Explore the vast range of titles available.

Olaparib is a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor and cediranib is an anti-angiogenic agent with activity against VEGF receptor (VEGFR) 1, VEGFR2, and VEGFR3. Both oral agents have antitumour activity in women with recurrent ovarian cancer, and their combination was active and had manageable toxicities in a phase 1 trial. We investigated whether this combination could improve progression-free survival (PFS) compared with olaparib monotherapy in women with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. In our randomised, open-label, phase 2 study, we recruited women (aged ≥18 years) who had measurable platinum-sensitive, relapsed, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer, or those with deleterious germline BRCA1/2 mutations from nine participating US academic medical centres. We randomly allocated participants (1:1) according to permuted blocks, stratified by germline BRCA status and previous anti-angiogenic therapy, to receive olaparib capsules 400 mg twice daily or the combination at the recommended phase 2 dose of cediranib 30 mg daily and olaparib capsules 200 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival analysed in the intention-to-treat population. The phase 2 trial is no longer accruing patients. An interim analysis was conducted in November, 2013, after 50% of expected events had occurred and efficacy results were unmasked. The primary analysis was performed on March 31, 2014, after 47 events (66% of those expected). The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01116648. Between Oct 26, 2011, and June 3, 2013, we randomly allocated 46 women to receive olaparib alone and 44 to receive the combination of olaparib and cediranib. Median PFS was 17·7 months (95% CI 14·7–not reached) for the women treated with cediranib plus olaparib compared with 9·0 months (95% CI 5·7–16·5) for those treated with olaparib monotherapy (hazard ratio 0·42, 95% CI 0·23–0·76; p=0·005). Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were more common with combination therapy than with monotherapy, including fatigue (12 patients in the cediranib plus olaparib group vs five patients in the olaparib monotherapy group), diarrhoea (ten vs none), and hypertension (18 vs none). Cediranib plus olaparib seems to improve PFS in women with recurrent platinum-sensitive high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer, and warrants study in a phase 3 trial. The side-effect profile suggests such investigations should include assessments of quality of life and patient-reported outcomes to understand the effects of a continuing oral regimen with that of intermittent chemotherapy. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (3 U01 CA062490-16S2); Intramural Program of the Center for Cancer Research; and the Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, NIH.

Aromatase inhibitors are somewhat more effective than tamoxifen as adjuvant therapy in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer. This benefit was extended to premenopausal women when they also received ovarian suppression to prevent ovarian compensation for aromatase inhibition. The most effective adjuvant endocrine therapy for premenopausal women with hormone-receptor (estrogen, progesterone, or both)–positive breast cancer is uncertain. Tamoxifen for at least 5 years is a standard of care. 1 – 3 Adjuvant suppression of ovarian function (hereafter, ovarian suppression) may be recommended in addition. For postmenopausal women, adjuvant therapy with an aromatase inhibitor, as compared with tamoxifen, improves outcomes. 2 – 9 In 2003, the International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG) initiated two randomized, phase 3 trials, the Tamoxifen and Exemestane Trial (TEXT) and the Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT), involving premenopausal women with hormone-receptor–positive early breast cancer, through collaboration with . . .

The combined efficacy analysis of the TEXT and SOFT trials showed a significant disease-free survival benefit with exemestane plus ovarian function suppression (OFS) compared with tamoxifen plus OFS. We present patient-reported outcomes from these trials. Between Nov 7, 2003, and April 7, 2011, 4717 premenopausal women with hormone-receptor positive breast cancer were enrolled in TEXT or SOFT to receive unmasked adjuvant treatment with 5 years of exemestane plus OFS or tamoxifen plus OFS. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue triptorelin, bilateral oophorectomy, or bilateral ovarian irradiation were used to achieve OFS. Chemotherapy use was optional. Randomisation with permuted blocks was done with the International Breast Cancer Study Group's internet-based system and was stratified by chemotherapy use and status of lymph nodes. Patients completed a quality of life (QoL) form comprising several global and symptom indicators at baseline, every 6 months for 24 months, and then every year during years 3 to 6. Differences in the change of QoL from baseline between the two treatments were tested at 6 months, 24 months, and 60 months with mixed-models for repeated measures for each trial with and without chemotherapy and overall. The analysis was by intention to treat. At the time of analysis, the median follow-up was 5·7 years (IQR 3·7–6·9); treatment and follow-up of patients continue. The trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, as NCT00066703 (TEXT) and NCT00066690 (SOFT). Patients on tamoxifen plus OFS were more affected by hot flushes and sweats over 5 years than were those on exemestane plus OFS, although these symptoms improved. Patients on exemestane plus OFS reported more vaginal dryness, greater loss of sexual interest, and difficulties becoming aroused than did patients on tamoxifen plus OFS; these differences persisted over time. An increase in bone or joint pain was more pronounced, particularly in the short term, in patients on exemestane plus OFS than patients on tamoxifen plus OFS. Changes in global QoL indicators from baseline were small and similar between treatments over the 5 years. Overall, from a QoL perspective, there is no strong indication to favour either exemestane plus OFS or tamoxifen plus OFS. The distinct effects of the two treatments on the burden of endocrine symptoms need to be addressed with patients individually. Pfizer, International Breast Cancer Study Group, and US National Cancer Institute.

