Search

Copyright of Médecine et Santé Tropicales is the property of John Libbey Eurotext Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Being able to predict the void fraction is essential for a numerical prediction of the thermohydraulic behaviour in steam generators. Indeed, it determines two-phase mixture density and affects two-phase mixture velocity which enable to evaluate the pressure drop of heat exchanger, the mass transfer and heat transfer coefficients. In this study, the flow is modelled by coupling Ansys Fluent with an in-house code library where a CFD porous media approach is implemented. In this code, the two-phase flow has been modelled so far using the Eulerian model. However, this two-phase model requires interaction laws between phases which are not known and/or reliable for a flow within a tube bundle. The aim of this paper is to use the mixture model, for which it is easier to implement suitable correlations for tube bundles. By expressing the relative velocity, as a function of slip, the void fraction model of Feenstra et al. developed for upward cross-flow through horizontal tube bundles is introduced. With this method, physical phenomena that occur in tube bundles are taken into consideration in the mixture model. The developed approach is validated based on the experimental results obtained by Dowlati et al.

Background: Ovarian cancer (OC) remains one of the most challenging and deadly malignancies facing women today. While PARP inhibitors (PARPis) have transformed the treatment landscape for women with advanced OC, many patients will relapse and the PARPi-resistant setting is an area of unmet medical need. Traditional immunotherapies targeting PD-1/PD-L1 have failed to show any benefit in OC. The CD47/TSP-1 axis may be relevant in OC. We aimed to describe changes in CD47 expression with platinum therapy and their relationship with immune features and prognosis., Methods: Tumor and blood samples collected from OC patients in the CHIVA trial were assessed for CD47 and TSP-1 before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and multiplex analysis was used to investigate immune markers. Considering the therapeutic relevance of targeting the CD47/TSP-1 axis, we used the CD47-derived TAX2 peptide to selectively antagonize it in a preclinical model of aggressive ovarian carcinoma., Results: Significant reductions in CD47 expression were observed post NACT. Tumor patients having the highest CD47 expression profile at baseline showed the greatest CD4 + and CD8 + T-cell influx post NACT and displayed a better prognosis. In addition, TSP-1 plasma levels decreased significantly under NACT, and high TSP-1 was associated with a worse prognosis. We demonstrated that TAX2 exhibited a selective and favorable biodistribution profile in mice, localizing at the tumor sites. Using a relevant peritoneal carcinomatosis model displaying PARPi resistance, we demonstrated that post-olaparib (post-PARPi) administration of TAX2 significantly reduced tumor burden and prolonged survival. Remarkably, TAX2 used sequentially was also able to increase animal survival even under treatment conditions allowing olaparib efficacy., Conclusions: Our study thus (1) proposes a CD47-based stratification of patients who may be most likely to benefit from postoperative immunotherapy, and (2) suggests that TAX2 is a potential alternative therapy for patients relapsing on PARP inhibitors., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Importance: The KEYNOTE-826 randomized clinical trial showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful survival benefits with the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer. Treatment effects in patient subgroups of the study population are unknown., Objective: To assess efficacy outcomes in patient subgroups of KEYNOTE-826., Design, Setting, and Participants: Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted in a global, phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Participants included women with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic adenocarcinoma, adenosquamous carcinoma, or squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix that had not been treated with systemic chemotherapy and was not amenable to curative treatment. This subanalysis was conducted from November 20, 2018, to May 3, 2021., Interventions: Pembrolizumab, 200 mg, every 3 weeks or placebo for up to 35 cycles plus chemotherapy (paclitaxel, 175 mg/m2, plus cisplatin, 50 mg/m2, or carboplatin AUC 5 [area under the free carboplatin plasma concentration vs time curve]) with or without bevacizumab, 15 mg/kg., Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) by investigator assessment per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 in subgroups defined by use of bevacizumab (yes or no), choice of platinum (carboplatin or cisplatin), prior chemoradiotherapy (CRT) exposure only (yes or no), and histologic type (squamous or nonsquamous) in patients with programmed cell death ligand 1-positive tumors (defined as a combined positive score [CPS] ≥1) and in the intention-to-treat population., Results: A total of 617 patients (median age, 51 years; range, 22-82 years) were enrolled in the trial. In the CPS greater than or equal to 1 population, hazard ratios (HRs) for OS favored the pembrolizumab group in all subgroups: with bevacizumab (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.45-0.87) and without bevacizumab (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47-0.96), use of carboplatin (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.50-0.85) and cisplatin (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.27-1.04), with prior CRT only (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.39-0.81) and without prior CRT only (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52-1.00), and squamous (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.46-0.79) and nonsquamous (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.41-1.20) histologic type. In the intention-to-treat population, HRs for OS also favored the pembrolizumab group in all subgroups: with bevacizumab (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47-0.87) and without bevacizumab (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.53-1.04), use of carboplatin (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54-0.89) or cisplatin (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.32-1.09), with prior CRT only (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.45-0.91) and without prior CRT only (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53-0.97), and squamous (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47-0.80) and nonsquamous (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.47-1.23) histologic type. Similar to OS, the addition of pembrolizumab prolonged PFS across all subgroups in the CPS greater than or equal to 1 and intention-to-treat populations., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this trial suggest that adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab improved OS across subgroups of patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03635567.

