Proteogenomic analysis of chemo-refractory high-grade serous ovarian cancer.

To improve the understanding of chemo-refractory high-grade serous ovarian cancers (HGSOCs), we characterized the proteogenomic landscape of 242 (refractory and sensitive) HGSOCs, representing one discovery and two validation cohorts across two biospecimen types (formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded and frozen). We identified a 64-protein signature that predicts with high specificity a subset of HGSOCs refractory to initial platinum-based therapy and is validated in two independent patient cohorts. We detected significant association between lack of Ch17 loss of heterozygosity (LOH) and chemo-refractoriness. Based on pathway protein expression, we identified 5 clusters of HGSOC, which validated across two independent patient cohorts and patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models. These clusters may represent different mechanisms of refractoriness and implicate putative therapeutic vulnerabilities.

ATR inhibition disrupts rewired homologous recombination and fork protection pathways in PARP inhibitor-resistant BRCA-deficient cancer cells.

Poly-(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPis) selectively kill BRCA1/2-deficient cells, but their efficacy in BRCA-deficient patients is limited by drug resistance. Here, we used derived cell lines and cells from patients to investigate how to overcome PARPi resistance. We found that the functions of BRCA1 in homologous recombination (HR) and replication fork protection are sequentially bypassed during the acquisition of PARPi resistance. Despite the lack of BRCA1, PARPi-resistant cells regain RAD51 loading to DNA double-stranded breaks (DSBs) and stalled replication forks, enabling two distinct mechanisms of PARPi resistance. Compared with BRCA1-proficient cells, PARPi-resistant BRCA1-deficient cells are increasingly dependent on ATR for survival. ATR inhibitors (ATRis) disrupt BRCA1-independent RAD51 loading to DSBs and stalled forks in PARPi-resistant BRCA1-deficient cells, overcoming both resistance mechanisms. In tumor cells derived from patients, ATRis also overcome the bypass of BRCA1/2 in fork protection. Thus, ATR inhibition is a unique strategy to overcome the PARPi resistance of BRCA-deficient cancers.

Phase II Trials of Iniparib (BSI-201) in Combination with Gemcitabine and Carboplatin in Patients with Recurrent Ovarian Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Iniparib (BSI-201), a novel anticancer agent thought to have poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitory activity and synergy with both gemcitabine and carboplatin (GC) was evaluated in 2 cohorts with GC. METHODS: Parallel multicenter, single-arm, phase II studies using a Simon two-stage design. Eligible patients had a histological diagnosis of epithelial ovarian carcinoma, fallopian tube cancer, or primary peritoneal carcinoma and demonstration of platinum-sensitive (≥6 months [mo]) or -resistant disease (relapse 2-6 mo post-platinum). Carboplatin (AUC 4 IV day 1), gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 IV days 1 and 8), and iniparib (5.6 mg/kg IV days 1, 4, 8, and 11) were given on a 21-day cycle. RESULTS: The overall response rate (ORR RECIST 1.0) in platinum sensitive disease was 66% (95% CI, 49-80) with a higher response rate in the 15 pts with germline BRCA mutations (gBRCAmut) (73%). Median PFS was 9.9 (95% CI, 8.2-11.3) months. In the platinum resistant population the ORR was 26% (95% CI, 14-42), however in the 11 pts for whom BRCA mutation was present, the best overall response was PR in 5 (46%). Median PFS was 6.8 months (range, 5.7-7.7 months). Notably, among the 17 CA-125-response-evaluable patients who did not achieve tumor response, 7 (41.2%) patients had a CA125 response, and 93% has clinical benefit (CR + PR + SD). The GCI combination was generally well tolerated despite a high incidence of thrombocytopenia and neutropenia, with no new toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: Given the subsequent lack of efficacy demonstrated for iniparib in breast cancer, these are studies of GC and demonstrate a higher than traditionally appreciated activity in patients with platinum-sensitive and -resistant recurrent ovarian cancer, especially in patients that harbor a BRCA mutation, resetting the benchmark for efficacy in phase II trials. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT01033292 & NCT01033123).

