Phase 1/2a Study of Rivoceranib, a Selective VEGFR-2 Angiogenesis Inhibitor, in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors.

Purpose: To report the results from an early-phase study of rivoceranib, an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor highly selective for vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2, in patients with advanced solid tumors. Materials and Methods: In this open-label, single-arm, dose-escalating, multicenter three-part phase 1/2a trial, patients had advanced solid tumors refractory to conventional therapy. Part 1 evaluated the safety and pharmacokinetics of five ascending once-daily doses of rivoceranib from 81 mg to 685 mg. Part 2 evaluated the safety and antitumor activity of once-daily rivoceranib 685 mg. Part 3 was conducted later, due to lack of MTD determination in part 1, to evaluate the safety and preliminary efficacy of once-daily rivoceranib 805 mg in patients with unresectable or advanced gastric cancer. Results: A total of 61 patients were enrolled in parts 1 (n=25), 2 (n=30), and 3 (n=6). In parts 1 and 2, patients were white (45.5%) or Asian (54.5%), and 65.6% were male. The most common grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) were hypertension (32.7%), hyponatremia (10.9%), and hypophosphatemia (10.9%). The overall response rate (ORR) was 15.2%. In part 3, dose-limiting toxicities occurred in 2 out of 6 patients: grade 3 febrile neutropenia decreased appetite, and fatigue. The ORR was 33%. Conclusion: The recommended phase 2 dose of rivoceranib was determined to be 685 mg once daily, which showed adequate efficacy with a manageable safety profile. (NCT01497704 and NCT02711969).

Multi-Institutional Analysis of Cancer Patient Exposure, Perceptions, and Trust in Information Sources Regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine.

PURPOSE: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use during cancer treatment is controversial. We aim to evaluate contemporary CAM use, patient perceptions and attitudes, and trust in various sources of information regarding CAM. METHODS: A multi-institutional questionnaire was distributed to patients receiving cancer treatment. Collected information included respondents' clinical and demographic characteristics, rates of CAM exposure/use, information sources regarding CAM, and trust in each information source. Comparisons between CAM users and nonusers were performed with chi-squared tests and one-way analysis of variance. Multivariable logistic regression models for trust in physician and nonphysician sources of information regarding CAM were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 749 respondents, the most common goals of CAM use were management of symptoms (42.2%) and treatment of cancer (30.4%). Most CAM users learned of CAM from nonphysician sources. Of CAM users, 27% reported not discussing CAM with their treating oncologists. Overall trust in physicians was high in both CAM users and nonusers. The only predictor of trust in physician sources of information was income >$100,000 in US dollars per year. Likelihood of trust in nonphysician sources of information was higher in females and lower in those with graduate degrees. CONCLUSION: A large proportion of patients with cancer are using CAM, some with the goal of treating their cancer. Although patients are primarily exposed to CAM through nonphysician sources of information, trust in physicians remains high. More research is needed to improve patient-clinician communication regarding CAM use.

Quantifying the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer center clinical trial operations.

BACKGROUND: Oncology clinical trials are complex, and the COVID-19 pandemic caused major disruptions in 2020. METHODS: Using its networking and sharing of best practices, the Association of American Cancer Institutes, comprising 105 cancer centers, solicited a longitudinal series of voluntary surveys from members to assess how clinical trial office operations were affected. The surveys showed that centers were able to keep oncology trials available to patients while maintaining safety. Data were collected regarding interventional clinical trial accruals for the calendar years 2019, 2020, and 2021. RESULTS: Data demonstrated a sizeable decrease in interventional treatment trial accruals in both 2020 and 2021 compared with prepandemic figures in 2019. No cancer center reported an increase in interventional treatment trial accruals in 2020 compared with 2019, with most centers reporting a moderate decrease. In mid-2022, 15% of respondents reported an increasing trend, 31% reported no significant change, and 54% continued to report a decrease. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic necessitated rapid adoption of trial operations, with the emergence of several best practices, including remote monitoring, remote consenting, electronic research charts, and work-from-home strategies for staff. The national infrastructure to conduct trials was significantly affected by the pandemic, with noteworthy resiliency, evidenced by improvements in efficiencies and patient-centered care delivery but with residual capacity challenges that will be evident for the foreseeable future.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Ovarian Cancer, Version 3.2022.

