1. |
- Landolfo, Chiara, et al.
(författare)
-
Comparison of the ADNEX and ROMA risk prediction models for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer : a multicentre external validation in patients who underwent surgery
-
Ingår i: British Journal of Cancer. - 0007-0920.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Several diagnostic prediction models to help clinicians discriminate between benign and malignant adnexal masses are available. This study is a head-to-head comparison of the performance of the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model with that of the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA). Methods: This is a retrospective study based on prospectively included consecutive women with an adnexal tumour scheduled for surgery at five oncology centres and one non-oncology centre in four countries between 2015 and 2019. The reference standard was histology. Model performance for ADNEX and ROMA was evaluated regarding discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility. Results: The primary analysis included 894 patients, of whom 434 (49%) had a malignant tumour. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.92 (95% CI 0.88–0.95) for ADNEX with CA125, 0.90 (0.84–0.94) for ADNEX without CA125, and 0.85 (0.80–0.89) for ROMA. ROMA, and to a lesser extent ADNEX, underestimated the risk of malignancy. Clinical utility was highest for ADNEX. ROMA had no clinical utility at decision thresholds <27%. Conclusions: ADNEX had better ability to discriminate between benign and malignant adnexal tumours and higher clinical utility than ROMA. Clinical trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov NCT01698632 and NCT02847832.
|
|
3. |
- Monk, Bradley J., et al.
(författare)
-
A Randomized, Phase III Trial to Evaluate Rucaparib Monotherapy as Maintenance Treatment in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Ovarian Cancer (ATHENA-MONO/GOG-3020/ENGOT-ov45)
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Oncology. - : Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins. - 0732-183X .- 1527-7755. ; 40:34, s. 3952-3964
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- PURPOSEATHENA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: ) was designed to evaluate rucaparib first-line maintenance treatment in a broad patient population, including those without BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA) mutations or other evidence of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), or high-risk clinical characteristics such as residual disease. We report the results from the ATHENA-MONO comparison of rucaparib versus placebo.METHODSPatients with stage III-IV high-grade ovarian cancer undergoing surgical cytoreduction (R0/complete resection permitted) and responding to first-line platinum-doublet chemotherapy were randomly assigned 4:1 to oral rucaparib 600 mg twice a day or placebo. Stratification factors were HRD test status, residual disease after chemotherapy, and timing of surgery. The primary end point of investigator-assessed progression-free survival was assessed in a step-down procedure, first in the HRD population (BRCA-mutant or BRCA wild-type/loss of heterozygosity high tumor), and then in the intent-to-treat population.RESULTSAs of March 23, 2022 (data cutoff), 427 and 111 patients were randomly assigned to rucaparib or placebo, respectively (HRD population: 185 v 49). Median progression-free survival (95% CI) was 28.7 months (23.0 to not reached) with rucaparib versus 11.3 months (9.1 to 22.1) with placebo in the HRD population (log-rank P = .0004; hazard ratio [HR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.72); 20.2 months (15.2 to 24.7) versus 9.2 months (8.3 to 12.2) in the intent-to-treat population (log-rank P < .0001; HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.68); and 12.1 months (11.1 to 17.7) versus 9.1 months (4.0 to 12.2) in the HRD-negative population (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.95). The most common grade & GE; 3 treatment-emergent adverse events were anemia (rucaparib, 28.7% v placebo, 0%) and neutropenia (14.6% v 0.9%).CONCLUSIONRucaparib monotherapy is effective as first-line maintenance, conferring significant benefit versus placebo in patients with advanced ovarian cancer with and without HRD.
|
|