Final survival analysis of topotecan and paclitaxel for first-line treatment of advanced cervical cancer: An NRG oncology randomized study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a non­platinum chemotherapy doublet improves overall survival (OS) among patients with recurrent/metastatic cervical carcinoma. METHODS: Gynecologic Oncology Group protocol 240 is a phase 3, randomized, open-label, clinical trial that studied the efficacy of paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 plus topotecan 0.75 mg/m2 days 1-3 (n = 223) vs cisplatin 50 mg/m2 plus paclitaxel 135 or 175 mg/m2 (n = 229), in 452 patients with recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer. Each chemotherapy doublet was also studied with and without bevacizumab (15 mg/kg). Cycles were repeated every 21 days until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or complete response. The primary endpoints were OS and the frequency and severity of adverse effects. We report the final analysis of OS. RESULTS: At the protocol-specified final analysis, median OS was 16.3 (cisplatin-paclitaxel backbone) and 13.8 months (topotecan-paclitaxel backbone) (HR 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38; p = 0.28). Median OS for cisplatin-paclitaxel and topotecan-paclitaxel was 15 vs 12 months, respectively (HR 1.10; 95% CI,0.82-1.48; p = 0.52), and for cisplatin-paclitaxel-bevacizumab and topotecan-paclitaxel-bevacizumab was 17.5 vs 16.2 months, respectively (HR 1.16; 95% CI, 0.86-1.56; p = 0.34). Among the 75% of patients in the study population previously exposed to platinum, median OS was 14.6 (cisplatin-paclitaxel backbone) vs 12.9 months (topotecan-paclitaxel backbone), respectively (HR 1.09; 95% CI, 0.86-1.38;p = 0.48). Post-progression survival was 7.9 (cisplatin-paclitaxel backbone) vs 8.1 months (topotecan-paclitaxel backbone) (HR 0.95; 95% CI, 0.75-1.19). Grade 4 hematologic toxicity was similar between chemotherapy backbones. CONCLUSIONS: Topotecan plus paclitaxel does not confer a survival benefit to women with recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer, even among platinum-exposed patients. Topotecan-paclitaxel should not be routinely recommended in this population. NCT00803062.

DAGBagM: learning directed acyclic graphs of mixed variables with an application to identify protein biomarkers for treatment response in ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Applying directed acyclic graph (DAG) models to proteogenomic data has been shown effective for detecting causal biomarkers of complex diseases. However, there remain unsolved challenges in DAG learning to jointly model binary clinical outcome variables and continuous biomarker measurements. RESULTS: In this paper, we propose a new tool, DAGBagM, to learn DAGs with both continuous and binary nodes. By using appropriate models, DAGBagM allows for either continuous or binary nodes to be parent or child nodes. It employs a bootstrap aggregating strategy to reduce false positives in edge inference. At the same time, the aggregation procedure provides a flexible framework to robustly incorporate prior information on edges. CONCLUSIONS: Through extensive simulation experiments, we demonstrate that DAGBagM has superior performance compared to alternative strategies for modeling mixed types of nodes. In addition, DAGBagM is computationally more efficient than two competing methods. When applying DAGBagM to proteogenomic datasets from ovarian cancer studies, we identify potential protein biomarkers for platinum refractory/resistant response in ovarian cancer. DAGBagM is made available as a github repository at https://github.com/jie108/dagbagM .

