RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) improved advanced ovarian cancer treatment. Most patients progress during or following PARPi exposure, however, with concerns about sensitivity of subsequent chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this international cohort study, we evaluated the efficacy of a subsequent chemotherapy following PARPi exposure in high-grade ovarian carcinoma patients. Endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival and a multivariable Cox model was built to identify factors influencing PFS. RESULTS: We included 291 patients from four international centers treated between January 2002 and December 2021. The median number of previous chemotherapy was 1 (1.0-7.0), the median duration of PARPi exposure was 6.5 months (0.2-54.3 months). PARPi was used in first line in 14.1% patients. Most progressions occurred under PARPi exposure (89.1%). A BRCA pathogenic variant was identified in 130 patients (44.7%), absent in 157 patients (54.0%), and undocumented in 4 patients (1.4%). Platinum-based CT (PBC) and non-PBC were administered as subsequent treatments in, respectively, 182 patients (62.5%) and 109 patients (37.5%). Multivariable analyses showed that platinum-free interval (PFI) >6 months [adjusted hazards ratio (HR), 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39-0.70] and type of initial surgery (adjusted HR, 1.41; 95% CI 1.07-1.87; interval or closing surgery versus primary surgery) were associated with PFS, independent of BRCA status or line of therapy (≥2 versus 1). In patients with a PFI >6 months, PBC was numerically associated with the best PFS (adjusted HR, 0.68; 95% CI 0.46-1.01). CONCLUSION: This is the largest real-world study assessing the efficacy of subsequent chemotherapy in patients progressing during PARPi exposure. The patients have poor outcomes. PBC is the best option in patients progressing on PARPi and eligible for PBC rechallenge (PFI >6 months).

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The evolution of COVID-19 is a controversial topic in cancer patients. They have been designated by international organizations as a vulnerable population at greater risk for contracting SARS-CoV-2 and having a more severe clinical outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Active screening at our institution became routine early in the pandemic. We have examined the clinical data of 341 cancer patients, with a positive RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 test between April 2020 and February 2021, in the prevaccination era. RESULTS: During the infection, 40.5% remained asymptomatic, 27.6% developed a mild form, 20.5% had a moderate form, and 11.4% a severe/critical form of COVID-19 that led to death in 7.6% of cases. Treatment was adapted to disease severity according to national guidelines. In our series, the incidence of COVID-19 infection was lower in cancer patients compared with the general population (P < 0.001), however, the mortality rate was higher in cancer patients in comparison with the general population (7.6% versus 2.9%, P < 0.001). The prognostic factors were assessed by three distinct univariate and multivariate analyses: (i) evolution to a moderate or severe/critical clinical manifestation, (ii) clinical worsening (severe/critical form or death), and (iii) overall survival. In the multivariate analysis, the prognostic factors associated with the evolution to a moderate or severe/critical clinical manifestation were: performance status (PS) (P < 0.0001) and no active treatment in the previous 3 months (P = 0.031). Factors associated with clinical worsening were: PS (P < 0.0001), peripheral arterial disease (P = 0.03), and chronic liver disease (P = 0.04). Factors associated with impaired overall survival were PS (P < 0.0001), ischemic cardiac disease (P = 0.0126), chronic liver disease (P = 0.001), and radiotherapy (P = 0.0027). CONCLUSION: Our series confirms a more severe evolution for COVID-19 infection in cancer patients, with PS as the most prominent prognostic factor in all three multivariate analyses. By active screening, efforts should be in place to keep cancer units as coronavirus-free sanctuaries.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

We have investigated a relational model of expectations and preferences among ovarian cancer patients centred on physician-patient communication, treatment approach, and the need for information. Consecutive patients anonymously filled in the EXPRESSION III questionnaire between 2009 and 2012. Following descriptive statistics, structural equation modelling was used to analyse the relationships between physician's evaluation by the patient (PEP), result of therapy (RT), need for changes in treatment (NCT) and patient's desire to be informed (PD). From a total of 108 patients, 53 (49.1%) knew their disease stage, 103 (95.4%) underwent surgery, 91 (84.3%) had chemotherapy and 51 (46.3%) relapsed. The final model demonstrated a good fit of data with fit indices >0.90. There was a significant positive effect of PEP on RT and a significant negative effect of PEP on NCT, with the final model explaining 84% of the NCT variance. Physicians represent the main point of contact, not only as a source of information about the disease and various treatment options, but also in the coping processes. As patients benefit from completeness of medical consultations, their awareness of the treatment outcome increases, while a negative perception of the physician leads to a desire to make changes in therapy.

Asunto(s)