Explore the vast range of titles available.

Advanced soft magnetic materials are needed to match high-power density and switching frequencies made possible by advances in wide band-gap semiconductors. Magnetics capable of operating at higher operating frequencies have the potential to greatly reduce the size of megawatt level power electronics. In this article, we examine the role of soft magnetic materials in high-frequency power applications and we discuss current material's limitations and highlight emerging trends in soft magnetic material design for high-frequency and power applications using the materials paradigm of synthesis -> structure -> property -> performance relationships.

Most patients with ovarian cancer will relapse after receiving frontline platinum-based chemotherapy and eventually develop platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory disease. We report results of avelumab alone or avelumab plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) compared with PLD alone in patients with platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer. JAVELIN Ovarian 200 was an open-label, parallel-group, three-arm, randomised, phase 3 trial, done at 149 hospitals and cancer treatment centres in 24 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer (maximum of three previous lines for platinum-sensitive disease, none for platinum-resistant disease) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via interactive response technology to avelumab (10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks), avelumab plus PLD (40 mg/m2 intravenously every 4 weeks), or PLD and stratified by disease platinum status, number of previous anticancer regimens, and bulky disease. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival by blinded independent central review and overall survival in all randomly assigned patients, with the objective to show whether avelumab alone or avelumab plus PLD is superior to PLD. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02580058. The trial is no longer enrolling patients and this is the final analysis of both primary endpoints. Between Jan 5, 2016, and May 16, 2017, 566 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (combination n=188; PLD n=190, avelumab n=188). At data cutoff (Sept 19, 2018), median duration of follow-up for overall survival was 18·4 months (IQR 15·6–21·9) for the combination group, 17·4 months (15·2–21·3) for the PLD group, and 18·2 months (15·8–21·2) for the avelumab group. Median progression-free survival by blinded independent central review was 3·7 months (95% CI 3·3–5·1) in the combination group, 3·5 months (2·1–4·0) in the PLD group, and 1·9 months (1·8–1·9) in the avelumab group (combination vs PLD: stratified HR 0·78 [repeated 93·1% CI 0·59–1·24], one-sided p=0·030; avelumab vs PLD: 1·68 [1·32–2·60], one-sided p>0·99). Median overall survival was 15·7 months (95% CI 12·7–18·7) in the combination group, 13·1 months (11·8–15·5) in the PLD group, and 11·8 months (8·9–14·1) in the avelumab group (combination vs PLD: stratified HR 0·89 [repeated 88·85% CI 0·74–1·24], one-sided p=0·21; avelumab vs PLD: 1·14 [0·95–1·58], one-sided p=0·83]). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (18 [10%] in the combination group vs nine [5%] in the PLD group vs none in the avelumab group), rash (11 [6%] vs three [2%] vs none), fatigue (ten [5%] vs three [2%] vs none), stomatitis (ten [5%] vs five [3%] vs none), anaemia (six [3%] vs nine [5%] vs three [2%]), neutropenia (nine [5%] vs nine [5%] vs none), and neutrophil count decreased (eight [5%] vs seven [4%] vs none). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 32 (18%) patients in the combination group, 19 (11%) in the PLD group, and 14 (7%) in the avelumab group. Treatment-related adverse events resulted in death in one patient each in the PLD group (sepsis) and avelumab group (intestinal obstruction). Neither avelumab plus PLD nor avelumab alone significantly improved progression-free survival or overall survival versus PLD. These results provide insights for patient selection in future studies of immune checkpoint inhibitors in platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer. Pfizer and Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.

Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have activity in ovarian carcinomas with homologous recombination deficiency. Along with BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA) mutations genomic loss of heterozygosity (LOH) might also represent homologous recombination deficiency. In ARIEL2, we assessed the ability of tumour genomic LOH, quantified with a next-generation sequencing assay, to predict response to rucaparib, an oral PARP inhibitor. ARIEL2 is an international, multicentre, two-part, phase 2, open-label study done at 49 hospitals and cancer centres in Australia, Canada, France, Spain, the UK, and the USA. In ARIEL2 Part 1, patients with recurrent, platinum-sensitive, high-grade ovarian carcinoma were classified into one of three predefined homologous recombination deficiency subgroups on the basis of tumour mutational analysis: BRCA mutant (deleterious germline or somatic), BRCA wild-type and LOH high (LOH high group), or BRCA wild-type and LOH low (LOH low group). We prespecified a cutoff of 14% or more genomic LOH for LOH high. Patients began treatment with oral rucaparib at 600 mg twice per day for continuous 28 day cycles until disease progression or any other reason for discontinuation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. All patients treated with at least one dose of rucaparib were included in the safety analyses and all treated patients who were classified were included in the primary endpoint analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01891344. Enrolment into ARIEL2 Part 1 is complete, although an extension (Part 2) is ongoing. 256 patients were screened and 206 were enrolled between Oct 30, 2013, and Dec 19, 2014. At the data cutoff date (Jan 18, 2016), 204 patients had received rucaparib, with 28 patients remaining in the study. 192 patients could be classified into one of the three predefined homologous recombination deficiency subgroups: BRCA mutant (n=40), LOH high (n=82), or LOH low (n=70). Tumours from 12 patients were established as BRCA wild-type, but could not be classified for LOH, because of insufficient neoplastic nuclei in the sample. The median duration of treatment for the 204 patients was 5·7 months (IQR 2·8–10·1). 24 patients in the BRCA mutant subgroup, 56 patients in the LOH high subgroup, and 59 patients in the LOH low subgroup had disease progression or died. Median progression-free survival after rucaparib treatment was 12·8 months (95% CI 9·0–14·7) in the BRCA mutant subgroup, 5·7 months (5·3–7·6) in the LOH high subgroup, and 5·2 months (3·6–5·5) in the LOH low subgroup. Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the BRCA mutant (hazard ratio 0·27, 95% CI 0·16–0·44, p<0·0001) and LOH high (0·62, 0·42–0·90, p=0·011) subgroups compared with the LOH low subgroup. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events were anaemia or decreased haemoglobin (45 [22%] patients), and elevations in alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase (25 [12%]). Common serious adverse events included small intestinal obstruction (10 [5%] of 204 patients), malignant neoplasm progression (10 [5%]), and anaemia (nine [4%]). Three patients died during the study (two because of disease progression and one because of sepsis and disease progression). No treatment-related deaths occurred. In patients with BRCA mutant or BRCA wild-type and LOH high platinum-sensitive ovarian carcinomas treated with rucaparib, progression-free survival was longer than in patients with BRCA wild-type LOH low carcinomas. Our results suggest that assessment of tumour LOH can be used to identify patients with BRCA wild-type platinum-sensitive ovarian cancers who might benefit from rucaparib. These results extend the potential usefulness of PARP inhibitors in the treatment setting beyond BRCA mutant tumours. Clovis Oncology, US Department of Defense Ovarian Cancer Research Program, Stand Up To Cancer—Ovarian Cancer Research Fund Alliance—National Ovarian Cancer Coalition Dream Team Translational Research Grant, and V Foundation Translational Award.

Pulmonary fibrosis is an enigmatic and devastating disease with few treatment options, now thought to result from abnormal wound healing in the lung in response to injury. We have previously noted a role for the chemokine interferon gamma-inducible protein of 10 kD (IP-10)/CXC chemokine ligand 10 in the regulation of cutaneous wound healing, and consequently investigated whether IP-10 regulates pulmonary fibrosis. We found that IP-10 is highly expressed in a mouse model of pulmonary fibrosis induced by bleomycin. IP-10-deficient mice exhibited increased pulmonary fibrosis after administration of bleomycin, suggesting that IP-10 limits the development of fibrosis in this model. Substantial fibroblast chemoattractant and proliferative activities were generated in the lung after bleomycin exposure. IP-10 significantly inhibited fibroblast responses to the chemotactic, but not the proliferative activity generated, suggesting that IP-10 may attenuate fibroblast accumulation in bleomycin-induced pulmonary fibrosis by limiting fibroblast migration. Consistent with this inhibitory activity of IP-10 on fibroblast migration, fibroblast accumulation in the lung after bleomycin exposure was dramatically increased in IP-10-deficient mice compared with wild-type mice. Conversely, transgenic mice overexpressing IP-10 were protected from mortality after bleomycin exposure, and demonstrated decreased fibroblast accumulation in the lung after challenge compared with wild-type mice. Our findings suggest that interruption of fibroblast recruitment may represent a novel therapeutic strategy for pulmonary fibrosis, which could have applicability to a wide range of fibrotic illnesses.