Background: Few studies of the under-representation of older adults in cancer clinical trials (CTs) have encompassed the entire pathway from a trial being available in a cancer centre to the patient's invitation to participate and then agreement or refusal to participate., Objectives: The study's primary objective was to evaluate CT non-invitation and refusal rates. The secondary objectives were to identify factors associated with non-invitation and refusal and to assess experiences of CT participation from the patients' and professionals' perspectives., Methods: Here, we used mixed methods and a socio-epidemiological approach to analyse reasons for the non-participation of eligible older patients with a solid cancer in cancer CTs in France., Results: We found that non-invitation and low CT participation are mainly related to the patients' sociodemographic characteristics and living conditions (such as social isolation, being single, divorced or widowed, not having children and the absence of close family members) and the healthcare professionals' perceptions of insufficient informal support or a high homecare requirement., Conclusion: Our results suggest that efforts to increase fair inclusion and the participation of older adults in CTs should target the physician-patient relationship, the medical profession and hospital funding, rather than the patient alone., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society.)

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. The phase III, double-blind KEYNOTE-826 trial of pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo once every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus platinum-based chemotherapy, with or without bevacizumab, showed statistically significant survival benefits with the addition of pembrolizumab for patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer (primary data cutoff: May 3, 2021). This article reports the protocol-specified final overall survival (OS) results tested in the PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥1, all-comer, and CPS ≥10 populations. At the final data cutoff (October 3, 2022), the median study follow-up duration was 39.1 months (range, 32.1-46.5 months). In the PD-L1 CPS ≥1 (N = 548), all-comer (N = 617), and CPS ≥10 (N = 317) populations, median OS with pembrolizumab-chemotherapy versus placebo-chemotherapy was 28.6 months versus 16.5 months (hazard ratio [HR] for death, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.49 to 0.74]), 26.4 months versus 16.8 months (HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.52 to 0.77]), and 29.6 months versus 17.4 months (HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.78]), respectively. The incidence of grade ≥3 adverse events was 82.4% with pembrolizumab-chemotherapy and 75.4% with placebo-chemotherapy. These results show that pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, with or without bevacizumab, continued to provide clinically meaningful improvements in OS for patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer.