Epithelial ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death from gynecologic cancer in the United States, with less than half of patients living >5 years following diagnosis. The NCCN Guidelines for Ovarian Cancer provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up for patients with ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancers. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel discussion behind recent important updates to the guidelines, including revised guidance on alternative chemotherapy regimens for patients with advanced age and/or comorbidities, a new algorithm for recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma based on developing research and novel therapeutic agents, and updated language regarding tumor molecular analysis applications in ovarian cancer.

BERENICE Final Analysis: Cardiac Safety Study of Neoadjuvant Pertuzumab, Trastuzumab, and Chemotherapy Followed by Adjuvant Pertuzumab and Trastuzumab in HER2-Positive Early Breast Cancer.

BERENICE (NCT02132949) assessed the cardiac safety of the neoadjuvant−adjuvant pertuzumab−trastuzumab-based therapy for high-risk, HER2-positive early breast cancer (EBC). We describe key secondary objectives at final analysis. Eligible patients received dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide q2w × 4 ➝ paclitaxel qw × 12 (Cohort A) or 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, cyclophosphamide q3w × 4 ➝ docetaxel q3w × 4 (B) as per physician's choice. Pertuzumab−trastuzumab (q3w) was initiated from the taxane start and continued post-surgery to complete 1 year. Median follow-up: 64.5 months. There were no new cardiac issues and a low incidence of Class III/IV heart failure (Cohort B only: one patient (0.5%) in the adjuvant and treatment-free follow-up (TFFU) periods). Fourteen patients (7.7%) had LVEF declines of ≥10% points from baseline to <50% in Cohort A, as did 20 (10.5%) in B during the adjuvant period (12 (6.2%) in A and 7 (3.6%) in B during TFFU). The five-year event-free survival rates in Cohorts A and B were 90.8% (95% CI: 86.5, 95.2) and 89.2% (84.8, 93.6), respectively. The five-year overall survival rates were 96.1% (95% CI: 93.3, 98.9) and 93.8% (90.3, 97.2), respectively. The final analysis of BERENICE further supports pertuzumab−trastuzumab-based therapies as standard of care for high-risk, HER2-positive EBC.

Translational randomized phase II trial of cabozantinib in combination with nivolumab in advanced, recurrent, or metastatic endometrial cancer.

BACKGROUND: Combining immunotherapy and antiangiogenic agents is a promising treatment strategy in endometrial cancer. To date, no biomarkers for response have been identified and data on post-immunotherapy progression are lacking. We explored the combination of a checkpoint inhibitor (nivolumab) and an antiangiogenic agent (cabozantinib) in immunotherapy-naïve endometrial cancer and in patients whose disease progressed on previous immunotherapy with baseline biopsy for immune profiling. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this phase II trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03367741, registered December 11, 2017), women with recurrent endometrial cancer were randomized 2:1 to nivolumab with cabozantinib (Arm A) or nivolumab alone (Arm B). The primary endpoint was Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors-defined progression-free survival (PFS). Patients with carcinosarcoma or prior immune checkpoint inhibitor received combination treatment (Arm C). Baseline biopsy and serial peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) samples were analyzed and associations between patient outcome and immune data from cytometry by time of flight (CyTOF) and PBMCs were explored. RESULTS: Median PFS was 5.3 (90% CI 3.5 to 9.2) months in Arm A (n=36) and 1.9 (90% CI 1.6 to 3.4) months in Arm B (n=18) (HR=0.59, 90% CI 0.35 to 0.98; log-rank p=0.09, meeting the prespecified statistical significance criteria). The most common treatment-related adverse events in Arm A were diarrhea (50%) and elevated liver enzymes (aspartate aminotransferase 47%, alanine aminotransferase 42%). In-depth baseline CyTOF analysis across treatment arms (n=40) identified 35 immune-cell subsets. Among immunotherapy-pretreated patients in Arm C, non-progressors had significantly higher proportions of activated tissue-resident (CD103+CD69+) ɣδ T cells than progressors (adjusted p=0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Adding cabozantinib to nivolumab significantly improved outcomes in heavily pretreated endometrial cancer. A subgroup of immunotherapy-pretreated patients identified by baseline immune profile and potentially benefiting from combination with antiangiogenics requires further investigation.

