Role of PARP inhibitors beyond BRCA mutation and platinum sensitivity in epithelial ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis of hazard ratios from randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: PARP inhibitors (PARPi) have a well-established role in platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer (PSOC), in BRCA mutant (BRCAm), and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) population. However, their role in wild type and homologous recombination proficient population is still not clear. METHODS: A meta-analysis of hazard ratios (HR) of randomized control trials (RCTs) was conducted to study the role of PARPi. The published RCTs comparing the efficacy of PARP inhibitors alone or in combination with chemotherapy and/or target therapies versus placebo/chemotherapy alone/target therapy alone in primary or recurrent ovarian cancer settings were selected. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were the primary endpoints. RESULTS: A total of 14 primary studies and 5 updated studies are considered, consisting of 5363 patients. Overall, HR for PFS was 0.50 [95% CI 0.40-0.62]. HR of PFS was 0.94 [95% CI 0.76-1.15] in the PROC group, 0.41 [95% CI 0.29-0.60] was in HRD with BRCA unknown (BRCAuk), 0.38 [95% CI 0.26-0.57] in HRD with BRCAm, and 0.52 [95% CI 0.38-0.71] in HRD with BRCAwt. In the HRP group, overall HR for PFS was 0.67 [95% CI 0.56-0.80], 0.61 [95% CI 0.38-0.99] in HRD unknown with BRCA wt, and 0.40 [95% CI 0.29-0.55] in BRCAm HR for PFS. Overall, HR for OS was 0.86 [95% CI 0.73-1.031]. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that PARPi have a meaningful clinical benefit in PSOC, HRD, BRACm, and also in HRP and PROC; however, the evidence is not sufficient to recommend their routine use and further studies are needed to expand their role in the HRP and PROC groups.

Lymphadenectomy in ovarian cancers: a meta-analysis of hazard ratios from randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: The debate surrounding systematic lymphadenectomy in the epithelial cancers of the ovary (EOC) was temporarily put to rest by the LION trial. However, there was a glaring disparity between the number of patients registered and the number of patients randomized suggesting inadvertent selection. A subsequent meta-analysis after this trial included all types of studies in the literature (randomized, non-randomized, case series, and, retrospective cohort), thus diluting the results. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis of hazard ratios of randomized controlled trials, to study the role of systematic para-aortic and pelvic lymph node dissection in the EOC. A detailed search of MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Embase databases was done to look for the published randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing lymphadenectomy versus no lymphadenectomy in EOC. A meta-analysis of hazard ratios (HR) was performed for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) using fixed and random effect models. The quality of the RCTs was evaluated on Jadad's score, and the risk of bias was estimated by the Cochrane tool. RESULTS: A total of 1342 patients with EOC were included for quantitative analysis. On meta-analysis, HR for PFS was 0.9 (95% CI 0.79-1.04) favoring lymphadenectomy. HR for OS was 1 (95% CI 0.84-1.18) signifying no benefit of systematic lymphadenectomy. CONCLUSION: The results show a trend towards increased PFS which did not reach statistical significance nor translate into any meaningful benefit in OS. There is still a need for a greater number of well-conducted, suitably powered trials to convincingly answer this question.