Once daily cediranib and weekly paclitaxel to prevent malignant bowel obstruction in at-risk patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (CEBOC): a single-arm, phase II safety trial.

OBJECTIVE: Cytotoxic chemotherapy for ovarian cancer can be augmented by co-administration of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors but these are contraindicated in patients with bowel obstruction due to the risk of gastrointestinal perforation. We evaluated the safety and feasibility of paclitaxel plus cediranib to treat patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer at risk of malignant bowel obstruction. METHODS: A phase II trial included eligible patients between March 2018 and February 2021, identified by clinical symptoms and radiographic risk factors for malignant bowel obstruction. Cediranib (20 mg/day) was added to paclitaxel (70 mg/m2/week) within 9 weeks of starting paclitaxel if pretreatment bowel symptoms had improved. The primary endpoint was the number of patients treated for ≥5 days with cediranib that were free of grade 3-5 gastrointestinal perforation or fistula. Secondary endpoints were hospitalization for bowel obstruction, grade ≥3 adverse events, treatment compliance assessed by relative dose intensity, objective response, progression-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: Thirty patients were recruited. Of these, 12 received paclitaxel alone and 17 received paclitaxel and cediranib in combination. One patient died before starting treatment. No patient developed a grade 3-5 gastrointestinal perforation or fistula (one sided 95% confidence interval (CI) upper limit 0.16). One patient required hospitalization for bowel obstruction but recovered with conservative management. The most common cediranib-related grade ≥3 adverse events were fatigue (3/17), diarrhorea (2/17), and hypomagnesemia (2/17). Relative dose intensity for paclitaxel was 90% (interquartile range (IQR) 85-100%; n=29) and for cediranib 88% (IQR 76-93%; n=17). The objective response in patients who received paclitaxel and cediranib was 65.0% (one complete and 10 partial responses). Median progression-free survival was 6.9 months (95% CI 4.4-11.5 months; n=17) and overall survival was 19.4 months (95% CI 10.1-20.4 months; n=17). Median follow-up was 12.4 months (8.9-not reached; n=17). CONCLUSIONS: The unexpectedly high withdrawal rate during paclitaxel alone, before introducing cediranib, meant we were unable to definitely conclude that paclitaxel plus cediranib did not cause gastrointestinal perforation or fistula. The regimen was however tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EudraCT 2016-004618-93.

Results of a randomised Phase II trial of olaparib, chemotherapy or olaparib and cediranib in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: OCTOVA compared the efficacy of olaparib (O) versus weekly paclitaxel (wP) or olaparib + cediranib (O + C) in recurrent ovarian cancer (OC). AIMS: The main aim of the OCTOVA trial was to determine the progression-free survival (PFS) of olaparib (O) versus the oral combination of olaparib plus cediranib (O + C) and weekly paclitaxel (wP) in recurrent ovarian cancer (OC). METHODS: In total, 139 participants who had relapsed within 12 months of platinum therapy were randomised to O (300 mg twice daily), wP (80 mg/m2 d1,8,15, q28) or O + C (300 mg twice daily/20 mg daily, respectively). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) of olaparib (O) versus olaparib plus cediranib (O + C) or weekly paclitaxel (wP). The sample size was calculated to observe a PFS hazard ratio (HR) 0.64 in favour of O + C compared to O (20% one-sided type I error, 80% power). RESULTS: The majority had platinum-resistant disease (90%), 22% prior PARPi, 34% prior anti-angiogenic therapy, 30% germline BRCA1/2 mutations. The PFS was increased for O + C vs O (O + C 5.4 mo (2.3, 9.6): O 3.7 mo (1.8, 7.6) HR = 0.73; 60% CI: 0.59, 0.89; P = 0.1) and no different between wP and O (wP 3.9 m (1.9, 9.1); O 3.7 mo (1.8, 7.6) HR = 0.89, 60% CI: 0.72, 1.09; P = 0.69). The main treatment-related adverse events included manageable diarrhoea (4% Grade 3) and hypertension (4% Grade 3) in the O + C arm. DISCUSSION: OCTOVA demonstrated the activity of O + C in women with recurrent disease, offering a potential non-chemotherapy option. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14784018, registered on 19th January 2018 http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN14784018 .

Molecular Results and Potential Biomarkers Identified from the Phase 3 MILO/ENGOT-ov11 Study of Binimetinib versus Physician Choice of Chemotherapy in Recurrent Low-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer.

