Phase I Study of a Multivalent WT1 Peptide Vaccine (Galinpepimut-S) in Combination with Nivolumab in Patients with WT1-Expressing Ovarian Cancer in Second or Third Remission.

We examined the safety and immunogenicity of sequential administration of a tetravalent, non-HLA (human leukocyte antigen) restricted, heteroclitic Wilms' Tumor 1 (WT1) peptide vaccine (galinpepimut-S) with anti-PD-1 (programmed cell death protein 1) nivolumab. This open-label, non-randomized phase I study enrolled patients with WT1-expressing ovarian cancer in second or third remission from June 2016 to July 2017. Therapy included six (every two weeks) subcutaneous inoculations of galinpepimut-S vaccine adjuvanted with Montanide, low-dose subcutaneous sargramostim at the injection site, with intravenous nivolumab over 12 weeks, and up to six additional doses until disease progression or toxicity. One-year progression-free survival (PFS) was correlated to T-cell responses and WT1-specific immunoglobulin (Ig)G levels. Eleven patients were enrolled; seven experienced a grade 1 adverse event, and one experienced a grade ≥3 adverse event considered a dose-limiting toxicity. Ten (91%) of eleven patients had T-cell responses to WT1 peptides. Seven (88%) of eight evaluable patients had IgG against WT1 antigen and full-length protein. In evaluable patients who received >2 treatments of galinpepimut-S and nivolumab, the 1-year PFS rate was 70%. Coadministration of galinpepimut-S and nivolumab demonstrated a tolerable toxicity profile and induced immune responses, as indicated by immunophenotyping and WT1-specific IgG production. Exploratory analysis for efficacy yielded a promising 1-year PFS rate.

Morbidity after secondary cytoreductive surgery with or without hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for ovarian cancer: An analysis of a randomized phase II trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess postoperative complications after secondary cytoreductive surgery (SCS) with or without hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), we conducted an exploratory analysis of patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer enrolled in a randomized phase II trial. METHODS: Complications occurring within 30 days of surgery were graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5.0; only hemoglobin and platelet levels were assessed. Patients were grouped by CTCAE grade ≥ 3 and < 3 complications. RESULTS: Among 83 eligible patients, 33 (40%) had grade ≥ 3 complications and 50 (60%) had grade < 3 complications; anemia and abdominal infections were the most common. There were no perioperative mortalities. Time to initiation of postoperative chemotherapy for patients with grade ≥ 3 and grade < 3 events was 34 days (range, 18-60) and 31 days (range, 21-43), respectively (P = .017). Median progression-free survival (PFS) did not significantly differ between patients with grade ≥ 3 and grade < 3 complications (11.2 months [95% CI: 9.3-14.4] vs 14.9 months [95% CI: 11.3-16.5], respectively; P = .186), nor did median overall survival (OS) (46.9 months [95% CI: 34-NE] vs 68.2 months [95% CI: 52.1-NE], respectively; P = .053). CONCLUSION: Postoperative complications following SCS with or without HIPEC were associated with slight delays in chemotherapy initiation but did not significantly impact oncologic outcomes.

Durvalumab with or without tremelimumab in patients with persistent or recurrent endometrial cancer or endometrial carcinosarcoma: A randomized open-label phase 2 study.

