Maintenance Treatment Of Patients Research Articles

Maintenance therapy with anlotinib after induction therapy with platinum-based chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A pooled analysis of 2 single-arm trials.

Maintenance therapy could significantly improve the prognosis of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving chemotherapy. Anlotinib is effective, tolerable, and convenient in administration as a third-line treatment for NSCLC. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of maintenance therapy with anlotinib after platinum-based induction chemotherapy for patients with advanced NSCLC. This pooled analysis of 2 multicenter, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 clinical trials (ALTER-L014 and ALTER-L011) enrolled patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and without known sensitive mutations in China between September 2018 and January 2021. The primary outcome was progression-free survival. The secondary outcomes were objective response rate, disease control rate, overall survival, and safety. The data of 23 patients were pooled, with 15 from ALTER-L014 and 8 from ALTER-L011. At the cutoff date of June 13, 2021, the median progression-free survival since the start of maintenance therapy was 5.95 (95% confidence interval, 4.30-8.80) months. Nineteen patients had stable disease, 1 had a partial response and 3 had progressive disease. The objective response rate was 4.35%, while disease control rate was 86.96%. The median overall survival of the patients since the start of maintenance therapy was 18.60 (95% confidence interval, 6.87-22.80) months. The incidence of adverse events of grade ≥ 3 was 21.7%. Anlotinib might offer a new option for maintenance treatment in patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC without known sensitive mutations after standard first-line platinum-based chemotherapy.

Avelumab first-line maintenance treatment in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: real-world results from a Korean expanded access program.

The JAVELIN Bladder 100 phase 3 trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of avelumab administered as first-line (1L) maintenance treatment in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) without disease progression after 1L platinum-based chemotherapy. This study provides the first real-world data from Korea regarding avelumab 1L maintenance treatment, comprising data obtained from a nationwide expanded access program (EAP). This open-label EAP was conducted at five centers from September 2021 until June 2023. Eligible patients had unresectable locally advanced or metastatic UC and were progression free after 1L platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients received avelumab 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks per local prescribing information. Safety and effectiveness were assessed by treating physicians according to routine practice. Overall, 30 patients were enrolled. At initial UC diagnosis, 20 patients (66.7%) had stage 4 disease and 12 (40.0%) had visceral metastases. The most common 1L chemotherapy regimen was gemcitabine + cisplatin (21 patients; 70.0%). All but one patient (96.7%) had received 4-6 cycles of 1L chemotherapy. The median interval from end of 1L chemotherapy to start of avelumab was 4.4 weeks. Median duration of avelumab treatment was 6.2 months (range, 0.9-20.7); nine patients (30.0%) received >12 months of treatment. Adverse events related to avelumab occurred in 21 patients (70.0%) and were grade ≥3 or classified as serious in three patients (10.0%). Median progression-free survival was 7.9 months (95% CI, 4.3-13.1). Overall survival was not analyzed because only one patient died. Results from this EAP demonstrated the clinical activity and acceptable safety of avelumab 1L maintenance treatment in Korean patients with advanced UC, consistent with previous studies.

Long-term follow-up of efficacy and safety of selinexor maintenance treatment in patients with TP53wt advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer: A subgroup analysis of the ENGOT-EN5/GOG-3055/SIENDO study

ObjectiveTo 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. MethodsAnalysis 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. ResultsOf 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. ConclusionIn 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).

Progression-free survival and safety at 3.5years of follow-up: results from the randomized phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial of niraparib maintenance treatment in patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer - a plain language summary.

This PLSP provides a short summary of an original scientific article that presented results from the PRIMA study after 3.5years of follow-up time. The original article was published in the European Journal of Cancer in 2023. The PRIMA study included adult patients with newly diagnosed advanced high-risk ovarian cancer whose tumors shrunk or became undetectable after treatment with chemotherapy with or without surgery. The PRIMA study evaluated how well the drug niraparib, also known as Zejula, worked at delaying or preventing ovarian cancer from coming back (recurring) or getting worse (progressing) compared with placebo (a substance with no effects that a doctor gives to a patient instead of a drug). The first results from the PRIMA study were published in 2019, when patients had participated in the PRIMA study for about 1.2years. The article this PLSP is based on reports longer-term data from the PRIMA study, when patients had participated in the PRIMA study for about 3.5years. Patients were monitored (or followed) for a longer time to understand how well niraparib continued to work and to evaluate whether the safety of niraparib changed with additional time being monitored. Patients who took niraparib had more time before their cancer came back or got worse than patients who took placebo. In terms of safety, no new types of side effects with niraparib treatment were observed with additional time being monitored as part of the PRIMA study. These results support that niraparib remains an important treatment option to help delay the cancer from coming back or getting worse in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer that responded to initial treatment. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02655016 (PRIMA study) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Senaparib as first-line maintenance therapy in advanced ovarian cancer: a randomized phase 3 trial.

Poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors as maintenance therapy after first-line chemotherapy have improved progression-free survival in women with advanced ovarian cancer; however, not all PARP inhibitors can provide benefit for a biomarker-unselected population. Senaparib is a PARP inhibitor that demonstrated antitumor activity in patients with solid tumors, including ovarian cancer, in phase 1 studies. The multicenter, double-blind, phase 3 trial FLAMES randomized (2:1) 404 females with advanced ovarian cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage III-IV) and response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy to senaparib 100 mg (n = 271) or placebo (n = 133) orally once daily for up to 2 years. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by blinded independent central review. At the prespecified interim analysis, the median progression-free survival was not reached with senaparib and was 13.6 months with placebo (hazard ratio 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.32-0.58; P < 0.0001). The benefit with senaparib over placebo was consistent in the subgroups defined by BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation or homologous recombination status. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 179 (66%) and 27 (20%) patients, respectively. Senaparib significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo in patients with advanced ovarian cancer after response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, irrespective of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation status and with consistent benefits observed between homologous recombination subgroups, and was well tolerated. These results support senaparib as a maintenance treatment for patients with advanced ovarian cancer after a response to first-line chemotherapy. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04169997 .

Olaparib Addition to Maintenance Bevacizumab Therapy in Ovarian Carcinoma With BRCA-Like Genomic Aberrations

Testing for homologous recombination deficiency is required for the optimal treatment of high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer. The search for accurate biomarkers is ongoing. To investigate whether progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients with high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer treated with maintenance olaparib or placebo differed between patients with a tumor BRCA-like genomic profile and patients without a tumor BRCA-like profile. This cohort study was a secondary analysis of the PAOLA-1 randomized clinical trial that compared olaparib plus bevacizumab with placebo plus bevacizumab as maintenance treatment in patients with advanced high-grade ovarian cancer after a good response to first-line platinum with taxane chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, irrespective of germline or tumor BRCA1/2 mutation status. All patients with available tumor DNA were included in the analysis. The current analysis tested for an interaction between BRCA-like status and olaparib treatment on survival outcomes. The original trial was conducted between July 2015 and September 2017; at the time of data extraction for analysis in March 2022, a median follow-up of 54.1 months (IQR, 28.5-62.2 months) and a total follow-up time of 21 711 months was available, with 336 PFS and 245 OS events. Tumor homologous recombination deficiency was assessed using the BRCA-like copy number aberration profile classifier. Myriad MyChoice CDx was previously measured. The trial was randomized between the olaparib and bevacizumab and placebo plus bevacizumab groups. This secondary analysis assessed hazard ratios (HRs) of olaparib vs placebo among biomarker strata and tested for interaction between BRCA-like status and olaparib treatment on PFS and OS, using Cox proportional hazards regression. A total of 469 patients (median age, 60 [range 26-80] years) were included in this study. The patient cohort consisted of women with International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics stage III (76%) high-grade serous (95%) ovarian cancer who had no evaluable disease or complete remission at initial or interval debulking surgery (76%). Thirty-one percent of the tumor samples (n = 138) harbored a pathogenic BRCA mutation, and BRCA-like classification was performed for 442 patients. Patients with a BRCA-like tumor had a longer PFS after olaparib treatment than after placebo (36.4 vs 18.6 months; HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.37-0.65; P < .001). No association of olaparib with PFS was found in patients with a non-BRCA-like tumor (17.6 vs 16.6 months; HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.68-1.51; P = .93). The interaction was significant (P = .004), and HRs and P values (for interaction) were similar in the relevant subgroups, OS, and multivariable analyses. In this secondary analysis of the PAOLA-1 randomized clinical trial, patients with a BRCA-like tumor, but not those with a non-BRCA-like tumor, had a significantly longer survival after olaparib plus bevacizumab treatment than placebo plus bevacizumab treatment. Thus, the BRCA1-like classifier could be used as a biomarker for olaparib plus bevacizumab as a maintenance treatment.