Introduction: A strong family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer can often be explained by small insertions, deletions, or substitutions in BRCA1 or BRCA2 and large genomic rearrangements in BRCA1. However, there is little evidence that genomic rearrangements are a major factor in BRCA2 associated breast cancer and the frequencies of rearrangements in BRCA1 in large clinic based populations are unknown. Objective: To investigate the frequency of large genomic rearrangements in BRCA1 and BRCA2 in a large clinic based population at high risk of developing breast and/or ovarian cancer. Methods: Multiplex ligation dependent probe amplification was used to comprehensively screen BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 in 312 index cases. Results: Three novel deletions detected in BRCA2 were found exclusively in families with at least one case of male breast cancer. Novel rearrangements in BRCA1 were detected mostly in families with both breast and ovarian cancer. Families with these mutations were significantly younger at average age of cancer diagnosis. Conclusion: Screening for large genomic rearrangements in both BRCA1 and BRCA2 is strongly supported by this study, in particular in multiple case breast/ovarian families with a young age of onset (BRCA1) and families containing at least one case of male breast cancer (BRCA2).

Introduction/BackgroundMaintenance therapy for recurrent ovarian cancer is intended to extend progression-free survival (PFS) without compromising patient quality of life; therefore, the clinical benefits of prolonged PFS should be evaluated in the context of toxicities that may compromise patients‘ wellbeing. In ARIEL3 (CO-338-014; NCT01968213), rucaparib significantly improved PFS vs placebo in all predefined patient cohorts regardless of biomarker status (Coleman et al. Lancet. 2017;390:1949-61) or age (Ledermann et al. Presented at SGO 2019; abst 4). This post hoc exploratory analysis examined quality-adjusted PFS (QA-PFS) and quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) in patients from ARIEL3, including the subgroup of patients with a BRCA mutation and subgroups based on patient age.MethodologyPatients were randomised 2:1 to oral rucaparib (600 mg BID) or placebo. QA-PFS and Q-TWiST were analysed in patients with a BRCA mutation (germline, somatic, or origin unknown), the ITT population (ie, all randomised patients), and subgroups of the ITT population defined by patient age at baseline (<65, 65–74, or ≥75 years). Q-TWiST was performed using 2 sets of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs): all grade ≥3 TEAEs and grade ≥2 TEAEs of nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and asthenia only.ResultsThe visit cutoff date for these analyses was 15 April 2017. QA-PFS, Q-TWiST considering grade ≥3 TEAEs, and Q-TWiST considering select grade ≥2 TEAEs were significantly longer with rucaparib than placebo in patients with a BRCA mutation and in the ITT population (table). Across all age subgroups, QA-PFS and Q-TWiST (both analyses) were significantly longer with rucaparib than placebo (table 1).Abstract – Table 1ConclusionIn the ITT population, BRCA-mutant subgroup, and age subgroups analysed, the quality-adjusted analyses, which incorporated patient-centred perspectives, confirmed the benefit of rucaparib vs placebo.DisclosureNC: Clovis, Advaxis, AstraZeneca, BIOCAD, MSD, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, Takeda, Tesaro AMO: Clovis, Amgen, Immunovaccine, Verastem, AstraZeneca, WebRx DL: Clovis, AstraZeneca, ImmunoGen, Merck, PharmaMar, Roche, Takeda, Tesaro CA: Clovis, Mateon, Bayer, Cerulean, Tesaro, VentiRx AO: Clovis, AstraZeneca, ImmunoGen, Genmab/Seattle Genetics, PharmaMar, Roche, Tesaro AD: Precision Oncology Australia, Shire, Specialised Therapeutics Australia JIW: AbbVie, AstraZeneca ARC: AstraZeneca, Roche, Clovis GS: Clovis, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, Roche, Tesaro AL: Clovis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, GamaMabs, Merus, AstraZeneca RWH: Clovis, AstraZeneca, Tesaro MAG: Clovis, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, Roche PCF: Clovis, AstraZeneca JCG: AstraZeneca, BMS, Janssen, Ipsen, MSD, Astellas DMO’M: Clovis, AstraZeneca, Gynecologic Oncology Group, Janssen, Myriad, Tesaro, Amgen, ImmunoGen, AbbVie, Ambry, Health Analytics, Agenus, Ajinomoto, Array, BMS, ERGOMED Clinical Research, Exelixis, Genentech, GSK, INC Research, inVentiv Health Clinical, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Novartis, PRA International, Regeneron, Serono, Stemcentrx, TRACON DKA: Morphotek, Clovis, Advaxis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Syndax, Tesaro SB: Clovis, AstraZeneca, ImmunoGen, GamaMabs, Merck Serono, PharmaMar, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro JG-D: AstraZeneca, Clovis, Genentech/Roche, Janssen EMS: nothing to disclose JM: Modus Outcomes TC, LM, SG, JB: Clovis RLC: Clovis, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Esperance, Janssen, Merck, Millennium, OncoMed, Roche/Genentech, Bayer, GamaMabs, Genmab, Gradalis, Millennium, Pfizer, Tesaro JAL: Clovis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Artios Pharma, Cristal Therapeutics, Merck/MSD, Regeneron, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro.

