Impact of disease progression on health-related quality of life of advanced ovarian cancer patients - Pooled analysis from the PRIMA trial

Niraparib first-line maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer: final overall survival results from the PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial

BACKGROUND

The phase III PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial met its primary endpoint. Niraparib first-line maintenance significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) among patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer that responded to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, regardless of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) status. Final overall survival (OS) results are reported.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were randomized 2:1 to niraparib or placebo, stratified by response to first-line treatment, receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and tumor HRD status. After reaching 60% target maturity, OS was evaluated via a stratified log-rank test using randomization stratification factors and summarized using Kaplan-Meier methodology. OS testing was hierarchical [overall population first, then the homologous recombination-deficient (HRd) population]. Other secondary outcomes and long-term safety were assessed; an updated, ad hoc analysis of investigator-assessed PFS was also conducted (cut-off date, 8 April 2024).

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 73.9 months. In the overall population, the OS hazard ratio was 1.01 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84-1.23; P = 0.8834] for niraparib (n = 487) versus placebo (n = 246). In the HRd (n = 373) and homologous recombination-proficient (n = 249) populations, the OS hazard ratios were 0.95 (95% CI 0.70-1.29) and 0.93 (95% CI 0.69-1.26), respectively. Subsequent poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor therapy was received by 11.7% and 15.8% of niraparib patients and 37.8% and 48.4% of placebo patients in the overall and HRd populations, respectively. The 5-year PFS rate numerically favored niraparib in the overall (niraparib, 22%; placebo, 12%) and HRd populations (niraparib, 35%; placebo, 16%). Myelodysplastic syndromes/acute myeloid leukemia incidence was <2.5% (niraparib, 2.3%; placebo, 1.6%). No new safety signals were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer at high risk of recurrence, there was no difference in OS between treatment arms. In the HRd population, patients alive at 5 years were two times as likely to be progression free with niraparib treatment than placebo. Long-term safety remained consistent with the established niraparib safety profile.

First-line PARP inhibitor maintenance treatment in ovarian carcinoma for older adult women: a review of the current literature

Ovarian cancer (OC) is the leading cause of death in women with gynecological cancers. Its diagnosis is more likely in advanced ages, with the older population being the most seen in consultations. Poly(ADP-ribose) inhibitors (PARPi) have changed OC clinical practice and evolution, showing great benefit. However, there is a lack of evidence of PARPi in elderly population that can impact the therapeutic decision and the safety/efficacy. It is necessary to avoid age as limiting factor in PARPis prescription. We conducted a review of the most relevant randomized phase III trials of maintenance PARPi after first-line treatment of advanced OC. We observed the lack of a single criterion for considering older patients, varying among trials. There is a benefit of PARPis in different populations. However, PARPi effect on quality of life is not reported, something of great relevance considering their vulnerability. Measures are needed to benefit older patients to better adapt PARPi treatment.

Quantifying bias due to missing data in quality of life surveys of advanced-stage cancer patients

PURPOSE

Many studies on cancer patients investigate the impact of treatment on health-related quality of life (QoL). Typically, QoL is measured longitudinally, at baseline and at predefined timepoints thereafter. The question is whether, at a given timepoint, patients who return their questionnaire (available cases, AC) have a different QoL than those who do not return their questionnaire (non-AC).

METHODS

We employed augmented inverse probability weighting (AIPW) to estimate the average QoL of non-AC in two studies on advanced-stage cancer patients. The AIPW estimator assumed data to be missing at random (MAR) and used machine learning (ML)-based methods to estimate answering probabilities of individuals at given timepoints as well as their reported QoL, as a function of auxiliary variables. These auxiliary variables were selected by medical oncologists based on domain expertise. We aggregated results both by timepoint and by time until death and compared AIPW estimates to the AC averages. Additionally, we used a pattern mixture model (PMM) to check sensitivity of our AIPW estimates against violation of the MAR assumption.

RESULTS

Our study included 1927 patients with advanced pancreatic and 797 patients with advanced breast cancer. The AIPW estimate for average QoL of non-AC was below the average QoL of AC when aggregated by timepoint. The difference vanished when aggregated by time until death. PMM estimates were below AIPW estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that non-AC have a lower average QoL than AC. However, estimates for QoL of non-AC are subject to unverifiable assumptions about the missingness mechanism.

Systematic Review of the Literature on Multiple Co-occurring Symptoms in Patients Receiving Treatment for Gynecologic Cancers

OBJECTIVE

Patients with gynecologic cancers experience a very high symptom burden that has a negative impact on their quality of life. This systematic review aims to identify the common co-occurring symptoms, the prevalence of common symptoms, common instruments used to measure symptoms, associated risk factors, and the symptom burden in patients with gynecologic cancers.

DATA SOURCES

A search of four databases (ie, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL) was done from January 1, 2012, through September 5, 2022. A qualitative synthesis of the extant literature was performed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines (PRISMA 2020).