A phase II evaluation of temsirolimus with carboplatin and paclitaxel followed by temsirolimus consolidation in clear cell ovarian cancer: An NRG oncology trial.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of the study was to estimate the 12-month progression-free survival (PFS) for carboplatin/paclitaxel + temsirolimus in women with newly diagnosed clear cell ovarian cancer (CCOC), compared to historical controls in this patient population. METHODS: Patients with Stage III or IV CCOC were treated with Paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 on Day 1, Carboplatin AUC 6 Day 1, and temsirolimus (CCI-779) 25 mg IV Days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks for Cycles 1-6 or disease progression, followed by consolidation therapy with temsirolimus 25 mg Days 1, 8, and 15 every 3 weeks cycles 7-17 or until disease progression. RESULTS: Ninety patients were accrued to the study: 45 in the US and Korea (US/Korea) and 45 in Japan. Twenty-two percent received ≤6 cycles of therapy while 28% completed all 17 cycles of chemotherapy. Median PFS (OS) was 11 (23) months for US/Korea and 12 (26) months for Japan. In the US, none of suboptimally debulked patients had PFS >12 months, and 49% of optimal patients did, compared to 25% and 59% in Japan. Most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia, leukopenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, hypertension, hypertriglyceridemia, and oral mucositis. CONCLUSION: The carboplatin/paclitaxel + temsirolimus regimen was well tolerated. In optimally debulked patients, 54% had a PFS >12 months. This regimen did not statistically significantly increase PFS at 12 months compared to historical controls. No statistically significant differences in PFS or OS were observed between US/Korea vs Japan, or Asians vs non-Asians.

Impact of homologous recombination status and responses with veliparib combined with first-line chemotherapy in ovarian cancer in the Phase 3 VELIA/GOG-3005 study.

OBJECTIVE: In the Phase 3 VELIA trial (NCT02470585), PARP inhibitor (PARPi) veliparib was combined with first-line chemotherapy and continued as maintenance for patients with ovarian carcinoma enrolled regardless of chemotherapy response or biomarker status. Here, we report exploratory analyses of the impact of homologous recombination deficient (HRD) or proficient (HRP) status on progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rates during chemotherapy. METHODS: Women with Stage III-IV ovarian carcinoma were randomized to veliparib-throughout, veliparib-combination-only, or placebo. Stratification factors included timing of surgery and germline BRCA mutation status. HRD status was dichotomized at genomic instability score 33. During combination therapy, CA-125 levels were measured at baseline and each cycle; radiographic responses were assessed every 9 weeks. RESULTS: Of 1140 patients randomized, 742 had BRCA wild type (BRCAwt) tumors (HRP, n = 373; HRD/BRCAwt, n = 329). PFS hazard ratios between veliparib-throughout versus control were similar in both BRCAwt populations (HRD/BRCAwt: 22.9 vs 19.8 months; hazard ratio 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-1.09; HRP: 15.0 vs 11.5 months; hazard ratio 0.765; 95% CI 0.56-1.04). By Cycle 3, the proportion with ≥90% CA-125 reduction from baseline was higher in those receiving veliparib (pooled arms) versus control (34% vs 23%; P = 0.0004); particularly in BRCAwt and HRP subgroups. Complete response rates among patients with measurable disease after surgery were 24% with veliparib (pooled arms) and 18% with control. CONCLUSIONS: These results potentially broaden opportunities for PARPi utilization among patients who would not qualify for frontline PARPi maintenance based on other trials.

A randomized phase II trial of bevacizumab vs. bevacizumab and erlotinib as first-line consolidation after carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab in newly diagnosed patients with mullerian tumors.