Introduction/BackgroundIn ARIEL3, rucaparib maintenance treatment significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs placebo in all patient populations, regardless of biomarker status (Coleman et al. Lancet. 2017;390:1949–61). This subgroup analysis examined the effect of the stratification factor PFI following penultimate platinum-based chemotherapy (also a prognostic factor in ovarian cancer) on primary and secondary endpoints of investigator-assessed and blinded independent central review (BICR)-assessed PFS in ARIEL3.MethodologyPatients were randomised 2:1 to oral rucaparib (600 mg BID) or placebo. Analysis was based on the randomisation stratification factor of PFI following penultimate platinum-based regimen: 6–12 months or >12 months. PFS was assessed in 3 predefined cohorts: BRCA mutant; BRCA mutant + BRCA wild type/high loss of heterozygosity (LOH high); and intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received ≥1 dose of rucaparib.ResultsVisit cutoff dates for efficacy and safety were 15 April 2017 and 31 December 2017, respectively. For all predefined cohorts, investigator and BICR assessments showed a significant PFS improvement with rucaparib vs placebo in both PFI subgroups (figure 1).Abstract – Figure 1As expected, patients receiving placebo with a PFI 6–12 months had a shorter median PFS than those with a PFI >12 months. The treatment by PFI subgroup interaction was not significant, indicating that the treatment benefit was similar in both PFI subgroups. Safety data in the PFI subgroups were consistent with the overall study population, as previously reported.ConclusionIn ARIEL3, rucaparib maintenance treatment significantly improved PFS vs placebo in all cohorts, irrespective of PFI subgroup. The magnitude of treatment effect was similar for both PFI subgroups.DisclosureARC: AstraZeneca, Roche, Clovis AMO: Clovis, Amgen, Immunovaccine, Verastem, AstraZeneca, WebRx DL: Clovis, AstraZeneca, ImmunoGen, Merck, PharmaMar, Roche, Takeda, Tesaro CA: Clovis, Mateon, Bayer, Cerulean, Tesaro, VentiRx AO: Clovis, AstraZeneca, ImmunoGen, Genmab/Seattle Genetics, PharmaMar, Roche, Tesaro AD: Precision Oncology Australia, Shire Pharmaceuticals, Specialised Therapeutics Australia NC: Clovis, Advaxis, AstraZeneca, BIOCAD, MSD, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, Takeda, Tesaro JIW: AbbVie, AstraZeneca GS: Clovis, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, Roche, Tesaro AL: Clovis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, GamaMabs, Merus, AstraZeneca RWH: Clovis, AstraZeneca, Tesaro MAG: Clovis, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, Roche PCF: Clovis, AstraZeneca JCG: AstraZeneca, BMS, Janssen, Ipsen, MSD, Astellas DMO’M: Clovis, AstraZeneca, Gynecologic Oncology Group, Janssen, Myriad, Tesaro, Amgen, ImmunoGen, AbbVie, Ambry, Health Analytics, Agenus, Ajinomoto, Array BioPharma, BMS, ERGOMED Clinical Research, Exelixis, Genentech, GSK, INC Research, inVentiv Health Clinical, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Novartis, PRA International, Regeneron, Serono, Stemcentrx, TRACON DKA: Morphotek, Clovis, Advaxis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Syndax, Tesaro SB: Clovis, AstraZeneca, ImmunoGen, GamaMabs, Merck Serono, PharmaMar, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro JG-D: AstraZeneca, Clovis, Genentech/Roche, Janssen EMS: nothing to disclose TC, LM, SG: Clovis RLC: Clovis, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Esperance, Janssen, Merck, Millennium, OncoMed, Roche/Genentech, Bayer, GamaMabs, Genmab, Gradalis, Pfizer, Tesaro JAL: Clovis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Artios Pharma, Cristal Therapeutics, MSD, Regeneron, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro.

