Search

Purpose: To evaluate atezolizumab combined with platinum-based chemotherapy (CT) followed by maintenance niraparib for late-relapsing recurrent ovarian cancer., Methods: The multicenter placebo-controlled double-blind randomized phase III ENGOT-OV41/GEICO 69-O/ANITA trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03598270) enrolled patients with measurable high-grade serous, endometrioid, or undifferentiated recurrent ovarian cancer who had received one or two previous CT lines (most recent including platinum) and had a treatment-free interval since last platinum (TFIp) of >6 months. Patients were stratified by investigator-selected carboplatin doublet, TFIp, BRCA status, and PD-L1 status in de novo biopsy and randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either atezolizumab or placebo throughout standard therapy comprising six cycles of a carboplatin doublet followed (in patients with response/stable disease) by maintenance niraparib until progression. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST v1.1., Results: Between November 2018 and January 2022, 417 patients were randomly assigned (15% BRCA- mutated, 36% PD-L1-positive, 66% TFIp >12 months, 11% previous poly [ADP-ribose] polymerase inhibitor after frontline CT, and 53% previous bevacizumab). Median follow-up was 28.6 months (95% CI, 26.6 to 30.5 months). Atezolizumab did not significantly improve PFS (hazard ratio, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.71 to 1.10]; P = .28). Median PFS was 11.2 months (95% CI, 10.1 to 12.1 months) with atezolizumab versus 10.1 months (95% CI, 9.2 to 11.2 months) with standard therapy. Subgroup analyses generally showed consistent results, including analyses by PD-L1 status. The objective response rate (ORR) was 45% (95% CI, 39 to 52) with atezolizumab and 43% (95% CI, 36 to 49) with standard therapy. The safety profile was as expected from previous experience of these drugs., Conclusion: Combining atezolizumab with CT and maintenance niraparib for late-relapsing recurrent ovarian cancer did not significantly improve PFS or the ORR.

Background: The use of chemotherapy regimens with moderate or high risk of febrile neutropenia (defined as having a FN incidence of 10% or more) and the respective incidence and clinical management of FN in breast cancer and NHL has not been studied in Belgium. The existence of a medical need for G-CSF primary and secondary prophylaxis with these regimens was investigated in a real-life setting., Methods: Nine oncologists and six hematologists from different Belgian general hospitals and university centers were surveyed to collect expert opinion and real-life data (year 2007) on the use of chemotherapy regimens with moderate or high risk of febrile neutropenia and the clinical management of FN in patients aged <65 years with breast cancer or NHL. Data were retrospectively obtained, over a 6-month observation period., Results: The most frequently used regimens in breast cancer patients (n = 161) were FEC (45%), FEC-T (37%) and docetaxel alone (6%). In NHL patients (n = 39), R-CHOP-21 (33%) and R-ACVBP-14 (15%) were mainly used. Without G-CSF primary prophylaxis (PP), FN occurred in 31% of breast cancer patients, and 13% had PSN. After G-CSF secondary prophylaxis (SP), 4% experienced further FN events. Only 1 breast cancer patient received PP, and did not experience a severe neutropenic event. Overall, 30% of chemotherapy cycles observed in breast cancer patients were protected by PP/SP. In 10 NHL patients receiving PP, 2 (20%) developed FN, whereas 13 (45%) of the 29 patients without PP developed FN and 3 (10%) PSN. Overall, 55% of chemotherapy cycles observed in NHL patients were protected by PP/SP. Impaired chemotherapy delivery (timing and/or dose) was reported in 40% (breast cancer) and 38% (NHL) of patients developing FN. Based on oncologist expert opinion, hospitalization rates for FN (average length of stay) without and with PP were, respectively, 48% (4.2 days) and 19% (1.5 days). Similar rates were obtained from hematologists., Conclusions: Despite the studied chemotherapy regimens being known to be associated with a moderate or high risk of FN, upfront G-CSF prophylaxis was rarely used. The observed incidence of severe neutropenic events without G-CSF prophylaxis was higher than generally reported in the literature. The impact on medical resources used is sizeable.