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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The role of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors in the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer.

Advanced epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal cancers (EOC) are a leading cause of gynaecological cancer-associated mortality and angiogenesis plays a key role in their growth. Vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (VEGFi) disrupt angiogenesis and improve the response rate, progression-free survival and in some cases, overall survival, when administered with and following cytotoxic chemotherapy, irrespective of the platinum sensitivity of EOC. Recent data have identified new indications for VEGFi in EOC: repeated exposure to VEGFi in the first- and then second-line treatment has sustained clinical efficacy; combinations of VEGFi with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) have proven effective as first-line or second-line maintenance regimens. However, recent trial data have not shown improved outcomes with combinations of VEGFi and immune checkpoint inhibitors. There remains a critical need to optimise patient selection for these effective yet somewhat toxic and expensive treatments. The search continues for validated biomarkers to optimise the use of VEGFi, of which the most promising at present is plasma Tie2. Based upon these studies, we propose a model of care incorporating VEGFi into the treatment of EOC, highlighting the need to change from the prescription of single courses of VEGFi, to allow use and re-use as clinically indicated.

Psychosexual Morbidity in Women With Ovarian Cancer: Evaluation by Germline BRCA Gene Mutational Status.

INTRODUCTION: Up to 75% of women with ovarian cancer experience psychosexual morbidity and approximately 15-20% of women with ovarian cancer have a germline BRCA1/2 mutation (gBRCAm). However, psychosexual morbidity remains unexplored in women with gBRCAm ovarian cancer. AIM: Given their younger age, genetic diagnosis, breast cancer risk, and increased prevalence of surgically-induced menopause, we aim to assess whether women with gBRCAm ovarian cancer experience distinct psychosexual morbidity. METHODS: Psychosexual morbidity was investigated in 2 cohorts of women with ovarian cancer: women with gBRCAm ovarian cancer vs women with gBRCA wildtype (gBRCAwt) ovarian cancer. Between August 2019 and March 2020, women with high-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary, Fallopian tube or primary peritoneum were approached in clinic or telephoned and invited to take part. Exclusion criteria included: women with alternative histology; women admitted from clinic; and women who lacked capacity to independently complete the questionnaire. The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) and background information were collected at a single time-point per patient. Scores below 26.55 were interpreted to suggest psychosexual dysfunction. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Responses including total and domain FSFI scores, self-reported psychosexual problems and interest in psychosexual support were compared. RESULTS: Of 103 women approached, 53% returned questionnaires. In this exploratory analysis, women with gBRCAm ovarian cancer were significantly younger (51-60 years vs 61-70 years, gBRCAwt, P = .010). There was a trend towards increased prevalence of surgical menopause (57% vs 27%, P = .097) and breast surgery (53% vs 22%, P = .132, gBRCAm vs gBRCAwt, respectively). Women with gBRCAm ovarian cancer scored higher in the FSFI questionnaire, particularly women under 60 years (15.1 vs 2.7, P = .070), approaching significance. Women with gBRCAm ovarian cancer expressed more interest for face-to-face services (P = .018), especially psychosexual therapy (65% vs 30%) and more often felt the service was insufficient, approaching significance (71% vs 44%, gBRCAm vs gBRCAwt, respectively, P = .076). CONCLUSION: Women with gBRCAm ovarian cancer are younger, express more interest for specialist psychosexual support and potentially different psychosexual problems, warranting further exploration. Logue C, Pugh J, Foden P, et al., Psychosexual Morbidity in Women With Ovarian Cancer: Evaluation by Germline BRCA Gene Mutational Status. Sex Med 2022;10:100465.

Maintenance treatment with rucaparib for recurrent ovarian carcinoma in ARIEL3, a randomized phase 3 trial: The effects of best response to last platinum-based regimen and disease at baseline on efficacy and safety.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of rucaparib maintenance treatment in ARIEL3 were evaluated in subgroups based on best response to most recent platinum-based chemotherapy and baseline disease. METHODS: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive either oral rucaparib at a dosage of 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Investigator-assessed PFS was assessed in prespecified, nested cohorts: BRCA-mutated, homologous recombination deficient (HRD; BRCA mutated or wild-type BRCA/high loss of heterozygosity), and the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. RESULTS: Median PFS for patients in the ITT population with a complete response to most recent platinum-based chemotherapy was 11.1 months in the rucaparib arm (126 patients) versus 5.6 months in the placebo arm (64 patients) (HR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.23-0.48]), and in patients with a partial response (249 vs. 125), it was 9.0 versus 5.3 months (HR, 0.38 [0.30-0.49]). In subgroups of the ITT population based on baseline disease, median PFS was 8.2 versus 5.3 months (HR, 0.40 [0.28-0.57]) in patients with measurable disease (141 rucaparib vs. 66 placebo), 10.4 versus 4.5 months (HR, 0.31 [0.20-0.48]) in those with nonmeasurable but evaluable disease (104 vs. 56), and 14.1 versus 7.3 months (HR, 0.35 [0.24-0.51]) in those with no residual disease (130 vs. 67). Across subgroups, significantly longer median PFS was observed with rucaparib versus placebo in the BRCA-mutated and HRD cohorts. Objective responses were reported in patients with measurable disease and in patients with nonmeasurable but evaluable baseline disease. Safety was consistent across subgroups. CONCLUSION: Rucaparib maintenance treatment provided clinically meaningful efficacy benefits across subgroups based on response to last platinum-based chemotherapy or baseline disease.

