Niraparib in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Advanced Ovarian Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Niraparib, an inhibitor of poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase (PARP), has been associated with significantly increased progression-free survival among patients with recurrent ovarian cancer after platinum-based chemotherapy, regardless of the presence or absence of BRCA mutations. The efficacy of niraparib in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer after a response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy is unknown. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer in a 2:1 ratio to receive niraparib or placebo once daily after a response to platinum-based chemotherapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival in patients who had tumors with homologous-recombination deficiency and in those in the overall population, as determined on hierarchical testing. A prespecified interim analysis for overall survival was conducted at the time of the primary analysis of progression-free survival. RESULTS: Of the 733 patients who underwent randomization, 373 (50.9%) had tumors with homologous-recombination deficiency. Among the patients in this category, the median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the niraparib group than in the placebo group (21.9 months vs. 10.4 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31 to 0.59; P<0.001). In the overall population, the corresponding progression-free survival was 13.8 months and 8.2 months (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.76; P<0.001). At the 24-month interim analysis, the rate of overall survival was 84% in the niraparib group and 77% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.44 to 1.11). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or higher were anemia (in 31.0% of the patients), thrombocytopenia (in 28.7%), and neutropenia (in 12.8%). No treatment-related deaths occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer who had a response to platinum-based chemotherapy, those who received niraparib had significantly longer progression-free survival than those who received placebo, regardless of the presence or absence of homologous-recombination deficiency. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02655016.).

Maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab in patients with newly diagnosed advanced high-grade ovarian cancer: Main analysis of second progression-free survival in the phase III PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trial.

BACKGROUND: PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 (NCT02477644) demonstrated a significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab versus placebo plus bevacizumab in newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer. We report the prespecified main second progression-free survival (PFS2) analysis for PAOLA-1. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, phase III trial was conducted in 11 countries. Eligible patients had newly diagnosed, advanced, high-grade ovarian cancer and were in response after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab. Patients were randomised 2:1 to olaparib (300 mg twice daily) or placebo for up to 24 months; all patients received bevacizumab (15 mg/kg every 3 weeks) for up to 15 months. Primary PFS end-point was reported previously. Time from randomisation to second disease progression or death was a key secondary end-point included in the hierarchical-testing procedure. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 35.5 months and 36.5 months, respectively, median PFS2 was 36.5 months (olaparib plus bevacizumab) and 32.6 months (placebo plus bevacizumab), hazard ratio 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64-0.95; P = 0.0125. Median time to second subsequent therapy or death was 38.2 months (olaparib plus bevacizumab) and 31.5 months (placebo plus bevacizumab), hazard ratio 0.78; 95% CI 0.64-0.95; P = 0.0115. Seventy-two (27%) patients in the placebo plus bevacizumab group received a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor as first subsequent therapy. No new safety signals were observed for olaparib plus bevacizumab. CONCLUSION: In newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer, maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab provided continued benefit beyond first progression, with a significant PFS2 improvement and a time to second subsequent therapy or death delay versus placebo plus bevacizumab.

Population-adjusted indirect treatment comparison of the SOLO1 and PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trials evaluating maintenance olaparib or bevacizumab or the combination of both in newly diagnosed, advanced BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: In the absence of randomised head-to-head trials, we conducted a population-adjusted indirect treatment comparison (PA-ITC) of phase III trial data to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of maintenance olaparib and bevacizumab alone and in combination in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation (BRCAm). METHODS: An unanchored PA-ITC was performed on investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) data. Individual patient data from SOLO1 (olaparib versus placebo) and from BRCA-mutated patients in PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 (olaparib plus bevacizumab versus placebo plus bevacizumab) were pooled. Each arm of PAOLA-1 was weighted so that key baseline patient characteristics were similar to the SOLO1 cohort. Analyses were performed in patients with complete baseline data. Weighted Cox regression analysis was used to estimate the comparative efficacy of different maintenance therapy strategies, supplemented by weighted Kaplan-Meier analyses. RESULTS: Data from SOLO1 patients (olaparib, n = 254; placebo, n = 126) were compared with data from BRCA-mutated PAOLA-1 patients (olaparib plus bevacizumab, n = 151; placebo plus bevacizumab, n = 71). Adding bevacizumab to olaparib was associated with a numerical improvement in PFS compared with olaparib alone (hazard ratio [HR] 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-1.09). Statistically significant improvements in PFS were seen with olaparib alone versus placebo plus bevacizumab (HR 0.48; 95% CI 0.30-0.75), olaparib plus bevacizumab versus placebo (0.23; 0.14-0.34), and placebo plus bevacizumab versus placebo (0.65; 0.43-0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Results of this hypothesis-generating PA-ITC analysis support the use of maintenance olaparib alone or with bevacizumab in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCAm.

