at 14.6 months (median) after stopping initial treatment. With first-line sunitinib and rechallenge, median PFS was 18.4 and 7.9 months, respectively; objective response rate was 54% and 15%. Two of eight rechallenge responders had not achieved first-line response. Median overall survival was 55.9 months. The sunitinib rechallenge safety profile was as expected, with no new adverse events reported. CONCLUSIONS: Sunitinib rechallenge is a feasible treatment option with potential clinical benefit for mRCC patients. Disease progression with first-line sunitinib may not be associated with complete or irreversible resistance to therapy.