Purpose Sexual dysfunction is an important concern of premenopausal women with early breast cancer. We investigated predictors of sexual problems in two randomized controlled trials. Methods A subset of patients enrolled in TEXT and SOFT completed global and symptom-specific quality-of-life indicators, CES-Depression and MOS-Sexual Problems measures at baseline, six, 12 and 24 months. Mixed models tested the association of changes in treatment-induced symptoms (baseline to 6 months), depression at 6 months, and age at randomization with changes in sexual problems over 2 years. Results Sexual problems increased by 6 months and persisted at this level. Overall, patients with more severe worsening of vaginal dryness, sleep disturbances and bone or joint pain at 6 months reported a greater increase in sexual problems at all time-points. Depression scores were significantly associated with sexual problems in the short-term. All other symptoms had a smaller impact on sexual problems. Age was not associated with sexual problems at any time-point. Conclusion Among several key symptoms, vaginal dryness, sleep disturbance, and bone and joint pain significantly predicted sexual problems during the first 2 years. Early identification of these symptoms may contribute to timely and tailored interventions.

Background In the phase III SOLE trial, the extended use of intermittent versus continuous letrozole for 5 years did not improve disease-free survival in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Intermittent therapy with 3-month breaks may be beneficial for patients’ quality of life (QoL). Methods In the SOLE QoL sub-study, 956 patients completed the Breast Cancer Prevention Trial (BCPT) symptom and further QoL scales up to 24 months after randomisation. Differences in change of QoL from baseline between the two administration schedules were tested at 12 and 24 months using repeated measures mixed-models. The primary outcome was change in hot flushes at 12 months. Results There was no difference in hot flushes at 12 months between the two schedules, but patients receiving intermittent letrozole reported significantly more improvement at 24 months. They also indicated less worsening in vaginal problems, musculoskeletal pain, sleep disturbance, physical well-being and mood at 12 months. Overall, 25–30% of patients reported a clinically relevant worsening in key symptoms and global QoL. Conclusion Less symptom worsening was observed during the first year of extended treatment with the intermittent administration. For women experiencing an increased symptom burden of extended adjuvant endocrine therapy, an intermittent administration is a safe alternative. Clinical trial information Clinical trial information: NCT00553410.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Based on preclinical work, we found that combination of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors with drugs that inhibit the homologous recombination repair (HRR) pathway (such as PI3K inhibitors) might sensitise HRR-proficient epithelial ovarian cancers to PARP inhibitors. We aimed to assess the safety and identify the recommended phase 2 dose of the PARP inhibitor olaparib in combination with the PI3K inhibitor alpelisib in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and in patients with breast cancer. In this multicentre, open-label, phase 1b trial following a 3 + 3 dose-escalation design, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older with the following key eligibility criteria: confirmed diagnosis of either recurrent ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer of high-grade serous histology; confirmed diagnosis of either recurrent ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer of any histology with known germline BRCA mutations; confirmed diagnosis of recurrent breast cancer of triple-negative histology; or confirmed diagnosis of recurrent breast cancer of any histology with known germline BRCA mutations. Additional patients with epithelial ovarian cancer were enrolled in a dose-expansion cohort. Four dose levels were planned: the starting dose level of alpelisib 250 mg once a day plus olaparib 100 mg twice a day (dose level 0); alpelisib 250 mg once a day plus olaparib 200 mg twice a day (dose level 1); alpelisib 300 mg once a day plus olaparib 200 mg twice a day (dose level 2); and alpelisib 200 mg once a day plus olaparib 200 mg twice a day (dose level 3). Both drugs were administered orally, in tablet formulation. The primary objective was to identify the maximum tolerated dose and the recommended phase 2 dose of the combination of alpelisib and olaparib for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and patients with breast cancer. Analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of the study drugs. The trial is active, but closed to enrolment; follow-up for patients who completed treatment is ongoing. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01623349. Between Oct 3, 2014, and Dec 21, 2016, we enrolled 34 patients (28 in the dose-escalation cohort and six in the dose-expansion cohort); two in the dose-escalation cohort were ineligible at the day of scheduled study initiation. Maximum tolerated dose and recommended phase 2 dose were identified as alpelisib 200 mg once a day plus olaparib 200 mg twice a day (dose level 3). Considering all dose levels, the most common treatment-related grade 3–4 adverse events were hyperglycaemia (five [16%] of 32 patients), nausea (three [9%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase concentrations (three [9%]). No treatment-related deaths occurred. Dose-limiting toxic effects included hyperglycaemia and fever with decreased neutrophil count. Of the 28 patients with epithelial ovarian cancer, ten (36%) achieved a partial response and 14 (50%) had stable disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1. Combining alpelisib and olaparib is feasible with no unexpected toxic effects. The observed activity provides preliminary clinical evidence of synergism between olaparib and alpelisib, particularly in epithelial ovarian cancer, and warrants further investigation. Ovarian Cancer Dream Team (Stand Up To Cancer, Ovarian Cancer Research Alliance, National Ovarian Cancer Coalition), Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Novartis.