PURPOSE: We present the results of a post hoc tumor tissue analysis from the phase 3 MILO/ENGOT-ov11 study (NCT01849874). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Mutation/copy-number analysis was performed on tissue obtained pre-randomization. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate progression-free survival (PFS). Unbiased univariate analysis, Cox regression, and binary logistic regression were used to test associations between mutation status and outcomes, including PFS and binary response by local RECIST 1.1. RESULTS: MILO/ENGOT-ov11 enrolled 341 patients, ranging in age from 22 to 79, from June, 2013 to April, 2016. Patients were randomized 2:1 to binimetinib or physician's choice of chemotherapy (PCC). The most commonly altered gene was KRAS (33%). In 135 patients treated with binimetinib with response rate (RR) data, other detected MAPK pathway alterations included: NRAS (n = 11, 8.1%), BRAF V600E (n = 8, 5.9%), RAF1 (n = 2, 1.5%), and NF1 (n = 7, 5.2%). In those with and without MAPK pathway alterations, the RRs with binimetinib were 41% and 13%, respectively. PFS was significantly longer in patients with, compared with those without, MAPK pathway alterations treated with binimetinib [HR, 0.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31-0.79]. There was a nonsignificant trend toward PFS improvement in PCC-treated patients with MAPK pathway alterations compared with those without (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.43-1.59). CONCLUSIONS: Although this hypothesis-generating analysis is limited by multiple testing, higher RRs and longer PFS were seen in patients with low-grade serous ovarian cancer (LGSOC) treated with binimetinib, and to a lesser extent in those treated with PCC, who harbored MAPK pathway alterations. Somatic tumor testing should be routinely considered in patients with LGSOC and used as a future stratification factor.

Homologous recombination deficiency in newly diagnosed FIGO stage III/IV high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer: a multi-national observational study.

OBJECTIVE: Olaparib plus bevacizumab maintenance therapy improves survival outcomes in women with newly diagnosed, advanced, high-grade ovarian cancer with a deficiency in homologous recombination. We report data from the first year of routine homologous recombination deficiency testing in the National Health Service (NHS) in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland between April 2021 and April 2022. METHODS: The Myriad myChoice companion diagnostic was used to test DNA extracted from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor tissue in women with newly diagnosed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III/IV high-grade epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer. Tumors with homologous recombination deficiency were those with a BRCA1/2 mutation and/or a Genomic Instability Score (GIS) ≥42. Testing was coordinated by the NHS Genomic Laboratory Hub network. RESULTS: The myChoice assay was performed on 2829 tumors. Of these, 2474 (87%) and 2178 (77%) successfully underwent BRCA1/2 and GIS testing, respectively. All complete and partial assay failures occurred due to low tumor cellularity and/or low tumor DNA yield. 385 tumors (16%) contained a BRCA1/2 mutation and 814 (37%) had a GIS ≥42. Tumors with a GIS ≥42 were more likely to be BRCA1/2 wild-type (n=510) than BRCA1/2 mutant (n=304). The distribution of GIS was bimodal, with BRCA1/2 mutant tumors having a higher mean score than BRCA1/2 wild-type tumors (61 vs 33, respectively, χ2 test p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: This is the largest real-world evaluation of homologous recombination deficiency testing in newly diagnosed FIGO stage III/IV high-grade epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer. It is important to select tumor tissue with adequate tumor content and quality to reduce the risk of assay failure. The rapid uptake of testing across England, Wales, and Northern Ireland demonstrates the power of centralized NHS funding, center specialization, and the NHS Genomic Laboratory Hub network.

Maintenance olaparib in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer: Outcomes by somatic and germline BRCA and other homologous recombination repair gene mutation status in the ORZORA trial.

BACKGROUND: The open-label, single-arm, multicenter ORZORA trial (NCT02476968) evaluated the efficacy and safety of maintenance olaparib in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSR OC) who had tumor BRCA mutations (BRCAm) of germline (g) or somatic (s) origin or non-BRCA homologous recombination repair mutations (HRRm) and were in response to their most recent platinum-based chemotherapy after ≥2 lines of treatment. METHODS: Patients received maintenance olaparib capsules (400 mg twice daily) until disease progression. Prospective central testing at screening determined tumor BRCAm status and subsequent testing determined gBRCAm or sBRCAm status. Patients with predefined non-BRCA HRRm were assigned to an exploratory cohort. The co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS; modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1) in BRCAm and sBRCAm cohorts. Secondary endpoints included health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and tolerability. RESULTS: 177 patients received olaparib. At the primary data cut-off (17 April 2020), the median follow-up for PFS in the BRCAm cohort was 22.3 months. The median PFS (95% CI) in BRCAm, sBRCAm, gBRCAm and non-BRCA HRRm cohorts was 18.0 (14.3-22.1), 16.6 (12.4-22.2), 19.3 (14.3-27.6) and 16.4 (10.9-19.3) months, respectively. Most patients with BRCAm reported improvements (21.8%) or no change (68.7%) in HRQoL and the safety profile was as expected. CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance olaparib had similar clinical activity in PSR OC patients with sBRCAm and those with any BRCAm. Activity was also observed in patients with a non-BRCA HRRm. ORZORA further supports use of maintenance olaparib in all patients with BRCA-mutated, including sBRCA-mutated, PSR OC.

Benefit From Fractionated Dose-Dense Chemotherapy in Patients With Poor Prognostic Ovarian Cancer: ICON-8 Trial.

