logo
Rusfertide: First Self-Injected Drug to Cut Phlebotomy

Rusfertide: First Self-Injected Drug to Cut Phlebotomy

Medscape2 days ago

Rusfertide, an investigational, first-in-class, self-injected peptide targeting the hepcidin pathway, shows efficacy in significantly reducing the need for phlebotomy in patients with polycythemia vera (PV) while improving quality-of-life symptoms, potentially representing an important new standard of care for the commonly undertreated condition.
'Rusfertide is the first agent to prospectively demonstrate a statistically significant improvement in the PROMIS Fatigue SF-8a and MFSAF patient-reported outcomes in patients with PV,' said lead investigator Andrew Tucker Kuykendall, MD, of the Moffitt Cancer Center, in Tampa, Florida, in presenting the findings at American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 annual meeting.
'Rusfertide had a safety and tolerability profile consistent with rusfertide in prior studies.'
In PV, characterized by the overproduction of red blood cells, patients have an increased risk for thromboembolic events, along with symptoms ranging from pruritus, night sweats, difficulty concentrating and fatigue.
Patients with PV, characterized by an overproduction of blood cells in bone marrow, are at an increased risk for cardiovascular and thrombotic events, while also experiencing symptoms including potentially severe fatigue.
The traditional standard treatment includes phlebotomy to reduce excess red blood cells, and patients also often receive cytoreductive agents, mainly hydroxyurea, but also including interferon alfa-2b, ruxolitinib, and busulfan.
Despite those efforts, the treatment is often not sufficient in achieving or maintaining hematocrit control of < 45%, which is recommended to reduce the risk for a thromboembolic event.
Furthermore, phlebotomy is not just burdensome in requiring reliance of the health system, but the treatment can exacerbate iron deficiency, posing further quality of life issues.
If achieved, however, maintaining hematocrit control is associated with as much as a fourfold decreased risk for major events, Kuykendall explained.
Rusfertide, a hepcidin-mimetic compound, is meanwhile designed to mimic endogenous hepcidin, key in regulating levels of iron in the body.
With the drug showing favorable hematocrit control in the phase 2 REVIVE study, Kuykendall conducted the phase 3, double-blind VERIFY trial, enrolling 293 patients who required frequent phlebotomy, with or without stable cytoreductive therapy to control hematocrit.
The patients were randomized to treatment either with once-weekly rusfertide (n = 147) or placebo (n = 146) for the first 32 weeks of the study. All who completed that phase were eligible to join the open-label rusfertide phase from weeks 32 to 52.
About half of the patients in the study were treated with cytoreductive therapies to prevent thrombotic events.
In weeks 0 through 32, 56.5% of patients in the rusfertide group and 55.5% in the placebo group received concurrent cytoreductive therapy.
During the period from weeks 20 to 32, as many as 76.9% of patients receiving rusfertide achieved a clinical response compared with 32.9% of those who had received placebo ( P < .0001).
During weeks 0-32, those receiving rusfertide had a mean number of 0.5 phlebotomies vs 1.8 with placebo ( P < .0001).
As many as 72.8% of patients in the rusfertide group required no phlebotomies during the first 32 weeks compared with only 21.9% in the placebo group. Of note, the responses were consistent across subgroups, including based on level of risk or the type of concurrent cytoreductive therapy.
'Rusfertide reduced the mean number of phlebotomies vs placebo in weeks 0 through 32 by a statistically significant margin across subgroups, including PV risk category, geographic region and the use of concurrent cytoreductive therapy,' Kuykendall said.
For the key secondary endpoint, 62.6% of patients in the rusfertide group were able to successfully maintain hematocrit below 45% from weeks 0 to 32 compared with just 14.4% of those in the placebo group ( P < .0001).