BACKGROUND: The combination of paclitaxel to platinum remains the backbone of therapy in patients with advanced Mullerian tumors. In patients with newly diagnosed Mullerian tumors, we investigated the progression-free survival benefit of bevacizumab and bevacizumab and erlotinib as consolidation therapy post-induction therapy. METHODS: Sixty patients were enrolled in a phase II trial of carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab (induction therapy). After the completion induction therapy, patients were stratified by response (≥ SD) and then randomized (1:1) to either bevacizumab (A) or bevacizumab and erlotinib (AE.) The primary endpoint was PFS. Secondary endpoints included the response rate of induction and consolidation therapy and toxicity profile of each consolidative arm. Each consolidative arm was compared to the historical control GOG 111. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients advanced to the consolidative phase of the trial. Twelve patients were removed in the induction phase, the majority for toxicity. The most common toxicity (grade ≥ 3) was diarrhea (20%: arm AE; 0%: arm A). One patient in the AE arm had a fatal cardiac arrest deemed unrelated to the study treatment. No gastrointestinal perforations were reported. The median PFS in the AE and A arm was 18.9 months (p < 0.0001) and 13.3 months (p: ns), respectively. The overall rate of grade 3/4 toxicities in the AE arm was 72% and in the A arm 30%. Six patients remain free of disease 10 years after enrollment. CONCLUSION: Combinatorial consolidation therapy with AE was associated with an improved progression-free survival in patients with Mullerian tumors.

Chemotherapy with or without avelumab followed by avelumab maintenance versus chemotherapy alone in patients with previously untreated epithelial ovarian cancer (JAVELIN Ovarian 100): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Although most patients with epithelial ovarian cancer respond to frontline platinum-based chemotherapy, around 70% will relapse within 3 years. The phase 3 JAVELIN Ovarian 100 trial compared avelumab (anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody) in combination with chemotherapy followed by avelumab maintenance, or chemotherapy followed by avelumab maintenance, versus chemotherapy alone in patients with treatment-naive epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: JAVELIN Ovarian 100 was a global, open-label, three-arm, parallel, randomised, phase 3 trial run at 159 hospitals and cancer treatment centres in 25 countries. Eligible women were aged 18 years and older with stage III-IV epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer (following debulking surgery, or candidates for neoadjuvant chemotherapy), and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via interactive response technology to receive chemotherapy (six cycles; carboplatin dosed at an area under the serum-concentration-time curve of 5 or 6 intravenously every 3 weeks plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 every 3 weeks or 80 mg/m2 once a week [investigators' choice]) followed by avelumab maintenance (10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks; avelumab maintenance group); chemotherapy plus avelumab (10 mg/kg intravenously every 3 weeks) followed by avelumab maintenance (avelumab combination group); or chemotherapy followed by observation (control group). Randomisation was in permuted blocks of size six and stratified by paclitaxel regimen and resection status. Patients and investigators were masked to assignment to the two chemotherapy groups without avelumab at the time of randomisation until completion of the chemotherapy phase. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by blinded independent central review in all randomly assigned patients (analysed by intention to treat). Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02718417. The trial was fully enrolled and terminated at interim analysis due to futility, and efficacy is no longer being assessed. FINDINGS: Between May 19, 2016 and Jan 23, 2018, 998 patients were randomly assigned (avelumab maintenance n=332, avelumab combination n=331, and control n=335). At the planned interim analysis (data cutoff Sept 7, 2018), prespecified futility boundaries were crossed for the progression-free survival analysis, and the trial was stopped as recommended by the independent data monitoring committee and endorsed by the protocol steering committee. Median follow-up for progression-free survival for all patients was 10·8 months (IQR 7·1-14·9); 11·1 months (7·0-15·3) for the avelumab maintenance group, 11·0 months (7·4-14·5) for the avelumab combination group, and 10·2 months (6·7-14·0) for the control group. Median progression-free survival was 16·8 months (95% CI 13·5-not estimable [NE]) with avelumab maintenance, 18·1 months (14·8-NE) with avelumab combination treatment, and NE (18·2 months-NE) with control treatment. The stratified hazard ratio for progression-free survival was 1·43 (95% CI 1·05-1·95; one-sided p=0·99) with the avelumab maintenance regimen and 1·14 (0·83-1·56; one-sided p=0·79) with the avelumab combination regimen, versus control treatment. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were anaemia (69 [21%] patients in the avelumab maintenance group, 63 [19%] in the avelumab combination group, and 53 [16%] in the control group), neutropenia (91 [28%], 99 [30%], and 88 [26%]), and neutrophil count decrease (49 [15%], 45 [14%], and 59 [18%]). Serious adverse events of any grade occurred in 92 (28%) patients in the avelumab maintenance group, 118 (36%) in the avelumab combination group, and 64 (19%) in the control group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in one (<1%) patient in the avelumab maintenance group (due to atrial fibrillation) and one (<1%) patient in the avelumab combination group (due to disease progression). INTERPRETATION: Although no new safety signals were observed, results do not support the use of avelumab in the frontline treatment setting. Alternative treatment regimens are needed to improve outcomes in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. FUNDING: Pfizer and Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.