Background: Chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA) commonly occurs in cancer patients receiving conventional myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Two national guidelines regarding the use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in CIA were released in 2002. Because of poorer disease outcomes and increased risk of adverse events associated with ESAs in recent studies, the use of ESAs has been increasingly restricted in practice guidelines in the years 2007 and 2008. Objective: The aim of this study was to provide a baseline for adherence to national guidelines in the use of ESAs for CIA between 2002 and 2006. Methods: This retrospective study used the Varian Medical Oncology database (Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, California) of electronic medical records, representing 17 outpatient oncology organizations at 71 clinic locations in the United States. Adults diagnosed with any malignant neoplasm who started conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy between January 1, 2002, and September 30, 2006, were included. The proportion of patients receiving an ESA was calculated by hemoglobin (Hb) level during each chemotherapy cycle, stratified by line of chemotherapy and year. Logistic regression modeling identified predictors of ESA use in anemic patients during the first chemotherapy cycle. Results: The records of 17,731 cancer patients were evaluated. Median (SD) age was 61 (13) years, and 58.9% were female. Most patients (84.1%) had a solid tumor. Many patients (41.3%) received platinumcontaining chemotherapy and 74.4% received combination chemotherapy. During the first 5 cycles of first-line chemotherapy among patients with CIA (Hb <11 g/dL), ESAs were used by 55.8% of patients at cycle 1 and 68.9% at cycle 5. ESA use in CIA patients increased across lines of chemotherapy and time. Few patients (2.8%) received an ESA at Hb >13 g/dL. The statistically significant predictors of ESA use included age >65 years, eastern US residence, private health insurance, community-based care, and solid tumors, especially lung cancer. Conclusion: The patterns we observed were generally consistent with prevailing ESA labels and national guidelines during 2002 through 2006. Although ESA use in patients with CIA increased over chemotherapy cycles, lines of chemotherapy, and time, <70% of CIA episodes were treated with ESAs during the initial 5 chemotherapy cycles.

