External control cohorts for the single-arm LIBRETTO-001 trial of selpercatinib in RET+ non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Data for selpercatinib [a selective REarranged during Transfection (RET) inhibitor] from a single-arm trial (LIBRETTO-001, NCT03157128) in RET-fusion-positive advanced/metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were used in combination with external data sources to estimate comparative efficacy [objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival, and overall survival (OS)] in first- and second-line treatment settings. METHODS: Patient-level data were obtained from a de-identified real-world database. Patients diagnosed with advanced/metastatic NSCLC with no prior exposure to a RET inhibitor and one or more prior line of therapy were eligible. Additionally, individual patient-level data (IPD) were obtained from the pemetrexed + platinum arm of KEYNOTE-189 (NCT03950674, first line) and the docetaxel arm of REVEL (NCT01168973, post-progression). Patients were matched using entropy balancing, doubly robust method, and propensity score approaches. For patients with unknown/negative RET status, adjustment was made using a model fitted to IPD from a real-world database. RESULTS: In first-line unadjusted analyses of the real-world control, ORR was 87.2% for LIBRETTO-001 versus 66.7% for those with RET-positive NSCLC (P = 0.06). After adjustment for unknown RET status and other patient characteristics, selpercatinib remained significantly superior versus the real-world control for all outcomes (all P < 0.001 except unadjusted RET-fusion-positive cohort). Similarly, outcomes were significantly improved versus clinical trial controls (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest improvement in outcomes associated with selpercatinib treatment versus the multiple external control cohorts, but should be interpreted with caution. Data were limited by the rarity of RET, lack of mature OS data, and uncertainty from assumptions to create control arms from external data.

Weight change during chemotherapy as a potential prognostic factor for stage III epithelial ovarian carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study.

OBJECTIVE: Platinum/Paclitaxel-based chemotherapy is a current treatment for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. We sought to explore the association between weight change during treatment and survival, as well as the association between pre-chemotherapy body mass index (BMI) and survival. METHODS: A retrospective data review was conducted of 792 advanced ovarian cancer patients who participated in a phase III randomized trial of cisplatin/paclitaxel versus carboplatin/paclitaxel. Pre-chemotherapy BMI was calculated following surgery. Weight change was defined as the ratio of body weight at completion of protocol therapy to pre-chemotherapy body weight. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), classified by BMI or relative weight change, were estimated by Kaplan-Meier, and associations were assessed using a Cox model controlled for known prognostic variables (age, race, performance status, histology, tumor grade, tumor residual and treatment group). RESULTS: There was no association between pre-chemotherapy BMI and survival. There was a significant relationship between median OS and weight change as follows: >5% decrease=48.0 months; 0-5% decrease=49.3 months; 0-5% increase=61.1 months; and >5% increase=68.2 months. Adjusted for covariates, the relative risk of death increased by 7% for each 5% decrease in body weight (HR=0.93, 95% CI=0.88-0.99; p=0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Change of body weight during primary chemotherapy was a strong prognostic factor for overall survival. Loss of body weight during primary therapy is an indicator for poor OS; weight gain is an indicator for improved survival. This study supports the development of strategies to minimize weight loss that can be assessed in a prospective, randomized study to improve patient outcomes.

A meta-analysis of the efficacy of intraperitoneal cisplatin for the front-line treatment of ovarian cancer.

Ovarian cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer death among women in the United States. First-line chemotherapy offered to patients with ovarian cancer generally consists of an intravenous (IV) platinum plus taxane regimen and has remained virtually unchanged for the past 10 years. A number of recently completed phase III randomized trials in the United States have reported improved progression-free survival (PFS) and/or overall survival (OS) with the intraperitoneal (IP) administration of cisplatin. The purpose of this study was to pool the published data to perform a meta-analysis of randomized trials of IP cisplatin in the initial chemotherapy treatment of ovarian cancer patients. This study was initiated to obtain a more valid estimate of the therapeutic impact of IP treatment for these patients. A search strategy was initiated that searched published findings of randomized trials of IP cisplatin therapy from multiple sources from January 1990 through January 2006. Six randomized trials of 1716 ovarian cancer patients were identified and included in this analysis. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) for PFS of IP cisplatin as compared to IV treatment regimens is 0.792 (95% CI: 0.688-0.912, P= 0.001), and the pooled HR for OS is 0.799 (95% CI: 0.702-0.910, P= 0.0007). These findings strongly support the incorporation of an IP cisplatin regimen to improve survival in the front-line treatment of stage III, optimally debulked ovarian cancer.

Proceedings of a GOG workshop on intraperitoneal therapy for ovarian cancer.

Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of gynecologic cancer deaths in the U.S. The concept of intraperitoneal drug delivery for therapy of intraperitoneal cancers, such as ovarian cancer, arose in the 1960s. The field of intraperitoneal cisplatin therapy for ovarian cancer was initiated in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The markedly improved survival data resulting from a phase III trial of intraperitoneal cisplatin for ovarian cancer in early 2006 led to an NCI Clinical Announcement and a Gynecologic Oncology Group-sponsored workshop on intraperitoneal therapy in January, 2006, in San Diego, California. The proceedings of this workshop summarize both research trial results and practical implementation issues associated with intraperitoneal therapy discussed at this workshop.