Depression and anxiety in women with malignant ovarian germ cell (MOGCT) and sex cord stromal tumors (SCST): an analysis of the AGO-CORSETT database.

INTRODUCTION: The intention of this study was to evaluate the level of anxiety and depression of malignant ovarian germ cell (MOGCT) and sex cord stromal tumors (SCST) survivors and to identify possible alterable cofactors. METHODS: CORSETT was an observational, multicenter, mixed retrospective/prospective cohort study of the AGO Studygroup. Women who had been diagnosed with MOGCTs and SCSTs between 2001 and 2011 were asked to complete the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) to evaluate distress. Predictors of distress (type of surgery, chemotherapy, time since diagnosis, recurrence, second tumor, pain) were investigated using multivariate linear regression analysis. RESULTS: 150 MOGCT and SCST patients with confirmed histological diagnosis completed the questionnaire median seven years after diagnosis. They had a HADS total score ≥ 13 indicating severe mental distress in 34% of cases. Patients after fertility-conserving surgery had lower probability of severe mental distress than those without fertility-conserving treatment (ß = - 3.1, p = 0.04). Pain was associated with the level of distress in uni- and multivariate analysis (coef 0.1, p < 0.01, coef. Beta 0.5). DISCUSSION: Severe mental distress was frequent in patients with MOGCT and SCST and the level of pain was associated with the level of distress. Fertility conserving therapy, however, was associated with less mental distress. Screening and treatment of pain and depression is required to improve mental well-being in survivors of MOGCT and SCST.

ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE Consensus Statement on preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumours.

The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG), the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) group and the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE) jointly developed clinically relevant and evidence-based statements on the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumours, including imaging techniques, biomarkers and prediction models. ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE nominated a multidisciplinary international group, including expert practising clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumours and management of patients with ovarian cancer (19 experts across Europe). A patient representative was also included in the group. To ensure that the statements were evidence-based, the current literature was reviewed and critically appraised. Preliminary statements were drafted based on the review of the relevant literature. During a conference call, the whole group discussed each preliminary statement and a first round of voting was carried out. Statements were removed when a consensus among group members was not obtained. The voters had the opportunity to provide comments/suggestions with their votes. The statements were then revised accordingly. Another round of voting was carried out according to the same rules to allow the whole group to evaluate the revised version of the statements. The group achieved consensus on 18 statements. This Consensus Statement presents these ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE statements on the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumours and the assessment of carcinomatosis, together with a summary of the evidence supporting each statement.

ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE Consensus Statement on preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors.

The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG), the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) group and the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE) jointly developed clinically relevant and evidence-based statements on the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors, including imaging techniques, biomarkers and prediction models. ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE nominated a multidisciplinary international group, including expert practising clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors and management of patients with ovarian cancer (19 experts across Europe). A patient representative was also included in the group. To ensure that the statements were evidence-based, the current literature was reviewed and critically appraised. Preliminary statements were drafted based on the review of the relevant literature. During a conference call, the whole group discussed each preliminary statement and a first round of voting was carried out. Statements were removed when consensus among group members was not obtained. The voters had the opportunity to provide comments/suggestions with their votes. The statements were then revised accordingly. Another round of voting was carried out according to the same rules to allow the whole group to evaluate the revised version of the statements. The group achieved consensus on 18 statements. This Consensus Statement presents these ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE statements on the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors and the assessment of carcinomatosis, together with a summary of the evidence supporting each statement.

Declaración de consenso de ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE sobre el diagnóstico preoperatorio de los tumores de ovario La Sociedad Europea de Oncología Ginecológica (ESGO), la Sociedad Internacional de Ecografía en Obstetricia y Ginecología (ISUOG), el Grupo Internacional de Análisis de Tumores de Ovario (IOTA) y la Sociedad Europea de Endoscopia Ginecológica (ESGE) elaboraron conjuntamente declaraciones de importancia para la práctica clínica y con base empírica sobre el diagnóstico preoperatorio de los tumores de ovario, a partir de imágenes, biomarcadores y modelos de predicción, entre otras técnicas. La ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE designó a un grupo internacional multidisciplinar, que incluye a personas expertas de la práctica clínica y la investigación que han demostrado liderazgo y experiencia en el diagnóstico preoperatorio de los tumores de ovario y en el tratamiento de las pacientes con cáncer de ovario (19 personas expertas de toda Europa). También se incluyó en el grupo a una representante de las pacientes. Para garantizar que las declaraciones tenían una base empírica, se revisó la literatura actual y se valoró de forma crítica. Se redactaron declaraciones preliminares basadas en la revisión de la literatura pertinente. La totalidad del grupo debatió durante una teleconferencia cada declaración preliminar y se llevó a cabo una primera ronda de votaciones. Las declaraciones se eliminaron cuando no se obtuvo el consenso entre los miembros del grupo. Los votantes tuvieron la oportunidad de aportar comentarios/sugerencias a la par que sus votos. Las declaraciones se revisaron en consecuencia. Se llevó a cabo otra ronda de votaciones según las mismas reglas para que todo el grupo pudiera evaluar la versión revisada de las declaraciones. El grupo logró un consenso sobre 18 declaraciones. Esta Declaración de Consenso presenta estas declaraciones de la ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE sobre el diagnóstico preoperatorio de los tumores de ovario y la evaluación de la carcinomatosis, junto con un resumen de la evidencia que apoya cada declaración.

