No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

LBA5503 Background: Pazopanib is an oral, multikinase inhibitor of VEGFR-1, -2, -3, PDGFR-α and -β, and c-Kit. Preclinical and clinical studies support VEGF(R) and PDGF(R) as targets for AEOC treatment. This study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of pazopanib maintenance therapy in patients who have not progressed after first-line chemotherapy for AEOC. Methods: Patients with histologically confirmed AEOC, FIGO II-IV, and no evidence of progression after surgery and ≥ 5 cycles of platinum-taxane chemotherapy were randomized 1:1 to receive 800 mg pazopanib once daily or placebo for up to 24 months. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by RECIST. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, PFS by GCIG criteria, safety, and quality of life. Results: Most of the 940 randomized patients had stage III/IV disease (91%) at initial diagnosis, and no residual disease after surgery (58%). The median time from diagnosis to randomization was 7.1 months in the placebo arm and 7.0 months in the pazopanib arm. The median follow-up was 24 months. Patients in the pazopanib arm had a prolonged PFS vs placebo (HR = 0.766; 95% CI: 0.64-0.91; p = 0.0021; medians 17.9 vs 12.3 months, respectively). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses of PFS, and analysis of PFS by GCIG criteria, were consistent with the primary analysis. The first interim analysis for OS (only 189 OS events = 20.1% of population) showed no difference between arms. Pazopanib mean exposure was shorter vs placebo (8.9 vs 11.7 months). Pazopanib treatment was associated with a higher incidence of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (26% vs 11%) vs placebo. The most common AEs were hypertension, diarrhea, nausea, headache, fatigue, and neutropenia. Fatal SAEs were reported in three patients on pazopanib and one patient on placebo. Conclusions: Pazopanib maintenance therapy provided a statistically significant and clinically meaningful PFS benefit in patients with AEOC; OS data are not mature. The safety profile of pazopanib in this setting was consistent with its established profile. Clinical trial information: NCT00866697.

No abstract

The objective of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of carboplatin plus epirubicin and paclitaxel (TEC) to carboplatin and paclitaxel (TC), in the treatment of epithelial ovarian, peritoneal, or tubal carcinoma. Between March 1999 and August 2001, 887 patients were randomized to receive six to nine cycles of paclitaxel (175 mg/m2, 3 h intravenously) followed by carboplatin (AUC 5, Calvert formula) with or without epirubicin (75 mg/m2 intravenously prior to paclitaxel), on a 3-weekly schedule. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Demographic information: Residual disease <1 cm was reported on 41% of patients. At the end of treatment, 65% in the TEC and 55% in the TC arm had achieved a clinical complete response, and 18 and 25% a clinical partial response resulting in an overall response rate of 83% in the TEC and 80% in the TC arm, whereas 7 and 9% had progressive disease, respectively. The three-drug combination produced a markedly higher myelotoxicity, resulting in a higher frequency of febrile neutropenia (12.5% of the TEC and 1.5% of the TC patients) and a higher number of dose reductions and treatment delays. Cycle prolongation above seven days was seen in 7 and 5% of cycles in the TEC and TC arm, respectively. Stomatitis > or = grade 3 was also higher with TEC (4% TEC and 0.5% TC). Reductions in left ventricular ejection fraction of more than 15% after six courses were slightly more common with the TEC regimen (3% versus 1.5%), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.2). In conclusion, treatment with the TEC combination produced a higher rate of complete responses than treatment with the TC combination. Toxicity was manageable. Long-term survival data are awaited.

No abstract

Three phase II studies evaluated trabectedin monotherapy as second-/third-line therapy in patients with refractory/recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC). Three different schedules were investigated: 3-h infusion every 3 weeks (3-h_q3w), 24-h infusion q3w (24-h_q3w), and 3-h weekly infusion for 3 weeks of a 4-week cycle. This retrospective pooled analysis evaluated the efficacy and the safety profile of trabectedin according to each administered regimen. Data from 295 patients were used to compare weekly versus q3w schedules, and 3-h versus 24-h infusion given q3w. Both q3w regimens showed higher overall response rate (36 vs. 16 %; p = 0.0001), disease control rate (66 vs. 46 %; p = 0.0007), and longer median progression-free survival (5.6 vs. 2.8 months; p < 0.0001) than the weekly schedule. Comparable activity was observed for the 3- and 24-h infusions q3w. Common adverse events were nausea, fatigue, vomiting, transient neutropenia, and transaminase increases. A better safety profile regarding neutropenia, fatigue, and vomiting was seen for the 3-h_q3w regimen as compared to the 24-h_q3w one. Trabectedin given as a single agent q3w as 3-h infusion is the schedule of choice for the treatment of ROC, and its efficacy and safety profile favorably compares with other active salvage treatments.