[When to think about pediatric congenital pseudoarthrosis of the clavicle? Presentation of 2 cases]. / ¿Cuándo pensar en pseudoartrosis congénita de clavícula en pediatría? Presentación de 2 casos.

The congenital pseudoarthrosis of the clavicle is a rare and benign malformation, characterized by the absence of the middle third of the clavicle. It is usually unilateral and the majority on the right side. The etiology is unknown, postulating diverse etiopathogenic theories (vascular, embryological and genetic). It can be detected in the neonatal period or, more frequently, during childhood. Occasionally it can be symptomatic. It may require treatment by surgical reconstruction by bone graft. Two cases are presented, one of neonatal diagnosis and another one of 3 years of age performed with 24 hours of difference. We emphasize on its consideration as a differential diagnosis of obstetric or post-traumatic fracture, cleidocranial dysplasia and neurofibromatosis type I.

La pseudoartrosis congénita de la clavícula es una malformación rara y benigna, caracterizada por la ausencia del tercio medio de la clavícula. Suele ser unilateral y mayoritaria en el lado derecho. La etiología es desconocida y se postulan diversas teorías etiopatogénicas (vascular, embriológica y genética). Puede detectarse en el período neonatal o, más frecuentemente, durante la infancia. En ocasiones, puede ser sintomática. Puede requerir tratamiento mediante reconstrucción quirúrgica por injerto óseo. Se presentan 2 casos, uno de diagnóstico neonatal y otro de 3 años de edad realizados con 24 h de diferencia. Se destaca la consideración de este diagnóstico como diferencial de fractura obstétrica o postraumática, displasia cleidocraneal y neurofibromatosis de tipo 1.

¿Cuándo pensar en pseudoartrosis congénita de clavícula en pediatría? Presentación de 2 casos / When to think about pediatric congenital pseudoarthrosis of the clavicle? Presentation of 2 cases

La pseudoartrosis congénita de la clavícula es una malformación rara y benigna, caracterizada por la ausencia del tercio medio de la clavícula. Suele ser unilateral y mayoritaria en el lado derecho. La etiología es desconocida y se postulan diversas teorías etiopatogénicas (vascular, embriológica y genética).Puede detectarse en el período neonatal o, más frecuentemente, durante la infancia. En ocasiones, puede ser sintomática. Puede requerir tratamiento mediante reconstrucción quirúrgica por injerto óseo.Se presentan 2 casos, uno de diagnóstico neonatal y otro de 3 años de edad realizados con 24 h de diferencia. Se destaca la consideración de este diagnóstico como diferencial de fractura obstétrica o postraumática, displasia cleidocraneal y neurofibromatosis de tipo 1.

The congenital pseudoarthrosis of the clavicle is a rare and benign malformation, characterized by the absence of the middle third of the clavicle. It is usually unilateral and the majority on the right side. The etiology is unknown, postulating diverse etiopathogenic theories (vascular, embryological and genetic).It can be detected in the neonatal period or, more frequently, during childhood. Occasionally it can be symptomatic. It may require treatment by surgical reconstruction by bone graft. Two cases are presented, one of neonatal diagnosis and another one of 3 years of age performed with 24 hours of difference. We emphasize on its consideration as a differential diagnosis of obstetric or post-traumatic fracture, cleidocranial dysplasia and neurofibromatosis type I.

Pseudomyxoma peritonei treated by cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: results from a single centre.

BACKGROUND: Pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP) is a rare, slowly progressive disease whose prognosis depends primarily on the completeness of cytoreduction. The value of intraoperative hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and of additional factors predicting long-term outcome and disease-free survival (DFS) remains poorly understood. This study aims to analyse survival rates and prognostic factors in patients undergoing maximal cytoreduction and HIPEC. METHODS: Thirty patients were selected from a prospective database of records for patients undergoing cytoreduction and HIPEC with mitomycin C or paclitaxel. Overall survival (OS), DFS, and the prognostic factors influencing them, were examined using multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 44 months (range, 8-144). Histological classification of PMPs was DPAM in 6/30 of cases, PMCA-I in 10/30 and PMCA in 14/30. Complete cytoreduction (CC-0 and CC-1) was achieved in 28/30 of patients and CC-2 in 2/30. Median OS was 111 months (range 0-230) and five-year OS rate was 67%. Median DFS was 53.5 months (range 0-120) and 5-year DFS rate was 44%. Incomplete cytoreduction, lymph node involvement and PCI>20 were associated with poor prognosis for OS, while lymph node involvement, elevated CA-125 levels, unfavourable histology and previous chemotherapy were associated with poor outcomes for DFS. There was morbidity of Grade 3 or higher in 9/30. Post-operative mortality occurred in 1 case. CONCLUSION: Cytoreduction plus peritonectomy procedures combined with HIPEC is a safe treatment and could improve survival rates. Since the optimal cytoreduction is the primary prognostic factor, patients should be centralised under the care of experienced teams.