The systemic treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer revisited.

Treatment approaches for relapsed ovarian cancer have evolved over the past decade from a calendar-based decision tree to a patient-oriented biologically driven algorithm. Nowadays, platinum-based chemotherapy should be offered to all patients with a reasonable chance of responding to this therapy. The treatment-free interval for platinum is only one of many factors affecting patients' eligibility for platinum re-treatment. Bevacizumab increases the response to chemotherapy irrespective of the cytotoxic regimen and can be valuable in patients with an urgent need for symptom relief (e.g. pleural effusion, ascites). For patients with recurrent high-grade ovarian cancer, which responds to platinum-based treatment, maintenance therapy with a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor can be offered, regardless of the BRCA mutation status. Here we review contemporary decision-making processes in the systemic treatment of relapsed ovarian cancer.

Long-term safety in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer treated with niraparib versus placebo: Results from the phase III ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial.

OBJECTIVE: Niraparib is a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor approved for use in heavily pretreated patients and as maintenance treatment in patients with newly-diagnosed or recurrent ovarian cancer following a response to platinum-based chemotherapy. We present long-term safety data for niraparib from the ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial. METHODS: This multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of niraparib for the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive either once-daily niraparib 300 mg or placebo. Two independent cohorts were enrolled based on germline BRCA mutation status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, reported previously. Long-term safety data were from the most recent data cutoff (September 2017). RESULTS: Overall, 367 patients received niraparib 300 mg once daily. Dose reductions due to TEAEs were highest in month 1 (34%) and declined every month thereafter. Incidence of any-grade and grade ≥ 3 hematologic and symptomatic TEAEs was also highest in month 1 and subsequently declined. Incidence of grade ≥ 3 thrombocytopenia decreased from 28% (month 1) to 9% and 5% (months 2 and 3, respectively), with protocol-directed dose interruptions and/or reductions. Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) were reported in 2 and 6 niraparib-treated patients, respectively, and in 1 placebo patient each. Treatment discontinuations due to TEAEs were <5% in each month and time interval measured. CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate the importance of appropriate dose reduction according to toxicity criteria and support the safe long-term use of niraparib for maintenance treatment in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01847274.

Prehabilitation programs and ERAS protocols in gynecological oncology: a comprehensive review.

PURPOSE: The "Enhanced recovery after surgery" (ERAS) concept has been continuously developed for many surgical disciplines. Shorter length of stay (LOS) and associated cost savings have been achieved without an increase in the complication or readmission rate. Current guidelines helped to support an increasing standardisation of care. One innovation of the recently published update is the proposal to integrate prehabilitation (PREHAB) into the ERAS concept. On this basis, the authors provide an overview of the current data on ERAS concepts in gynecological oncology and review the evidence of prehabilitation concepts. METHODS: Systematic literature review of all comparative studies on ERAS concepts in gynecological oncology and prehabilitation undergoing abdominal cancer surgery was performed using the standard databases. Outcomes of interest included prehabilitation program composition (exercise, nutritional, and psychological interventions), duration and outcome measures used to determine impact of prehabilitation vs. standard care. RESULTS: Five studies reported on PREHAB programs in gynecology (three RCTs, one study protocol, one pilot study). There is no trial evaluating a pathway for patients with extensive ovarian or cervical cancer. Study protocols were heterogenous, but showed improvements in both physical and psychological parameters. ERAS protocols in ovarian cancer patients were investigated in 12 observational studies, mostly single center and only 1 RCT, in 4 studies patients with ovarian cancer or patients. Most studies showed improvement in complication rate and shorter LOS. DISCUSSION: PREHAB programs seem feasible in abdominal cancer surgery and may improve surgical outcome. However, there is no prospective trial in gynecological oncology so far. Furthermore, there is no concept combining ERAS and PREHAB interventions. Therefore, the authors encourage the further development of both by describing in a novel treatment algorithm.

