OBJECTIVE: Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is the leading cause of female mortality in gynecologic malignancies, with a rising incidence in Japan. This study aimed to validate the treatment patterns and safety of niraparib as maintenance therapy for EOC following initial chemotherapy in clinical practice in Japan.
METHODS: Leveraging claims data between April 2008 and December 2022, this descriptive study comprised EOC-diagnosed patients receiving initial platinum-based chemotherapy, debulking surgery, and niraparib as maintenance therapy. Patient characteristics, prescription status, transfusion details, and laboratory data were assessed and reported as summary statistics and frequencies.
RESULTS: Among 291 patients, the median age was 64.0 years and 94.5% received a 200-mg daily dose of niraparib. At week 12, 78.7% (229/291) continued niraparib treatment, 21.3% (62/291) discontinued, and 52.2% (152/291) required treatment interruptions. Of the 62 patients who discontinued treatment, 27 patients initiated subsequent EOC treatment within 12 weeks following niraparib discontinuation. Blood transfusions were needed in 10.3% (30/291), and of 55 patients with available laboratory data, 61.8% (34/55) had decreased platelet count <100,000/µL, 25.5% (14/55) had decreased hemoglobin level <8 g/dL, and 22.7% (5/22) had decreased neutrophil count <1,000/µL, meeting the criteria for treatment interruption. Among those with thrombocytopenia, 88.2% (30/34) were able to either resume or continue treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: Niraparib demonstrated favorable tolerability in Japanese patients with advanced EOC, with effective management of thrombocytopenia through dose adjustments and supportive care, supporting its viability as post-chemotherapy maintenance therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To explore safety and tolerability parameters for the niraparib individualized starting dose (ISD) in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer that responded to platinum-based chemotherapy who participated in the phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial (NCT02655016).
METHODS: The PRIMA protocol was amended so newly enrolled patients received an ISD based on baseline body weight/platelet count. In this ad hoc analysis, the timing, duration, and resolution of the first occurrence of common any-grade hematologic (thrombocytopenia, anemia, neutropenia) and nonhematologic (nausea, asthenia/fatigue, constipation, insomnia, hypertension) treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were evaluated by treatment arm in the ISD safety population (data cutoff, November 17, 2021; median follow-up, 3.5 years).
RESULTS: Of 733 randomized patients, 255 were enrolled after the ISD protocol amendment and received ≥ 1 dose of study treatment (niraparib, 169; placebo, 86). In the niraparib arm, median times to first events were 22.0-35.0 days for hematologic TEAEs and 7.0-56.0 days for nonhematologic TEAEs. First events resolved in ≥ 89.8% of patients for hematologic TEAEs; for nonhematologic TEAEs, resolution rates ranged from 55.3% (insomnia) to 86.0% (nausea). Median durations of first hematologic TEAEs were ≤ 16.0 days, but for first nonhematologic TEAEs ranged from 18.0 days (nausea) to 134.0 days (insomnia).
CONCLUSIONS: The niraparib ISD was generally well tolerated and TEAEs were manageable. Common hematologic and nonhematologic TEAEs occurred early and first events of hematologic TEAEs had a short duration (≈ 2 weeks) and a high resolution rate. These findings support close monitoring immediately following niraparib initiation and may help inform patient expectations for niraparib safety.