PURPOSE: An international meta-analysis identified a group of patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) with a very poor survival because of two unfavorable features: (1) a poor chemosensitivity defined by an unfavorable modeled CA-125 ELIMination rate constant K (KELIM) score <1.0 with the online calculator CA-125-Biomarker Kinetics, and (2) an incomplete debulking surgery. We assumed that patients belonging to this poor prognostic group would benefit from a fractionated densified chemotherapy regimen. METHODS: The data set of ICON-8 phase III trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01654146), where patients with EOC were treated with the standard three-weekly, or the weekly dose-dense, carboplatin-paclitaxel regimens and debulking primary surgery (immediate primary surgery [IPS] or delayed primary [or interval] surgery [DPS]), was investigated. The association between treatment arm efficacy, standardized KELIM (scored as favorable ≥1.0, or unfavorable <1.0), and surgery completeness was assessed by univariate/multivariate analyses in IPS and DPS cohorts. RESULTS: Of 1,566 enrolled patients, KELIM was calculated with the online model in 1,334 with ≥3 CA-125 available values (85%). As previously reported, both KELIM and surgery completeness were complementary prognostic covariates, and could be combined into three prognostic groups with large OS differences: (1) good if favorable KELIM and complete surgery; (2) intermediate if either unfavorable KELIM or incomplete surgery; and (3) poor if unfavorable KELIM and incomplete surgery. Weekly dose-dense chemotherapy was associated with PFS/OS improvement in the poor prognostic group in both the IPS cohort (PFS: hazard ratio [HR], 0.50; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.79; OS: HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.95) and the DPS cohort (PFS: HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.76; OS: HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.82). CONCLUSION: Fractionated dose-dense chemotherapy might be beneficial for patients belonging to the poor prognostic group characterized by lower tumor chemosensitivity assessed with the online calculator CA-125-Biomarker Kinetics and incomplete debulking surgery. Further investigation in the future SALVOVAR trial is warranted.

Efficacy and Safety of Weekly Paclitaxel Plus Vistusertib vs Paclitaxel Alone in Patients With Platinum-Resistant Ovarian High-Grade Serous Carcinoma: The OCTOPUS Multicenter, Phase 2, Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Patients with platinum-resistant or refractory ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma (PR-HGSC) have a poor prognosis and few therapeutic options. Preclinical studies support targeting PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling in this setting, and a phase 1 study of the dual mTORC1/mTORC2 inhibitor vistusertib with weekly paclitaxel showed activity. Objective: To evaluate whether the addition of vistusertib to weekly paclitaxel improves clinical outcomes in patients with PR-HGSC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter randomized clinical trial recruited patients from UK cancer centers between January 2016 and March 2018. Patients with PR-HGSC of ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal origin and with measurable or evaluable disease (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 and/or Gynecological Cancer Intergroup cancer antigen 125 criteria) were eligible. There were no restrictions on number of lines of prior therapy. Data analysis was performed from May 2019 to January 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomized (1:1) to weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle) plus oral vistusertib (50 mg twice daily) or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary end points included response rate, overall survival, and quality of life. Results: A total of 140 patients (median [range] age, 63 [36-86] years; 17.9% with platinum-refractory disease; 53.6% with ≥3 prior therapies) were randomized. In the paclitaxel plus vistusertib vs paclitaxel plus placebo groups, there was no difference in progression-free survival (median, 4.5 vs 4.1 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 80% CI, 0.67-1.07; 1-sided P = .18), overall survival (median, 9.7 vs 11.1 months; HR, 1.21; 80% CI, 0.91-1.60) or response rate (odds ratio, 0.86; 80% CI, 0.55-1.36). Grade 3 to 4 adverse events were 41.2% (weekly paclitaxel plus vistusertib) vs 36.7% (weekly paclitaxel plus placebo), and there was no difference in quality of life. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of weekly paclitaxel and dual mTORC1/2 inhibition in patients with PR-HGSC, vistusertib did not improve clinical activity of weekly paclitaxel. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16426935.

Multi-Maintenance Olaparib Therapy in Relapsed, Germline BRCA1/2-Mutant High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer (MOLTO): A Phase II Trial.

PURPOSE: A single maintenance course of a PARP inhibitor (PARPi) improves progression-free survival (PFS) in germline BRCA1/2-mutant high-grade serous ovarian cancer (gBRCAm-HGSOC). The feasibility of a second maintenance course of PARPi was unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Phase II trial with two entry points (EP1, EP2). Patients were recruited prior to rechallenge platinum. Patients with relapsed, gBRCAm-HGSOC were enrolled at EP1 if they were PARPi-naïve. Patients enrolled at EP2 had received their first course of olaparib prior to trial entry. EP1 patients were retreated with olaparib after RECIST complete/partial response (CR/PR) to platinum. EP2 patients were retreated with olaparib ± cediranib after RECIST CR/PR/stable disease to platinum and according to the platinum-free interval. Co-primary outcomes were the proportion of patients who received a second course of olaparib and the proportion who received olaparib retreatment for ≥6 months. Functional homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), somatic copy-number alteration (SCNA), and BRCAm reversions were investigated in tumor and liquid biopsies. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients were treated (EP1 = 17, EP2 = 10), and 19 were evaluable. Twelve patients (63%) received a second course of olaparib and 4 received olaparib retreatment for ≥6 months. Common grade ≥2 adverse events during olaparib retreatment were anemia, nausea, and fatigue. No cases of MDS/AML occurred. Mean duration of olaparib treatment and retreatment differed (12.1 months vs. 4.4 months; P < 0.001). Functional HRD and SCNA did not predict PFS. A BRCA2 reversion mutation was detected in a post-olaparib liquid biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: A second course of olaparib can be safely administered to women with gBRCAm-HGSOC but is only modestly efficacious. See related commentary by Gonzalez-Ochoa and Oza, p. 2563.