A Phase 1 dose-escalation study of disulfiram and copper gluconate in patients with advanced solid tumors involving the liver using S-glutathionylation as a biomarker.

BACKGROUND: Disulfiram and metals inactivate key oncoproteins resulting in anti-neoplastic activity. The goal of this study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose of copper when administered with disulfiram in patients with advanced solid tumors and liver involvement. METHODS: Disulfiram 250 mg was administered daily in 28-day cycles. Four doses of copper gluconate were tested (2, 4, 6, and 8 mg of elemental copper) in a standard 3 + 3 dose escalation design. Patients were evaluated for dose limiting toxicities and response. Protein S-glutathionylation was evaluated as a pharmacodynamic marker. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were enrolled and 16 patients were evaluable for dose limiting toxicities. Among the 21 patients, there was a median of 4 lines of prior chemotherapy. Five Grade 3 toxicities were observed (anorexia, elevated aspartate aminotransferase or AST, elevated alkaline phosphatase, fever, and fatigue). Response data was available for 15 patients. Four patients had stable disease with the longest duration of disease control being 116 days. The median duration of treatment for evaluable patients was 55 days (range 28-124). Reasons for discontinuation included functional decline, disease progression, and disease-associated death. Increased S-glutathionylation of serum proteins was observed with treatment. CONCLUSION: Disulfiram 250 mg daily with copper gluconate (8 mg of elemental copper) was well-tolerated in patients with solid tumors involving the liver and was not associated with dose limiting toxicities. While temporary disease stabilization was noted in some patients, no objective responses were observed. Treatment was associated with an increase in S-glutathionylation suggesting that this combination could exert a suppressive effect on cellular growth and protein function. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00742911 , first posted 28/08/2008.

Ovarian Cancer, Version 2.2020, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Epithelial ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death from gynecologic cancer in the United States and is the country's fifth most common cause of cancer mortality in women. A major challenge in treating ovarian cancer is that most patients have advanced disease at initial diagnosis. These NCCN Guidelines discuss cancers originating in the ovary, fallopian tube, or peritoneum, as these are all managed in a similar manner. Most of the recommendations are based on data from patients with the most common subtypes─high-grade serous and grade 2/3 endometrioid. The NCCN Guidelines also include recommendations specifically for patients with less common ovarian cancers, which in the guidelines include the following: carcinosarcoma, clear cell carcinoma, mucinous carcinoma, low-grade serous, grade 1 endometrioid, borderline epithelial, malignant sex cord-stromal, and malignant germ cell tumors. This manuscript focuses on certain aspects of primary treatment, including primary surgery, adjuvant therapy, and maintenance therapy options (including PARP inhibitors) after completion of first-line chemotherapy.

Clinical Trial Metrics: The Complexity of Conducting Clinical Trials in North American Cancer Centers.

PURPOSE: Cancer clinical trials offices (CTOs) support the investigation of cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment at cancer centers across North America. CTOs are a centralized resource for clinical trial conduct and typically use research staff with expertise in four functional areas of clinical research: finance, regulatory, clinical, and data operations. To our knowledge, there are no publicly available benchmark data sets that characterize the size, cost, volume, and efficiency of these offices, nor whether the metrics differ by National Cancer Institute (NCI) designation. The Association of American Cancer Institutes (AACI) Clinical Research Innovation (CRI) steering committee developed a survey to address this knowledge gap. METHODS: An 11-question survey that addressed CTO budget, accrual and trial volume, full-time equivalents (FTEs), staff turnover, and activation timelines was developed by the AACI CRI steering committee and sent to 92 academic cancer research centers in North America (n = 90 in the United States; n = 2 in Canada), with 79 respondents completing the survey (86% completion rate). RESULTS: The number of FTE employees working in the CTOs ranged from 4.5 to 811 (median, 104). The median number of analytic cases (ie, newly diagnosed or received first course of treatment) reported by the main center was 3,856. Annual CTO budgets ranged from $250,000 to $23,900,000 (median, $8.2 million). The median trial activation time, based on 61 centers, was 167 days. The median number of accruals per center was 480 (range, 5-6,271) and median number of trials per center was 282 (range, 31-1,833). Budget and FTE ranges varied by NCI designation. CONCLUSION: The response rate to the survey was high. These data will allow cancer centers to evaluate their CTO infrastructure, funding, portfolio, and/or accrual goals as compared with peers. A wide range in each of the outcomes was noted, in keeping with the wide variation in size and scope of cancer center CTOs across the United States and Canada. These variations may warrant additional investigation.

