Investigator
The University Of Sydney
Discordance between GCIG CA-125 progression and RECIST progression in the CALYPSO trial of patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer
Abstract Background CA-125 alone is widely used to diagnose progressive disease (PD) in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PSROC) on chemotherapy. However, there are increasing concerns regarding its accuracy. We assessed concordance between progression defined by CA-125 and RECIST using data from the CALYPSO trial. Methods We computed concordance rates for PD by CA-125 and RECIST to determine the positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV). Results Of 769 (79%) evaluable participants, 387 had CA-125 PD, where only 276 had concordant RECIST PD (PPV 71%, 95% CI 67–76%). For 382 without CA-125 PD, 255 had RECIST PD but 127 did not (NPV 33%, 95% CI 29–38). There were significant differences in NPV according to baseline CA-125 (≤100 vs >100: 42% vs 25%, P < 0.001); non-measurable vs measurable disease (51% vs 26%, P < 0.001); and platinum-free-interval (>12 vs 6–12 months: 41% vs 14%, P < 0.001). We observed falling CA-125 levels in 78% of patients with RECIST PD and CA-125 non-PD. Conclusion Approximately 2 in 3 women with PSROC have RECIST PD but not CA-125 PD by GCIG criteria. Monitoring CA-125 levels alone is not reliable for detecting PD. Further research is required to investigate the survival impact of local therapy in radiological detected early asymptomatic PD.
Reporting the trajectories of adverse events over the entire treatment course in patients with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer treated with platinum-based combination chemotherapy regimens: A graphical approach to trial adverse event reporting
Clinical trials report adverse events (AEs) in a dense table focusing on the frequency of 'worst grade' AEs experienced over the duration of treatment. There is usually no granular information provided on the timing and trajectory of AEs or whether they are likely to worsen, improve, or remain constant over time. Non-hematologic (NH) AE data was extracted from the CALYPSO trial comparing carboplatin with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (CD) to carboplatin with paclitaxel (CP) in recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC). Generalised estimating equations (GEE) were used to assess the risk and trajectory of combined Grade 2 or higher (G2+) AE and of each specific AE. The risk of G2+AE was also compared between treatment arms. The study included 976 patients and AE were reported for the duration of treatment. Most patients experienced at least one G2+NHAE (CP:CD, 96.0%:80.6%). Risk of combined G2+AE increased with CP (4.1% per-cycle) but decreased with CD (0.8%, P <0.01). When alopecia and sensory neuropathy were excluded, risk of G2+ AE decreased by 2.7% per-cycle, with no significant difference between treatment arms. G2+ nausea improved (15.2% per-cycle, P <0.01). G2+ sensory neuropathy worsened (29.3% per-cycle, P <0.01). Fatigue was stable (17% per-cycle, P =0.06) whilst G2+ pain decreased over time (13.4% per-cycle, P <0.01), with no difference between treatment arms. Existing trial data can be used to provide AE trajectories as illustrated here for ROC. These trajectories have utility in guiding treatment choice and potentially optimising AE management with novel therapies and treatment combinations.
Olaparib, durvalumab, and cyclophosphamide, and a prognostic blood signature in platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer: the randomized phase 2 SOLACE2 trial
Abstract SOLACE2 (ACTRN12618000686202) investigates whether 12-weeks of olaparib, or cyclophosphamide-olaparib priming, improves subsequent durvalumab-olaparib progression-free survival (PFS), and is superior to olaparib monotherapy without any priming, in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (n = 114). We also evaluate the utility of CUP-CC assay, an immune signature of C-C chemokine receptor type 4 up-regulation, chemokines, and cytokines. Priming with olaparib, or cyclophosphamide-olaparib, followed by durvalumab-olaparib, are both associated with longer PFS compared to olaparib monotherapy, but do not reach the pre-specified primary endpoint of 36-week trial threshold (PFS36). PFS36 rates are 47.4% (95% CI, 31.0-62.1; olaparib priming then olaparib-durvalumab), 48.7% (32.5-63.2; olaparib-cyclophosphamide then olaparib-durvalumab) and 35.1% (20.4-50.3; olaparib monotherapy). PFS is significantly longer for the homologous recombination deficient (N = 71) as compared to the proficient (HRP) (N = 29) subgroups (Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.55, 0.35-0.87). CUP-CC+ subgroup (N = 58) has a significantly longer PFS (HR 0.31, 0.19-0.49) than CUP-CC- (N = 46). Future studies should investigate whether CUP-CC has the potential to personalize poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor therapies for patients who are BRCA wild-type, including HRP patients.