Is Reflex Germline BRCA1/2 Testing Necessary in Women Diagnosed with Non-Mucinous High-Grade Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Aged 80 Years or Older?

Women diagnosed with non-mucinous high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) in England are often reflex-tested for germline and tumour BRCA1/2 variants. The value of germline BRCA1/2 testing in women diagnosed aged ≥80 is questionable. We performed an observational study of all women diagnosed with non-mucinous high-grade EOC who underwent germline and tumour BRCA1/2 testing by the North West of England Genomic Laboratory Hub. A subgroup of women also underwent germline testing using a panel of homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes and/or tumour testing for homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) using Myriad's myChoice® companion diagnostic. Seven-hundred-two patients successfully underwent both germline and tumour BRCA1/2 testing. Of these, 48 were diagnosed with non-mucinous high-grade EOC aged ≥80. In this age group, somatic BRCA1/2 pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants (PV/LPVs) were detected nine times more often than germline BRCA1/2 PV/LPVs. The only germline PV reported in a patient aged ≥80 was detected in germline and tumour DNA (BRCA2 c.4478_4481del). No patient aged ≥80 had a germline PV/LPVs in a non-BRCA1/2 HRR gene. Thirty-eight percent of patients aged ≥80 had a tumour positive for HRD. Our data suggest that tumour BRCA1/2 and HRD testing is adequate for patients diagnosed with non-mucinous high-grade EOC aged ≥80, with germline BRCA1/2 testing reserved for women with a tumour BRCA1/2 PV/LPVs.

Patients, family members and healthcare professionals' top ten research priorities for adults receiving home parenteral nutrition for malignant or benign disease.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Home parenteral nutrition (HPN) is the primary treatment for chronic intestinal failure (CIF) due to non-malignant disease and is increasingly used in patients with a diagnosis of cancer. This project engaged with patients, family members and healthcare professionals to ascertain what questions they want researched. METHODS: This study followed the five-stage process of the James Lind Alliance that involved (1) setting up a steering group, (2) carrying out an initial survey to gather participants' questions, (3) data processing, (4) an interim priority setting survey and (5) final priority setting workshop. Surveys were translated and back translated into Italian, Danish and French. RESULTS: The project was delivered by an international steering committee with representation from Denmark, Italy, the United Kingdom and United States consisting of three patients, six healthcare professionals and facilitated by University researchers. For the first survey, 633 questions were submitted by 292 respondents from 12 countries. There were 79 questions removed as out of scope or already in the published literature. Responses were collated into two interim surveys of 41 questions for benign CIF and 13 questions for HPN and cancer. In the second survey, 216 respondents prioritised their top ten questions. The ordering from the cancer and HPN survey was taken as definitive; top priorities were quality of life, survival, when to commence HPN, using HPN with anti-cancer treatments, access barriers, measuring benefit and ethical implications. For CIF with benign disease, 18 questions were discussed in two workshops attended by 13 patients and 7 healthcare professionals. The questions were ranked using a modified nominal group technique; the top research priorities were prevention and treatment of liver disease, improving central infusion lines, oral absorption, avoiding long-term negative consequences, vascular access, side effects, line infections, decreasing stoma output, quality of life and sleep. CONCLUSIONS: Priorities identified will assist researchers to focus on research questions important to patients, family members and healthcare professionals.

Predicting the likelihood of a BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant being somatic by testing only tumour DNA in non-mucinous high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer.