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with blockade of the PD-1 pathway may enhance immune-mediated tumor control through increased phagocytosis, cell death, and antigen presentation. The NiCOL phase 1 trial (NCT03298893) is designed to determine the safety/tolerance profile and the recommended phase-II dose of nivolumab with and following concurrent CRT in 16 women with locally advanced cervical cancer. Secondary endpoints include objective response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS), disease free survival, and immune correlates of response. Three patients experience grade 3 dose-limiting toxicities. The pre-specified endpoints are met, and overall response rate is 93.8% [95%CI: 69.8-99.8%] with a 2-year PFS of 75% [95% CI: 56.5-99.5%]. Compared to patients with progressive disease (PD), progression-free (PF) subjects show a brisker stromal immune infiltrate, higher proximity of tumor-infiltrating CD3 + T cells to PD-L1 + tumor cells and of FOXP3 + T cells to proliferating CD11c + myeloid cells. PF show higher baseline levels of PD-1 and ICOS-L on tumor-infiltrating EMRA CD4 + T cells and tumor-associated macrophages, respectively; PD instead, display enhanced PD-L1 expression on TAMs, higher peripheral frequencies of proliferating Tregs at baseline and higher PD-1 levels at week 6 post-treatment initiation on CD4 and CD8 T cell subsets. Concomitant nivolumab plus definitive CRT is safe and associated with encouraging PFS rates. Further validation in the subset of locally advanced cervical cancer displaying pre-existing, adaptive immune activation is warranted., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

French recommendations for clinical practice, Nice/Saint-Paul-de-Vence 2022-2023: Management of advanced cervical cancer The prognosis of cervical cancer remained pejorative until recently, first-line treatment consisting of platinum-based chemotherapy, associated with bevacizumab whenever possible, without any other therapeutic innovation for several years. However in 2022, immunotherapy appeared in the therapeutic landscape. Pembrolizumab can now be prescribed, thanks to the early access status granted by the HAS in September 2022, in patients with PD-L1 positive tumors. In parallel, bevacizumab generic is now reimbursed, allowing its association with chemotherapy on top of pembrolizumab, if indicated. For patient relapsing after platinium salts, and who never received immunotherapy, cemiplimab could be delivered and reimboursed since spring 2023, whatever could be PD-L1 status. Pretherapeutic work-up includes imaging combining MRI and PET/CT or CT of the chest, abdomen and pelvis, as well as evaluation of PD-L1 status on tumor and immune cells to define the CPS score that will determine eligibility to pembrolizumab treatment (CPS > 1). Possibilities of locoregional treatment depend on individual situations and are discussed on a case-by-case basis in multidisciplinary meetings. Early supportive care is always recommended and inclusion in clinical trials must be systematically considered., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Masson SAS. Tous droits réservés. All rights reserved.)

Rationale: Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), defined as BRCA1/2 mutation (BRCAmut) or high genomic instability, is used to identify ovarian cancer (OC) patients most likely to benefit from PARP inhibitors. While these tests are useful, they are imperfect. Another approach is to measure the capacity of tumor cells to form RAD51 foci in the presence of DNA damage using an immunofluorescence assay (IF). We aimed to describe for the first time this assay in OC and correlate it to platinum response and BRCAmut., Methods: Tumor samples were prospectively collected from the randomized CHIVA trial of neoadjuvant platinum +/- nintedanib. IF for RAD51, GMN and gH2AX was performed on FFPE blocks. Tumors were considered RAD51-low if ≤10% of GMN-positive tumor cells had ≥5 RAD51 foci. BRCAmut were identified by NGS., Results: 155 samples were available. RAD51 assay was contributive for 92% of samples and NGS available for 77%. gH2AX foci confirmed the presence of significant basal DNA damage. 54% of samples were considered HRD by RAD51 and presented higher overall response rates to neoadjuvant platinum (P = 0.04) and longer progression-free survival (P = 0.02). In addition, 67% of BRCAmut were HRD by RAD51. Among BRCAmut, RAD51-high tumors seem to harbor poorer response to chemotherapy (P = 0.02)., Conclusions: We evaluated a functional assay of HR competency. OC demonstrate high levels of DNA damage, yet 54% fail to form RAD51 foci. These RAD51-low OC tend to be more sensitive to neoadjuvant platinum. The RAD51 assay also identified a subset of RAD51-high BRCAmut tumors with unexpected poor platinum response., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the KEYNOTE-826 study, the addition of the anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab improved overall survival and progression-free survival (primary endpoints) versus placebo plus chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab, with manageable toxicity, in patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer. In this Article, we report patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from KEYNOTE-826., Methods: KEYNOTE-826 is a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial in 151 cancer treatment