Phase I dose-escalation trial of the oral AKT inhibitor uprosertib in combination with the oral MEK1/MEK2 inhibitor trametinib in patients with solid tumors.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine the safety, tolerability, and recommended phase II doses of trametinib plus uprosertib (GSK2141795) in patients with solid tumors likely to be sensitive to MEK and/or AKT inhibition. METHODS: This was a phase I, open-label, dose-escalation, and dose-expansion study in patients with triple-negative breast cancer or BRAF-wild type advanced melanoma. The primary outcome of the expansion study was investigator-assessed response. Among 126 enrolled patients, 63 received continuous oral daily dosing of trametinib and uprosertib, 29 received various alternative dosing schedules, and 34 were enrolled into expansion cohorts. Doses tested in the expansion cohort were trametinib 1.5 mg once daily (QD) + uprosertib 50 mg QD. RESULTS: Adverse events (AEs) were consistent with those reported in monotherapy studies but occurred at lower doses and with greater severity. Diarrhea was the most common dose-limiting toxicity; diarrhea and rash were particularly difficult to tolerate. Overall, 59% and 6% of patients reported AEs with a maximum severity of grade 3 and 4, respectively. Poor tolerability prevented adequate delivery of uprosertib with trametinib at a concentration predicted to have clinical activity. The study was terminated early based on futility in the continuous-dosing expansion cohorts and a lack of pharmacological or therapeutic advantage with intermittent dosing. The objective response rate was < 5% (1 complete response, 5 partial responses). CONCLUSIONS: Continuous and intermittent dosing of trametinib in combination with uprosertib was not tolerated, and minimal clinical activity was observed in all schedules tested.

LVSI positive and NX in early endometrial cancer: Surgical restaging (and no further treatment if N0), or adjuvant ERT?

Early endometrial cancer has an overall survival of greater than 80% (1). One of the poor prognostic factors that may be associated with the 20% who do not survive 5 years is the presence of lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI). LVSI is associated with increased nodal metastasis and decreased progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). (2-8). Therefore, unstaged, LVSI positive early endometrial cancer requires additional management with either completion of staging with lymphadenectomy or adjuvant radiation. We focus on reviewing the management of natural history and management of early endometrial cancer followed by the prognostic impact of LVSI, management options and recommendations.

Does Early Chemotherapy Improve Survival in Advanced Endometrial Cancer?

OBJECTIVES: In endometrial cancer, the appropriate sequence of adjuvant chemotherapy (aCT) and adjuvant radiation therapy (aRT) is unclear. We aim evaluated whether early chemotherapy is associated with improved overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). METHODS: Endometrial cancer patients that received aCT and aRT were selected from the SEER-Medicare database. Early chemotherapy was defined as receiving aCT before aRT, with or without additional aCT ("sandwich" regimens). All other patients received a full course of aRT before chemotherapy with or without concurrent chemotherapy. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression was utilized to assess the impact of clinical and demographic factors on OS. RESULTS: We selected 597 patients for analysis. Median age and was 72 years; 85% of patients were white. Overall, 68% of women had FIGO (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics) stage III disease and 77% received 4 to 6 cycles of chemotherapy. Five-year OS (66.6% vs. 62.4%, P=0.46) and 5-year CSS (71.1% vs. 71.2%, P=0.88) was not significantly improved among those receiving early chemotherapy. In addition, early chemotherapy did not improve OS (hazard ratio [HR]=0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56-1.34, P=0.53) or CSS (HR=1.21; 95% CI: 0.82-1.79, P=0.34) on multivariate analysis. Compared with 1 to 3 cycles, receiving 4 to 6 (HR=0.48, 95% CI: 0.26-0.87, P=0.02), and ≥7 cycles (HR=0.42, 95% CI: 0.20-0.89, P=0.02) of chemotherapy was associated with improved OS. CONCLUSION: No differences in OS or CSS were noted among endometrial patients receiving early chemotherapy. However, the number of chemotherapy cycles was associated with prolonged survival.