AIMS: Clinical guidelines recommend testing both germline and tumour DNA for BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants (PVs) in non-mucinous high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer (NMEOC). In this study, we show that some tumour BRCA1/2 PVs are highly likely to be somatic based on certain clinical and variant characteristics, meaning it may not be necessary to test all NMEOC cases for germline BRCA1/2 PVs. METHODS: An observational study that included all tumour BRCA1/2 PVs detected in cases of NMEOC in the Northwest of England between July 2017 and February 2022. All tumour BRCA1/2 PVs were compared with PVs recorded in a prospectively gathered pan-cancer germline BRCA1/2 (gBRCA) testing database for the same geographical region (gBRCA1 PVs=910 and gBRCA2 PVs=922). Tumour BRCA1/2 PVs were categorised as common (≥1%), uncommon (<1%) or absent from the germline database. RESULTS: One hundred and thirteen tumour BRCA1/2 PVs were detected in 111 NMEOC cases. There were 69 germline and 44 somatic variants. The mean age at diagnosis for gBRCA and somatic BRCA1/2 (sBRCA) PVs was 56.9 and 68.5 years, respectively (Student's t-test p<0.0001). All sBRCA PVs were detected in non-familial cases. All tumour BRCA1/2 PVs with a variant allele frequency (VAF) <35% in non-familial cases were somatic variants. Eighty-one per cent of germline-tumour BRCA1/2 PVs were present (common=31, uncommon=25) in the gBRCA testing database, while 89% of somatic-tumour BRCA1/2 PVs were absent (n=39). CONCLUSIONS: We predict the likelihood of a tumour BRCA1/2 PV being somatic is 99.8% in non-familial cases of NMEOC diagnosed aged ≥75, where the VAF is ≤30% and there is no regional germline commonality.

Real-World Concordance between Germline and Tumour BRCA1/2 Status in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer.

Patients diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer may undergo reflex tumour BRCA1/2 testing followed by germline BRCA1/2 testing in patients with a positive tumour test result. This testing model relies on tumour BRCA1/2 tests being able to detect all types of pathogenic variant. We analysed germline and tumour BRCA1/2 test results from patients treated for epithelial ovarian cancer at our specialist oncological referral centre. Tumour BRCA1/2 testing was performed using the next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based myChoice® companion diagnostic (CDx; Myriad Genetics, Inc.). Germline BRCA1/2 testing was performed in the North West Genomic Laboratory Hub using NGS and multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification. Between 11 April 2021 and 11 October 2023, 382 patients were successfully tested for tumour BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants. Of these, 367 (96.1%) patients were tested for germline BRCA1/2 variants. In those patients who underwent tumour and germline testing, 15.3% (56/367) had a BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant (36 germline and 20 somatic). All germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic small sequencing variants were detected in tumour DNA. By contrast, 3 out of 8 germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic large rearrangements were not reported in tumour DNA. The overall concordance of germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants detected in germline and tumour DNA was clinically acceptable at 91.7% (33/36). The myChoice® CDx was able to detect most germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants in tumour DNA, although a proportion of pathogenic large rearrangements were not reported. If Myriad's myChoice® CDx is used for tumour BRCA1/2 testing, our data supports a testing strategy of germline and tumour BRCA1/2 testing in all patients diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer aged < 79 years old, with germline BRCA1/2 testing only necessary for patients aged ≥ 80 years old with a tumour BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant.

Clinical and molecular characteristics of ARIEL3 patients who derived exceptional benefit from rucaparib maintenance treatment for high-grade ovarian carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: ARIEL3 (NCT01968213) is a placebo-controlled randomized trial of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib as maintenance treatment in patients with recurrent high-grade ovarian carcinoma who responded to their latest line of platinum therapy. Rucaparib improved progression-free survival across all predefined subgroups. Here, we present an exploratory analysis of clinical and molecular characteristics associated with exceptional benefit from rucaparib. METHODS: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Molecular features (genomic alterations, BRCA1 promoter methylation) and baseline clinical characteristics were evaluated for association with exceptional benefit (progression-free survival ≥2 years) versus progression on first scan (short-term subgroup) and other efficacy outcomes. RESULTS: Rucaparib treatment was significantly associated with exceptional benefit compared with placebo: 79/375 (21.1%) vs 4/189 (2.1%), respectively (p < 0.0001). Exceptional benefit was more frequent among patients with favorable baseline clinical characteristics and with carcinomas harboring molecular evidence of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). A comparison between patients who derived exceptional benefit from rucaparib and those in the short-term subgroup revealed both clinical markers (no measurable disease at baseline, complete response to latest platinum, longer penultimate platinum-free interval) and molecular markers (BRCA1, BRCA2, RAD51C, and RAD51D alterations and genome-wide loss of heterozygosity) significantly associated with exceptional benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Exceptional benefit in ARIEL3 was more common in, but not exclusive to, patients with favorable clinical characteristics or molecular features associated with HRD. Our results suggest that rucaparib can deliver exceptional benefit to a diverse set of patients with recurrent high-grade ovarian carcinoma.

Home Parenteral Nutrition in Patients with Advanced Cancer: Quality Outcomes from a Centralized Model of Care Delivery.

