Our experience emphasizes that patients with true stage Ia ovarian GCT are adequately managed by surgical resection followed by careful clinical, radiologic, and serologic surveillance. These patients do not require adjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy, thus avoiding the potential complications of secondary leukemia and infertility.
Objectives
We evaluated four different treatment regimens for advanced-stage mucinous epithelial ovarian cancer.
Methods
We conducted a multicenter randomized factorial trial (UK and US). Patients were diagnosed with primary mEOC: FIGO stage II–IV or recurrence after stage I disease. Treatment arms were paclitaxel-carboplatin, oxaliplatin-capecitabine, paclitaxel-carboplatin-bevacizumab, or oxaliplatin-capecitabine-bevacizumab. Chemotherapy was given 3-weekly for 6 cycles, and bevacizumab (3-weekly) was continued as maintenance (for 12 cycles). Endpoints included overall-survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity and quality of life (QoL).
Results
The trial stopped after 50 patients were recruited due to slow accrual. Median follow-up was 59 months. OS hazard ratios (HR) for the two main comparisons were: 0.78 (
p
= 0.48) for Oxal-Cape vs. Pac-Carbo (each with/without bevacizumab), and 1.04 (
p
= 0.92) for bevacizumab vs. no bevacizumab. Corresponding PFS HRs were: 0.84 and 0.80. Retrospective central pathology review revealed only 45% (18/40) cases with available material had confirmed primary mEOC. Among these, OS HR for Oxal-Cape vs. Pac-Carbo was 0.36 (
p
= 0.14); PFS HR = 0.62 (
p
= 0.40). Grade 3–4 toxicity was seen in 61% Pac-Carbo, 61% Oxal-Cape, 54% Pac-Carbo-Bev, and 85% Oxal-Cape-Bev. QoL was similar between the four arms.
Conclusion
mEOC/GOG0241 represents an example of a randomized rare tumor trial. Logistical challenges led to early termination, including difficulties in local histopathological diagnosis and accessing drugs outside their labelled indication. There was misalignment between central funders who support clinical trials in rare cancers and the deprioritisation of such work by those managing and funding research at a local level. Rare cancer trials should include centralised pathology review before treatment.
Clinical trial registry number: ISRCTN83438782.
In the present expanded access program, single-agent pemetrexed demonstrated promising activity in MPM in both chemonaïve and pretreated patients, with TTPD of 6.0 and 4.9 months, respectively, 1-year survival >or=54.7%, and mild hematologic toxicity.
Patient's preference is for oral chemotherapy when both oral and i.v. are available, provided that efficacy is equivalent. Reliable switch from oral to i.v. is possible if correspondence between respective doses has been established. Vinorelbine oral was developed as a line extension of VRL i.v. on the basis that similar AUCs result in similar activities. From a first crossover study on 24 patients receiving VRL 25 mg/m2 i.v. and 80 mg/m2 oral data extrapolation concluded on AUCs bioequivalence between Vinorelbine 30 mg/m2 i.v. and 80 mg/m2 oral. A new trial was performed to support this calculation. In a crossover design study on patients (PS 0-1) with advanced solid tumours (44% breast carcinoma), VRL was administered (30 mg/m2 i.v., 80 mg/m2 oral) with a standard meal and 5-HT3 antagonists, at 2 weeks interval. Pharmacokinetics was performed over 168 h and VRL was measured by LC-MS/MS. Statistics included bioequivalence tests. Forty-eight patients were evaluable for PK: median age 58 years (25-71), PS0/PS1: 20/28, M/F: 11/37. Mean AUCs were 1,230 +/- 290 and 1,216 +/- 521 ng/ml for i.v. and oral, respectively. The confidence interval of the AUC ratio (0.83-1.03) was within the required regulatory range (0.8-1.25) and proved the bioequivalence between the two doses. The absolute bioavailability was 37.8 +/- 16.0%, and close to the value from the first study (40%). Patient tolerability was globally comparable between both forms with no significant difference on either haematological or non-haematological toxicities (grade 3-4). This new study, conducted on a larger population, confirmed the reliable dose correspondence previously established between vinorelbine 80 mg/m2 oral and 30 mg/m2 i.v.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.