Patients treated with rusfertide also demonstrated statistically significant improvement in measures of fatigue and other symptoms, as assessed on the PROMIS Fatigue SF-8a total T-score and MFSAF Total Symptom Score ( P < .03).
The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) in the rusfertide and placebo groups, respectively, were injection site reactions (55.9% and 32.9%), anemia (15.9% and 4.1%), and fatigue (15.2% and 15.8%).
Serious AEs occurred in 3.4% of those on rusfertide and 4.8% of patients on placebo; however, none were considered related to rusfertide treatment.
Importantly, cancer events were reported in just 1 patient on rusfertide and 7 patients on placebo.
Kuykendall noted that ongoing research will evaluate longer-term outcomes.
'Given this chronic malignancy, we are very focused on more long-term treatment outcomes such as transformation, safety as well as thrombosis, and ultimately we'll have to follow patients in this ongoing study during [subsequent phases] to see how these play out,' he said.
'Rusfertide demonstrated a manageable safety profile; it was consistent with prior studies, and based on this data we believe it represents a potential new treatment option for polycythemia vera,' Kuykendall added, noting that 'these data will ultimately be used to file marketing authorizations throughout the world.'
Reduction of Phlebotomy 'Highly Important' to Patients
Commenting on the study at the meeting, discussant Katherine Walsh, MD, an associate professor of medicine in the Division of Hematology and Oncology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, in Nashville, Tennessee, called the results 'practice changing,' agreeing that 'rusfertide should become a standard of care for us for our patients in the near future.'
'The ability to reduce the need for phlebotomy, which can carry a heavy burden, causing severe fatigue, visual disturbances and iron deficiency, is a highly important goal for patients with PV,' she explained.
'These patients live with a high risk of thrombosis over time and that has significant impact on their survival, impact on quality of life, and can be fatal in and of itself from those thrombotic events.'
In discussing further potential benefits, Kuykendall noted that rusfertide is of interest to patients who may not be responding well to cytoreductive therapy.
'I think our cytoreductive therapy options are limited in what they can offer to patients,' he noted in discussion of the study.
'They certainly reduce thrombotic events, they can control some blood counts, but they do have long term side-effect profile issues, tolerability issues and they don't do as much as I would like for patients on in terms of quality of life,' he added.
'So I think this is where we can add to our current cytoreductive therapies that brings something else to the table.'
Walsh agreed, noting that 'I have a number of patients who are referred because they don't want to go on a cytoreductive agent if they can avoid it, and I think having this option with this different mechanism of action will be appealing to [those] patients wanting to avoid cytoreduction.'
Adding to the Chorus of Support for New Standard of Care
Further commenting on the study in an ASCO Daily News report, Julie Gralow, MD, ASCO's chief medical officer, noted the importance of the cancer results.
'We know that acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and other malignancies can occur in patients with polycythemia,' she explained. 'AML occurs in about 3% of these patients over 10 years.'
'With just one cancer in the rusfertide group, and seven in the placebo arm, [AML] clearly did not increase and may, although not significantly, have decreased.'
Considering the reductions in the need for phlebotomy and other benefits, Gralow agreed that 'this really should become a new standard of care for patients who are requiring phlebotomy that have polycythemia.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Which Tx Combo Is Best for HER2+ Breast Cancer?
Which Tx Combo Is Best for HER2+ Breast Cancer?

