Overall survival and updated progression-free survival outcomes in a randomized phase II study of combination cediranib and olaparib versus olaparib in relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Olaparib is a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor and cediranib is an oral anti-angiogenic. In the primary analysis of this phase II study, combination cediranib/olaparib improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with olaparib alone in relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. This updated analysis was conducted to characterize overall survival (OS) and update PFS outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety patients were enrolled to this randomized, open-label, phase II study between October 2011 and June 2013 across nine United States-based academic centers. Data cut-off was 21 December 2016, with a median follow-up of 46 months. Participants had relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer of high-grade serous or endometrioid histology or had a deleterious germline BRCA1/2 mutation (gBRCAm). Participants were randomized to receive olaparib capsules 400 mg twice daily or cediranib 30 mg daily and olaparib capsules 200 mg twice daily until disease progression. RESULTS: In this updated analysis, median PFS remained significantly longer with cediranib/olaparib compared with olaparib alone (16.5 versus 8.2 months, hazard ratio 0.50; P = 0.007). Subset analyses within stratum defined by BRCA status demonstrated statistically significant improvement in PFS (23.7 versus 5.7 months, P = 0.002) and OS (37.8 versus 23.0 months, P = 0.047) in gBRCA wild-type/unknown patients, although OS was not statistically different in the overall study population (44.2 versus 33.3 months, hazard ratio 0.64; P = 0.11). PFS and OS appeared similar between the two arms in gBRCAm patients. The most common CTCAE grade 3/4 adverse events with cediranib/olaparib remained fatigue, diarrhea, and hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: Combination cediranib/olaparib significantly extends PFS compared with olaparib alone in relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Subset analyses suggest this margin of benefit is driven by PFS prolongation in patients without gBRCAm. OS was also significantly increased by the cediranib/olaparib combination in this subset of patients. Additional studies of this combination are ongoing and should incorporate analyses based upon BRCA status. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT0111648.

Palliative care education in gynecologic oncology: a survey of the fellows.

INTRODUCTION: Gynecologic oncologists regularly care for patients at the end of life, yet little is known about their training or preparedness to deal with issues of palliative care. We sought to examine the training provided to gynecologic oncology fellows as well as their perceived preparedness to provide palliative care. METHODS: A self-administered survey was distributed to all fellows enrolled in all gynecologic oncology fellowships during the 2009 academic year. The instrument assessed attitudes, training, experience, and preparedness regarding caring for patients at the end of life. Descriptive, bivariate and multivariable analyses were performed. RESULTS: Sixty-one percent (103/168) of fellows completed the survey. Most (89%) feel that palliative care is integral to their training, but few (11%) have had any palliative care training, including either a rotation or fellowship. Using a scale of 1-10, fellows rated teaching quality on two common training opportunities, specifically managing postoperative complications (7.8) and endometrial cancer patients (8.7), as significantly higher than teaching on managing patients at the end of life (5.5; p<0.001). Fellows rated the quality of end of life teaching as significantly lower than overall teaching (55% vs. 92%; p=0.001). Their self-assessment regarding overall preparedness to deal with end of life issues was associated with higher end of life teaching quality and experience caring for more than 10 dying patients. CONCLUSIONS: The quantity and quality of training in palliative care are lower compared to other common procedural and oncological issues. Gynecologic oncology fellowship programs need to incorporate a palliative care training curriculum.

The preparedness of students to discuss end-of-life issues with patients.

PURPOSE: To explore how well medical schools prepare students to address end-of-life issues with their patients. METHOD: In 1997, the authors surveyed 226 fourth-year students at Georgetown University School of Medicine and Mayo Medical School, assessing relevant knowledge, experiences, and attitudes, and the students' sense of preparedness to address end-of-life issues. RESULTS: Seventy-two percent (162) of the eligible students responded. Almost all (99%) recognized the importance of advance directives and anticipated discussing end-of-life issues with patients in their practices (84%). However, only 41% thought their education regarding end-of-life issues had been adequate, only 27% had ever discussed end-of-life issues with a patient themselves, and only 35% thought they had had adequate exposure and education regarding advance directives. Eighty percent favored more education about end-of-life issues. Educational exposure to end-of-life issues and to role models, ability to correctly define an advance directive, number of end-of-life discussions witnessed, and age all were associated the students' sense of preparedness to discuss advance directives with patients. CONCLUSION: Most of the students felt unprepared to discuss end-of-life issues with their patients, but wanted to learn more. The factors associated with a sense of preparedness suggest several possible, easily made, educational interventions, but further research is required to understand the scope of the problem and to implement curricular modifications.