centres in 19 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer not previously treated with systemic chemotherapy (previous radiosensitising chemotherapy was allowed) and not amenable to curative treatment and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by means of an interactive voice response system in a double-blind manner to receive either pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks intravenously for up to 35 cycles plus chemotherapy (paclitaxel 175 mg/m 2 plus cisplatin 50 mg/m 2 or carboplatin area under the curve 5 mg/mL per min, intravenously) with or without bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks intravenously. Randomisation (block size of 4) was stratified by metastatic disease at diagnosis, planned bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 combined positive score. Patients, investigators, and other study personnel involved in study treatment administration or clinical evaluation of patients were unaware of treatment group assignments. PRO instruments were the EORTC Quality-of-Life-Core 30 (QLQ-C30), the EORTC cervical cancer module (QLQ-CX24), and the EuroQol-5 dimension-5 level (EQ-5D-5L) visual analogue scale, each collected before treatment at cycles 1-14 and every other cycle thereafter. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival per RECIST version 1.1 by investigator review. Change from baseline in QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS)-quality of life (QoL) was a prespecified secondary endpoint and was assessed in the PRO full analysis population (all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment and completed at least one post-baseline PRO assessment). Other PRO analyses were protocol-specified exploratory endpoints. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03635567, and is ongoing., Findings: Between Nov 20, 2018, and Jan 31, 2020, of 883 patients screened, 617 were randomly assigned (pembrolizumab group, n=308; placebo group, n=309). 587 (95%) of 617 patients received at least one dose of study treatment and completed at least one post-baseline PRO assessment and were therefore included in the PRO analyses (pembrolizumab group, n=290; placebo group, n=297). Median follow-up was 22·0 months (IQR 19·1-24·4). At week 30, QLQ-C30 completion was 199 (69%) of 290 patients in the pembrolizumab group and 168 (57%) of 297 patients in the placebo group; compliance was 199 (94%) of 211 and 168 (90%) of 186, respectively. The least squares mean change in QLQ-C30 GHS-QoL score from baseline to week 30 was -0·3 points (95% CI -3·1 to 2·6) in the pembrolizumab group and -1·3 points (-4·2 to 1·7) in the placebo group, with a between-group difference in least squares mean change of 1·0 point (95% CI -2·7 to 4·7). Median time to true deterioration in GHS-QoL was not reached (NR; 95% CI 13·4 months-NR) in the pembrolizumab group and 12·9 months (6·6-NR) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·84 [95% CI 0·65-1·09]). 122 (42%) of 290 patients in the pembrolizumab group versus 85 (29%) of 297 in the placebo group had improved GHS-QoL at any time during the study (p=0·0003)., Interpretation: Addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab did not negatively affect health-related quality of life. Along with the efficacy and safety results already reported from KEYNOTE-826, these data support the benefit of pembrolizumab and the value of immunotherapy in patients with recurrent, persistent, or metastatic cervical cancer., Funding: Merck Sharp & Dohme., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests All authors' institutions received research funding from Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck (Rahway, NJ, USA), for the conduct of this study. BJM was a consultant to or received honoraria from AbbVie, Agenus, Akeso Biopharma, Aravive, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Elevar Therapeutics, EMD Serono, Genentech, Genmab–Seattle Genetics, GlaxoSmithKline, GOG Foundation, Gradalis, ImmunoGen, Incyte Corporation, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Janssen Biotech, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Merck, Mersana Therapeutics, Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Novocure, Pfizer, Pfizer International, Puma Biotechnology, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sorrento Therapeutics, Takeda Development Center Americas, US Oncology, and VBL Therapeutics. KST received research grant to institution, and consultant–speaker's bureau fees from Merck. CD was on an endpoint review committee for Merck. KH was a scientific advisory board member and received honoraria, contracted research and study funding to their institution from Merck Sharp & Dohme. RS-F received speaker honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Sanofi, Roche, Medison, and Neopharm; a research grant to their institution from Merck Sharp & Dohme, and was an advisory board member for Merck Sharp and Dohme, VBL Therapeutics, and Clovis Oncology. PS received research support from Merck and participated in advisory boards for BMS, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novartis. MG received speaker's bureau–advisory board fees from Amgen, and received advisory board fees (institutional) from from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Takeda Oncology, and travel fees from F Hoffmann-La Roche. VS was a consultant or advisory board