P740 Results at 52 weeks of Intravenous Ustekinumab as Maintenance Treatment in Patients with Loss of Response to Subcutaneous Doses: A Multicenter Retrospective Observational Study

Abstract Background Ustekinumab (UST) is indicated for the treatment of Crohn’s Disease (CD) and Ulcerative Colitis (UC). Despite having shown clinical effectiveness in the real world,some patients may lose response over time or need a higher dose to achieve it. In this context, UST intravenous (IV) maintenance has been proposed. The primary endpoint of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of maintenance IV UST treatment in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) patients who present with partial response or loss of response to subcutaneous UST. Methods We performed a multicenter observational retrospective study including patients with active IBD on maintenance treatment with IV UST. The study conducted at 2 hospitals in Andalusia.The clinical response and remission was analyzed at week 12 and 52, defined as either Harvey-Bradshaw Index (HBI) ≤4 for CD or partial Mayo Score (pMS) ≤2 for UC. The reduction of objective markers of disease activity, fecal calprotectin (FCal) and C-reactive protein (CRP) was evaluated. Moreover, UST trough levels were measured pre-and post UST IV maintenance, drug persistence at the end of the follow-up and any adverse events were assessed. Results A total of 59 patients were included in the study, with a median age of 41 years [IQR32-52]. 84.7% (50/59) had Crohn's disease (CD). 91.5% (53/59) had previously received at least one biologic or JAK inhibitor treatment. 58.6% (34/59) werepreviously on subcutaneous UST every 4 weeks (Table 1). In patients with CD, the median baseline HBI value was 9 (IQR 6-12), which decreased to 5 (IQR 4-7) at week 12 and 4 (IQR 3-6) at week 52 (p&amp;lt;0.001) (Figure 2A). In patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), the median baseline pMayo value was 8.5 (IQR 6.5-9.0), which decreased to 5.5 (IQR 4.3-6.0) at week 12 and 3 (IQR 2.0-4.8) at week 52 (p=0.017) (Figure 2B). The median baseline FCal was 800.2 μg/g, which decreased to 520 μg/g at week 12 and 220 μg/g at week 52 (p&amp;lt;0.001). Regarding CRP, the median baseline was 7.1 mg/L, which decreased to 4 mg/L at week 12 and 3 mg/L at week 52 (p&amp;lt;0.001). The median UST levels with subcutaneous maintenance treatment were 3.1 mcg/mL (IQR 1.1-7.4) compared to 12 mcg/mL (IQR 9-20) with intravenous treatment (p&amp;lt;0.001) (Figure 2C). Clinical remission at week 12 and 52, was achieved by 47,5% and 64,3% of the patients respectively. At the end of the follow-up, 96.6% of the patients continued with intravenous UST (Figure 2D). No adverse events were recorded in any patient for the duration of the study. Conclusion Intravenous UST for maintenance is able to rescue up to 64% of patients who have failed on subcutaneous doses. 97% of patients continue intravenous UST treatment after one year with an excellent safety profile. UST levels increase fourfold.

P895 Analysis of the efficacy of intravenous ustekinumab maintenance treatment in patients with refractory Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Abstract Background Ustekinumab (UST) is a monoclonal antibody that inhibits the p40 subunit of IL-12 and IL-23, approved for the treatment of Crohn's Disease (CD) and Ulcerative Colitis (UC). Its administration is intravenous during induction and subcutaneous during maintenance. Several studies have assessed the efficacy of reinduction and intensification of this treatment in patients with loss of response. However, there are few studies evaluating the effectiveness of intravenous UST for maintenance. The aim of the study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of maintenance with intravenous UST in patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD). Methods Observational, retrospective, and single-center study. All patients receiving maintenance with intravenous UST until June 2023 were reviewed. Clinical response was evaluated with Harvey-Bradshow Index for CD and partial Mayo for UC. Biochemical response was evaluated with calprotectin and C-reactive protein. Results A total of 29 patients with IBD (24 CD and 5 UC) were included. The mean follow-up of patients was 449 days (74-948). The cohort's characteristics are summarized in Table 1. In all cases, intravenous maintenance was performed with UST 130mg/4 weeks. In 4 cases (13.8%), maintenance was initiated directly with intravenous UST. In 9 (31%) patients due to primary failure to UST and in 16 (55.2%) patients due to secondary failure. The clinical response to intravenous UST maintenance in patients with CD at week 8 and 16 and at one year of follow-up was 87.5% (n=21/24), 83.3% (n=20/24), 73.3% (n=11/15) respectively. For UC, the response was 60% (n=3/5) at week 8 and 16 and at one year. The drug survival was 723 days (± 74) (Figure 1). No predictive variable for treatment response was identified. Two patients (both with CD) experienced recurrent respiratory infections as an adverse effect, without the need to discontinue UST. Conclusion Maintenance treatment with intravenous UST can be useful and safe in patients with severe IBD and/or failure of subcutaneous UST maintenance.