A phase 2 study of anastrozole in patients with oestrogen receptor and/progesterone receptor positive recurrent/metastatic granulosa cell tumours/sex-cord stromal tumours of the ovary: The PARAGON/ANZGOG 0903 trial.

BACKGROUND: Hormonal therapies are commonly prescribed to patients with metastatic granulosa cell tumours (GCT), based on high response rates in small retrospective studies. Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are reported to have high response rates and an accepted treatment option. We report the results of a phase 2 trial of an AI in recurrent/metastatic GCTs. METHODS: 41 patients with recurrent ER/PR + ve GCT received anastrozole 1 mg daily until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR) at 12 weeks, evaluated by RECIST1.1 criteria. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), CBR duration, quality of life and toxicity. RESULTS: The CBR at 12 weeks in 38 evaluable patients was 78.9%, which included one (2.6%; 95% CI: 0.5-13.5%) partial response and 76.3% stable disease. Two additional patients without measurable disease were stable, based on inhibin. Median PFS was 8.6 m (95% CI 5.5-13.5 m). There were delayed responses observed after 12 weeks with a total of 4 pts. (10.5%; 95% CI 4.2%-24.1%) with a RECIST partial response; 23 (59%) patients were progression-free at 6 months. The adverse effects were predominantly low grade. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first prospective trial of hormonal therapy in GCTs. Although there was a high CBR, the objective response rate to anastrozole was much lower than the pooled response rates of >70% to AIs reported in most retrospective series and case reports. PARAGON demonstrates the importance of prospective trials in rare cancers and the need to reconsider the role of AIs as single agents in GCTs.

Rucaparib maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian carcinoma: the effects of progression-free interval and prior therapies on efficacy and safety in the randomized phase III trial ARIEL3.

INTRODUCTION: In ARIEL3 (NCT01968213), the poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo regardless of biomarker status when used as maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian cancer. The aim of the current analyses was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rucaparib in subgroups based on progression-free interval following penultimate platinum, number of prior chemotherapies, and prior use of bevacizumab. METHODS: Patients were randomized 2:1 to rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Within subgroups, progression-free survival was assessed in prespecified, nested cohorts: BRCA-mutant, homologous recombination deficient (BRCA-mutant or wild-type BRCA/high genomic loss of heterozygosity), and the intent-to-treat population. RESULTS: In the intent-to-treat population, median investigator-assessed progression-free survival was 8.2 months with rucaparib versus 4.1 months with placebo (n=151 vs n=76; HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.46, p<0.0001) for patients with progression-free interval 6 to ≤12 months, and 13.6 versus 5.6 months (n=224 vs n=113; HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.52, p<0.0001) for those with progression-free interval >12 months. Median progression-free survival was 10.4 versus 5.4 months (n=231 vs n=124; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.54, p<0.0001) for patients who had received two prior chemotherapies, and 11.1 versus 5.3 months (n=144 vs n=65; HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.41, p<0.0001) for those who had received ≥3 prior chemotherapies. Median progression-free survival was 10.3 versus 5.4 months (n=83 vs n=43; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.68, p=0.0004) for patients who had received prior bevacizumab, and 10.9 versus 5.4 months (n=292 vs n=146; HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.45, p<0.0001) for those who had not. Across subgroups, median progression-free survival was also significantly longer with rucaparib versus placebo in the BRCA-mutant and homologous recombination deficient cohorts. Safety was consistent across subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Rucaparib maintenance treatment significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo irrespective of progression-free interval following penultimate platinum, number of lines of prior chemotherapy, and previous use of bevacizumab.