Lack of expertise in home parenteral nutrition (HPN) management has been reported as a barrier to its initiation in patients with advanced cancer (AC), and there are limited data describing hospital readmissions and HPN-related complications. We aimed to assess a centralized approach for managing HPN in AC and evaluate associated outcomes, including hospital readmissions and HPN-related complications. This was a cohort study of adults with AC requiring palliative HPN between 2010-2018 at a tertiary intestinal failure (IF) center, primarily utilizing a centralized model of HPN oversight to discharge patients remotely from an oncology center to their homes over a wide geographic area. A total of 126 patients were included, with a median distance between the patient's home and the IF center of 17.5 km (IQR 10.9-39.1; maximum 317.4 km). A total of 28 (22%) patients experienced at least one HPN-related complication, the most common being a central venous catheter (CVC) occlusion and electrolyte abnormalities. The catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) rate was 0.49/1000 catheter days. The CVC type, administration of concomitant chemotherapy via a distinct CVC lumen separate from PN, venting gastrostomy and distance between the patient's home and the IF center were not associated with CRBSI or mechanical CVC complications. A total of 82 (65.1%) patients were readmitted while on HPN, but only 7 (8.5%) of these readmissions were HPN-related. A total of 44 (34.9%) patients died at home, 41 (32.5%) at a hospice and 41 (32.5%) in a hospital. In conclusion, this study demonstrates that a centralized approach to IF care can provide HPN to patients over a large geographical area while maintaining low HPN-related complications that are comparable to patients requiring HPN for benign conditions and low hospital readmission rates.

Weekly dose-dense chemotherapy in first-line epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer treatment (ICON8): overall survival results from an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Standard-of-care first-line chemotherapy for epithelial ovarian cancer is carboplatin and paclitaxel administered once every 3 weeks. The JGOG 3016 trial reported significant improvement in progression-free and overall survival with dose-dense weekly paclitaxel and 3-weekly (ie, once every 3 weeks) carboplatin. However, this benefit was not observed in the previously reported progression-free survival results of ICON8. Here, we present the final coprimary outcomes of overall survival and updated progression-free survival analyses of ICON8. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial (ICON8), women aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed stage IC-IV epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma (here collectively termed ovarian cancer, as defined by International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics [FIGO] 1988 criteria) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were recruited from 117 hospitals with oncology departments in the UK, Australia and New Zealand, Mexico, South Korea, and Ireland. Patients could enter the trial after immediate primary surgery (IPS) or with planned delayed primary surgery (DPS) during chemotherapy, or could have no planned surgery. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1), using the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London randomisation line with stratification by Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup group, FIGO disease stage, and outcome and timing of surgery, to either 3-weekly carboplatin area under the curve (AUC)5 or AUC6 and 3-weekly paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 (control; group 1), 3-weekly carboplatin AUC5 or AUC6 and weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 (group 2), or weekly carboplatin AUC2 and weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 (group 3), all administered via intravenous infusion for a total of six 21-day cycles. Coprimary outcomes were progression-free survival and overall survival, with comparisons done between group 2 and group 1, and group 3 and group 1, in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who started at least one chemotherapy cycle. The trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01654146, and ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN10356387, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between June 6, 2011, and Nov 28, 2014, 1566 patients were randomly assigned to group 1 (n=522), group 2 (n=523), or group 3 (n=521). The median age was 62 years (IQR 54-68), 1073 (69%) of 1566 patients had high-grade serous carcinoma, 1119 (71%) had stage IIIC-IV disease, and 745 (48%) had IPS. As of data cutoff (March 31, 2020), with a median follow-up of 69 months (IQR 61-75), no significant difference in overall survival was observed in either comparison: median overall survival of 47·4 months (95% CI 43·1-54·8) in group 1, 54·8 months (46·6-61·6) in group 2, and 53·4 months (49·2-59·6) in group 3 (group 2 vs group 1: hazard ratio 0·87 [97·5% CI 0·73-1·05]; group 3 vs group 1: 0·91 [0·76-1·09]). No significant difference was observed for progression-free survival in either comparison and evidence of non-proportional hazards was seen (p=0·037), with restricted mean survival time of 23·9 months (97·5% CI 22·1-25·6) in group 1, 25·3 months (23·6-27·1) in group 2, and 24·8 months (23·0-26·5) in group 3. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were reduced neutrophil count (78 [15%] of 511 patients in group 1, 183 [36%] of 514 in group 2, and 154 [30%] of 513 in group 3), reduced white blood cell count (22 [4%] in group 1, 80 [16%] in group 2, and 71 [14%] in group 3), and anaemia (26 [5%] in group 1, 66 [13%] in group 2, and 24 [5%] in group 3). No new serious adverse events were reported. Seven treatment-related deaths were reported (two in group 1, four in group 2, and one in group 3). INTERPRETATION: In our cohort of predominantly European women with epithelial ovarian cancer, we found that first-line weekly dose-dense chemotherapy did not improve overall or progression-free survival compared with standard 3-weekly chemotherapy and should not be used as part of standard multimodality front-line therapy in this patient group. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Health Research Board in Ireland, Irish Cancer Society, and Cancer Australia.