member for GlaxoSmithKline and Merck. VC received a grant to institution from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bayer Healthcare, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Seagen; consultant–advisory board fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals, Merck, Pfizer Canada, and Seagen; and consultant fees from AstraZeneca Canada and Pfizer Canada. CT, KL, AMN, and MJM are employees of Merck Sharp & Dohme and own stock in Merck. NC reports fees for advisory board membership from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunogen, Mersana, Merck Sharp & Dohme–Merck, Nuvation Bio, Onxerna, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Pieris, Roche; fees as an invited speaker for AstraZeneca, Novartis, Clovis Oncology, GlaxoSmithKline, and Merck–Merck Sharp & Dohme; institutional research grants from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, and Roche; and non-remunerated activities as member of the ESMO Guidelines Steering Committee and chairs for of the Scientific Committee of Alleanza contro il tumore ovarico. DL was a consultant for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GlaxoSmithKline, Gynecological Cancer InterGroup, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pharma Mar; received a research grant to institution from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, ImmunoGen, Incyte Corporation, Merck, Merck Sharp and Dohme, PharmaMar; and was a data and safety monitoring board member for Novartis. MVC, EY, MOHdM, and AA declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: The oral anti-angiogenic therapy nintedanib prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) when combined with chemotherapy after primary surgery for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. The randomized phase II CHIVA trial evaluated the impact of combining nintedanib with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for epithelial ovarian cancer., Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed unresectable FIGO stage IIIC-IV epithelial ovarian cancer received 3-4 cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel every 3 weeks as NACT before interval debulking surgery (IDS), followed by 2-3 post-operative cycles. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive either nintedanib 200 mg twice daily or placebo on days 2-21 every 3 weeks during NACT (omitting peri-operative cycles), and then as maintenance therapy for up to 2 years. The primary endpoint was PFS., Results: Between January 2013 and May 2015, 188 patients were randomized (124 to nintedanib, 64 to placebo). PFS was significantly inferior with nintedanib (median 14.4 versus 16.8 months with placebo; hazard ratio 1.50, p = 0.02). Overall survival (OS) was also inferior (median 37.7 versus 44.1 months, respectively; hazard ratio 1.54, p = 0.054). Nintedanib was associated with increased toxicity (grade 3/4 adverse events: 92% versus 69%, predominantly hematologic and gastrointestinal), lower response rate by RECIST (35% versus 56% before IDS), and lower IDS feasibility (58% versus 77%) versus placebo., Conclusions: Adding nintedanib to chemotherapy and in maintenance as part of NACT for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer cannot be recommended as it increases toxicity and compromises chemotherapy efficacy (IDS, PFS, OS)., Clinicaltrials: govregistration: NCT01583322., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Gwénaël Ferron: Advisory boards (Clovis, AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD, Roche, RanD Biotech, Olympus), lectures/symposia (AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK, MSD, PharmaMar). Nicolas Delanoy: Advisory boards/honoraria (GSK, AstraZeneca, MSD, Clovis Oncology). Florence Joly: Advisory boards (Clovis, AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD, Seagen), lectures/symposia (AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK, MSD); non-gynecology: Ipsen, Janssen, Sanofi, Bayer, Astellas, Pfizer, Amgen. Alain Lortholary: Advisory board fees (AstraZeneca, MSD Tesaro), speaker honoraria (Clovis Oncology, Roche), congress participation (Novartis, Pfizer, MSD, Lilly, Roche), member of CS3 sein UNICANCER. Benoît You: Consulting (MSD, AstraZeneca, GSK–Tesaro, Bayer, Roche/Genentech, ECS Progastrin, Novartis, LEK, Amgen, Clovis Oncology, Merck Serono, BMS, Seagen, Myriad). Nadine Dohollou: Consulting/expert (Daiichi, Lilly, Roche, Seagen), conferences/training (Daiichi, Lilly, Roche, Seagen), research grants/clinical trials (AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genomic Health, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche). Anne Floquet: Advisory boards (MSD, AstraZeneca, GSK, Clovis Oncology), congress participation (AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD, PharmaMar, Roche). Michel Fabbro: AstraZeneca, GSK, Clovis. Jérôme Alexandre: AstraZeneca, GSK, Clovis, MSD, Eisai, Novartis. Isabelle Ray-Coquard: Advisory/consultancy (Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, ImmunoGen, Mersana, Deciphera, Novocure, Eisai, Sutro Pharma, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer/Merck Serono, PharmaMar, Roche), research grant/funding (Roche, BMS, MSD, GSK), travel/accommodation/expenses (AstraZeneca, Roche, GSK, Clovis)., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Patients with HER2-positive breast cancer (HER2 + BC) develop