Overall survival results of AGO-OVAR16: A phase 3 study of maintenance pazopanib versus placebo in women who have not progressed after first-line chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The AGO-OVAR16 study was designed to test the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of pazopanib maintenance after first-line chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer (AOC). METHODS: Nine hundred and forty patients with histologically confirmed AOC, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage II-IV, were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 800 mg pazopanib once daily or placebo for up to 24 months, unless there was disease progression, toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or death. The primary endpoint (investigator-assessed progression-free survival [PFS]) was met and previously reported. The results of final analyses of overall survival (OS) are reported here. RESULTS: A third OS interim analysis showed futility and led to study closure and a final OS analysis after last patient last visit. At the time of the final OS analysis, 494 (89.7% of the planned 551) events had occurred. No difference was observed in OS between pazopanib and placebo. The hazard ratio (HR) was 0.960 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.805-1.145), and the median OS from randomization was 59.1 months in pazopanib and 64.0 months in placebo arms. For the East Asian patients, similar to the first three interim OS analyses, a numerical negative trend was observed favoring placebo (HR, 1.332; 95% CI: 0.863-2.054). Exploratory analyses showed a trend for a longer time to first subsequent anti-cancer therapy or death with pazopanib over placebo (HR, 0.829; 95% CI: 0.713-0.965), with a median estimate of 19.0 and 14.5 months, respectively. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION: Although pazopanib prolonged PFS, this was not associated with improvement in median OS. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00866697.

ESMO-ESGO consensus conference recommendations on ovarian cancer: pathology and molecular biology, early and advanced stages, borderline tumours and recurrent disease†.

The development of guidelines recommendations is one of the core activities of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and European Society of Gynaecologial Oncology (ESGO), as part of the mission of both societies to improve the quality of care for patients with cancer across Europe. ESMO and ESGO jointly developed clinically relevant and evidence-based recommendations in several selected areas in order to improve the quality of care for women with ovarian cancer. The ESMO-ESGO consensus conference on ovarian cancer was held on 12-14 April 2018 in Milan, Italy, and comprised a multidisciplinary panel of 40 leading experts in the management of ovarian cancer. Before the conference, the expert panel worked on five clinically relevant questions regarding ovarian cancer relating to each of the following four areas: pathology and molecular biology, early-stage and borderline tumours, advanced stage disease and recurrent disease. Relevant scientific literature, as identified using a systematic search, was reviewed in advance. During the consensus conference, the panel developed recommendations for each specific question and a consensus was reached. The recommendations presented here are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. This article presents the recommendations of this ESMO-ESGO consensus conference, together with a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation.

Combining conventional therapy with immunotherapy: A risky business?

Because of the failure of immunotherapy as single agent in a number of cancers, current clinical trials are focusing on combining immunotherapy with other therapies. The most frequently chosen combination for immunotherapy is chemotherapy. However, almost no preclinical data on this combination is available. Some studies even showed a dismal effect of combining chemotherapy with immunotherapy. Taken into account that each of the therapies chosen in a combination will influence the cancer cells but also immune effector cells as well as immunosuppressive cells, and that these three partners will also interact with each other, launching a combination to the patient without proper immune monitoring and preclinical evidence might be devastating.

Early tumor regrowth is a contributor to impaired survival in patients with completely resected advanced ovarian cancer. An exploratory analysis of the Intergroup trial AGO-OVAR 12.