Veliparib with First-Line Chemotherapy and as Maintenance Therapy in Ovarian Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Data are limited regarding the use of poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, such as veliparib, in combination with chemotherapy followed by maintenance as initial treatment in patients with high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma. METHODS: In an international, phase 3, placebo-controlled trial, we assessed the efficacy of veliparib added to first-line induction chemotherapy with carboplatin and paclitaxel and continued as maintenance monotherapy in patients with previously untreated stage III or IV high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive chemotherapy plus placebo followed by placebo maintenance (control), chemotherapy plus veliparib followed by placebo maintenance (veliparib combination only), or chemotherapy plus veliparib followed by veliparib maintenance (veliparib throughout). Cytoreductive surgery could be performed before initiation or after 3 cycles of trial treatment. Combination chemotherapy was 6 cycles, and maintenance therapy was 30 additional cycles. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the veliparib-throughout group as compared with the control group, analyzed sequentially in the BRCA-mutation cohort, the cohort with homologous-recombination deficiency (HRD) (which included the BRCA-mutation cohort), and the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: A total of 1140 patients underwent randomization. In the BRCA-mutation cohort, the median progression-free survival was 34.7 months in the veliparib-throughout group and 22.0 months in the control group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28 to 0.68; P<0.001); in the HRD cohort, it was 31.9 months and 20.5 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.57; 95 CI, 0.43 to 0.76; P<0.001); and in the intention-to-treat population, it was 23.5 months and 17.3 months (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.83; P<0.001). Veliparib led to a higher incidence of anemia and thrombocytopenia when combined with chemotherapy as well as of nausea and fatigue overall. CONCLUSIONS: Across all trial populations, a regimen of carboplatin, paclitaxel, and veliparib induction therapy followed by veliparib maintenance therapy led to significantly longer progression-free survival than carboplatin plus paclitaxel induction therapy alone. The independent value of adding veliparib during induction therapy without veliparib maintenance was less clear. (Funded by AbbVie; VELIA/GOG-3005 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02470585.).

Niraparib plus bevacizumab versus niraparib alone for platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (NSGO-AVANOVA2/ENGOT-ov24): a randomised, phase 2, superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Platinum-based chemotherapy is the foundation of treatment for platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer, but has substantial toxicity. Bevacizumab and maintenance poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors both significantly improve efficacy versus standard therapy, primarily in terms of progression-free survival, and offer the potential for chemotherapy-free treatment. AVANOVA2 compared niraparib and bevacizumab versus niraparib alone as definitive treatment for platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer. METHODS: This open-label, randomised, phase 2, superiority trial in 15 university hospitals in Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, and the USA enrolled women aged 18 years or older with measurable or evaluable high-grade serous or endometrioid platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer. Patients had to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and had to have previously received platinum-containing therapy for primary disease but ≤1 prior non-platinum-containing regimen for recurrent disease. Previous treatment with bevacizumab or first-line maintenance PARP inhibitors was permitted. Eligible patients were randomly assigned 1:1 (by random permuted blocks with block sizes of two and four, no masking), stratified by homologous recombination deficiency status and chemotherapy-free interval, to receive once-daily oral niraparib 300 mg alone or with intravenous bevacizumab 15 mg/kg once every 3 weeks until disease progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, assessed by the investigators in the intention-to-treat population after events in at least 62 patients. Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This ongoing trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02354131. FINDINGS: Between May 23, 2016, and March 6, 2017, 97 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned: 48 to niraparib plus bevacizumab and 49 to single-agent niraparib. Median follow-up was 16·9 months (IQR 15·4-20·9). Niraparib plus bevacizumab significantly improved progression-free survival compared with niraparib alone (median progression-free survival 11·9 months [95% CI 8·5-16·7] vs 5·5 months [3·8-6·3], respectively; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·35 [95% CI 0·21-0·57], p<0·0001). Grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 31 (65%) of 48 patients who received niraparib plus bevacizumab and 22 (45%) of 49 who received single-agent niraparib. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in both groups were anaemia (7 [15%] of 48 vs 9 [18%] of 49) and thrombocytopenia (5 [10%] vs 6 [12%]), and hypertension in the combination group (10 [21%] vs 0). Niraparib plus bevacizumab was associated with increased incidences of any-grade proteinuria (10 [21%] of 48 patients vs 0) and hypertension (27 [56%] of 48 vs 11 [22%] of 49) compared with niraparib alone. No treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: The efficacy observed with this chemotherapy-free combination of approved agents in women with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer warrants further evaluation. A randomised phase 3 trial investigating niraparib plus bevacizumab versus chemotherapy plus bevacizumab in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer is planned. FUNDING: Nordic Society of Gynaecological Oncology and Tesaro.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Ovarian Cancer, Version 1.2019.