OBJECTIVE: Continuous lenalidomide maintenance treatment after autologous stem cell transplantation delivers improvement in progression free and overall survival among newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients and has been the standard of care in the UK since March 2021. However, there is scant information about its impact on patients\' day-to-day lives. This service evaluation aimed to qualitatively assess patients receiving lenalidomide treatment at a cancer centre in London, in order that the service might better align with needs and expectations of patients.
METHODS: We conducted 20 semi-structured interviews among myeloma patients who were on continuous lenalidomide maintenance treatment at a specialist cancer centre in London. Members of the clinical team identified potentially eligible participants to take part, and convenience sampling was used to select 10 male and 10 female patients, median age of 58 (range, 45-71). The median treatment duration was 11 months (range, 1-60 months). Participants were qualitatively interviewed following the same semi-structured interview guide, which was designed to explore patient experience and insights of lenalidomide. Reflexive thematic analysis was used for data analysis.
RESULTS: Four overarching themes were as follows: (i) lenalidomide: understanding its role and rationale; (ii) reframing the loss of a treatment-free period to a return to normal life; (iii) the reality of being on lenalidomide: balancing hopes with hurdles; (iv) gratitude and grievances: exploring mixed perceptions of care and communication. Results will be used to enhance clinical services by tailoring communication to better meet patients\' preferences when making treatment decisions.
CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights that most patients feel gratitude for being offered continuous lenalidomide and perceive it as alleviating some fears concerning relapse. It reveals variations in side effects in different age groups; younger patients reported no/negligible side effects, whilst several older patients with comorbidities described significant symptom burden, occasionally leading to treatment discontinuation which caused distress at the perceived loss of prolonged remission. Future research should prioritise understanding the unique needs of younger patients living with multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Avelumab first-line (1 L) maintenance is a standard of care for advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) based on the JAVELIN Bladder 100 phase 3 trial, which showed that avelumab 1 L maintenance + best supportive care (BSC) significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) vs BSC alone in patients who were progression free after receiving 1 L platinum-containing chemotherapy. Here, we comprehensively screened JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial datasets to identify prognostic factors that define subpopulations of patients with longer or shorter OS irrespective of treatment, and predictive factors that select patients who could obtain a greater OS benefit from avelumab 1 L maintenance treatment.
METHODS: We performed machine learning analyses to screen a large set of baseline covariates, including patient demographics, disease characteristics, laboratory values, molecular biomarkers, and patient-reported outcomes. Covariates were identified from previously reported analyses and established prognostic and predictive markers. Variables selected from random survival forest models were processed further in univariate Cox models with treatment interaction and visually inspected using correlation analysis and Kaplan-Meier curves. Results were summarized in a multivariable Cox model.
RESULTS: Prognostic baseline covariates associated with OS included in the final model were assignment to avelumab 1 L maintenance treatment, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, site of metastasis, sum of longest target lesion diameters, levels of C-reactive protein and alkaline phosphatase in blood, lymphocyte proportion in intratumoral stroma, tumor mutational burden, and tumor CD8+ T-cell infiltration. Potential predictive factors included site of metastasis, tumor mutation burden, and tumor CD8+ T-cell infiltration. An analysis in patients with PD-L1+ tumors had similar findings to those in the overall population.
CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning analyses of data from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial identified potential prognostic and predictive factors for avelumab 1 L maintenance treatment in patients with aUC, which warrant further evaluation in other clinical datasets.

BACKGROUND: CASSIOPEIA part 1 demonstrated superior depth of response and prolonged progression-free survival with daratumumab in combination with bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-VTd) versus bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd) alone as an induction and consolidation regimen in transplant-eligible patients newly diagnosed with myeloma. In CASSIOPEIA part 2, daratumumab maintenance significantly improved progression-free survival and increased minimal residual disease (MRD)-negativity rates versus observation. Here, we report long-term study outcomes of CASSIOPEIA.
METHODS: CASSIOPEIA was a two-part, open-label, phase 3 trial of patients done at 111 European academic and community-based centres. Eligible patients were aged 18-65 years with transplant-eligible newly diagnosed myeloma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. In part 1, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to pre-transplant induction and post-transplant consolidation with D-VTd or VTd. Patients who completed consolidation and had a partial response or better were re-randomised (1:1) to intravenous daratumumab maintenance (16 mg/kg every 8 weeks) or observation for 2 years or less. An interactive web-based system was used for both randomisations, and randomisation was balanced using permuted blocks of four. Stratification factors for the first randomisation (induction and consolidation phase) were site affiliation, International Staging System disease stage, and cytogenetic risk status. Stratification factors for the second randomisation (maintenance phase) were induction treatment and depth of response in the induction and consolidation phase. The primary endpoint for the induction and consolidation phase was the proportion of patients who achieved a stringent complete response after consolidation; results for this endpoint remain unchanged from those reported previously. The primary endpoint for the maintenance phase was progression-free survival from second randomisation. Efficacy evaluations in the induction and consolidation phase were done on the intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who underwent first randomisation, and efficacy analyses in the maintenance phase were done in the maintenance-specific intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who were randomly assigned at the second randomisation. This analysis represents the final data cutoff at the end of the study. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02541383.
RESULTS: Between Sept 22, 2015 and Aug 1, 2017, 1085 patients were randomly assigned to D-VTd (n=543) or VTd (n=542); between May 30, 2016 and June 18, 2018, 886 were re-randomised to daratumumab maintenance (n=442) or observation (n=444). At the clinical cutoff date, Sept 1, 2023, median follow-up was 80·1 months (IQR 75·7-85·6) from first randomisation and 70·6 months (66·4-76·1) from second randomisation. Progression-free survival from second randomisation was significantly longer in the daratumumab maintenance group than the observation-alone group (median not reached [95% CI 79·9-not estimable (NE)] vs 45·8 months [41·8-49·6]; HR 0·49 [95% CI 0·40-0·59]; p<0·0001); benefit was observed with D-VTd with daratumumab maintenance versus D-VTd with observation (median not reached [74·6-NE] vs 72·1 months [52·8-NE]; 0·76 [0·58-1·00]; p=0·048) and VTd with daratumumab maintenance versus VTd with observation (median not reached [66·9-NE] vs 32·7 months [27·2-38·7]; 0·34 [0·26-0·44]; p<0·0001).
CONCLUSIONS: The long-term follow-up results of CASSIOPEIA show that including daratumumab in both the induction and consolidation phase and the maintenance phase led to superior progression-free survival outcomes. Our results confirm D-VTd induction and consolidation as a standard of care, and support the option of subsequent daratumumab monotherapy maintenance, for transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.
BACKGROUND: Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome, Dutch-Belgian Cooperative Trial Group for Hematology Oncology, and Janssen Research & Development.

Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is a common and aggressive cancer, and its standard treatment is concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). Maintenance chemotherapy is often used to help prevent cancer recurrence, but its efficacy for patients with ESCC receiving CCRT remains unclear. We conducted a large head-to-head propensity score matching cohort study to estimate the effects of maintenance chemotherapy on overall survival and cancer-specific survival in patients with ESCC receiving standard CCRT. After propensity score matching (PSM), we recruited 2724 patients with ESCC (2177 in the maintenance chemotherapy group and 547 in the non-maintenance chemotherapy group). The adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) of all-cause mortality and cancer-specific mortality for the maintenance chemotherapy group were 1.15 (1.06-1.26, P = 0.0014) and 1.08 (0.88-1.29, P = 0.1320), respectively, compared with the non-maintenance chemotherapy group. We also found that older age, relatively lower body mass index (BMI), higher American Joint Committee on Cancer clinical stage, and poor response to CCRT as measured using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors were poor independent predictors of all-cause mortality and cancer-specific mortality. Our findings indicated that maintenance chemotherapy may not improve the survival of patients with ESCC who have received CCRT. Additionally, we identified several key prognostic factors for patients with ESCC receiving CCRT, including relatively low BMI and poor response to CCRT. Further research is needed to understand the benefits and risks of maintenance chemotherapy in similar patient populations in order to identify new therapies that could improve treatment responses.

BACKGROUND: Dendritic cell immunotherapy has proven to be safe and induces an immune response in humans. We aimed to establish the efficacy of dendritic cells loaded with allogeneic tumour cell lysate (MesoPher, Amphera BV, \'s-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands) as maintenance therapy in patients with pleural mesothelioma.
METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, phase 2/3 study, patients with histologically confirmed unresectable pleural mesothelioma, aged 18 years or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-1, and non-progressing disease after four to six cycles of standard chemotherapy (with pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 plus platinum [cisplatin 75 mg/m2 or carboplatin area under the curve of 5]) were recruited from four centres in Belgium, France, and The Netherlands. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using block randomisation (block size of 4), stratified by centre and histology (epithelioid vs other), to MesoPher treatment plus best supportive care or best supportive care alone. Patients received up to a maximum of five MesoPher infusions, with treatment administered on days 1, 15, and 29, and weeks 18 and 30. At each timepoint, participants received an injection of 25 × 106 dendritic cells (two-thirds of the dendritic cells were administered intravenously and a third were injected intradermally). Best supportive care was per local institutional standards. The primary endpoint was overall survival, assessed in all participants randomly assigned to treatment (full analysis set) and safety assessed in all randomly assigned participants, and who underwent leukapheresis if they were in the MesoPher group. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03610360, and is closed for accrual.
RESULTS: Between June 21, 2018, and June 10, 2021, 176 patients were screened and randomly assigned to the MesoPher group (n=88) or best supportive care alone group (n=88). One participant in the MesoPher group did not undergo leukapheresis. Mean age was 68 years (SD 8), 149 (85%) of 176 were male, 27 (15%) were female, 173 (98%) were White, two were Asian (1%), and one (1%) was other race. As of data cutoff (June 24, 2023), after a median follow up of 15·1 months (IQR 9·5-22·4), median overall survival was 16·8 months (95% CI 12·4-20·3; 61 [69%] of 88 died) in the MesoPher group and 18·3 months (14·3-21·9; 59 [67%] of 88 died) in the best supportive care group (hazard ratio 1·10 [95% CI 0·77-1·57]; log-rank p=0·62). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events were chest pain (three [3%] of 87 in the MesoPher group vs two [2%] of 88 in the best supportive care group), dyspnoea (none vs two [2%]), anaemia (two [2%] vs none), nausea (none vs two [2%]), and pneumonia (none vs two [2%]). No deaths due to treatment-emergent adverse events were recorded. Treatment-related adverse events consisted of infusion-related reactions (fever, chills, and fatigue), which occurred in 64 (74%) of 87 patients in the MesoPher group, and injection-site reactions (itch, erythema, and induration), which occurred in 73 (84%) patients, and all were grade 1-2 in severity. No deaths were determined to be treatment related.
CONCLUSIONS: MesoPher did not show improvement in overall survival in patients with pleural mesothelioma. Immune checkpoint therapy is now standard of care in pleural mesothelioma. Further randomised studies are needed of combinations of MesoPher and immune checkpoint therapy, which might increase efficacy without adding major toxicities.
BACKGROUND: Amphera BV and EU HORIZON.

