RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial met its primary endpoint. Niraparib first-line maintenance significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) among patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer (aOC) that responded to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, regardless of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) status. Final overall survival (OS) results are reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 2:1 to niraparib or placebo, stratified by response to first-line treatment, receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and tumor HRD status. After reaching 60% target maturity, OS was evaluated via a stratified log-rank test using randomization stratification factors and summarized using Kaplan-Meier methodology. OS testing was hierarchical (overall population first, then the homologous recombination-deficient [HRd] population). Other secondary outcomes and long-term safety were assessed; an updated, ad hoc analysis of investigator-assessed PFS was also conducted (cutoff date, 08Apr2024). RESULTS: Median follow-up was 73.9 months. In the overall population, the OS hazard ratio (HR) was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.84-1.23; P= 0.8834) for niraparib (n= 487) versus placebo (n;= 246). In the HRd (n= 373) and homologous recombination-proficient (n= 249) populations, the OS HRs were 0.95 (95% CI, 0.71-1.29) and 0.93 (95% CI 0.69-1.26), respectively. Subsequent poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor therapy was received by 11.7% and 15.8% of niraparib patients and 37.8% and 48.4% of placebo patients in the overall and HRd populations, respectively. The 5-year PFS rate numerically favored niraparib in the overall (niraparib, 22%; placebo, 12%) and HRd populations (niraparib, 35%; placebo, 16%). Myelodysplastic syndromes/acute myeloid leukemia incidence was <2.5% (niraparib, 2.3%; placebo, 1.6%). No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with newly diagnosed aOC at high risk of recurrence, there was no difference in OS between treatment arms. In the HRd population, patients alive at 5 years were twice as likely to be progression free with niraparib treatment than placebo. Long-term safety remained consistent with the established niraparib safety profile.
RESUMEN
Background: For adult patients with grade 1-3 gliomas, identifying patients with an indication for proton therapy (PT) can be challenging due to sparse evidence supporting its benefits. In this study, we aimed to ensure national consensus and develop a decision support tool to aid clinicians in identifying patients with grade 1-3 gliomas eligible for PT. Methods: Sixty-one historic patients referred for postoperative radiotherapy for glioma grade 1-3 were included in this study and had new photon therapy and PT plans calculated. These plans along with clinical parameters were presented to neurooncologists with experience in treating brain tumours. The patients were presented at three workshops (WSs), where each neurooncologist individually had to choose between photon and proton therapy. Important parameters were selected using cross validation. Multivariable logistic regression was used to predict the neurooncologists' treatment modality choice. Results: At the three WSs 23, 24 and 19 randomly selected patients were presented. Seventy-five percent of the neurooncologists agreed for 14 patients (61%), 16 patients (67%) and 15 patients (79%) at WS1, WS2 and WS3. Age at radiotherapy and difference in mean dose (ΔDmean) to the residual brain were significant predictors of the choice of treatment modality, p < 0.001. Model coefficients were: ßage = 0.07 per year (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.05-0.09), and ßΔdose = -0.27 per Gy (95% CI=-0.36--0.18). Conclusion: Higher degree of agreement was reached. Age and ΔDmean to the residual brain significantly predicted the choice of radiation modality. We have developed a decision support model which may aid in the selection of patients with glioma grade 1-3 to PT.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Selinexor is an oral inhibitor of the nuclear export protein Exportin 1 (XPO1) with demonstrated antitumor activity in solid and hematological malignancies. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of selinexor in heavily pretreated, recurrent gynecological malignancies. METHODS: In this phase 2 trial, patients received selinexor (35 or 50 mg/m2 twice-weekly [BIW] or 50 mg/m2 once-weekly [QW]) in 4-week cycles. Primary endpoint was disease control rate (DCR) including complete response (CR), partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD) ≥12 weeks. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety. RESULTS: 114 patients with ovarian (N = 66), endometrial (N = 23) or cervical (N = 25) cancer were enrolled. Median number of prior regimens for ovarian, endometrial and cervical cancer was 6 (1-11), 2 (1-5), and 3 (1-6) respectively. DCR was 30% (ovarian 30%; endometrial 35%; cervical 24%), which included confirmed PRs in 8%, 9%, and 4% of patients with ovarian, endometrial, and cervical cancer respectively. Median PFS and OS for patients with ovarian, endometrial and cervical cancer were 2.6, 2.8 and 1.4 months, and 7.3, 7.0, and 5.0 months, respectively. Common Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) were thrombocytopenia (17%), fatigue (14%), anemia (10%), nausea (9%) and hyponatremia (9%). Patients with ovarian cancer receiving 50 mg/m2 QW had fewer high-grade AEs with similar efficacy as BIW treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Selinexor demonstrated single-agent activity and disease control in patients with heavily pretreated ovarian and endometrial cancers. Side effects were a function of dose level and treatment frequency, similar to previous reports, reversible and mitigated with supportive care.