P985 Efficacy and safety of de-escalation from 50 mg to 25 mg of oral, once-daily, obefazimod for the third and fifth year of open-label maintenance treatment in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC): An interim analysis

Abstract Background Obefazimod is an investigational, oral, once-daily, small molecule which enhances expression of microRNA-124 and is currently in phase 3 clinical trials for the treatment of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) [1]. Obefazimod demonstrated efficacy and safety in patients with UC at week-8 in a Phase 2a and Phase 2b, double-blind, placebo-controlled induction trials [2] and their subsequent open-label maintenance (OLM) studies [3]. Methods Patients with UC who received 50 mg of oral, once-daily, obefazimod for approximately four years in the Phase 2a OLM study and approximately two years in the Phase 2b OLM study, provided they met the eligibility criteria (Mayo Endoscopic subscore = 0 or 1), were given the option to transition to a subsequent open-label maintenance study in which they were administered a daily dose of 25 mg of obefazimod for up to 2 years. This interim analysis, conducted with cut-off date of July 31, 2023, reports the findings of a cohort of patients who completed their week 48 visit. Results As of the cut-off date, there were 71 eligible patients, of whom 8 (11%) discontinued prior to week 48 and 63 (89%) completed their 48-week visit. An as observed analysis indicated a disease control rate of 84% (defined as a stable or improved Modified Mayo Score) (Table 1). The levels of fecal calprotectin were &amp;lt;250 and &amp;lt;150 µg/g for 93% (42/45) and 82% (37/45) of patients with available FCP values, respectively. In total, 39/76 subjects (51.3%) reported at least one treatment emergent adverse event (TEAE). The most frequent TEAEs (≥ 5%) were COVID-19 (7.9%) and ulcerative colitis (6.6%). No new safety findings were identified over these 48 weeks. Conclusion One year after dose de-escalation to a daily regimen of 25 mg of obefazimod, favorable outcomes in disease control were observed among patients with UC who demonstrated endoscopic improvement (ES&amp;lt;1) after 2-4 years of 50 mg od. No new safety signals have emerged for a duration of up to five years of treatment with once-daily obefazimod.

Expert opinions and clinical experiences with chlormethine gel as maintenance treatment for patients with mycosis fungoides.

Maintenance treatment can be recommended for patients with mycosis fungoides (MF) whose disease responds to primary treatment. While positive outcomes have been observed in small studies with maintenance therapy, there is a lack of practical guidelines and agreement on when and how maintenance therapy for MF should be approached. In this article, we discuss expert opinions and clinical experiences on the topic of maintenance therapy for patients with MF, with a focus on chlormethine gel. Ideally, patients should have a durable response before initiating maintenance therapy. The definition of and required duration of durable response are topics that are open to debate and currently have no consensus. Chlormethine gel has several attributes that make it suitable for maintenance therapy; it can be easily applied at home, can be combined with other treatment options for maintenance, and has a manageable safety profile. Chlormethine gel as maintenance therapy can be applied at decreasing frequencies after active treatment with chlormethine gel or other therapies until the minimally effective dose is reached. Patients generally tend to adhere well to chlormethine gel maintenance regimens and may remain on treatment for several years. The experiences described here may be useful for clinicians when deciding on maintenance treatment regimens for their patients. Development of guidelines based on clinical trial outcomes will be important to ensure the most effective maintenance treatment strategies are used for patients with MF.

Clinical Pharmacology of Oral Octreotide Capsules for the Treatment of Acromegaly.