Medscape

time9 hours ago

  • Medscape

Which Tx Combo Is Best for HER2+ Breast Cancer?

The combination of trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu) with pertuzumab (Perjeta) as a first-line treatment for HER2-positive advanced metastatic breast cancer has been shown to reduce the risk for disease progression or death by more than the current standard-of-care treatment. Sara Tolaney, MD, MPH Sara Tolaney, MD, MPH, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, presented this finding and other interim results of the phase 3 DESTINY-Breast09 study, at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 annual meeting in Chicago. 'Trastuzumab deruxtecan, or T-DXd, in combination with pertuzumab demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival, with a 44% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death when compared to a taxane, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab (THP),' said Tolaney, during her presentation. New First-line Standard? Similar results were observed across all patient subgroups, with no new safety signals, Tolaney said. 'These data suggest that T-DXd and pertuzumab may represent a new first-line standard of care for patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer,' she said. The study randomized 1157 patients to three treatment groups: T-DXd 5.4 mg/kg every three weeks plus placebo, T-DXd-pertuzumab, or a taxane plus trastuzumab with pertuzumab (THP). The interim study readout includes only data from the T-DXd-pertuzumab and the taxane plus trastuzumab with pertuzumab groups. Pertuzumab + T-Dxd or Standard of Care? Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 40.7 months in the T-DXd-pertuzumab patients and 26.9 months in the taxane plus trastuzumab with pertuzumab patients ( P < .00001). Tolaney explained that the study was designed to have an interim analysis for PFS after approximately 399 events across the three arms with at least 277 events for comparison. At the time of the interim analysis, she said, only the TDX-pertuzumab and THP groups met the criteria for superiority, a P -value < .00043, which was not met for the comparison of T-DXd plus placebo to THP. The T-DXd-placebo arm remains blinded until the final progression-free survival analysis, Tolaney said. Twenty-one percent of the patients in the T-DXd-pertuzumab arm had discontinued T-DXd due to adverse events, Tolaney said; 9% of patients elected to continue with trastuzumab and pertuzumab after they discontinued T-DXd. Among hormone receptor-positive patients, 13.5% in the T-DXd-pertuzumab group and 38% in the THP group elected to add endocrine treatment. At the data cutoff, 46% of the T-DXd-pertuzumab patients and 33% of those in the THP group remained on study treatment. Median follow-up duration was 29 months. The treatment effect of T-DXd-pertuzumab became evident early in the study, Tolaney said. Six months after starting treatment, 7% of the T-DXd-pertuzumab group vs 12% of the THP group had progressed. The gap continued to widen over time, she said. 'With 26% of patients still on steady treatment with T-DXd and pertuzumab, it suggests that this median is likely to evolve with further follow-up,' she said. Objective response rates were also higher with T-DXd–pertuzumab, 86% vs 79% with THP, Tolaney said. 'The complete response rate for T-DXd and pertuzumab was 15%, which was almost double what was seen with THP (8.5%),' she said. Response duration was also longer with T-DXd-pertuzumab, with 73% remaining in response at 24 months vs 55% in the THP arm. 'Overall survival data are very immature at this timepoint with just 16% of survival events seen, but you can see that there is an early trend favoring T-DXd plus pertuzumab with a hazard ratio of 0.84,' she said. A similar number of patients in both groups had serious treatment-emergent adverse events: 27% for T-DXd-pertuzumab and 25.1% for THP, which Tolaney said, was consistent with the known toxicity profiles of both agents, with no new toxicities identified. The median duration of treatment in the DESTINY-Breast09 study was 21 months. 'A Pivotal Advancement?' Rebecca Dent, MD, deputy CEO at the National Cancer Center Singapore, called the DESTINY-Breast09 results 'a pivotal advancement in the treatment of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer that is both clinically and statistically significant.' Rebecca Dent, MD HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer was once considered a 'death sentence,' Dent said at a press conference, but now patients can survive on therapy for years, which presents its own challenges. Regarding the T-DXd-plus-pertuzumab regimen, Dent said, 'Is this for all patients at the beginning of their treatment for metastatic disease?' The truth of the matter is we don't know.' Having better biomarkers would provide answers, she said, but for patients with extensive disease with central nervous system metastasis, pertuzumab in combination with other agents 'is clearly your first-line choice.' How to best sequence therapies is another challenge emerging with these evolving treatment regimens, Dent added. 'And then I think finally we do have to appreciate that there are toxicities: One in terms of quality of life but also cost toxicity,' she said. Which Therapeutic Regimen Costs More? Tolaney acknowledged the cost implications of adding pertuzumab to T-DXd, in an interview with Medscape Medical News . 'But I would also note,' Tolaney said, 'that the standard-of-care arm does involve getting continued trastuzumab and pertuzumab therapy.' In the PATINA study, which added palbociclib (Ibrance) to standard maintenance therapy in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, the cost profile was similar to those of the treatments used in the newer trial, Tolaney said. 'You are looking at substantial continued cost because we're continuing to suppress the HER2 pathway for years in these patients,' she said. AstraZeneca and Daiichi Sankyo funded the study. Tolaney reported financial relationships with ADi, Ambrx, Artios Biopharmaceuticals, Arvinas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Bicycle Therapeutics, BioNTech, Blueprint Medicines, Bristol Myers Squibb, Circle Pharma, Cullinan Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Eisai, Exelixis, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Hengrui Pharmaceutical (USA), Immunomedics/Gilead, Incyte, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, Launch Therapeutics, Lilly, Menarini Group, Merck, Mersana, NanoString Technologies, Natera, Novartis, OncoPep, Pfizer, Reveal Genomics, Sanofi, Seagen, Sumitovant Biopharma, Summit Therapeutics, Systimmune, Tango Therapeutics, Zentalis, Zuellig Pharma, and Zymeworks. Dent reported having financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, DKSH, Eisai, Gilead Sciences, Merck Sharpe and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche.