Inhibition of Kpnß1 mediated nuclear import enhances cisplatin chemosensitivity in cervical cancer.

BACKGROUND: Inhibition of nuclear import via Karyopherin beta 1 (Kpnß1) shows potential as an anti-cancer approach. This study investigated the use of nuclear import inhibitor, INI-43, in combination with cisplatin. METHODS: Cervical cancer cells were pre-treated with INI-43 before treatment with cisplatin, and MTT cell viability and apoptosis assays performed. Activity and localisation of p53 and NFκB was determined after co-treatment of cells. RESULTS: Pre-treatment of cervical cancer cells with INI-43 at sublethal concentrations enhanced cisplatin sensitivity, evident through decreased cell viability and enhanced apoptosis. Kpnß1 knock-down cells similarly displayed increased sensitivity to cisplatin. Combination index determination using the Chou-Talalay method revealed that INI-43 and cisplatin engaged in synergistic interactions. p53 was found to be involved in the cell death response to combination treatment as its inhibition abolished the enhanced cell death observed. INI-43 pre-treatment resulted in moderately stabilized p53 and induced p53 reporter activity, which translated to increased p21 and decreased Mcl-1 upon cisplatin combination treatment. Furthermore, cisplatin treatment led to nuclear import of NFκB, which was diminished upon pre-treatment with INI-43. NFκB reporter activity and expression of NFκB transcriptional targets, cyclin D1, c-Myc and XIAP, showed decreased levels after combination treatment compared to single cisplatin treatment and this associated with enhanced DNA damage. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, this study shows that INI-43 pre-treatment significantly enhances cisplatin sensitivity in cervical cancer cells, mediated through stabilization of p53 and decreased nuclear import of NFκB. Hence this study suggests the possible synergistic use of nuclear import inhibition and cisplatin to treat cervical cancer.

Correlation of imaging and plasma based biomarkers to predict response to bevacizumab in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).

PURPOSE: Increasing measures of adiposity have been correlated with poor oncologic outcomes and a lack of response to anti-angiogenic therapies. Limited data exists on the impact of subcutaneous fat density (SFD) and visceral fat density (VFD) on oncologic outcomes. This ancillary analysis of GOG-218, evaluates whether imaging markers of adiposity were predictive biomarkers for bevacizumab (bev) use in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: There were 1249 patients (67%) from GOG-218 with imaging measurements. SFD and VFD were calculated utilizing Hounsfield units (HU). Proportional hazards models were used to assess the association between SFD and VFD with overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Increased SFD and VFD showed an increased HR for death (HR per 1-SD increase 1.12, 95% CI:1.05-1.19 p = 0.0009 and 1.13, 95% CI: 1.05-1.20 p = 0.0006 respectively). In the predictive analysis for response to bev, high VFD showed an increased hazard for death in the placebo group (HR per 1-SD increase 1.22, 95% CI: 1.09-1.37; p = 0.025). However, in the bev group there was no effect seen (HR per 1-SD increase: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.90-1.14) Median OS was 45 vs 47 months in the VFD low groups and 36 vs 42 months in the VFD high groups on placebo versus bev, respectively. CONCLUSION: High VFD and SFD have a negative prognostic impact on patients with EOC. High VFD appears to be a predictive marker of bev response and patients with high VFD may be more likely to benefit from initial treatment with bev.