CONCLUSION

A total of 118 studies met the prespecified inclusion criteria. Ninety-six symptoms were assessed across these studies. The top six symptoms and their grand mean prevalence rates were lack of energy (64.4%), fatigue (62.1%), abdominal pain (53.3%), depression (52.6%), concentration dysfunction (52.0%), and drowsiness (51.9%). Numerous methodologic challenges were evident across studies. Future research needs to develop a disease-specific symptom assessment measure, evaluate for risk factors associated with a higher symptom burden, and determine the impact of multiple symptoms on patient outcomes.

IMPLICATION FOR NURSING PRACTICE

The results are relevant for oncology clinicians to assess patients with gynecologic cancers for the presence of common symptoms and risk factors for higher symptom burden in the patients and to offer effective management interventions.

Niraparib and dostarlimab for the treatment of recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer: results of a Phase II study (MOONSTONE/GOG-3032)

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed the efficacy, safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of the treatment regimen of dostarlimab, a programmed death-1 inhibitor, combined with niraparib, a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, in patients with BRCA wild type (BRCAwt) recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC) who had previously received bevacizumab treatment.

METHODS

This Phase II, open-label, single-arm, multicenter study, conducted in the USA, enrolled patients with recurrent PROC to receive niraparib and dostarlimab until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (up to 3 years). A preplanned interim futility analysis was performed after the first 41 patients had undergone ≥1 radiographic evaluation (approximately 9 weeks from the first treatment).

RESULTS

The prespecified interim futility criterion was met and the study was therefore terminated. For the 41 patients assessed, the objective response rate (ORR) was 7.3% (95% confidence interval: 1.5-19.9); no patients achieved a complete response, 3 patients (7.3%) achieved a partial response (duration of response; 3.0, 3.8, and 9.2 months, respectively), and 9 patients (22.0%) had stable disease. In total, 39 patients (95.1%) experienced a treatment-related adverse event, but no new safety issues were observed. HRQoL, assessed using FOSI, or Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Ovarian Symptom Index scores, worsened over time compared with baseline scores.

CONCLUSIONS

The study was terminated due to the observed ORR at the interim futility analysis. This highlights a need for effective therapies in treating patients with recurrent BRCAwt PROC.

Quality of Life for Polish Women with Ovarian Cancer during First-Line Chemotherapy

Ovarian cancer is the worst prognostic gynaecological cancer and represents a grave clinical and social problem. Therefore, the study aimed to assess female patients' emotional, cognitive, physical, and social quality of life. The study included 100 patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer and treated with chemotherapy in a day hospital setting at the Department of Radiotherapy and Gynaecological Oncology at the Wielkopolska Oncology Centre in Poznań. The patients were given a standard treatment regimen: paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 in a 3 h infusion and carboplatin at an AUC of 6 (5-7) following Calvert as a 1 h infusion for six cycles administered every 21 days. In addition, standardised questionnaires of the Polish version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQOV28 were used. The analysis of the collected material shows that the patients reported the highest level of general health and quality of life at the study's first stage, i.e., before chemotherapy (mean value of 59.67 points). In contrast, the patients' lowest level of general health and quality of life was observed in the fourth stage of the study (mean value of 45.04 points). The problem of side effects, such as nausea and vomiting, affected the entire study group and was more troublesome in the final stage of treatment for all patients. In the study's first stage, the mean score on the nausea and vomiting symptom scale was 16 points; in the fourth stage, the mean score was 40.07. Of the clinical factors, the symptom of fatigue was the most severe health problem for the subjects. The mean score of the fatigue scale in the study's first stage was 37.11 points, while a score of 70.33 was obtained in the fourth stage of the research. The multivariate linear regression model showed that the lack of professional activity lowers quality of life, especially combined with other side effects of chemotherapy, including hair loss in Stage IV of the study. This study shows that women with ovarian cancer undergoing chemotherapy need exceptional support from psychologists, nurses, dieticians, and physiotherapists.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Ovarian Cancer: Facilitating and Enhancing the Reporting of Symptoms, Adverse Events, and Subjective Benefit of Treatment in Clinical Trials and Clinical Practice

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide a valid, standardized way of assessing symptoms, adverse events and the subjective benefit of treatment from the patient's perspective. Assessment of PROs is critical in ovarian cancer due to the high morbidity of the disease and its treatments. Several well-validated PRO measures are available to assess PROs in ovarian cancer. Their inclusion in clinical trials can provide evidence on the benefits and harms of new treatments based on patients' experiences to guide improvements in clinical practice and health policy. Aggregate PRO data collected in clinical trials can be used to inform patients about likely treatment impacts and assist them to make informed treatment decisions. In clinical practice, PRO assessments can facilitate monitoring of a patient's symptoms throughout treatment and follow-up to guide their clinical management; in this context, an individual patient's responses can facilitate communication with their treating clinician about troublesome symptoms and their impact on their quality of life. This literature review aimed to provide clinicians and researchers with a better understanding of why and how PROs can be incorporated into ovarian cancer clinical trials and routine clinical practice. We discuss the importance of assessing PROs throughout the ovarian cancer disease and treatment trajectory in both clinical trials and clinical practice, and provide examples from existing literature to illustrate the uses of PROs as the goals of treatment change in each setting.