Rare ovarian tumours: Epidemiology, treatment challenges in and outside a network setting

Publication date: Available online 3 November 2017
Source:European Journal of Surgical Oncology
Author(s): I. Ray-Coquard, AnnaLisa Trama, M.J. Seckl, C. Fotopoulou, P. Pautier, S. Pignata, G. Kristensen, G. Mangili, H. Falconer, L. Massuger, J. Sehouli, E. Pujade-Lauraine, D. Lorusso, F. Amant, E. Rokkones, I. Vergote, J.A. Ledermann
Purpose of the reviewMore than 50% of all gynaecological cancers can be classified as rare tumours (defined as an annual incidence of <6 per 100,000) and such tumours represent an important challenge for clinicians.Recent findingsRare cancers account for more than one fifth of all new cancer diagnoses, more than any of the single common cancers alone. Reviewing the RARECAREnet database, some of the tumours occur infrequently, whilst others because of their natural history have a high prevalence, and therefore appear to be more common, although their incidence is also rare. Harmonization of medical practice, guidelines and novel trials are needed to identify rare tumours and facilitate the development of new treatments. Ovarian tumours are the focus of this review, but we comment on other rare gynaecological tumours, as the diagnosis and treatment challenges faced are similar.FutureThis requires European collaboration, international partnerships, harmonization of treatment and collaboration to overcome the regulatory barriers to conduct international trials. Whilst randomized trials can be done in many tumour types, there are some for which conducting even single arm studies may be challenging. For these tumours alternative study designs, robust collection of data through national registries and audits could lead to improvements in the treatment of rare tumours. In addition, concentring the care of patients with rare tumours into a limited number of centres will help to build expertise, facilitate trials and improve outcomes.



http://ift.tt/2AjXZX1

Phase1 study of cisplatin plus pemetrexed with erlotinib and bevacizumab for chemotherapy-naïve advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer with EGFR mutations

Summary

Background Cisplatin and pemetrexed are very effective against advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without EGFR mutations. Erlotinib plus bevacizumab are highly effective against advanced NSCLCs with activating EGFR mutations. We performed this phase I 'Quartet Trial' to determine the safety and efficacy of all 4 agents as a first-line treatment for non-squamous NSCLC patients harboring activating EGFR mutations. Patients and Methods Patients received escalating quartet-agent doses every 3 weeks for 4 cycles. We examined the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended dose (RD). Results Ten patients (3 men and 7 women) with a median age of 69 years were enrolled. Four and 6 patients had exon 19 and 21 mutations, respectively; 8 received maintenance therapy without unexpected or cumulative toxicities. One of 6 patients experienced grade 3 vagal reflex at 60 mg/m² cisplatin plus 500 mg/m² pemetrexed with 150 mg erlotinib and 15 mg/kg bevacizumab, which was designated the RD. Four patients experienced no DLT with 75 mg/m² cisplatin plus 500 mg/m² pemetrexed with 150 mg erlotinib and 15 mg/kg bevacizumab (designated the MTD); however, 3 underwent dose reduction due to severe toxicities (grade 3 gastrointestinal hemorrhage, skin rash, nausea, and febrile neutropenia) during induction chemotherapy. The most frequent DLT-phase adverse events were nausea, anorexia, and fatigue. The overall response rate was 100%. Furthermore, the progression-free and overall survival rates were 17.9 and 32.0 months, respectively. Conclusions This quartet chemotherapy regimen was tolerable and effective in our patient population (UMIN000012536).

http://ift.tt/2zdtfJg

Phase1 study of cisplatin plus pemetrexed with erlotinib and bevacizumab for chemotherapy-naïve advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer with EGFR mutations

Summary

Background Cisplatin and pemetrexed are very effective against advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without EGFR mutations. Erlotinib plus bevacizumab are highly effective against advanced NSCLCs with activating EGFR mutations. We performed this phase I 'Quartet Trial' to determine the safety and efficacy of all 4 agents as a first-line treatment for non-squamous NSCLC patients harboring activating EGFR mutations. Patients and Methods Patients received escalating quartet-agent doses every 3 weeks for 4 cycles. We examined the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended dose (RD). Results Ten patients (3 men and 7 women) with a median age of 69 years were enrolled. Four and 6 patients had exon 19 and 21 mutations, respectively; 8 received maintenance therapy without unexpected or cumulative toxicities. One of 6 patients experienced grade 3 vagal reflex at 60 mg/m² cisplatin plus 500 mg/m² pemetrexed with 150 mg erlotinib and 15 mg/kg bevacizumab, which was designated the RD. Four patients experienced no DLT with 75 mg/m² cisplatin plus 500 mg/m² pemetrexed with 150 mg erlotinib and 15 mg/kg bevacizumab (designated the MTD); however, 3 underwent dose reduction due to severe toxicities (grade 3 gastrointestinal hemorrhage, skin rash, nausea, and febrile neutropenia) during induction chemotherapy. The most frequent DLT-phase adverse events were nausea, anorexia, and fatigue. The overall response rate was 100%. Furthermore, the progression-free and overall survival rates were 17.9 and 32.0 months, respectively. Conclusions This quartet chemotherapy regimen was tolerable and effective in our patient population (UMIN000012536).