central nervous system metastases twice as often as patients with luminal HER2-negative breast cancer. Leptomeningeal progression results in a drastically altered prognosis with limited therapeutic options. This phase II study was conducted to assess the efficacy of intrathecal (IT) trastuzumab in HER2 + BC patients with leptomeningeal metastasis (LM), based on a phase I dose-escalation study that had determined the recommended weekly dose of 150 mg for phase II., Methods: Eligible patients received weekly administrations of 150 mg of IT trastuzumab. The primary endpoint was clinical neurologic progression-free survival (LM-related-PFS) after 8 weeks. Overall survival (OS), toxicities, and quality of life (QoL) were secondary endpoints., Results: Among the 19 enrolled patients, 16 (84%) had concomitant brain metastases, 15 of them had received prior radiotherapy to the brain. All patients had received at least one line of systemic anti-HER2 therapy. After 8 weeks, 14 patients (74%) were free of neurological progression. The median LM-related-PFS was 5.9 months and the median OS was 7.9 months. According to the QLQ-C30 and BN20 scales, the global health-related QoL status seemed preserved and no toxicity above grade 3 was observed., Conclusions: Conducting studies on patients with LM poses significant challenges and ethical dilemmas inherent to this population. Despite some limits, this phase II study's findings in terms of clinical neurologic response and QoL's control confirms weekly administration of 150 mg of IT trastuzumab as a valuable option for HER + BC patients with LM and support the interest for further investigations., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: In advanced oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, acquired resistance to aromatase inhibitors frequently stems from ESR1-mutated subclones, which might be sensitive to fulvestrant. The PADA-1 trial aimed to show the efficacy of an early change in therapy on the basis of a rising ESR1 mutation in blood (bESR1 mut ), while assessing the global safety of combination fulvestrant and palbociclib., Methods: We did a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial in 83 hospitals in France. Women aged at least 18 years with oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were recruited and monitored for rising bESR1 mut during first-line aromatase inhibitor (2·5 mg letrozole, 1 mg anastrozole, or 25 mg exemestane, orally once per day, taken continuously) and palbociclib (125 mg orally once per day on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle) therapy. Patients with newly present or increased bESR1 mut in circulating tumour DNA and no synchronous disease progression were randomly assigned (1:1) to continue with the same therapy or to switch to fulvestrant (500 mg intramuscularly on day 1 of each 28-day cycle and on day 15 of cycle 1) and palbociclib (dosing unchanged). The randomisation sequence was generated within an interactive web response system using a minimisation method (with an 80% random factor); patients were stratified according to visceral involvement (present or absent) and the time from inclusion to bESR1 mut detection (<12 months or ≥12 months). The co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival from random assignment, analysed in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all randomly assigned patients), and grade 3 or worse haematological adverse events in all patients. The trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03079011), and is now complete., Findings: From March 22, 2017, to Jan 31, 2019, 1017 patients were included, of whom 279 (27%) developed a rising bESR1 mut and 172 (17%) were randomly assigned to treatment: 88 to switching to fulvestrant and palbociclib and 84 patients to continuing aromatase inhibitor and palbociclib. At database lock on July 31, 2021, randomly assigned patients had a median follow-up of 35·3 months (IQR 29·2-41·4) from inclusion and 26·0 months (13·8-34·3) from random assignment. Median progression-free survival from random assignment was 11·9 months (95% CI 9·1-13·6) in the fulvestrant and palbociclib group versus 5·7 months (3·9-7·5) in the aromatase inhibitor and palbociclib group (stratified HR 0·61, 0·43-0·86; p=0·0040). The most frequent grade 3 or worse haematological adverse events were neutropenia (715 [70·3%] of 1017 patients), lymphopenia (66 [6·5%]), and thrombocytopenia (20 [2·0%]). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in step 2 were neutropenia (35 [41·7%] of 84 patients in the aromatase inhibitor and palbociclib group vs 39 [44·3%] of 88 patients in the fulvestrant and palbociclib group) and lymphopenia (three [3·6%] vs four [4·5%]). 