Endocrine treatment of high grade serous ovarian carcinoma; quantification of efficacy and identification of response predictors.

OBJECTIVES: The role of endocrine therapy (ET) in high grade serous ovarian carcinoma (HGSOC) is poorly defined due to the lack of phase III data and significant heterogeneity of clinical trials performed. In this study, we sought to identify predictive factors of endocrine sensitivity in HGSOC. METHODS: HGSOC patients who received at least four weeks of ET for relapsed disease following one line of chemotherapy at the Edinburgh Cancer Centre were identified. Exclusion criteria were use of endocrine therapy as maintenance therapy or of unknown duration. Duration of therapy and best CA125 response as per modified GCIG criteria were recorded. Oestrogen receptor (ER) histoscore, treatment free interval, prior lines of chemotherapy, and type of ET were evaluated as predictive factors. RESULTS: Of 431 patients identified, 269 were eligible (77.0% letrozole, 18.6% tamoxifen, 2.2% megesterol acetate, 2.2% other). The median duration of therapy was 126 days (range 28-1427 days). 32.7% remained on ET for ≥180 days and 14.1% for ≥365 days. The CA125 response and clinical benefit rates (response or stable disease) were 8.1% and 40.1% respectively. ER histoscore >200 (P = 0.0016) and a treatment free interval of ≥180 days (P < 0.0001) were independent predictive factors upon multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: ET should be considered as a viable strategy to defer subsequent chemotherapy for relapsed HGSOC. Patients with an ER histoscore >200 and a treatment free interval of ≥180 days are most likely to derive benefit.

What is the best method of proteinuria measurement in clinical trials of endothelin receptor antagonists?

AIMS: To determine whether protein-creatinine ratio (PCR) and albumin-creatinine ratio (ACR) are comparable to 24h urine protein in terms of agreement and repeatability, and therefore whether they are suitable for monitoring and comparing reduction in proteinuria in clinical trials of endothelin receptor antagonists. MAIN METHODS: Using data from a recent study of sitaxentan in 27 patients with proteinuric chronic kidney disease, the assays were compared with reference to their agreement, repeatability, the number of measurements required to obtain accurate results and correlation with reduction in proteinuria at baseline. KEY FINDINGS: The median coefficient of variation was lower for PCR than 24h urine protein (25 vs. 28%) but the range was higher (70 vs. 47%). When converted into the same units, mean difference between 24h urine protein and both PCR (0.03 g/day), and ACR (0.10 g/day), was small. However, scatter increased with mean level of proteinuria, such that agreement fell substantially above 1.5 g/day. According to 2-factor within-subjects ANOVA, the assay used was not a significant source of variation (PCR p=0.63, ACR p=0.38). With 3 measurements at each time point, baseline proteinuria correlated equally well with change in proteinuria, and percentage change was detected accurately by all 3 methods. SIGNIFICANCE: PCR and ACR may well be suitable replacements for 24h urine protein in the clinical trial context due to their similar accuracy and repeatability, greater convenience and lower cost. However, a randomised control trial comparing all 3 assays in a larger and more diverse population is necessary before 24h urine protein can be replaced.