Noriaki Sakuragi

Nivolumab Versus Gemcitabine or Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin for Patients With Platinum-Resistant Ovarian Cancer: Open-Label, Randomized Trial in Japan (NINJA)

PURPOSE This phase III, multicenter, randomized, open-label study investigated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab versus chemotherapy (gemcitabine [GEM] or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin [PLD]) in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS Eligible patients had platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian cancer, received ≤ 1 regimen after diagnosis of resistance, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of ≤ 1. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to nivolumab (240 mg once every 2 weeks [as one cycle]) or chemotherapy (GEM 1000 mg/m2 for 30 minutes [once on days 1, 8, and 15] followed by a week's rest [as one cycle], or PLD 50 mg/m2 once every 4 weeks [as one cycle]). The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate, duration of response, and safety. RESULTS Patients (n = 316) were randomly assigned to nivolumab (n = 157) or GEM or PLD (n = 159) between October 2015 and December 2017. Median OS was 10.1 (95% CI, 8.3 to 14.1) and 12.1 (95% CI, 9.3 to 15.3) months with nivolumab and GEM or PLD, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.8 to 1.3; P = .808). Median PFS was 2.0 (95% CI, 1.9 to 2.2) and 3.8 (95% CI, 3.6 to 4.2) months with nivolumab and GEM or PLD, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.9; P = .002). There was no statistical difference in overall response rate between groups (7.6% v 13.2%; odds ratio, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.2 to 1.3; P = .191). Median duration of response was numerically longer with nivolumab than GEM or PLD (18.7 v 7.4 months). Fewer treatment-related adverse events were observed with nivolumab versus GEM or PLD (61.5% v 98.1%), with no additional or new safety risks. CONCLUSION Although well-tolerated, nivolumab did not improve OS and showed worse PFS compared with GEM or PLD in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

Patterns and predictors of site‐specific recurrence in cervical cancer after radical hysterectomy

AbstractAimThis study examines patterns and predictors of site‐specific recurrence to explore the causes of local recurrence of cervical cancer.MethodsRadical hysterectomy was performed in 121 patients (stage IB–IIB). Nerve‐sparing was performed whenever possible. The first recurrence in local, regional, and distant areas was examined. We investigated the possibility of nerve involvement in local recurrence, focusing on paravaginal tissues containing the pelvic plexus. We provide Supporting Information on local recurrence in the paravaginal area.ResultsLocal recurrence was an independent event from regional or distant recurrence. Local recurrence was seen only in high‐risk patients, while regional and distant recurrences were not or less related to the risk category. The independent risk factors by logistic regression for local, regional, and distant recurrence were parametrial invasion, vaginal invasion, and lymph node metastasis, respectively. Local recurrence showed a comparable or more significant negative impact on survival than distant recurrence. Among seven patients with local recurrences, five had a recurrence in the paravagina. The rate of paravaginal recurrence was one in 76 early‐stage and four in 45 locally advanced diseases. Four sites of paravaginal recurrence occurred on the nerve‐sparing side and two on the non‐nerve‐sparing side. Supporting Information demonstrated histological evidence of perineural spread into the pelvic plexus and perineural invasion of the primary tumor.ConclusionsA high percentage of local recurrences are in paravaginal tissue containing the pelvic plexus. The causal association of nerve‐sparing surgery and perineural invasion with local recurrence needs to be investigated in large prospective studies.