31 (3·1%) patients had grade 3 or worse serious adverse events related to treatment in the overall population. Three (1·7%) of 172 patients randomly assigned had one serious adverse event in step 2: one (1·2%) grade 4 neutropenia and one (1·2%) grade 3 fatigue among 84 patients in the aromatase inhibitor and palbociclib group, and one (1·1%) grade 4 neutropenia among 88 patients in the fulvestrant and palbociclib group. One death by pulmonary embolism in step 1 was declared as being treatment related., Interpretation: PADA-1 is the first prospective randomised trial showing that the early therapeutic targeting of bESR1 mut results in significant clinical benefit. Additionally, the original design explored in PADA-1 might help with tackling acquired resistance with new drugs in future trials., Funding: Pfizer., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests F-CB reports, outside the submitted work, grants or contracts from Novartis, Lilly, Amgen, Sanofi, Radius, Seagen, AstraZeneca, General Electric, Menarini/Stemline, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, Merck, Pfizer, Prolynx, Rain Therapeutics, and Roche; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, General Electric, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Menarini/Stemline, Novartis, Pfizer, Rain Therapeutics, and Sanofi; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, Lilly, Menarini/Stemline, Pfizer, Rain Therapeutics, and Sanofi; support for attending meetings or travel from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, and Roche; and applied for an international patent (application number PCT/EP2019/056445), filed on March 14, 2019, named: method for identifying one or more mutations in a hotspot mutation sequence. A-CH-B reports, outside the submitted work, consulting fees from AstraZeneca and Merck Sharpe & Dohme; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from MSD, AstraZeneca, Daiichi, GSK, Seagen, and Gilead; support for attending meetings or travel from Novartis, Pfizer, and Daiichi; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for MSD, AstraZeneca, Daiichi, Pfizer, Novartis, GSK, Seagen, Gilead, and Eisai. TB reports, outside the submitted work, grants or contracts from Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and SeaGen; and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Daiichi, Lilly, SeaGen, Roche, Novartis, and Pfizer. J-YP reports, outside the submitted work, grants or contracts from Servier and Menarini; consulting fees from Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, and MSD; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, MSD, Seagen, Novartis, Lilly, Pierre Fabre, and Amgen; support for attending meetings or travel from Roche and AstraZeneca; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Sanofi and Novartis. TdlMR reports, outside the submitted work, grants or contracts from Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, MSD, Roche, Pfizer, and Seagen; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Tesaro, GSK, and Seagen; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from GSK. RS reports, outside the submitted work, grants or contracts from AstraZeneca; consulting fees from GSK; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Novartis, GSK, Clovis, and AstraZeneca; and support for attending meetings or travel from Pfizer, Roche, GSK, and Bristol Myers Squibb. J-SF reports, outside the submitted work, consulting fees from Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, and Seagen; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, and Seagen; and support for attending meetings or travel from Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, and Seagen. SL reports, outside the submitted work, grants or contracts from Novartis, Eisai, and BMS; consulting fees from Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Astellas, Janssen, Ipsen, Roche, BMS, Daiichi, Seagen, and Pierre Fabre; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Astellas, Janssen, Ipsen, Roche, BMS, Daiichi, Seagen, and Pierre Fabre; payment for expert testimony from Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Astellas, Janssen, Ipsen, Roche, BMS, Daiichi, and Seagen; support for attending meetings or travel from Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Janssen, BMS, Daiichi, and Seagen; and receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts, or other services from BMS. CL reports, outside the submitted work, consulting fees from MSD, Daiichi, Roche, and AstraZeneca; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Lilly; support for attending meetings or travel from Roche, Pfizer, Sandoz, Lilly, and AstraZeneca; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Roche, AstraZeneca, and Lilly. AL reports, outside the submitted work, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, MSD, and Clovis; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca, MSD, and Clovis; and leadership or fiduciary role in other board for GINECO group. JG reports, outside the submitted work, support for attending meetings or travel from Lilly and Daiichi; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Daiichi and Pfizer. HV reports, outside the submitted work, grants or contracts from Eisai, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Daiichi, and Pfizer; and support for attending meetings or travel from Eisai, GSK, MSD, and Novartis. CG-T reports, outside the submitted work, grants or contracts from Pfizer; consulting fees from Pfizer; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Astrazeneca, Pfizer and Novartis; and support for attending meetings or travel from MSD, Mylan, and Pfizer. BP reports, outside the submitted work, consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Myriad, Pierre Fabre, and Pfizer; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, and Puma; support for attending meetings or travel from AstraZeneca, Pierre Fabre, and MSD; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Daiichi Sankyo. FA reports, outside the submitted work, reports grants or contracts from