Objective responses to first-line neoadjuvant carboplatin-paclitaxel regimens for ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma (ICON8): post-hoc exploratory analysis of a randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by delayed primary surgery (DPS) is an established strategy for women with newly diagnosed, advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer. Although this therapeutic approach has been validated in randomised, phase 3 trials, evaluation of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST), and cancer antigen 125 (CA125) has not been reported. We describe RECIST and Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) CA125 responses in patients receiving platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by DPS in the ICON8 trial. METHODS: ICON8 was an international, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial done across 117 hospitals in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, South Korea, and Ireland. The trial included women aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, life expectancy of more than 12 weeks, and newly diagnosed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO; 1988) stage IC-IIA high-grade serous, clear cell, or any poorly differentiated or grade 3 histological subtype, or any FIGO (1988) stage IIB-IV epithelial cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneum. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive intravenous carboplatin (area under the curve [AUC]5 or AUC6) and intravenous paclitaxel (175 mg/m2 by body surface area) on day 1 of every 21-day cycle (control group; group 1); intravenous carboplatin (AUC5 or AUC6) on day 1 and intravenous dose-fractionated paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 by body surface area) on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 21-day cycle (group 2); or intravenous dose-fractionated carboplatin (AUC2) and intravenous dose-fractionated paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 by body surface area) on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 21-day cycle (group 3). The maximum number of cycles of chemotherapy permitted was six. Randomisation was done with a minimisation method, and patients were stratified according to GCIG group, disease stage, and timing and outcome of cytoreductive surgery. Patients and clinicians were not masked to group allocation. The scheduling of surgery and use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy were determined by local multidisciplinary case review. In this post-hoc exploratory analysis of ICON8, progression-free survival was analysed using the landmark method and defined as the time interval between the date of pre-surgical planning radiological tumour assessment to the date of investigator-assessed clinical or radiological progression or death, whichever occurred first. This definition is different from the intention-to-treat primary progression-free survival analysis of ICON8, which defined progression-free survival as the time from randomisation to the date of first clinical or radiological progression or death, whichever occurred first. We also compared the extent of surgical cytoreduction with RECIST and GCIG CA125 responses. This post-hoc exploratory analysis includes only women recruited to ICON8 who were planned for neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by DPS and had RECIST and/or GCIG CA125-evaluable disease. ICON8 is closed for enrolment and follow-up, and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01654146. FINDINGS: Between June 6, 2011, and Nov 28, 2014, 1566 women were enrolled in ICON8, of whom 779 (50%) were planned for neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by DPS. Median follow-up was 29·5 months (IQR 15·6-54·3) for the neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by DPS population. Of 564 women who had RECIST-evaluable disease at trial entry, 348 (62%) had a complete or partial response. Of 727 women who were evaluable by GCIG CA125 criteria at the time of diagnosis, 610 (84%) had a CA125 response. Median progression-free survival was 14·4 months (95% CI 9·2-28·0; 297 events) for patients with a RECIST complete or partial response and 13·3 months (8·1-20·1; 171 events) for those with RECIST stable disease. Median progression-free survival for women with a GCIG CA125 response was 13·8 months (95% CI 8·8-23·4; 544 events) and 9·7 months (5·8-14·5; 111 events) for those without a GCIG CA125 response. Complete cytoreduction (R0) was achieved in 187 (56%) of 335 women with a RECIST complete or partial response and 73 (42%) of 172 women with RECIST stable disease. Complete cytoreduction was achieved in 290 (50%) of 576 women with a GCIG CA125 response and 30 (30%) of 101 women without a GCIG CA125 response. INTERPRETATION: The RECIST-defined radiological response rate was lower than that frequently quoted to patients in the clinic. RECIST and GCIG CA125 responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for epithelial ovarian cancer should not be used as individual predictive markers to stratify patients who are likely to benefit from DPS, but instead used in conjunction with the patient's clinical capacity to undergo cytoreductive surgery. A patient should not be denied surgery based solely on the lack of a RECIST or GCIG CA125 response. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Health Research Board in Ireland, Irish Cancer Society, and Cancer Australia.

Overlap between adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs): a case study of a phase III cancer clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Safety data is required to be collected in all clinical trials and can be separated into two types of data, adverse events and serious adverse events. Often, these types of safety data are collected as two discrete data sets, where adverse events that also meet the criteria for seriousness should be reported in both datasets. Safety analyses are often conducted using only the adverse event dataset, which should feature all safety events reported. We investigated whether the reporting of safety in both datasets was systematically followed and explored the impact of this on safety analyses in ICON8, an ovarian cancer clinical trial. METHODS: Text searches of serious adverse event data identified events that could potentially match the data reported in the adverse event dataset (looking at pre-specified AE terms only). These serious adverse events were then mapped to adverse event data according to predefined criteria: (a) event term matches, (b) date of onset and date of assessment within 30 days of each other, (c) date of assessment lies between date of onset and date of resolution and (d) events confirmed to occur in the same chemotherapy cycle. A combined dataset of all unique safety events (whether originally reported in the adverse event or serious adverse event dataset) was created and safety analyses re-performed. RESULTS: 51,019 adverse events were reported in ICON8, of which 42,410 were included in the mapping exercise. One thousand five hundred six serious adverse event elements were reported, of which 668 were included in the mapping exercise. Sixty-one percent of serious adverse event elements was matched to an already-reported adverse event. Supplementing these additional safety events and re-performing safety analyses increased the proportion of patients with at least one grade 3 or worse safety events in all arms from 42 to 47% in the control arm and 61 to 65% and 52 to 59% in the research arms. The difference in proportions of grade 3 or worse event in the research arms compared to the control arm changed by 18% (95% confidence interval [CI] 12 to 24%) and 12% (95% CI 6 to 18%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There was low agreement in mapping serious adverse events to already reported adverse events, with nearly 40% of serious adverse events included in the mapping exercise not mapped to an already reported adverse event. Any analyses of safety data that use only adverse event datasets or do not clearly account for serious adverse event data will likely be missing important safety information. Reporting standards should make clear which datasets were used for analyses.