Sequential Phase II clinical trials evaluating CRLX101 as monotherapy and in combination with bevacizumab in recurrent ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Topoisomerase-1 inhibitors are an important class of cytotoxics associated with toxicity that limits their use. CRLX101 is a novel cyclodextrin-containing polymer conjugate of camptothecin (CPT) that self-assembles into nanoparticles to deliver sustained levels of active CPT into cancer cells while substantially reducing systemic exposure. METHODS: We conducted sequential phase II, open label, single arm clinical trials to evaluate CRLX101 as a single agent (n = 29) and with bevacizumab (Bev) (n = 34). Patients (pts) had measurable recurrent epithelial ovarian, tubal or primary peritoneal cancer, that could be platinum refractory, resistant or sensitive. Cohort A (Single agent CRLX101) allowed up to 3 prior chemotherapy regimens, but no prior topo-1 inhibitors. Pts received CRLX101 15 mg/m2 IV every 14 days Q28 with response evaluation every 2 cycles. Cohort B also received Bev 10 mg/kg D1,15 Q28, and included only platinum resistant disease with up to 2 prior lines, and more rigorous eligibility criteria. RESULTS: CRLX101 was well tolerated other than nausea, fatigue and anemia. 29 pts. received a median of 3 (1-16) cycles with a clinical benefit rate (CBR) of 68% and overall response rate (ORR) of 11%. With the addition of Bev in Cohort B (n = 34), the CBR was increased to 95% and the ORR to 18%. PFS was 4.5 months (0.9 to 15.9 months) in Cohort A and 6.5 months (2.8 to 14.4 months) in Cohort B. Bev increased the incidence of hypertension and qualitatively increased bladder toxicities, but without SAEs. CONCLUSIONS: CRLX101 meets the clinical need for an effective and tolerable topoisomerase I inhibitor and can be safely combined with bevacizumab.

EMR 20006-012: A phase II randomized double-blind placebo controlled trial comparing the combination of pimasertib (MEK inhibitor) with SAR245409 (PI3K inhibitor) to pimasertib alone in patients with previously treated unresectable borderline or low grade ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the combination of a MEK inhibitor (pimasertib) and a PI3K inhibitor (SAR245409) to pimasertib alone in recurrent unresectable borderline/low malignant potential (LMP) or low-grade serous ovarian carcinoma (LGSOC), determining whether combination is superior. METHODS: Patients with previously treated, recurrent LMP or LGSOC with measurable disease received either combination of pimasertib (60 mg daily) + SAR245409 (SAR) (70 mg daily) or pimasertib alone (60 mg BID) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST 1.1, determining whether combination was superior to pimasertib alone. Secondary endpoints included progression free survival (PFS), disease control, and adverse events. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients were randomized between September 2012 and December 2014. ORR was 9.4% (80% CI, 3.5 to 19.7) in the combination arm and 12.1% (80% CI, 5.4 to 22.8) in the pimasertib alone arm. Median PFS was 7.23 months (80% CI, 5.06 to -) and 9.99 (80% CI, 7.39 to 10.35) for pimasertib alone and pimasertib + SAR, respectively. Six-month PFS was 63.5% (80% CI, 47.2% to 75.9%) and 70.8% (80% CI, 56.9% to 80.9%). Eighteen (56.3%) patients in the combination arm and 19 (57.6%) patients in the pimasertib alone arm discontinued the trial. The study was terminated early because of low ORR and high rate of discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: Response to pimasertib alone (ORR 12%) suggests that MEK inhibition could be used as an alternative treatment method to cytotoxic chemotherapy in this population. The MEK inhibitor alone was as effective as the combination, although the trial was limited by small numbers. Additional studies investigating the role of single agent or combination MEK and PI3K inhibition are warranted to further evaluate the utility of these treatments and describe a standard of care for LGSOC.