A first-in-human Phase I dose-escalation trial of the novel therapeutic peptide, ALM201, demonstrates a favourable safety profile in unselected patients with ovarian cancer and other advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of a novel anti-angiogenic peptide. METHODS: We used an open-label, multicentre, dose-escalation Phase I trial design in patients with solid tumours. ALM201 was administered subcutaneously once daily for 5 days every week in unselected patients with solid tumours. RESULTS: Twenty (8 male, 12 female) patients with various solid tumours were treated (18 evaluable for toxicity) over eight planned dose levels (10-300 mg). ALM201 was well-tolerated at all dose levels without CTCAE grade 4 toxicities. Adverse events were predominantly grades 1-2, most commonly, localised injection-site reactions (44.4%), vomiting (11%), fatigue (16.7%), arthralgia (5.6%) and headache (11%). Thrombosis occurred in two patients at the 100 mg and 10 mg dose levels. The MTD was not reached, and a recommended Phase II dose (RP2D) based on feasibility was declared. Plasma exposure increased with dose (less than dose-proportional at the two highest dose levels). No peptide accumulation was evident. The median treatment duration was 11.1 (range 3-18) weeks. Four of 18 evaluable patients (22%) had stable disease. CONCLUSIONS: Doses up to 300 mg of ALM201 subcutaneously are feasible and well-tolerated. Further investigation of this agent in selected tumour types/settings would benefit from patient-selection biomarkers.

BRCA1/2 in non-mucinous epithelial ovarian cancer: tumour with or without germline testing?

National guidelines recommend testing all cases of non-mucinous epithelial ovarian cancer (NMEOC) for germline (blood) and somatic (tumour) BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants (PVs). We performed paired germline and somatic BRCA1/2 testing in consecutive cases of NMEOC (n = 388) to validate guidelines. Thirty-four somatic BRCA1/2 (sBRCA) PVs (9.7%) were detected in 350 cases with germline BRCA1/2 (gBRCA) wild-type. All sBRCA PVs were detected in non-familial cases. By analysing our regional germline BRCA1/2 database there were 92/1114 (8.3%) gBRCA PVs detected in non-familial cases (only 3% ≥70 years old) and 245/641 (38.2%) in familial cases. Germline non-familial cases were dominated by BRCA2 in older women (8/271 ≥ 70 years old, all BRCA2). The ratio of sBRCA-to-gBRCA was ≤1.0 in women aged <70 years old, compared to 5.2 in women aged ≥70 years old (P = 0.005). The likelihood of missed germline BRCA1/2 PVs (copy-number variants missed on most somatic assays) by testing only tumour DNA was 0.4% in women aged ≥70 years old. We recommend reflex tumour BRCA1/2 testing in all NMEOC cases, and that gBRCA testing is not required for women aged ≥70 years old with no identifiable tumour BRCA1/2 PV and/or family history of breast, ovarian, prostate and/or pancreatic cancer.

Weekly versus tri-weekly paclitaxel with carboplatin for first-line treatment in women with epithelial ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Epithelial ovarian cancer is the sixth most common cancer worldwide: 295,414 new cases were diagnosed in 2018, with 184,799 deaths. The lack of an effective screening strategy has led to the majority of women being diagnosed at an advanced stage. For these women, intravenous carboplatin combined with paclitaxel for six cycles is widely accepted as the standard first-line treatment for epithelial ovarian cancer, in combination with debulking surgery. However, there is conflicting evidence regarding the optimal dosing schedule of paclitaxel when combined with carboplatin in this setting. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of intravenous weekly paclitaxel with that of tri-weekly paclitaxel, in combination with intravenous carboplatin, as first-line treatment for epithelial ovarian cancer (defined as epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal and fallopian tube cancer). SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase databases for relevant studies up to 15 November 2021, using keywords and MeSH terms. We additionally handsearched conference libraries, online clinical trial databases and screened through lists of retrieved references. SELECTION CRITERIA: We Included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing weekly paclitaxel in combination with carboplatin versus tri-weekly paclitaxel in combination with carboplatin, for treatment of newly-diagnosed epithelial ovarian cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the hazard ratio (HR) to estimate the primary efficacy outcomes progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS). We used the risk ratio (RR) to estimate the primary toxicity outcome of severe neutropenia and secondary outcomes of quality of life (QoL) and treatment-related adverse events. Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias, using standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We included individual participant data (IPD) from one of the included studies, ICON-8, provided by the study team. We analysed data using a random-effects model in Review Manager 5.4 software. Additionally, we reconstructed IPD for PFS and OS data from published Kaplan-Meier curves from all studies and subsequently pooled these to analyse the two primary efficacy outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: From 2469 records, we identified four eligible RCTs with data for 3699 participants. All eligible studies were included in the main meta-analysis and reported on PFS and OS. There was likely a slight improvement in PFS when paclitaxel was dosed weekly compared to tri-weekly (HR 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 0.98; 4 studies, 3699 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We found little to no improvement in OS when paclitaxel was dosed weekly compared to tri-weekly (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.06; 4 studies, 3699 participants; high-certainty evidence). There was likely little to no difference in high-grade (grade 3 or 4) neutropenia when paclitaxel was dosed weekly compared to tri-weekly (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.43; 4 studies, 3639 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, weekly paclitaxel increased high-grade (grade 3 or 4) anaemia when compared to tri-weekly dosing (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.20; 4 studies, 3639 participants; high-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in high-grade neuropathy when paclitaxel was dosed weekly compared to tri-weekly (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.94; 4 studies, 3639 participants; low-certainty evidence). The overall risk of detection bias and performance bias was low for OS, but was unclear for other outcomes, as treatments were not blinded. The risk of bias in other domains was low or unclear. We note that OS data were immature for three of the included studies (GOG-0262, ICON-8 and MITO-7). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Weekly paclitaxel combined with carboplatin for first-line treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer likely improves PFS slightly (moderate-certainty evidence) but not OS (high-certainty evidence), compared to tri-weekly paclitaxel combined with carboplatin. However, this was associated with increased risk for high-grade anaemia, treatment discontinuation, dose delays and dose omissions (high- to low-certainty evidence). Our findings may not apply to women receiving bevacizumab in first-line therapy, those receiving treatment in the neo-adjuvant setting, or those with rare subtypes of clear cell or mucinous ovarian cancer.