Arvinas Announces Submission of New Drug Application to U.S. FDA for Vepdegestrant for Patients with ESR1-Mutated ER+/HER2- Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer
Arvinas Announces Submission of New Drug Application to U.S. FDA for Vepdegestrant for Patients with ESR1-Mutated ER+/HER2- Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer

Associated Press

time11 hours ago

  • Associated Press

Arvinas Announces Submission of New Drug Application to U.S. FDA for Vepdegestrant for Patients with ESR1-Mutated ER+/HER2- Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer

– This submission is supported by the pivotal Phase 3 VERITAC-2 clinical trial, results of which were recently presented at the 2025 American Society for Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting and published in The New England Journal of Medicine – – VERITAC-2 data support vepdegestrant as a potential treatment option in patients with ESR1m ER+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer – NEW HAVEN, Conn., June 06, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Arvinas, Inc. (Nasdaq: ARVN), today announced the submission of a New Drug Application (NDA) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with its partner Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE), for vepdegestrant for the treatment of patients with ER-positive (ER+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative (ER+/HER2-) ESR1-mutated advanced or metastatic breast cancer previously treated with endocrine-based therapy. This submission is based on results from VERITAC-2 (NCT05654623), a global, randomized Phase 3 trial evaluating vepdegestrant versus fulvestrant. 'This milestone comes after an exciting presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology's annual meeting,' said John Houston, Ph.D., Chairperson, Chief Executive Officer and President at Arvinas. 'We look forward to the NDA review and to the first ever FDA-approved PROTAC ER degrader potentially being available to patients who could benefit from a much needed, new treatment option.' Vepdegestrant is being jointly developed by Arvinas and Pfizer for the treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic ER+/HER2- breast cancer and was granted fast track designation as a monotherapy by the FDA. Results from the VERITAC-2 study were recently presented in a late-breaking oral presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 Annual Meeting and were selected for the ASCO press briefing and for Best of ASCO. Detailed results were also simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine. About the VERITAC-2 Clinical Trial The Phase 3 VERITAC-2 clinical trial ( NCT05654623 ) is a global, randomized trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of vepdegestrant (ARV-471) as a monotherapy compared to fulvestrant in patients with ER+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer. The trial enrolled 624 patients at sites in 25 countries who had previously received treatment with a CDK4/6 inhibitor plus endocrine therapy. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either vepdegestrant once daily, orally on a 28-day continuous dosing schedule, or fulvestrant, administered intramuscularly on Days 1 and 15 of Cycle 1 and then on Day 1 of each 28-day cycle starting from Day 1 of Cycle 2. In the trial, 43% of patients (n=270) had ESR1 mutations detected. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the ESR1-mutation and intent-to-treat populations as determined by blinded independent central review. Overall survival is the key secondary endpoint. About Vepdegestrant Vepdegestrant is an investigational, orally bioavailable PROTAC (PROteolysis TArgeting Chimera) protein degrader designed to specifically target and degrade the estrogen receptor (ER). Vepdegestrant is being developed as a potential monotherapy for ER+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer with estrogen receptor 1 (ESR1) mutations in the second line-plus setting. In July 2021, Arvinas announced a global collaboration with Pfizer for the co-development and co-commercialization of vepdegestrant; Arvinas and Pfizer will share worldwide development costs, commercialization expenses, and profits. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted vepdegestrant Fast Track designation as a monotherapy in the treatment of adults with ER+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer previously treated with endocrine-based therapy. About Arvinas Arvinas (Nasdaq: ARVN) is a clinical-stage biotechnology company dedicated to improving the lives of patients suffering from debilitating and life-threatening diseases. Through its PROTAC (PROteolysis TArgeting Chimera) protein degrader platform, the Company is pioneering the development of protein degradation therapies designed to harness the body's natural protein disposal system to selectively and efficiently degrade and remove disease-causing proteins. Arvinas is currently progressing multiple investigational drugs through clinical development programs, including vepdegestrant, targeting the estrogen receptor for patients with locally advanced or metastatic ER+/HER2- breast cancer; ARV-393, targeting BCL6 for relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin Lymphoma; and ARV-102, targeting LRRK2 for neurodegenerative disorders. Arvinas is headquartered in New Haven, Connecticut. For more information about Arvinas, visit and connect on LinkedIn and X. Forward-Looking Statements This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 that involve substantial risks and uncertainties, including statements regarding: the NDA review and to the first ever FDA-approved PROTAC ER degrader potentially being available to patients who could benefit from a much needed, new treatment option; and vepdegestrant's development as a potential monotherapy for ER+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer with ESR1 mutations in the second line-plus setting. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, contained in this press release, including statements regarding Arvinas' strategy, future operations, future financial position, future revenues, projected costs, prospects, plans and objectives of management, are forward-looking statements. The words 'anticipate,' 'believe,' 'estimate,' 'expect,' 'intend,' 'may,' 'plan,' 'target,' 'goal,' 'potential,' 'will,' 'would,' 'could,' 'should,' 'look forward,' 'continue,' and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words. Arvinas may not actually achieve the plans, intentions or expectations disclosed in these forward-looking statements, and you should not place undue reliance on such forward-looking statements. Actual results or events could differ materially from the plans, intentions and expectations disclosed in the forward-looking statements Arvinas makes as a result of various risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to: whether Arvinas and Pfizer will successfully perform their respective obligations under the collaboration between Arvinas and Pfizer; whether Arvinas and Pfizer will be able to successfully conduct and complete clinical development for vepdegestrant as a monotherapy; whether the VERITAC-2 clinical trial will meet the secondary endpoint for overall survival; risks related to our expectations regarding the potential clinical benefit of vepdegestrant to patients; uncertainties relating to regulatory applications and related filing and approval timelines, including the New Drug Application seeking FDA approval of vepdegestrant and the risk that any regulatory approvals, if granted, may be subject to significant limitations on use or subject to withdrawal or other adverse actions by the applicable regulatory authority; whether FDA or other regulatory authorities will require additional information or further studies, or may fail or refuse to approve or may delay approval of vepdegestrant; whether Arvinas and Pfizer, as appropriate, will be able to obtain marketing approval for and commercialize vepdegestrant and other product candidates on current timelines or at all; Arvinas' ability to protect its intellectual property portfolio; Arvinas' reliance on third parties; whether Arvinas will be able to raise capital when needed; whether Arvinas' cash and cash equivalent resources will be sufficient to fund its foreseeable and unforeseeable operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements; and other important factors discussed in the 'Risk Factors' section of Arvinas' Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024 and subsequent other reports on file with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The forward-looking statements contained in this press release reflect Arvinas' current views with respect to future events, and Arvinas assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements, except as required by applicable law. These forward-looking statements should not be relied upon as representing Arvinas' views as of any date subsequent to the date of this release. Contacts Investors: Jeff Boyle +1 (347) 247-5089 [email protected] Media: Kirsten Owens +1 (203) 584-0307 [email protected]