OBJECTIVE: Surgical assessment of residual tumor provides the strongest prognostic information in advanced ovarian cancer (AOC), with the best outcome observed after complete resection. Postoperative radiological assessment before initiation of chemotherapy can supplement the information obtained by surgical assessment; however, it may also reveal conflicting findings. METHODS: Patients with AOC enrolled in the AGO-OVAR 12 trial underwent baseline imaging before the first chemotherapy cycle. The findings from surgical and radiologic assessment for disease extend were compared. Additionally, an integrated approach was assessed. RESULTS: Complete data from all 3 assessment methods were available for 1345 patients. Of 689 patients with complete resection, tumor was observed in 28% and 22% of patients undergoing radiologic and integrated assessment, respectively. Patients with surgical- radiological and surgical-integrated concordant findings showed a 5-year overall survival (5Y-OS) of 72% and 71%, whereas patients with surgical-radiological and surgical-integrated discordant results showed inferior 5Y-OS of 47% and 49%, respectively. Patients with surgically assessed residual disease had a 5-YOS of 37%. The interval between surgery and baseline assessment was independently associated with discordance between assessment methods, which might reflect early tumor regrowth. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline tumor assessment before chemotherapy provides information that stratifies patients with complete resection into different prognostic groups. Integrating the data from different assessment methods might lead to improved definitions of prognostic groups. Further investigation to determine if earlier initiation of chemotherapy after debulking surgery could increase survival of patients with early tumor regrowth is warranted.

When should Surgery be used for Recurrent Ovarian Carcinoma?

Cytoreductive surgery is an important column in the treatment of primary ovarian cancer. Surgical outcome is one of the most important prognostic factors and one of the few prognostic variables that can be influenced by therapists. Retrospective studies suggested that only complete cytoreduction was associated with a benefit. Therefore, definition of predictors of complete resection is of the utmost importance to avoid surgical burden in patients with both limited benefit of the procedure and limited overall life expectancy. Two prospective multicentre randomised surgical trials in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (DESKTOP III [NCT #01166737] and GOG 213 [NSC #704865]) comparing secondary cytoreductive surgery followed by platinum-based chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone have been conducted. The results of the DESKTOP III were recently presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting in Chicago. It showed a benefit of secondary cytoreductive surgery exclusively in patients with complete resection with a progression-free survival of 5.6 months (P < 0.001). This overview aims to support this task and concentrates on the currently available data regarding surgery in recurrent ovarian cancer.

Expression III: patients' expectations and preferences regarding physician-patient relationship and clinical management-results of the international NOGGO/ENGOT-ov4-GCIG study in 1830 ovarian cancer patients from European countries.

Backround: The primary aim of this study was to investigate information needs and treatment preferences of patients with ovarian cancer, focusing especially on physician-patient relationship and treatment. Patients and methods: A questionnaire was developed based on the experiences of the national German survey 'Expression II', and was provided to patients with ovarian cancer either at initial diagnosis or with recurrent disease via Internet (online-version) or as print-out-version. Results: From December 2009 to October 2012, a total of 1830 patients with ovarian cancer from eight European countries (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Romania, Spain) participated, 902 (49.3%) after initial diagnosis and 731 (39.9%) with recurrent ovarian cancer. The median age was 58 years (range 17-89). Nearly all patients (96.2%) had experienced upfront surgery followed by first-line chemotherapy (91.8%). The majority of patients were satisfied with the completeness and comprehensibility of the explanation about the diagnosis and treatment options. The three most important aspects, identified by patients to improve the treatment for ovarian cancer included: 'the therapy should not induce alopecia' (42%), 'there must be more done to counter fatigue' (34.5%) and 'the therapy should be more effective' (29.7%). Out of 659 (36%) patients, who were offered participation in a clinical trial, 476 (26%) were included. Conclusion: This study underlines the high need of patients with ovarian cancer for all details concerning treatment options irrespective of their cultural background, the stage of disease and the patient's age. Increased information requirements regarding potential side effects and treatment alternatives were recorded. Besides the need for more effective therapy, alopecia and fatigue are the most important side effects of concern to patients.

Quality of life in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) randomized to maintenance pazopanib or placebo after first-line chemotherapy in the AGO-OVAR 16 trial. Measuring what matters-patient-centered end points in trials of maintenance therapy.