The primary goal of acromegaly treatment is to normalize biochemical parameters as it significantly reduces the risks of complications and comorbidities associated with the disease. First-line medical treatment is commonly represented by injectable somatostatin analogues (SRLs) after surgery. In June 2020, with the integration of Transient Permeation Enhancer® technology, oral octreotide capsules (OOCs) received regulatory approval from the US Food and Drug Administration for long-term maintenance treatment in patients with acromegaly who have responded to and tolerated treatment with octreotide or lanreotide. We reviewed the clinical pharmacological data on the development and clinical use of OOCs. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data on OOCs showed a dose-dependent increase in octreotide levels and remarkable suppression of growth hormone secretion. The efficacy and safety of OOCs were investigated in four clinical trials conducted on patients with complete or partially controlled acromegaly. The trials resulted in the maintenance of biochemical control after switching from injectable SRLs to OOCs, with a comparable side-effect profile. Moreover, the acromegaly symptoms improved in patients on OOC. The data showed a patient preference to continue in the OOC arm for the extension phase of the trials. From the clinical pharmacological perspective, oral formulation of octreotide has the advantage of efficacy and safety with respect to injectable octreotide.

Deaddicta® for maintenance treatment of Opioid-dependence: A six-month follow-up.

Opioid dependence, is one of the world's most critical health problems. Deaddicta is a herbal product considered an effective treatment for opioid addiction. Deaddicta's efficacy in the maintenance treatment of patients with opioid use disorder has recently been demonstrated through a double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT). This study aimed to evaluate the permanence of Deaddicta's efficacy six months after the end of the maintenance treatment for opioid dependence. This study was performed following the previous RCT on the maintenance treatment of opioid addicts. Out of 41 participants who completed the study for three months in the previous research, 15 from the intervention group (Deaddicta capsules, 1500 mg/day) returned for follow-up. They all previously fulfilled the DSM-IV criteria for addiction, were aged 18 to 65, and had discontinued Deaddicta for six months. The outcome measures included addiction severity, depression and anxiety levels, and craving score. The scores of each parameter were compared in three phases: before intervention; after three months of intervention; and six months after the end of the study. Depression, anxiety, and craving scores decreased six months after the end of the previous study. This decrease was significant in the craving score (P = 0.011). No significant increase was observed in the frequency of use. The regression analysis showed a negative relationship between craving and the progression of phases. The Deaddicta product may have desirable and effective properties in decreasing temptation and, as a result, the maintenance treatment of opioid dependence.

Cost-effectiveness of olaparib plus bevacizumab versus bevacizumab monotherapy in the maintenance of patients with homologous recombination deficiency-positive advanced ovarian cancer after response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy

ObjectiveThe PAOLA-1 trial confirmed that adding olaparib to bevacizumab significantly increased clinical benefit following response to platinum-based chemotherapy in homologous recombination deficiency-positive ovarian cancer. The objective of this analysis was...

Real-world data on niraparib maintenance treatment in patients with non-gBRCA mutated platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to provide real-world efficacy and safety data on niraparib maintenance treatment in patients with non-germline (gBRCA)1/2 mutated platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer.MethodsThis retrospective multi-center cohort...

Rituximab as a maintenance treatment in patients with pemphigus vulgaris: When is the right time for discontinuation?

Rituximab as a maintenance treatment in patients with pemphigus vulgaris: When is the right time for discontinuation?

523P Camrelizumab plus apatinib as maintenance treatment in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer who were responding or stable after standard first-line chemotherapy (CAMERA): Results from a single-arm, phase II trial

523P Camrelizumab plus apatinib as maintenance treatment in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer who were responding or stable after standard first-line chemotherapy (CAMERA): Results from a single-arm, phase II trial

Economic impact of olaparib on maintenance treatment of patients with BRCA-mutation positive, platinum-sensitive relapsing high-grade serous epithelial ovarian cancer in Spain