Wnt signaling modulator DKK1 as an immunotherapeutic target in ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Wnt pathway mutations are a hallmark of endometrioid and clear cell subtypes of epithelial ovarian carcinoma (EOC). However, no drugs targeting the Wnt pathway in EOC are FDA-approved. Dickkopf-related protein 1 (DKK1), a modulator of the Wnt pathway, has emerged as a promising therapeutic target. We aimed to examine the role of DKK1 and the effects of a monoclonal antibody against DKK1 (DKN-01) in vivo and in a murine model of ovarian cancer. METHODS: We examined in vitro the role of DKK1 and the effects of DKK1 inhibition in EOC cell lines. We then studied in vivo the role of DKN-01 and DKK1 overexpression on tumor burden and anti-tumor immune cell populations using the ID8 syngeneic mouse model. RESULTS: DKN-01 did not phenotypically alter ES2 cells in vitro; however, DKK1 inhibition promoted Wnt signaling. Tumor burden and immune populations were unchanged in ID8 challenged mice treated with mDKN01. Mice challenged with ID8 cells overexpressing DKK1 had tumor burden similar to controls (p = 0.175). However, the overexpression of DKK1 decreased CD45+ leukocyte infiltration into the peritoneum (p = 0.008) and omentum (p = 0.032), reducing both natural killer (NK) and CD8 T cells, and reducing interferon-gamma (IFNγ) expression on activated CD8 T cells. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that DKK1 inhibition does not affect tumor growth in the ID8 ovarian cancer model. DKK1 overexpression alters anti-tumor immune populations within the tumor microenvironment. Thus, our findings confirm DKK1 as a new therapeutic target in EOC and suggest that DKK1 inhibition may function best in a combinatorial, immune-modulatory therapy.

Ofranergene obadenovec (VB-111) in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer; favorable response rates in a phase I/II study are associated with an immunotherapeutic effect.

OBJECTIVE: Report final results of a phase I/II study of VB-111, a targeted anti-cancer gene therapy with a dual mechanism: anti angiogenic/vascular disruption and induction of an anti-tumor directed immune response, in combination with paclitaxel in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. METHODS: Study NCT01711970 was a prospective, open label, dose escalation study assessing combination treatment of VB-111 and weekly paclitaxel. In the Phase I part of the study, patients were treated with escalating doses of intravenous VB-111 and paclitaxel. In Phase 2, patients were treated with therapeutic doses of VB-111 and paclitaxel 80 mg/m2. Assessments included safety, overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), and tumor response (CA-125 and RECIST). RESULTS: 21 patients with recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer were enrolled. 17/21 received the therapeutic dose. Patients had a median of 3 prior lines of therapy. Half of the subjects were platinum refractory, and half were previously treated with antiangiogenics. No DLTs were observed. VB-111 was well tolerated and associated with mild flu-like symptoms. In the therapeutic dose cohort, a 58% CA-125 GCIG response rate was seen in evaluable patients. The median OS was 16.6 months in patients treated with therapeutic dose compared to 5.8 months in sub-therapeutic dose (p = 0.028). Tumor specimens taken after treatment demonstrated tumor infiltrated with cytotoxic CD8 T-cells in regions of apoptotic cancer cells. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with VB-111 in combination with paclitaxel was safe and well tolerated. Favorable tumor responses and overall survival outcomes were associated with induction of an immunotherapeutic effect.