Background: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was a secondary end point in AGO-OVAR 16, which randomized 940 patients with EOC after first-line chemotherapy to maintenance pazopanib (PZ) or placebo (P). Additional post hoc analyses were carried out to investigate additional patient-centered end points. Patients and methods: HRQoL was measured with EORTC-QLQ-C30, QLQ-OV28 and EQ-5D-3L. Pre-specified end points included mean differences in HRQoL between treatment arms. Exploratory analyses included quality-adjusted progression-free survival (QAPFS), impact of specific symptoms and progressive disease (PD) on HRQoL and time to second-line chemotherapy. The objective was to provide clinical perspective to the significant median PFS gain of 5.6 months with PZ. Results: There were statistically significant differences between PZ and P in QLQ-C30 global health status [5.5 points; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.7-10.4, P = 0.024] from baseline to 25 months, but not EQ-5D-3L (0.018 points; 95% CI - 0.033 to 0.069, P = 0.485). The impact of diarrhea was captured in QLQ-OV28 Abdominal/GI-Symptoms scale (8.1 points; 95% CI 3.6-12.5, P = 0.001). QAPFS was 386 days (95% CI 366-404 days) with PZ versus 359 days (95% CI 338-379 days) with placebo (P = 0.052). PD was associated with a decline in HRQoL (P < 0.0001). Median time to second-line chemotherapy was 19.7 months with PZ and 15.0 months with P [hazard ratio (HR) 0.72, 95% CI 0.69-0.86, P = 0.0001]. Conclusions: There were small to no significant mean score differences in global HRQoL and EQ5D-3L between PZ and placebo, respectively, despite the increased toxicity of PZ. Exploratory end points including QAPFS, impact of specific symptoms on HRQoL during treatment and at PD help place the PFS gain with PZ in context and interpret the results. Additional patient-centered end points should be considered in trials of maintenance therapy in EOC beyond mean differences in HRQoL scores alone, to support the benefit to patients of prolongation of PFS. Clinical Trials Registration Number: NCT00866697.

Ten-year results of intense dose-dense chemotherapy show superior survival compared with a conventional schedule in high-risk primary breast cancer: final results of AGO phase III iddEPC trial.

Background: Primary breast cancer (BC) patients with extensive axillary lymph-node involvement have a limited prognosis. The Arbeitsgemeinschaft fuer Gynaekologische Onkologie (AGO) trial compared intense dose-dense (idd) adjuvant chemotherapy with conventionally scheduled chemotherapy in high-risk BC patients. Here we report the final, 10-year follow-up analysis. Patients and methods: Enrolment took place between December 1998 and April 2003. A total of 1284 patients with 4 or more involved axillary lymph nodes were randomly assigned to receive 3 courses each of idd sequential epirubicin, paclitaxel and cyclophosphamide (iddEPC) q2w or standard epirubicin/cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel (EC â†’ P) q3w. Event-free survival (EFS) was the primary end point. Results: A total of 658 patients were assigned to receive iddEPC and 626 patients were assigned to receive EC â†’ P. The median duration of follow-up was 122 months. EFS was 47% (95% CI 43% to 52%) in the standard group and 56% (95% CI 52% to 60%) in the iddEPC group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.63-0.87; log-rank P = 0.00014, one-sided]. This benefit was independent of menopausal, hormone receptor or HER2 status. Ten-year overall survival (OS) was 59% (95% CI 55% to 63%) for patients in the standard group and 69% (95% CI 65% to 73%) for patients in the iddEPC group (HR = 0.72, 95% CI 0.60-0.87; log-rank P = 0.0007, two-sided). Nine versus two cases of secondary myeloid leukemia/myelodysplastic syndrome were observed in the iddEPC and the EC â†’ P arm, respectively. Conclusion: The previously reported OS benefit of iddEPC in comparison to conventionally dosed EC â†’ P has been further increased and achieved an absolute difference of 10% after 10 years of follow-up.

Treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer.

Despite optimal surgery and appropriate first-line chemotherapy, ∼70%-80% of patients with epithelial ovarian cancer will develop disease relapse. The same modalities as used primarily are available for treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC). The rationale for repetitive surgery in ROC was based on a stable body of retrospective data; however, prospective data were missing. Now, preliminary data from the prospective AGO-DESKTOP III give evidence that surgery for ROC seems to be of benefit for selected patients with platinum-sensitive relapse undergoing complete resection. With respect to systemic therapy, tumor histology, BRCA status, the platinum-free interval (PFI) and previous treatment with bevacizumab (anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody) are considered the most important features that influence treatment choice in ROC. In patients with resistant or refractory relapse (PFI < 6 months), monotherapy with a non-platinum drug or participation in clinical trials is indicated. The association of non-platinum monotherapy with bevacizumab, followed by maintenance has been approved in this setting in some European countries due to PFS benefit. In patients with partially sensitive relapse (PFI between 6 and 12 months), two options are available: platinum doublets or non-platinum therapy (single agent or combination). The pegylated liposomal doxorubicin/trabectedin combination represents a viable alternative in patients that cannot receive platinum. In platinum-sensitive patients, treatment with platinum-based combinations is associated with PFS advantage compared with single agents or non-platinum combinations. The presence of germline or somatic BRCA mutations allows platinum-responsive patients to optimize chemotherapy efficacy and prolonging PFS by the use of olaparib (PARP inhibitor) given as maintenance therapy until progression. In patients not pretreated with bevacizumab in first line, the carboplatin/gemcitabine/bevacizumab combination, followed by maintenance is a viable alternative in platinum-sensitive patients (PFI> 6 months). The integration of surgery, with a 'personalized' approach by the use of antiangiogenic agent and of PARP inhibitors is affecting survival of patients with recurrent disease and will help epithelial ovarian cancer to become a chronic disease.