To report long-term efficacy and safety of selinexor maintenance therapy in adults with TP53 wild-type (TP53wt) stage IV or recurrent endometrial cancer (EC) who achieved partial remission (PR) or complete remission (CR) following chemotherapy.
Analysis of the prespecified, exploratory subgroup of patients with TP53wt EC from the phase 3 SIENDO study was performed. Progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in patients with TP53wt EC and across other patient subgroups were exploratory endpoints. Safety and tolerability were also assessed.
Of the 263 patients enrolled in the SIENDO trial, 113 patients had TP53wt EC; 70/113 (61.9%) had TP53wt/proficient mismatch repair (pMMR) EC, and 29/113 (25.7%) had TP53wt/deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) EC. As of April 1, 2024, the median PFS (mPFS) for TP53wt patients who received selinexor compared with placebo was 28.4 versus 5.2 months (36.8-month follow-up, HR 0.44; 95% CI 0.27-0.73). A benefit in mPFS was seen with selinexor versus placebo regardless of MMR status (patients with TP53wt/pMMR EC: 39.5 vs 4.9 months, HR 0.36; 95% CI 0.19-0.71; patients with TP53wt/dMMR EC: 13.1 vs 3.7 months, HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.18-1.34). Selinexor treatment was generally manageable, with no new safety signals identified.
In the phase 3 SIENDO study, selinexor maintenance therapy showed a promising efficacy signal and a manageable safety profile in the prespecified subgroup of patients with TP53wt EC who achieved a PR or CR following chemotherapy. These results are being further evaluated in an ongoing randomized phase 3 trial (NCT05611931).

To evaluate the impact of age on the efficacy and safety of niraparib first-line maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer with a complete/partial response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy.
Post hoc analysis of the phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 study (NCT02655016). Patients in the intent-to-treat population were categorized according to age at baseline (<65 years vs ≥65 years), and progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) were evaluated for each age subgroup (clinical cutoff date, May 17, 2019). Safety findings were also evaluated according to a fixed starting dose (FSD) or an individualized starting dose (ISD).
Of 733 randomized patients, 289 (39.4%) were ≥65 years (190 niraparib, 99 placebo) at baseline. Median PFS (niraparib vs placebo) and hazard ratios (95% CI) were similar in patients aged <65 years (13.9 vs 8.2 months; HR, 0.61 [0.47-0.81]) and ≥65 years (13.7 vs 8.1 months; HR, 0.53 [0.39-0.74]). The incidences of any-grade and grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were similar across age subgroups; in the niraparib arm, TEAEs leading to dose discontinuation occurred in 7.8% of patients <65 years and 18.4% of patients ≥65 years. ISD use lowered the incidence of grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia events in niraparib-treated patients compared with the FSD (<65 years: 42.8% vs 18.0%; ≥65 years 57.0% vs 26.1%). HRQOL was comparable across age subgroups.
Niraparib efficacy, safety, and HRQOL were generally comparable across age subgroups, although patients ≥65 years had a higher rate of discontinuations due to TEAEs. ISD use reduced grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia events regardless of age.

In this prospective, multicenter, Phase 2 clinical trial (NCT02987244), patients with peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs) who had responded to first-line chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin or epirubicin, vincristine or vindesine, etoposide, and prednisone (Chi-CHOEP) were treated by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) or with chidamide maintenance or observation. A total of 85 patients received one of the following interventions: ASCT (n = 15), chidamide maintenance (n = 44), and observation (n = 26). estimated 3 PFS and OS rates were 85.6%, 80.8%, and 49.4% (P = 0.001). The two-year OS rates were 85.6%, 80.8%, and 69.0% (P = 0.075).The ASCT and chidamide maintenance groups had significantly better progression-free survival (PFS) than the observation group (P = 0.001, and P = 0.01, respectively). The overall survival (OS) differed significantly between the chidamide maintenance group and the observation group ( P = 0.041). The multivariate and propensity score matching analyses for PFS revealed better outcomes in the subjects in the chidamide maintenance than observation groups (P = 0.02). The ASCT and chidamide maintenance groups had significant survival advantages over the observation group. In the post-remission stage of the untreated PTCL patients, single-agent chidamide maintenance demonstrated superior PFS and better OS than observation. Our findings highlight the potential benefit of chidamide in this patient subset, warranting further investigation through larger prospective trials. Clinical trial registration: clinicaltrial.gov, NCT02987244. Registered 8 December 2016, http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02987244 .