ObjectiveTo estimate the economic impact of the introduction of olapa- rib in the Spanish National Health System as maintenance monotherapy in patients with BRCA-mutation positive high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Method: A budget impact model was developed from the Spanish NHS perspective and a time horizon of 5 years for four treatment lines. The model included prevalent and incident patients estimated according to Spanish epidemiological data. Patients moved between treatment lines according to the progression-free survival and overall survival curves obtained from the respective clinical trials. Only direct costs (€2017) were considered: pharmacological, administration, adverse effects and genetic tests. The robustness of the model was verified by a univariate sensitivity analysis. ResultsThe use of olaparib meant that, after 5 years, 6% fewer patients progressed to later lines compared to scenario without olaparib, remaining longer in the second line and delaying the initiation of subsequent lines. The total estimated budgetary impact ranged between € 1.6 and € 5.4 million (1-5 years). The economic impact associated to the introduction of olaparib is partially offset by the lower cost of chemotherapy, related adverse events, and palliative care in patients with olaparib than in patients without it. ConclusionsOlaparib as maintenance treatment in patients with BR- CA-mutation positive high-grade serous ovarian cancer increases progression-free survival and delays the use of subsequent chemotherapy, with an budgetary impact for the Spanish National Health System of 5.4 million euros after 5 years.

OA02.05 Dendritic Cell Immunotherapy Versus Best Supportive Care as Maintenance Treatment in Patients with Pleural Mesothelioma

OA02.05 Dendritic Cell Immunotherapy Versus Best Supportive Care as Maintenance Treatment in Patients with Pleural Mesothelioma

On-demand Versus Continuous Maintenance Treatment With a Proton Pump Inhibitor for Mild Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Prospective Randomized Multicenter Study.

It remains unclear which maintenance treatment modality is most appropriate for mild gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). We aimed to compare on-demand treatment with continuous treatment using a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) in the maintenance treatment for patients with non-erosive GERD or mild erosive esophagitis. Patients whose GERD symptoms improved after 4 weeks of standard dose PPI treatment were prospectively enrolled at 25 hospitals. Subsequently, the enrolled patients were randomly assigned to either an on-demand or a continuous maintenance treatment group, and followed in an 8-week interval for up to 24 weeks. A total of 304 patients were randomized to maintenance treatment (continuous, n = 151 vs on-demand, n = 153). The primary outcome, the overall proportion of unwillingness to continue the assigned maintenance treatment modality, failed to confirm the non-inferiority of on-demand treatment (45.9%) compared to continuous treatment (36.1%). Compared with the on-demand group, the GERD symptom and health-related quality of life scores significantly more improved and the overall satisfaction score was significantly higher in the continuous treatment group, particularly at week 8 and week 16 of maintenance treatment. Work impairment scores were not different in the 2 groups, but the prescription cost was less in the on-demand group. Serum gastrin levels significantly elevated in the continuous treatment group, but not in the on-demand group. Continuous treatment seems to be more appropriate for the initial maintenance treatment of non-erosive GERD or mild erosive esophagitis than on-demand treatment. Stepping down to on-demand treatment needs to be considered after a sufficient period of continuous treatment.

Case-control matching-guided exposure-efficacy relationship for avelumab in patients with urothelial carcinoma.

Exposure-response (E-R) analyses are an integral component of understanding the benefit/risk profile of novel oncology therapeutics. These analyses are typically conducted using data from the treatment arm to characterize the relationship between drug exposure (low vs. high) and efficacy or safety outcomes. For example, outcomes of patients with lower exposure in the treatment arm (e.g., Q1) might be compared to outcomes of those with higher drug exposure (Q2, Q3, and Q4). Outcomes from the lowest exposure quartile may be also compared to the control arm to evaluate whether the Q1 subgroup derived clinical benefit. However, the sample size and the distribution of patient baseline characteristics and disease risk factors are not balanced in such a comparison (Q1 vs. control), which may bias the analysis and causal interpretation of clinical benefit in the Q1 subgroup. Herein, we report the use of case-control matching to account for this bias and better understand the E-R relationship for avelumab in urothelial carcinoma, a PD-L1 inhibitor approved for the treatment of several cancers. Data from JAVELIN-100 was utilized which is a phase III study of avelumab in first-line maintenance treatment in patients with urothelial carcinoma; this clinical study demonstrated superiority of avelumab versus best-supportive care leading to approval in the United States, Europe, and other countries. A post hoc case-control matching method was implemented to compare the efficacy outcome between Q1 avelumab subgroup and matched patients extracted from the control arm with similar baseline characteristics, which showed a clinically relevant difference in overall survival in favor of the Q1 avelumab subgroup. This analysis demonstrates the importance of accounting for imbalance in important baseline covariates when comparing efficacy outcomes between subgroups within the treatment arm versus the control arm.