Purpose There is a growing demand for BRCA1/ 2 mutation ( BRCAm) testing in patients with ovarian cancer; however, the limited number of genetic counselors presents a potential barrier. To facilitate more widespread BRCAm testing in ovarian cancer, pretest counseling by the oncology team could shorten testing turnaround times and ease the pressure on genetic counselors. Patients and Methods The prospective, observational Evaluating a Streamlined Onco-genetic BRCA Testing and Counseling Model Among Patients With Ovarian Cancer (ENGAGE) study evaluated a streamlined, oncologist-led BRCAm testing pathway. The analysis population comprised 700 patients with ovarian cancer at 26 sites in the United States, Italy, and Spain. The primary objectives were to assess turnaround time and, using questionnaires, to evaluate stakeholder satisfaction (patients, oncologists, and geneticists or genetic counselors) with the oncologist-led BRCAm testing pathway. Results The median overall turnaround time was 9.1 weeks (range, 0.9 to 37.1 weeks), with median turnaround times in the United States, Italy, and Spain of 4.1 weeks (range, 0.9 to 37.1 weeks), 20.4 weeks (range, 2.9 to 35.4 weeks), and 12.0 weeks (range, 2.0 to 36.7 weeks), respectively. Patient satisfaction with the oncologist-led BRCAm testing pathway was high, with > 99% of patients expressing satisfaction with pre- and post- BRCAm test counseling. Oncologist satisfaction with the BRCAm testing pathway was also high, with > 80% agreeing that the process for performing BRCAm testing worked well and that counseling patients on BRCAm testing was an efficient use of their time. Oncologists expressed higher levels of satisfaction with the BRCAm testing pathway than did geneticists or genetic counselors. Conclusion The results of the ENGAGE study demonstrate that an oncologist-led BRCAm testing process is feasible in ovarian cancer. Development of local BRCAm testing guidelines similar to the one used in this study could allow faster treatment decisions and better use of resources in the management of patients with ovarian cancer.
Purpose
The phase III VELOUR trial demonstrated efficacy with combined FOLFIRI‐aflibercept in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with oxaliplatin with or without bevacizumab versus placebo. The effect of FOLFIRI‐aflibercept in routine clinical practice was evaluated.
Methods/Patients
Overall survival (OS), progression‐free survival (PFS), response and safety were analysed for 78 patients treated with FOLFIRI‐aflibercept at six GITuD institutions. Exploratory analyses of prognostic and predictive markers of efficacy were performed.
Results
Patients had good general status (PS 0‐1 96.2%), tumours were mostly RAS‐mutant (75.6%), synchronous (71.8%), and left‐sided (71.8%). Prior therapy included bevacizumab (47.4%) and anti‐EGFR agents (12.8%). PFS was longer for metachronous than synchronous tumours (11.0 vs 5.0 months, P = 0.028), and for left‐colon tumours (7.0 vs 3.0 months, P = 0.044). RAS‐mutant status, first‐line treatment and primary tumour surgery did not impact PFS. The disease control rate was 70.5%. The most common grade 3/4 toxicities were neutropenia (15.3%), asthenia (10.3%), diarrhea and mucositis (6.4% each). Dysphonia was reported in 39.7% of patients, and grade 3 hypertension in 3.8%. Development of hypertension (any grade) was significantly associated with a reduced risk of progression by multivariate analysis (HR = 2.7; 95%CI 1.3‐5.4; P = 0.001).
Conclusions
Efficacy with FOLFIRI‐aflibercept in a real‐life population was in line with results from the pivotal trial and toxicity was manageable with treatment adaptation. Survival outcomes were not impacted by primary tumour location, RAS‐mutant status, first‐line treatment or primary tumour surgery. Hypertension may be a surrogate marker of efficacy in this patient population.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.