IntroductionIn ARIEL3 (NCT01968213), the poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo regardless of biomarker status when used as maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian cancer. The aim of the current analyses was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rucaparib in subgroups based on progression-free interval following penultimate platinum, number of prior chemotherapies, and prior use of bevacizumab.MethodsPatients were randomized 2:1 to rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Within subgroups, progression-free survival was assessed in prespecified, nested cohorts: BRCA-mutant, homologous recombination deficient (BRCA-mutant or wild-type BRCA/high genomic loss of heterozygosity), and the intent-to-treat population.ResultsIn the intent-to-treat population, median investigator-assessed progression-free survival was 8.2 months with rucaparib versus 4.1 months with placebo (n=151 vs n=76; HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.46, p<0.0001) for patients with progression-free interval 6 to ≤12 months, and 13.6 versus 5.6 months (n=224 vs n=113; HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.52, p<0.0001) for those with progression-free interval >12 months. Median progression-free survival was 10.4 versus 5.4 months (n=231 vs n=124; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.54, p<0.0001) for patients who had received two prior chemotherapies, and 11.1 versus 5.3 months (n=144 vs n=65; HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.41, p<0.0001) for those who had received ≥3 prior chemotherapies. Median progression-free survival was 10.3 versus 5.4 months (n=83 vs n=43; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.68, p=0.0004) for patients who had received prior bevacizumab, and 10.9 versus 5.4 months (n=292 vs n=146; HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.45, p<0.0001) for those who had not. Across subgroups, median progression-free survival was also significantly longer with rucaparib versus placebo in the BRCA-mutant and homologous recombination deficient cohorts. Safety was consistent across subgroups.ConclusionsRucaparib maintenance treatment significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo irrespective of progression-free interval following penultimate platinum, number of lines of prior chemotherapy, and previous use of bevacizumab.

This cross-level field study, involving 187 employees from 35 groups in 20 organizations, examined how individuals' antisocial behaviors at work are shaped by the antisocial behavior of their coworkers. The research found a positive relationship between the level of antisocial behavior exhibited by an individual and that exhibited by his or her coworkers. It was also found that a number of factors moderated this relationship. Finally, it was found that dissatisfaction with coworkers was higher when individuals engaged in less antisocial behavior than their coworkers.

ObjectivesIn ARIEL3, rucaparib maintenance treatment significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs placebo. A prespecified exploratory analysis investigated postprogression outcomes. Additionally, a post hoc exploratory analysis investigated patient-centered outcomes during rucaparib maintenance treatment.MethodsPatients were randomized 2:1 to receive oral rucaparib (600 mg BID) or placebo. Postprogression endpoints included time to start of first subsequent therapy (TFST), time to second investigator-assessed PFS or death (PFS2), and time to start of second subsequent therapy (TSST); overall survival data are not yet mature. Patient-centered outcomes included quality-adjusted investigator-assessed PFS (QA-PFS) and quality-adjusted progression-free time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST). Analyses are presented for the predefined BRCA-mutant cohort and the intent-to-treat (ITT) population.ResultsThe visit cutoff dates for efficacy and safety were April 15, 2017, and December 31, 2017, respectively. Postprogression and patient-centered outcome data are given in the table 1. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of any grade (rucaparib vs placebo) were nausea (75.8% vs 36.5%), asthenia/fatigue (70.7% vs 44.4%), dysgeusia (39.8% vs 6.9%), and anemia/decreased hemoglobin (39.0% vs 5.3%). Any grade TEAEs of nausea, asthenia/fatigue, and anemia/decreased hemoglobin led to discontinuation in only 2.7%, 1.6%, and 2.7% of rucaparib-treated patients.Abstract 2 Table 1ConclusionsRucaparib significantly improved clinically meaningful postprogression outcomes vs placebo in the BRCA-mutant cohort and ITT population. The quality-adjusted analyses, which incorporated patient-centered perspectives during rucaparib maintenance treatment, confirmed the benefit of rucaparib vs placebo. The updated safety profile of rucaparib in ARIEL3 was consistent with prior reports.