c-MET/VEGFR-2 co-localisation impacts on survival following bevacizumab therapy in epithelial ovarian cancer: an exploratory biomarker study of the phase 3 ICON7 trial.

INTRODUCTION: Bevacizumab improves survival outcomes in women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Pre-clinical data showed that the c-MET/VEGFR-2 heterocomplex negates VEGF inhibition through activation of c-MET signalling, leading to a more invasive and metastatic phenotype. We evaluated the clinical significance of c-MET and VEGFR-2 co-localisation and its association with VEGF pathway-related single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in women participating in the phase 3 trial, ICON7 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00262847). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients had FIGO stage I-IIA grade 3/poorly differentiated or clear cell carcinoma or stage IIB-IV epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer. Immunofluorescence staining for co-localised c-MET and VEGFR-2 on tissue microarrays and genotyping of germline DNA from peripheral blood leukocytes for VEGFA and VEGFR-2 SNPs was performed. The significance of these biomarkers was assessed against survival. RESULTS: Tissue microarrays from 178 women underwent immunofluorescence staining. Multivariable analysis showed that greater c-MET/VEGFR-2 co-localisation predicted worse OS in patients treated with bevacizumab after adjusting for FIGO stage and debulking surgery outcome (hazard ratio [HR] 1.034, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 1.010-1.059). Women in the c-MET/VEGFR-2HIGH group treated with bevacizumab demonstrated significantly reduced OS (39.3 versus > 60 months; HR 2.00, 95%CI 1.08-3.72). Germline DNA from 449 women underwent genotyping. In the bevacizumab group, those women with the VEGFR-2 rs2305945 G/G variant had a trend towards shorter PFS compared with G/T or T/T variants (18.3 versus 23.0 months; HR 0.74, 95%CI 0.53-1.03). CONCLUSIONS: In bevacizumab-treated women diagnosed with EOC, high c-MET/VEGFR-2 co-localisation on tumour tissue and the VEGFR-2 rs2305945 G/G variant, which may be biologically related, were associated with worse survival outcomes.

Efficacy and safety of olaparib according to age in BRCA1/2-mutated patients with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer: Analysis of the phase III SOLO2/ENGOT-Ov21 study.

BACKGROUND: Olaparib has significantly improved outcome and patient-centered endpoints in BRCA1/2-mutated patients with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer (PSOC). Specific information on efficacy and safety of olaparib for older patients appears of special interest. METHODS: 295 patients from the SOLO2 trial randomly assigned to olaparib or placebo were categorized according to age-cutoff at 65 years. Efficacy, tolerability, and quality of life (QoL) of olaparib relative to placebo within in each age group was analyzed. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar in patients ≥65 years (N = 62;21.0%) compared to patients <65 years (N = 233;78.9%). No significant difference in the magnitude of progression-free survival (PFS) benefit from olaparib for older patients (N = 40, hazard ratio [HR]≥65 0.43, 95%-confidence interval [CI] 0.24-0.81) as compared with younger patients (N = 155, HR<65 0.31 (95%-CI 0.22-0.43) was seen (interaction P = 0.33). The overall survival (OS)benefit seen in younger patients in the olaparib arm was not observed in older patients. Older and younger patients had comparable safety profiles and QoL scores although higher discontinuation rates for toxicity, and higher frequency of AML/MDS were noted in the older subset. TWiST analysis revealed clinically meaningful duration of good QoL on olaparib for both age groups (≥65: 13.5 vs <65: 18.4 months, P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Results of this large phase III cohort of BRCA1/2-mutated PSOC patients treated with olaparib underline impressive efficacy of olaparib maintenance irrespective of age. Although toxicity and tolerability did not raise significant concerns, some caution, close monitoring, and follow-up needs to be exercised for older patients given higher discontinuation rates, frequency of AML/MDS, and no clear effects on OS.