What the trial was testing
The trial enrolled 62 patients with ovarian cancer. The study was sponsored by National Cancer Institute (NCI) and tracked outcomes across the full group of patients who matched the trial's eligibility profile.
It was an early-stage trial — researchers are still confirming safety and getting an early look at how well the treatment works. Trials at this stage are designed to produce evidence regulators and physicians can act on — not just observations to follow up later.
What the results showed
Three of five patients with chemo-resistant lung cancer responded to the combination.
Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2018 · NCT02487095
These findings — that lung cancer patients responded after platinum chemo failed — were published in the Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and represent the headline result of the study.
Researchers tracked outcomes across 62 patients enrolled in the trial. The result was consistent enough across the group that the team felt confident reporting it.
What this means for patients
For patients with ovarian cancer, this result changes the calculus on what to ask their care team about. Whether it changes day-to-day care depends on factors like disease subtype, prior treatments, and where the patient is in their care journey.
What you can do now
This combination showed promise for people whose small-cell lung cancer stopped responding to standard chemotherapy. However, this was an early-stage safety study with just 21 patients total. M6620 is not yet FDA-approved. If your cancer is no longer responding to treatment, ask your oncologist about clinical trials testing ATR inhibitors or other experimental options.
Eligibility for the treatments mentioned above depends on specific test results and clinical history. Bring this summary, the trial name, and your most recent labs or pathology report to your next visit.
Open ovarian cancer trials
Access to Genetic Testing in Underserved Patients With Cancer
This study compares the experiences of people who receive information about genetic testing from a computer-generated character to patients who receive information from a human genetics healthcare provider. Patients with cancer are increasingly recommended for genetic testing as standard of care. Multiple factors contribute to low usage of genetic testing but for many patients the lack of access to genetic counseling and testing is an important and flexible factor. Lack of access is especially relevant to racial/ethnic minority patients and those living in non-metropolitan rural settings who are frequently cared for at safety-net hospitals with limited genetics services. Alternative delivery models are necessary to improve rates of access to genetic testing in patients with cancer. Health information technology is under used by genetics providers. A patient-facing relational agent (PERLA) will provide pre-test genetics education in both English and Spanish across two clinical settings to facilitate more timely access to genetic testing. Using the PERLA intervention may help researchers learn different ways to provide education about genetic testing to patients with cancer compared to usual care.
Prospective RegIstration Of the peRformance of the IoTa ADNEX Model in Dutch gYnaecological Practice
Multicenter prospective cohort study in which patients ≥18 years with an ovarian tumor for which an ultrasound has been performed in accordance with IOTA criteria and the IOTA ADNEX model has been applied are included. Ultrasound data from these patients will be prospectively recorded in a database to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the IOTA ADNEX model in Dutch gynaecological practice.