Roche, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Novartis, and Lilly; and consulting fees from Gilead, Guardant Health, MedImmune, and Relay Therapeutics. LA reports, outside the submitted work, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Roche, MSD, AstraZeneca, and BMS; and support for attending meetings or travel from Roche. JL reports a Pfizer grant to his institution for carrying out this study. SD reports, outside the submitted work, grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche Genentech, Lilly, Puma, Myriad, Orion, Amgen, Sanofi, MSD, BMS, Seagen, and Taiho; consulting fees from Isis/Servier, Cellectis, Pierre Fabre, and General Electric; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Seagen, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Exact Sciences, Daiichi, and Lilly; support for attending meetings or travel from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Roche Genentech; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Orion, and Rappta. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Olaparib has significantly improved outcome and patient-centered endpoints in BRCA1/2-mutated patients with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer (PSOC). Specific information on efficacy and safety of olaparib for older patients appears of special interest., Methods: 295 patients from the SOLO2 trial randomly assigned to olaparib or placebo were categorized according to age-cutoff at 65 years. Efficacy, tolerability, and quality of life (QoL) of olaparib relative to placebo within in each age group was analyzed., Results: Baseline characteristics were similar in patients ≥65 years (N = 62;21.0%) compared to patients <65 years (N = 233;78.9%). No significant difference in the magnitude of progression-free survival (PFS) benefit from olaparib for older patients (N = 40, hazard ratio [HR] ≥65 0.43, 95%-confidence interval [CI] 0.24-0.81) as compared with younger patients (N = 155, HR <65 0.31 (95%-CI 0.22-0.43) was seen (interaction P = 0.33). The overall survival (OS)benefit seen in younger patients in the olaparib arm was not observed in older patients. Older and younger patients had comparable safety profiles and QoL scores although higher discontinuation rates for toxicity, and higher frequency of AML/MDS were noted in the older subset. TWiST analysis revealed clinically meaningful duration of good QoL on olaparib for both age groups (≥65: 13.5 vs <65: 18.4 months, P = 0.05)., Conclusions: Results of this large phase III cohort of BRCA1/2-mutated PSOC patients treated with olaparib underline impressive efficacy of olaparib maintenance irrespective of age. Although toxicity and tolerability did not raise significant concerns, some caution, close monitoring, and follow-up needs to be exercised for older patients given higher discontinuation rates, frequency of AML/MDS, and no clear effects on OS., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. Trillsch reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Eisai, Medac, MSD, PharmaMar, Roche, and Tesaro/GSK, outside the submitted work. Dr. Mahner reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Medac, Novartis, Olympus Europe, PharmaMar, Pfizer, Roche, Sensor Kinesis, Tesaro/GSK, and Teva, outside the submitted work. Dr. Ataseven, Dr. Asher, Dr. Aryal, Dr. Dubot have nothing to disclose. Dr. Clamp reports grants from AstraZeneca, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from AstraZenca, Clovis Oncology, outside the submitted work. Dr. Penson reports grants from AstraZeneca, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from AbbVie, Array BioPharma Inc., AstraZenca, Cancer Panels, Care4ward, Eisai, Genetech, Merck & Co., Roche Pharma, Sutro Biopharma, GSK Inc., Vascular Biogenics Ltd., WebMD, outside the submitted work. Dr. Oza, Dr. Dr. Amit, and Dr. Huzarski have nothing to disclose. Dr. Casado reports grants and personal fees from AstraZenca, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, PharmaMar, Roche, Tesaro, outside the submitted work. Dr. Scambia has nothing to disclose. Dr. Friedlander reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZenca, Beigene, MSD, GSK, Takeda, Novartis, Lilly, outside the submitted work. Dr. Colombo reports grants from AstraZeneca, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, BIOCAD, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Immonogen, Mersana, MSD, Novartis, Oncxerna, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, Tesaro, outside the submitted work. Dr. Fujiwara reports grants from AstraZeneca, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Takeda, Genmab, Nano Carrier, Regenerone, Seagen, Zeria, outside the submitted work. Dr. Sonke reports grants from AstraZeneca, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from Biovica, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Seagen, outside the submitted work. Dr. Denys reports grants and personal fees from Pfizer, Roche, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Amgen, Tesaro, GSK, Teva, outside the submitted work. Dr. Lowe reports other from AstraZeneca (full time employee), outside the submitted work. Dr. Lee reports grants from AstraZeneca, during the conduct of the study. Dr. Pujade-Lauraine reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Merck, GSK, Roche, Incyte, ARCAGY Research, outside the submitted work., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)