INTRODUCTION: Our understanding of the biologic heterogeneity of endometrial cancer has improved, but which patients benefit from single-agent versus combination immune checkpoint blockade remains unclear. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, randomized, open-label, phase 2 study of durvalumab 1500 mg (Arm 1) versus durvalumab 1500 mg plus tremelimumab 75 mg every 4 weeks (Arm 2) in patients with endometrial carcinoma. The primary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) at 24 weeks. Patients were stratified by mismatch repair (MMR) status and carcinosarcoma histology. Using a Simon two-stage minimax design, we determined 40 patients per arm would provide 90% power and Type 1 error of 10%. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients were enrolled; 77 were evaluable for toxicity (Arm 1: 38, Arm 2: 39) and 75 evaluable for efficacy (Arm 1: 37, Arm 2: 38). Patient were stratified by MMR status (Arm 1: 5, Arm 2: 4 were MMR-deficient). The ORR in Arm 1 was 10.8% (one-sided 90% CI: 4.8-100%); the ORR in Arm 2 was 5.3% (one-sided 90% CI: 1.4-100%). Since the primary endpoint of ORR was not met, 24-week PFS was not compared to historical controls per protocol specification. No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: In these patients with predominantly MMR-proficient endometrial cancer, there was limited response with single-agent and combined immune checkpoint blockade. The pre-specified efficacy thresholds were not met for further evaluation. A deeper understanding of potential mechanisms of resistance to immunotherapy in MMR-proficient endometrial cancer is needed for the development of novel therapeutic approaches.

Secondary Cytoreduction and Carboplatin Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Platinum-Sensitive Recurrent Ovarian Cancer: An MSK Team Ovary Phase II Study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this phase II study was to evaluate hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) with carboplatin for recurrent ovarian cancer during secondary cytoreductive surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were intraoperatively randomly assigned to carboplatin HIPEC (800 mg/m2 for 90 minutes) or no HIPEC, followed by five or six cycles of postoperative IV carboplatin-based chemotherapy, respectively. Based on a binomial single-stage pick-the-winner design, an arm was considered winner if ≥ 17 of 49 patients were without disease progression at 24 months post-surgery. Secondary objectives included postoperative toxicity and HIPEC pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: Of 98 patients, 49 (50%) received HIPEC. Complete gross resection was achieved in 82% of the HIPEC patients and 94% of the standard-arm patients. Bowel resection was performed in 37% of patients in the HIPEC arm compared with 65% in the standard (P = .008). There was no perioperative mortality and no difference in use of ostomies, length of stay, or postoperative toxicity. At 24 months, eight patients (16.3%; 1-sided 90% CI, 9.7 to 100) were without progression or death in the HIPEC arm and 12 (24.5%; 1-sided 90% CI, 16.5 to 100) in the standard arm. With a medium follow-up of 39.5 months, 82 patients progressed and 37 died. The median progression-free survival in the HIPEC and standard arms were 12.3 and 15.7 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.54; 95% CI, 1 to 2.37; P = .05). There was no significant difference in median overall survival (52.5 v 59.7 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.73 to 2.67; P = .31). These analyses were exploratory. CONCLUSION: HIPEC with carboplatin was well tolerated but did not result in superior clinical outcomes. This study does not support the use of HIPEC with carboplatin during secondary cytoreductive surgery for platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer.

A phase I open-label study of selinexor with paclitaxel and carboplatin in patients with advanced ovarian or endometrial cancers.

PURPOSE: Selinexor, a selective inhibitor of nuclear export, monotherapy causes nuclear accumulation of tumor-suppressor proteins and has anti-tumor activity in ovarian and endometrial cancers. The safety and tolerability of oral selinexor plus intravenous carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy (selinexor + CP) was evaluated in this population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This phase I, 3 + 3 dose-escalation study assessed 4 selinexor + CP regimens. Patients in cohorts of 3, regardless of disease type, were administered 1 of 4 alternating regimens (selinexor at 30 mg/m2 or 60 mg plus CP at AUC 5 and 175 mg/m2 or 80 mg/m2, respectively) for 6-10 cycles (1 cycle = 21 days), followed by selinexor maintenance. Enrolled patients with ovarian cancer had received 1 prior platinum-based therapy. Patients with endometrial cancer were chemotherapy-naive or had received 1 prior platinum-based therapy. Response was evaluated every 9 weeks. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients were treated (5 serous ovarian cancer; 18 endometrial cancer, including 6 carcinosarcomas). The most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were thrombocytopenia (100%), leukopenia (91%), and hyperglycemia (87%). The most common grade 3/4 TRAEs were leukopenia (70%), neutropenia (70%), lymphopenia (61%), anemia (57%), and alanine transaminase increase (43%). One treatment-related dose-limiting toxicity (grade 3 syncope) occurred. Twelve patients achieved a partial response and 1 achieved a complete response. Responses to all four regimens were observed in ovarian and endometrial cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Combination selinexor + CP was safe and tolerated in advanced ovarian and endometrial cancers.