Epithelial ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death from gynecologic cancer in the United States, with less than half of patients living >5 years from diagnosis. A major challenge in treating ovarian cancer is that most patients have advanced disease at initial diagnosis. The best outcomes are observed in patients whose primary treatment includes complete resection of all visible disease plus combination platinum-based chemotherapy. Research efforts are focused on primary neoadjuvant treatments that may improve resectability, as well as systemic therapies providing improved long-term survival. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to neoadjuvant chemotherapy recommendations, including the addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, and the role of PARP inhibitors and bevacizumab as maintenance therapy options in select patients who have completed primary chemotherapy.

Prognostic factors for rural endometrial cancer patients in a population-based cohort.

BACKGROUND: Endometrial cancer is the second most common cancer among female cancer survivors in the US and is increasing in incidence. Rural endometrial cancer patients experience lower survival rates but the reasons for the lower survival are not known. The aim of this study is to examine whether prognostic factors are different for rural and urban patients in a population-based cohort. METHODS: Endometrial cancer patients diagnosed 1997-2012 were identified through the Utah Cancer Registry and Utah Population Database. The address at cancer diagnosis was used to classify patients in rural or urban residences. Demographic and cancer-specific characteristics were examined as prognostic factors for both all-cause and endometrial cancer-specific mortality using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: There were 2,994 endometrial cancer patients and 14.1% of these patients lived in rural areas at diagnosis. Rural endometrial cancer patients were older at cancer diagnosis and did not appear to be different in terms of obesity or overweight at cancer diagnosis. There were no differences for treatment or stage at diagnosis although rural patients had higher proportions of higher grade. Age at diagnosis, poverty, education, and histology were significant prognostic factors for all-cause death. Rural patients with more advanced stages of cancer had significantly increased risks of all-cause and endometrial cancer-specific death than urban patients. Rural endometrial cancer patients diagnosed at advanced stage had a 17-fold increase in the risk of all-cause death compared to an 8-fold increase in death for urban patients. CONCLUSIONS: Rural endometrial cancer patients in Utah were older at diagnosis, had higher grade and higher comorbidities. While urban and rural endometrial cancer patients shared many prognostic factors, the risk of mortality is greater among rural patients with advanced stage endometrial cancer. Future studies should examine where patients are receiving treatment and how that impacts their survival and how to reduce the mortality rates of high risk patients.

Lymphovascular Invasion in Endometrial Cancer: Prognostic Value and Implications on Adjuvant Radiation Therapy Use.