from Cancer via ola Kala on Inoreader http://ift.tt/2zdtfJg
via IFTTT

Pseudoprogression as an adverse event of glioblastoma therapy

Abstract

We explored predictive factors of pseudoprogression (PsP) and its impact on prognosis in a retrospective series of uniformly treated glioblastoma patients. Patients were classified as having PsP, early progression (eP) or neither (nP). We examined potential associations with clinical, molecular, and basal imaging characteristics and compared overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), post-progression survival (PPS) as well as the relationship between PFS and PPS in the three groups. Of the 256 patients studied, 56 (21.9%) were classified as PsP, 70 (27.3%) as eP, and 130 (50.8%) as nP. Only MGMT methylation status was associated to PsP. MGMT methylated patients had a 3.5-fold greater possibility of having PsP than eP (OR: 3.48; 95% CI: 1.606–7.564; P = 0.002). OS was longer for PsP than eP patients (18.9 vs. 12.3 months; P = 0.0001) but was similar for PsP and nP patients (P = 0.91). OS was shorter–though not significantly so—for PsP than nP patients (OS: 19.5 vs. 27.9 months; P = 0.63) in methylated patients. PPS was similar for patients having PsP, eP or nP (PPS: 7.2 vs. 5.4 vs. 6.7; P = 0.43). Neurological deterioration occurred in 64.3% of cases at the time they were classified as PsP and in 72.8% of cases of eP (P = 0.14). PsP confounds the evaluation of disease and does not confer a survival advantage in glioblastoma.

We explored clinical, molecular and imaging (MRI) predictive factors of pseudoprogression (PsP) in 256 glioblastoma patients. MGMT methylation was the only factor associated with PsP and PsP did not improve OS over nP (neither PsP nor early progression), suggesting that it should be considered an adverse event of therapy and should be reported as such in clinical trials.

from Cancer via ola Kala on Inoreader http://ift.tt/2hb7pPw
via IFTTT

Pseudoprogression as an adverse event of glioblastoma therapy

Abstract

We explored predictive factors of pseudoprogression (PsP) and its impact on prognosis in a retrospective series of uniformly treated glioblastoma patients. Patients were classified as having PsP, early progression (eP) or neither (nP). We examined potential associations with clinical, molecular, and basal imaging characteristics and compared overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), post-progression survival (PPS) as well as the relationship between PFS and PPS in the three groups. Of the 256 patients studied, 56 (21.9%) were classified as PsP, 70 (27.3%) as eP, and 130 (50.8%) as nP. Only MGMT methylation status was associated to PsP. MGMT methylated patients had a 3.5-fold greater possibility of having PsP than eP (OR: 3.48; 95% CI: 1.606–7.564; P = 0.002). OS was longer for PsP than eP patients (18.9 vs. 12.3 months; P = 0.0001) but was similar for PsP and nP patients (P = 0.91). OS was shorter–though not significantly so—for PsP than nP patients (OS: 19.5 vs. 27.9 months; P = 0.63) in methylated patients. PPS was similar for patients having PsP, eP or nP (PPS: 7.2 vs. 5.4 vs. 6.7; P = 0.43). Neurological deterioration occurred in 64.3% of cases at the time they were classified as PsP and in 72.8% of cases of eP (P = 0.14). PsP confounds the evaluation of disease and does not confer a survival advantage in glioblastoma.

We explored clinical, molecular and imaging (MRI) predictive factors of pseudoprogression (PsP) in 256 glioblastoma patients. MGMT methylation was the only factor associated with PsP and PsP did not improve OS over nP (neither PsP nor early progression), suggesting that it should be considered an adverse event of therapy and should be reported as such in clinical trials.

http://ift.tt/2hb7pPw

A review of mirvetuximab soravtansine in the treatment of platinum-resistant ovarian cancer

Future Oncology, Ahead of Print.


from Cancer via ola Kala on Inoreader http://ift.tt/2ytsbBw
via IFTTT

A review of mirvetuximab soravtansine in the treatment of platinum-resistant ovarian cancer

Future Oncology, Ahead of Print.


http://ift.tt/2ytsbBw