German Adjuvant Intergroup Node-positive Study (GAIN): a phase III trial comparing two dose-dense regimens (iddEPC versus ddEC-PwX) in high-risk early breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Dose-dense (dd) regimens are one of the preferred options for the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer patients with intermediate to high risk. The German Adjuvant Intergroup Node-positive trial aimed at optimizing intense dd (idd) strategies by evaluating drug combinations and the addition of capecitabine. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women (aged 18 years and biologically <65 years) with histologically involved axillary lymph nodes were randomly assigned to receive three courses each of epirubicin (E) 150 mg/m2, paclitaxel (P) 225 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide (C) 2500 mg/m2 (reduced to 2000 mg/m2 after recruitment of 1200 patients) q2w intravenously (i.v.) (iddEPC-regimen) or ddEC (E 112.5 mg/m2 + C 600 mg/m2, i.v. q2w for 4 cycles) followed by paclitaxel weekly (Pw 67.5 mg/m2 i.v. q8d for 10 weeks) plus capecitabine (X 2000 mg/m2 p.o. days 1-14, q22 for 4 cycles) (ddEC-PwX-regimen). Further randomization assigned patients to ibandronate for 2 years versus observation and to pegfilgrastim day 2 versus 4. RESULTS: From June 2004 to August 2008, 2994 patients were randomized to either iddEPC (N = 1498), or ddEC-PwX (N = 1496) and started treatment. Median age was 50 years; pN1 (37.8%), pN2 (35.3%); pN3 (26.9%); 46.4% were G3 tumors; 76.9% hormone receptor-positive and 22% HER2-positive. After a median follow-up of 74 months, 645 events and 383 deaths were recorded. Hematological adverse events grades 3-4 were more common with iddEPC (P < 0.001), nonhematological with ddEC-PwX (P = 0.04), even if the toxicity profile of the two regimens was different. At 5 years, estimated disease-free survival rates for ddEC-PwX and iddEPC were 81.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 79.5-83.6] versus 80.2% (95% CI 78.0-82.2). Hazard ratio (HR)=0.95 (95% CI 0.81-1.11, log-rank P = 0.49). Five-year overall survival rates were 89.4% for ddEC-PwX (95% CI 87.7-91.0) and 89.0% for iddEPC (95% CI 87.2-90.6), HR = 0.85 (95% CI 0.69-1.04, log-rank P = 0.10). CONCLUSION: Adding capecitabine to ddEC-Pw did not improve outcome in comparison to iddEPC but increased toxicity and should not be recommended for further use.

Fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference of the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup: recurrent disease.

This manuscript reports the consensus statements regarding recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC), reached at the fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference (OCCC), which was held in Tokyo, Japan, in November 2015. Three important questions were identified: (i) What are the subgroups for clinical trials in ROC? The historical definition of using platinum-free interval (PFI) to categorise patients as having platinum-sensitive/resistant disease was replaced by therapy-free interval (TFI). TFI can be broken down into TFIp (PFI), TFInp (non-PFI) and TFIb (biological agent-free interval). Additional criteria to consider include histology, BRCA mutation status, number/type of previous therapies, outcome of prior surgery and patient reported symptoms. (ii) What are the control arms for clinical trials in ROC? When platinum is considered the best option, the control arm should be a platinum-based therapy with or without an anti-angiogenic agent or a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor. If platinum is not considered the best option, the control arm could include a non-platinum drug, either as single agent or in combination. (iii) What are the endpoints for clinical trials in ROC? Overall survival (OS) is the preferred endpoint for patient cohorts with an expected median OS < or = 12 months. Progression-free survival (PFS) is an alternative, and it is the preferred endpoint when the expected median OS is > 12 months. However, PFS alone should not be the only endpoint and must be supported by additional endpoints including pre-defined patient reported outcomes (PROs), time to second subsequent therapy (TSST), or time until definitive deterioration of quality of life (TUDD).