Phase Ib study of mirvetuximab soravtansine, a folate receptor alpha (FRα)-targeting antibody-drug conjugate (ADC), in combination with bevacizumab in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and clinical activity of mirvetuximab soravtansine, an antibody-drug conjugate comprising a humanized anti-folate receptor alpha (FRα) monoclonal antibody, cleavable linker, and the maytansinoid DM4, a potent tubulin-targeting agent, in combination with bevacizumab in patients with FRα-positive, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. METHODS: Patients with platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer were administered mirvetuximab soravtansine (6 mg/kg, adjusted ideal body weight) and bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) once every 3 weeks. Eligibility included FRα positivity by immunochemistry and prior bevacizumab exposure was permitted. Adverse events, tumor response, and progression-free survival (PFS) were determined. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients, with a median of 3 prior lines of therapy (range, 1-8), received the combination of mirvetuximab soravtansine and bevacizumab at full dosing during the escalation and expansion stages of the study. Adverse events were generally mild-to-moderate (≤grade 2) with diarrhea, blurred vision, nausea, and fatigue being the most common treatment-related toxicities. Six cases of pneumonitis (9%; all grade 1 or 2), an adverse event of special interest, were observed. The confirmed objective response rate (ORR) was 39%, including 5 complete responses and 21 partial responses, and the median PFS was 6.9 months. The combination was particularly active in the subset of patients (n = 16) who were bevacizumab-naïve, less heavily pretreated (1-2 prior lines), and whose tumors exhibited medium/high FRα expression (ORR, 56% with a median duration of response of 12 months; PFS, 9.9 months). CONCLUSION: The combination of mirvetuximab soravtansine with bevacizumab is well tolerated in patients with platinum-resistant, recurrent ovarian cancer. The encouraging efficacy measures compare favorably to reported outcomes for bevacizumab combined with standard chemotherapy in similar patient populations.

Phase 1b study of anti-NaPi2b antibody-drug conjugate lifastuzumab vedotin (DNIB0600A) in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the safety and tolerability of lifastuzumab vedotin (DNIB0600A) (LIFA), an antibody-drug conjugate, in patients with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer (PSOC). METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter phase 1b study, LIFA was administered intravenously once every 3 weeks (Q3W) with starting dose 1.2 mg/kg in a 3 + 3 dose-escalation scheme. All patients received carboplatin at dose AUC 6 mg/mL·min (AUC6) Q3W for up to 6 cycles. Dose expansion cohorts were enrolled ± bevacizumab 15 mg/kg Q3W. RESULTS: Patients received LIFA at 1.2, 1.8, and 2.4 mg (n = 4, 5, and 20, respectively) with carboplatin. The maximum tolerated dose was not reached. The recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) was LIFA 2.4 mg/kg + carboplatin AUC6 (cycles 1-6), with or without bevacizumab 15 mg/kg. Twelve patients received RP2D with bevacizumab. All patients experienced ≥1 adverse event (AE). The most common treatment-related AEs were neutropenia, peripheral neuropathy, thrombocytopenia, nausea, fatigue, anemia, diarrhea, vomiting, hypomagnesaemia, aspartate aminotransferase increased, alanine aminotransferase increased, and alopecia. Thirty-four (83%) patients experienced grade ≥ 3 AEs, the most frequent of which were neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. Nine (22%) patients experienced serious AEs. Pulmonary toxicities (34%), considered a potential risk of LIFA, included one patient who discontinued study treatment due to grade 2 pneumonitis. The median duration of progression-free survival was 10.71 months (95% CI: 8.54, 13.86) with confirmed complete/partial responses in 24 (59%) patients. Pharmacokinetics of mono-therapy LIFA was similar in combination therapy. CONCLUSION: LIFA in combination with carboplatin ± bevacizumab demonstrated acceptable safety and encouraging activity in PSOC patients.

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.

Biomarkers in ovarian cancer: To be or not to be.

Biomarkers are becoming increasingly important in the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer. Recent work from many laboratories has begun to provide clinically meaningful biomarkers. This review summarizes the state of the science regarding biomarkers for stratifying early-stage patients into those who benefit from adjuvant treatment, primary debulking versus interval debulking, and specific targeted therapy. In addition, new molecular imaging technologies have been developed to allow the surgeon to resect subvisible tumor deposits. These efforts should increase clinical effectiveness while minimizing toxicities for patients.