Surgery Before or After Chemo for Advanced Ovarian Cancer?
Surgery Before or After Chemo for Advanced Ovarian Cancer?

Medscape

time11 hours ago

  • Medscape

Surgery Before or After Chemo for Advanced Ovarian Cancer?

The optimal timing of surgery in patients with resectable advanced ovarian cancer remains controversial. Should these patients receive the standard radical surgery followed by chemotherapy, or could patients do better with chemotherapy before surgery? The long-awaited TRUST trial aimed to settle this question, but the results paint a somewhat mixed picture. Among patients with resectable stage IIIB-IVB ovarian cancer, primary cytoreductive surgery followed by chemotherapy led to a statistically significant 2.4-month median progression-free survival (PFS) benefit over neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery. While the median overall survival was 6 months longer in the upfront surgery group, the difference was not statistically significant. Patients in both groups reported similar quality of life over a 3-year period on a global health survey. 'TRUST is the first randomized controlled trial to show a significant benefit in median PFS without compromising short- or long-term quality of life,' said lead investigator Sven Mahner, MD, with Ludwig Maximilian University Hospital, Munich, Germany, who presented the results at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 annual meeting. Mahner called the PFS and overall survival findings in the upfront surgery group 'excellent' but acknowledged that the primary endpoint of significant overall survival was not met. ASCO discussant Emma Barber, MD, gynecologic oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, was less enthusiastic about the benefits of upfront surgery, given the lack of significant overall survival benefit. Additionally, the upfront surgery group had a higher rate of any complication and more than a twofold higher rate of stoma formation. 'There is upfront toxicity with primary debulking surgery compared to neoadjuvant chemotherapy — even in the highest quality surgical centers,' she said. TRUST Rationale The aim of surgery in advanced ovarian cancer is to prolong patients' remission and improve overall survival while sustaining quality of life, said Mahner. Primary cytoreductive surgery followed by chemotherapy has been considered standard for decades in this patient population. However, there's an alternative strategy — neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery. Several trials have compared upfront surgery with upfront chemotherapy, but limitations in these studies have not helped answer which approach is better. TRUST was designed to evaluate the optimal timing of cytoreductive surgery in patients with resectable advanced ovarian cancer who are fit enough to tolerate radical surgery. Patients received care in cancer centers that used defined surgical quality assurance metrics. Quality criteria were based on the European Training Centre in Gynaecological Oncology certification and included evaluations of cytoreductive surgery in the operating room as well as assessments of surgical proficiency and infrastructure. In addition, participating centers had to have high complete resection rates (at least 50% in upfront surgery for patients with FIGO IIIB-IVB) and high surgical volumes (at least 36 cytoreductive surgeries per year). Patients were randomly assigned and stratified by center and age-Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) combination (ECOG 0 and age ≤ 65 years vs ECOG > 0 and age older than 65 years) to either primary cytoreductive surgery followed by six cycles of intravenous chemotherapy (n = 345) or three cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery plus three more cycles of chemotherapy (n = 343). Most patients had FIGO stage IIIc disease, and over 90% had high-grade serous histology. Surgical effort was very high in both treatment groups; the median duration of surgery was 5.5 hours in the primary cytoreductive surgery group and 4.5 hours in the interval cytoreductive surgery group, Mahner noted. High surgical effort led to high complete resection rates — 70% in the primary group and 85% in the interval group — which meant the recommended systemic treatment of carboplatin and paclitaxel could be given in more than 90% of the patients, with a considerable number of patients also receiving bevacizumab or a PARP inhibitor during the course of their disease, Mahner said. Survival Outcomes Overall, 219 (64%) PFS events occurred in the primary cytoreductive surgery group and 253 (74%) in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group. Median PFS after primary surgery was 22.1 months compared to 19.7 months after interval surgery — a 2.4-month benefit (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; P = .018). The researchers also conducted a restricted mean survival analysis and found PFS was 31.7 months with primary surgery compared to 26.6 months with neoadjuvant chemotherapy — a 5.1-month benefit ( P = .07). On the overall survival front, the primary surgery group had a 6-month benefit, but the difference was not significant — median overall survival was 54.3 months with primary surgery compared to 48.3 months with interval surgery (HR, 0.89; P = .24). Careful Patient Selection Necessary In subgroup analyses, patients with complete cytoreduction after primary surgery had the best outcomes, with a median PFS of 27.9 months vs 21.8 months with interval surgery (HR, 0.69; P = .0009) and median overall survival of 67.0 months vs 55.0 months (HR, 0.80; P = .0521). In addition, the benefit of primary cytoreductive surgery was most prominent in stage III patients with a median PFS of 26.3 months vs 21.4 months (HR, 0.73; P = .005) and a median overall survival of 63.7 months vs 53.2 months, respectively (HR, 0.84; P = .14). However, patients with stage IV disease did not benefit more from upfront surgery in PFS (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.74-1.38) or overall survival (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.71-1.33). Mahner also noted that 5 years after randomization, 23% of the patients who had primary surgery had no disease progression compared to 11% of the patients who had interval surgery. The complication rate was higher in the primary surgery group at 18% vs 12% after interval surgery. The 30-day post-operative mortality rate was less than 1% in both treatment groups. Patients in both groups reported similar quality of life outcomes. Barber noted that the data suggest that some populations may benefit more from upfront surgery and others may not. 'For example, patients with stage IV disease clearly do not seem to benefit, whereas those with stage III disease seem to show a trend towards improved survival,' she explained. Given the higher upfront toxicity associated with primary debulking surgery, 'selection for primary debulking surgery instead of neoadjuvant chemotherapy should be considered carefully and performed for selected populations,' Barber said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store