Giovanni Scambia

BACKGROUND: Most women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer have a relapse within 3 years after standard treatment with surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy. The benefit of the oral poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib in relapsed disease has been well established, but the benefit of olaparib as maintenance therapy in newly diagnosed disease is uncertain. METHODS: We conducted an international, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy of olaparib as maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage III or IV) high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer, primary peritoneal cancer, or fallopian-tube cancer (or a combination thereof) with a mutation in BRCA1, BRCA2, or both ( BRCA1/2) who had a complete or partial clinical response after platinum-based chemotherapy. The patients were randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive olaparib tablets (300 mg twice daily) or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: Of the 391 patients who underwent randomization, 260 were assigned to receive olaparib and 131 to receive placebo. A total of 388 patients had a centrally confirmed germline BRCA1/2 mutation, and 2 patients had a centrally confirmed somatic BRCA1/2 mutation. After a median follow-up of 41 months, the risk of disease progression or death was 70% lower with olaparib than with placebo (Kaplan-Meier estimate of the rate of freedom from disease progression and from death at 3 years, 60% vs. 27%; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.23 to 0.41; P<0.001). Adverse events were consistent with the known toxic effects of olaparib. CONCLUSIONS: The use of maintenance therapy with olaparib provided a substantial benefit with regard to progression-free survival among women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation, with a 70% lower risk of disease progression or death with olaparib than with placebo. (Funded by AstraZeneca and Merck; SOLO1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844986 .).

BACKGROUND: mutation status is unknown. METHODS: mutation status. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive olaparib tablets (300 mg twice daily) or placebo for up to 24 months; all the patients received bevacizumab at a dose of 15 mg per kilogram of body weight every 3 weeks for up to 15 months in total. The primary end point was the time from randomization until investigator-assessed disease progression or death. RESULTS: mutations (median progression-free survival, 28.1 vs. 16.6 months). Adverse events were consistent with the established safety profiles of olaparib and bevacizumab. CONCLUSIONS: mutation. (Funded by ARCAGY Research and others; PAOLA-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02477644.).

BACKGROUND: Pelvic lymph nodes are the most common site of extrauterine tumor spread in early-stage endometrial cancer, but the clinical impact of lymphadenectomy has not been addressed in randomized studies. We conducted a randomized clinical trial to determine whether the addition of pelvic systematic lymphadenectomy to standard hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy improves overall and disease-free survival. METHODS: From October 1, 1996, through March 31, 2006, 514 eligible patients with preoperative International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage I endometrial carcinoma were randomly assigned to undergo pelvic systematic lymphadenectomy (n = 264) or no lymphadenectomy (n = 250). Patients' clinical data, pathological tumor characteristics, and operative and early postoperative data were recorded at discharge from hospital. Late postoperative complications, adjuvant therapy, and follow-up data were collected 6 months after surgery. Survival was analyzed by use of the log-rank test and a Cox multivariable regression analysis. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: The median number of lymph nodes removed was 30 (interquartile range = 22-42) in the pelvic systematic lymphadenectomy arm and 0 (interquartile range = 0-0) in the no-lymphadenectomy arm (P < .001). Both early and late postoperative complications occurred statistically significantly more frequently in patients who had received pelvic systematic lymphadenectomy (81 patients in the lymphadenectomy arm and 34 patients in the no-lymphadenectomy arm, P = .001). Pelvic systematic lymphadenectomy improved surgical staging as statistically significantly more patients with lymph node metastases were found in the lymphadenectomy arm than in the no-lymphadenectomy arm (13.3% vs 3.2%, difference = 10.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.3% to 14.9%, P < .001). At a median follow-up of 49 months, 78 events (ie, recurrence or death) had been observed and 53 patients had died. The unadjusted risks for first event and death were similar between the two arms (hazard ratio [HR] for first event = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.70 to 1.71, P = .68, and HR for death = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.70 to 2.07, P = .50). The 5-year disease-free and overall survival rates in an intention-to-treat analysis were similar between arms (81.0% and 85.9% in the lymphadenectomy arm and 81.7% and 90.0% in the no-lymphadenectomy arm, respectively). CONCLUSION: Although systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy statistically significantly improved surgical staging, it did not improve disease-free or overall survival.