We have located links that may give you full text access.
Clinical Trial, Phase III
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Effect of BRCA1 and XPG mutations on treatment response to trabectedin and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in patients with advanced ovarian cancer: exploratory analysis of the phase 3 OVA-301 study.
BACKGROUND: We investigated the association of BRCA1 and XPG mutations with response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in a subset of patients from a phase 3 clinical trial comparing the efficacy and safety of trabectedin + pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) versus PLD alone in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A candidate array was designed based on the Breast Cancer Information Core database for BRCA mutation analyses. An exploratory analysis of BRCA1/XPG mutation status was conducted using a two-sided log-rank test and 0.05 significance in germline DNA samples from 264 women with failed first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, randomized (1 : 1) to trabectedin + PLD or PLD alone.
RESULTS: Overall, 41 (16%) of the 264 women had BRCA1(mut) (trabectedin + PLD: n = 24/135, 18%; PLD: n = 17/129; 13%) and 17 (6%) had XPG(mut) (trabectedin + PLD: n = 8/135, 6%; PLD: n = 9/129, 7%). A higher RR was observed in BRCA1(mut) patients (20/41; 49%) versus BRCA1(wt) patients (62/223; 28%). Within the BRCA1(mut) group, trabectedin + PLD-treated patients had longer PFS and longer OS than PLD-treated patients (median PFS 13.5 versus 5.5 months, P = 0.0002; median OS 23.8 versus 12.5 months, P = 0.0086), whereas in BRCA1(wt) patients, OS was not significantly different (median OS: 19.1 versus 19.3 months; P = 0.9377). There were no differences in OS or PFS of patients with XPG(mut) between the two treatment arms. However, trabectedin + PLD-treated patients with XPG(mut) had a trend toward shorter PFS (median PFS: 1.9 versus 7.5 months; P = 0.1666) and OS (median OS: 14.5 versus 20.7 months; P = 0.1774) than those with XPG(wt).
CONCLUSIONS: In this exploratory analysis, patients with recurrent ovarian cancer carrying the BRCA1(mut) had improved outcomes with trabectedin + PLD treatment compared with PLD alone. Prospective evaluation of BRCA status is likely an important evaluation for DNA-damaging agents and may significantly impact interpretation of clinical studies. XPG may be a biomarker of poor outcome in these patients.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A candidate array was designed based on the Breast Cancer Information Core database for BRCA mutation analyses. An exploratory analysis of BRCA1/XPG mutation status was conducted using a two-sided log-rank test and 0.05 significance in germline DNA samples from 264 women with failed first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, randomized (1 : 1) to trabectedin + PLD or PLD alone.
RESULTS: Overall, 41 (16%) of the 264 women had BRCA1(mut) (trabectedin + PLD: n = 24/135, 18%; PLD: n = 17/129; 13%) and 17 (6%) had XPG(mut) (trabectedin + PLD: n = 8/135, 6%; PLD: n = 9/129, 7%). A higher RR was observed in BRCA1(mut) patients (20/41; 49%) versus BRCA1(wt) patients (62/223; 28%). Within the BRCA1(mut) group, trabectedin + PLD-treated patients had longer PFS and longer OS than PLD-treated patients (median PFS 13.5 versus 5.5 months, P = 0.0002; median OS 23.8 versus 12.5 months, P = 0.0086), whereas in BRCA1(wt) patients, OS was not significantly different (median OS: 19.1 versus 19.3 months; P = 0.9377). There were no differences in OS or PFS of patients with XPG(mut) between the two treatment arms. However, trabectedin + PLD-treated patients with XPG(mut) had a trend toward shorter PFS (median PFS: 1.9 versus 7.5 months; P = 0.1666) and OS (median OS: 14.5 versus 20.7 months; P = 0.1774) than those with XPG(wt).
CONCLUSIONS: In this exploratory analysis, patients with recurrent ovarian cancer carrying the BRCA1(mut) had improved outcomes with trabectedin + PLD treatment compared with PLD alone. Prospective evaluation of BRCA status is likely an important evaluation for DNA-damaging agents and may significantly impact interpretation of clinical studies. XPG may be a biomarker of poor outcome in these patients.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app