In animal models of breast cancer, resistance to continuous use of letrozole can be reversed by withdrawal and reintroduction of letrozole. We therefore hypothesised that extended intermittent use of adjuvant letrozole would improve breast cancer outcome compared with continuous use of letrozole in postmenopausal women. We did the multicentre, open-label, randomised, parallel, phase 3 SOLE trial in 240 centres (academic, primary, secondary, and tertiary care centres) in 22 countries. We enrolled postmenopausal women of any age with hormone receptor-positive, lymph node-positive, and operable breast cancer for which they had undergone local treatment (surgery with or without radiotherapy) and had completed 4–6 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy. They had to be clinically free of breast cancer at enrolment and without evidence of recurrent disease at any time before randomisation. We randomly assigned women (1:1) to treatment groups of either continuous use of letrozole (2·5 mg/day orally for 5 years) or intermittent use of letrozole (2·5 mg/day orally for 9 months followed by a 3-month break in years 1–4 and then 2·5 mg/day during all 12 months of year 5). Randomisation was done by principal investigators or designee at respective centres through the internet-based system of the International Breast Cancer Study Group, was stratified by type of previous endocrine therapy (aromatase inhibitors only vs selective oestrogen receptor modulators only vs both therapies), and used permuted block sizes of four and institutional balancing. No one was masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival, analysed by the intention-to-treat principle using a stratified log-rank test. All patients in the intention-to-treat population who initiated protocol treatment during their period of trial participation were included in the safety analyses. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00553410, and EudraCT, number 2007-001370-88; and long-term follow-up of patients is ongoing. Between Dec 5, 2007, and Oct 8, 2012, 4884 women were enrolled and randomised after exclusion of patients at a non-adherent centre, found to have inadequate documentation of informed consent, immediately withdrew consent, or randomly assigned to intervention groups in error. 4851 women comprised the intention-to-treat population that compared extended intermittent letrozole use (n=2425) with continuous letrozole use (n=2426). After a median follow-up of 60 months (IQR 53–72), disease-free survival was 85·8% (95% CI 84·2–87·2) in the intermittent letrozole group compared with 87·5% (86·0–88·8) in the continuous letrozole group (hazard ratio 1·08, 95% CI 0·93–1·26; p=0·31). Adverse events were reported as expected and were similar between the two groups. The most common grade 3–5 adverse events were hypertension (584 [24%] of 2417 in the intermittent letrozole group vs 517 [21%] of 2411 in the continuous letrozole group) and arthralgia (136 [6%] vs 151 [6%]). 54 patients (24 [1%] in the intermittent letrozole group and 30 [1%] in the continuous letrozole group) had grade 3–5 CNS cerebrovascular ischaemia, 16 (nine [<1%] vs seven [<1%]) had grade 3–5 CNS haemorrhage, and 40 (19 [1%] vs 21 [1%]) had grade 3–5 cardiac ischaemia. In total, 23 (<1%) of 4851 patients died while on trial treatment (13 [<1%] of 2417 patients in the intermittent letrozole group vs ten [<1%] of 2411 in the continuous letrozole group). In postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, extended use of intermittent letrozole did not improve disease-free survival compared with continuous use of letrozole. An alternative schedule of extended adjuvant endocrine therapy with letrozole, including intermittent administration, might be feasible and the results of the SOLE trial support the safety of temporary treatment breaks in selected patients who might require them. Novartis and the International Breast Cancer Study Group.

Introduction Severe hypoglycemic events are distressing. Although past studies have shown that young adulthood is a potentially distressing time, few studies have explored distress about severe hypoglycemia in this age group. The real-world psychosocial experiences of potential severe hypoglycemic events and the perceived impact of glucagon treatments like nasal glucagon are currently unknown. We explored perceptions of severe hypoglycemic events and impact of nasal glucagon on psychosocial experiences with these events in emerging adults with type 1 diabetes and caregivers of emerging adults and children/teens. Further, we compared perceptions of preparedness and protection in handling severe hypoglycemic events with nasal glucagon versus the emergency glucagon kit that requires reconstitution (e-kit). Methods This observational, cross-sectional study enrolled emerging adults (aged 18–26; N  = 364) with type 1 diabetes, caregivers of emerging adults (aged 18–26; N  = 138) with type 1 diabetes, and caregivers of children/teens (aged 4–17; N  = 315) with type 1 diabetes. Participants completed an online survey about their experiences with severe hypoglycemia, perceptions of nasal glucagon impact on psychosocial experiences, and perceptions of feeling prepared and protected with nasal glucagon and the e-kit. Results Many emerging adults (63.7%) agreed that the experience of severe hypoglycemic events was distressing; 33.3% and 46.7% of caregivers of emerging adults and children/teens, respectively, reported distress. Participants reported positive perceptions of nasal glucagon impact, particularly improved confidence in other people’s ability to help during severe hypoglycemic events: emerging adults, 81.4%; caregivers of emerging adults, 77.6%; caregivers of children/teens, 75.5%. Participants demonstrated higher perceptions of preparedness and protection for nasal glucagon than for the e-kit ( p  < 0.001). Conclusions Participants reported improved confidence in other people’s ability to help during severe hypoglycemic events since having nasal glucagon available. This suggests that nasal glucagon may help broaden the support network for young people with type 1 diabetes and their caregivers.