OBJECTIVES: Lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) is a known prognostic factor for endometrial carcinomas. However, LVSI as a determinant of treatment benefit has not been fully elucidated. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Data from the National Cancer Database for endometrial cancer from 2004 to 2012 was obtained. Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to assess the impact of LVSI on overall survival (OS). Survival analysis was performed utilizing log-rank and Kaplan-Meier analyses. The difference in OS between external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and vaginal brachytherapy (VBT) in LVSI-positive patients was analyzed with propensity score matching. RESULTS: A total of 32,150 patients with surgical stage I to III endometrial carcinomas were available for analysis with a median follow-up of 30 months. Twenty-nine percent were LVSI positive and received adjuvant radiotherapy (aRT) more often than if LVSI negative (57% vs. 37%). On multivariate analysis, LVSI (hazard ratio, 1.94; P<0.01) was associated with an increased risk of death. aRT improved OS for LVSI-negative patients (87% without aRT, 90% with aRT; P=0.006). aRT was particularly effective in LVSI-positive patients: all stages of LVSI-positive patients were associated with an OS benefit (P<0.01), whereas among LVSI-negative patients, only stage III benefited from aRT (P<0.01). After propensity score match, there was no OS difference between EBRT and VBT among LVSI-positive patients (hazard ratio, 1.15; P=0.44). CONCLUSIONS: LVSI is an independent prognostic factor in locoregional endometrial carcinomas. aRT benefited all stages of LVSI-positive patients, but only stage III of LVSI-negative patients. Among LVSI-positive patients, we did not find an OS difference between adjuvant EBRT versus VBT.

Recurrent early stage endometrial cancer: Patterns of recurrence and results of salvage therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze our institutional experience and oncologic outcomes for salvage treatment for the recurrence of early-stage endometrial cancer patients. METHODS: We included women of all ages diagnosed with FIGO stage I-II, any grade endometrial cancer from 2000 to 2016 at our institutions who were treated with at least a hysterectomy. Recurrences in the pelvis and/or vagina were considered locoregional recurrences (LRR). Overall survival (OS) was assessed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Univariate (UV) and multivariate (MV) Cox proportional hazards modeling was also used. RESULTS: A total of 2691 women were analyzed. The majority had endometrioid histology (91%), stage IA disease (61%), and were grade 1 (57%). With a median follow-up of 6.1 years, the overall rate of recurrence was 7.2%, and the rate of LRR was 3.7%. Women with vaginal-only recurrences had a longer median OS after recurrence (14.0 years) compared to both pelvic (1.2 years) and distant (1.0 year) failures. For women with vaginal-only recurrences, salvage radiotherapy (RT) was the only factor associated with improved OS on MVA (HR 0.1, p = .04). For women with pelvic recurrences, salvage surgery (HR 0.3, p = .01), salvage RT (HR 0.3, p < .01), and salvage chemotherapy (HR 0.4, p = .03) were associated with improved OS. CONCLUSIONS: Failure rates for women with early-stage endometrial cancer are low. Women with vaginal-only recurrences have improved OS compared to pelvic or distant recurrences. Salvage RT appears to be an important factor for treatment of women with vaginal-only recurrences. Aggressive multimodality treatment may be beneficial for women with pelvic recurrences.

Do vaginal recurrence rates differ among adjuvant vaginal brachytherapy regimens in early-stage endometrial cancer?

PURPOSE: We sought to retrospectively examine clinical outcomes for three adjuvant vaginal high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy regimens after hysterectomy for early-stage endometrial cancer. METHODS: Included were women of all ages from two independent hospital systems diagnosed with Stage I-II endometrial cancer of any grade between 2000 and 2016 who underwent hysterectomy followed by adjuvant vaginal cylinder HDR brachytherapy with either 7.0 Gy × 3 fractions prescribed to 0.5 cm vaginal depth, 6.5 Gy × 3 fractions prescribed to 0.5 cm vaginal depth, or 6.0 Gy × 5 fractions prescribed to the vaginal surface. Outcomes included vaginal recurrence (VR), pelvic recurrence, distant recurrence, locoregional recurrence, recurrence-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: Of the 348 women, 45 (13%) received 7.0 Gy × 3 fractions, 259 (74%) received 6.5 Gy × 3 fractions, and 44 (13%) received 6.0 Gy × 5 fractions. Women receiving 5-fraction brachytherapy were more likely to be younger with a higher performance status. At a median follow-up of 4.5 years, VR rates were 2.2%, 0.8%, and 4.5%, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed no significant differences in the risks for VR among brachytherapy regimens. Risks for VR, pelvic recurrence, distant recurrence, locoregional recurrence, recurrence-free survival, and overall survival did not differ between propensity score-matched five- and 3-fraction brachytherapy cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: VR rates after hysterectomy and adjuvant vaginal brachytherapy for early-stage endometrial cancer were low and not significantly different by HDR dose fractionation.