Phase 2 study of LY3023414 in patients with advanced endometrial cancer harboring activating mutations in the PI3K pathway.

BACKGROUND: PI3K pathway activation is common in endometrial cancer. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the dual PI3K/mTOR inhibitor, LY3023414, in patients with advanced endometrial cancer harboring activating mutations in the PI3K pathway. METHODS: We conducted a single-arm phase 2 study of monotherapy LY3023414. Eligible patients had advanced endometrial cancer of any grade, prior management with 1-4 cytotoxic lines, and PI3K pathway activation prospectively defined as a loss-of-function PTEN alteration or activating alteration in PIK3CA, AKT1, PIK3R1, PIK3R2, or MTOR. The primary objective was best overall response rate (ORR) per RECIST 1.1. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients were treated; histologies included endometroid (39%), carcinosarcoma (25%), serous (21%), and mixed (14%). Patients were heavily pretreated, with a median of 2 prior cytotoxic lines (range, 1-3). The most common alterations involved PIK3CA (68%), PTEN (43%), and PIK3R1 (32%). In the 25 efficacy-evaluable patients, the ORR was 16% (90% CI, 7%-100%), and the clinical benefit rate was 28% (90% CI, 16%-100%). Four patients had a confirmed partial response, and 2 responses lasted for >9 months. The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 2.5 months (95% CI, 1.2-3.0) and 9.2 months (95% CI, 5.0-15.9), respectively. The most common all-grade treatment-related adverse events were anemia (71%), hyperglycemia (71%), hypoalbuminemia (68%), and hypophosphatemia (61%). No correlation between molecular alterations and response was observed. CONCLUSION: In patients with heavily pretreated advanced endometrial cancer prospectively selected for tumors with activating PI3K pathway mutations, LY3023414 demonstrated modest single-agent activity and a manageable safety profile.

A Randomized Trial of Prophylactic Extended Carboplatin Infusion to Reduce Hypersensitivity Reactions in Recurrent Ovarian Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Hypersensitivity with repeated exposure to platinum agents is common and can preclude continued treatment, even in patients with disease that remains platinum sensitive. We sought to compare the effects of prophylactic, extended carboplatin infusion versus standard infusion on the rate of carboplatin hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) in women with recurrent ovarian cancer. METHODS: This was a single-institution, randomized, nonblinded trial comparing a graded, 3-hour extended infusion of carboplatin with a standard 30-minute infusion in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer who were enrolled from January 2011 to April 2015. The study was designed to detect a decrease in the HSR rate from 20% (standard infusion) to 5% (extended infusion) assuming a type 1 error of 10% and power of 80% using a 1-sided test. RESULTS: Of 146 enrolled patients, 114 were evaluable. Fifteen (13%) had an HSR-11% (6/56) in the extended-infusion and 16% (9/58) in the standard-infusion groups (P = 0.582). Planned treatment completion was achieved in 50 (89%) of 56 patients and 49 (84%) of 58 patients, respectively. Of 25 patients who received single-agent carboplatin, 8 (32%) had an HSR (53% of all patients who had an HSR [8/15]). Of 23 patients who received carboplatin with gemcitabine, 4 (17%) had an HSR (27% of all patients who had an HSR [4/15]). Of 8 patients who received carboplatin with paclitaxel, 3 (38%) had an HSR (20% of all patients who had an HSR [3/15]). There were no HSRs with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, the most commonly given concurrent chemotherapy (46% of all patients). CONCLUSIONS: A prophylactic, extended carboplatin infusion was not associated with a decreased HSR rate. The overall low HSR rate suggests that premedication may help reduce HSRs.