ArticleJournal of ovarian research2025
PARPis after PARPis in patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer: a single institutional experience.
Article in Journal of ovarian research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo explore the clinical efficacy of PARPis maintenance treatment rechallenge in patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) in China.
methodsWe included patients diagnosed with primary EOC who received 2 lines of PARPis maintenance treatment after achieving complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) with the previous chemotherapies. The patients' full medical records were included in this study. Clinical and pathologic variables, treatment modalities, and outcomes were assessed. We investigated the treatment patterns and time to next treatment (TTNT).
resultsA total of 31 ovarian cancer patients in our center were included. Among these patients, 20 of them (64.5%) had BRCA1/2 gene mutations. The median duration of PARPi1 and PARPi2 in the entire cohort was 11.2 months (range: 2.0-30.4 months) and 4.8 months (range: 1.0-16.7 months), respectively. Median TTNT1 and TTNT2 for the entire cohort was 12.4 and 7.7 months, respectively. Patients with BRCA1/2 mutation had a significantly better TTNT1 (median TTNT1: 17.3 vs 10.4 months, P = 0.005) than those without. A non- significantly better TTNT2 was observed in patients with BRCA1/2 mutation than those without (median TTNT2: 8.2 vs 5.0 months, P = 0.890). The association between previous chemotherapy response and TTNT was also analyzed. Patients who had a CR to previous chemotherapy had a significantly better TTNT1 (median TTNT1: 16.4 vs 7.6 months, P = 0.001) and TTNT2 (median TTNT2: 11.1 vs 4.9 months, P = 0.003) than those who had a PR. No grade Ⅲ-IV anemia occurred. Grade III PARPis-related thrombocytopenia was found in only 1 patient (3.2%, 1/31) who received PARPi2 treatment. For patients who developed PARPis-related anemia (n = 9) or thrombocytopenia (n = 7) during PARPi1 treatment, 7 patients (77.8%, 7/9) and 6 patients (85.7%, 6/7) developed anemia or thrombocytopenia again during PARPi2 treatment, respectively.
conclusionsPatients with PARPis resistant recurrent EOC may derive benefit from PARPis re-treatment, especially for those with complete response to the last chemotherapy. Patients with BRCA1/2 mutation were more likely to benefit from PARPis retreatment than those with wild-type. Anemia and thrombocytopenia were more common in PARPis retreatment patients. A small proportion of patients had a longer benefit from PARPis retreatment than from previous PARPis treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.