Adding immunotherapy to first-line treatment of advanced and metastatic endometrial cancer.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy has transformed the endometrial cancer treatment landscape, particularly for those exhibiting mismatch repair deficiency [MMRd/microsatellite instability-hypermutated (MSI-H)]. A growing body of evidence supports the integration of immunotherapy with chemotherapy as a first-line treatment strategy. Recently, findings from ongoing trials such as RUBY (NCT03981796), NRG-GY018 (NCT03914612), AtTEnd (NCT03603184), and DUO-E (NCT04269200) have been disclosed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This paper constitutes a review and meta-analysis of phase III trials investigating the role of immunotherapy in the first-line setting for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. RESULTS: The pooled data from 2320 patients across these trials substantiate the adoption of chemotherapy alongside immunotherapy, revealing a significant improvement in progression-free survival compared to chemotherapy alone [hazard ratio (HR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62-0.79] across all patient groups. Progression-free survival benefits are more pronounced in MMRd/MSI-H tumors (n = 563; HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.23-0.43). This benefit, albeit less robust, persists in the MMR-proficient/microsatellite stable group (n = 1757; HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.60-0.91). Pooled data further indicate that chemotherapy plus immunotherapy enhances overall survival compared to chemotherapy alone in all patients (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63-0.89). However, overall survival data maturity remains low. CONCLUSIONS: The incorporation of immunotherapy into the initial treatment for advanced and metastatic endometrial cancer brings about a substantial improvement in oncologic outcomes, especially within the MMRd/MSI-H subset. This specific subgroup is currently a focal point of investigation for evaluating the potential of chemotherapy-free regimens. Ongoing exploratory analyses aim to identify non-responding patients eligible for inclusion in clinical trials.

ESGO-ESMO-ESP consensus conference recommendations on ovarian cancer: pathology and molecular biology and early, advanced and recurrent disease.

The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the European Society of Pathology held a consensus conference (CC) on ovarian cancer on 15-16 June 2022 in Valencia, Spain. The CC panel included 44 experts in the management of ovarian cancer and pathology, an ESMO scientific advisor and a methodologist. The aim was to discuss new or contentious topics and develop recommendations to improve and harmonise the management of patients with ovarian cancer. Eighteen questions were identified for discussion under four main topics: (i) pathology and molecular biology, (ii) early-stage disease and pelvic mass in pregnancy, (iii) advanced stage (including older/frail patients) and (iv) recurrent disease. The panel was divided into four working groups (WGs) to each address questions relating to one of the four topics outlined above, based on their expertise. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the WGs and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment before voting. This manuscript focuses on the recommendation statements that reached a consensus, their voting results and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation.

INOVATYON/ ENGOT-ov5 study: Randomized phase III international study comparing trabectedin/pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) followed by platinum at progression vs carboplatin/PLD in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer progressing within 6-12 months after last platinum line.

BACKGROUND: This trial investigated the hypothesis that the treatment with trabectedin/PLD (TP) to extend the platinum-free interval (TFIp) can improve overall survival (OS) in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer (OC). METHODS: Patients with OC (up to two previous platinum-based lines), with a TFIp of 6-12 months, were randomised to receive carboplatin/PLD (CP) or TP followed by platinum therapy at relapse. The primary endpoint was OS (HR: 0.75). RESULTS: The study enrolled 617 patients. The median TFIp was 8.3 months and 30.3% of patients had received two previous platinum lines. 74% and 73.9% of patients, respectively, received a subsequent therapy (ST) in the CP and TP arm; in the latter TP arm 87.2% of ST was platinum-based, as per protocol. The median OS was 21.4 for CP and 21.9 months for TP (HR 1.13; 95% CI: 0.94-1.35; p = 0.197). Grade 3-5 adverse reactions occurred in 37.1% of patients in the CP arm and 69.7% of patients in the TP arm, and the most frequent were neutropenia (22.8% CP, 39.5% TP), gastrointestinal (7.1% CP, 17.4% TP), hepatic (0.7% CP, 19.1% TP). CONCLUSIONS: This study did not meet the primary endpoint. CP combination remains the standard for patients with recurrent OC and a 6-12 months TFIp; TP is an effective treatment in patients suffering from persistent platinum toxicities. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01379989.

Maintenance olaparib rechallenge in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer previously treated with a PARP inhibitor (OReO/ENGOT-ov38): a phase IIIb trial.

BACKGROUND: Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor maintenance therapy is the standard of care for some patients with advanced ovarian cancer. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of PARP inhibitor rechallenge. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial (NCT03106987) enrolled patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer who had received one prior PARP inhibitor therapy for ≥18 and ≥12 months in the BRCA-mutated and non-BRCA-mutated cohorts, respectively, following first-line chemotherapy or for ≥12 and ≥6 months, respectively, following a second or subsequent line of chemotherapy. Patients were in response following their last platinum-based chemotherapy regimen and were randomized 2 : 1 to maintenance olaparib tablets 300 mg twice daily or placebo. Investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint. RESULTS: Seventy four patients in the BRCA-mutated cohort were randomized to olaparib and 38 to placebo, and 72 patients in the non-BRCA-mutated cohort were randomized to olaparib and 36 to placebo; >85% of patients in both cohorts had received ≥3 prior lines of chemotherapy. In the BRCA-mutated cohort, the median PFS was 4.3 months with olaparib versus 2.8 months with placebo [hazard ratio (HR) 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37-0.87; P = 0.022]; 1-year PFS rates were 19% versus 0% (Kaplan-Meier estimates). In the non-BRCA-mutated cohort, median PFS was 5.3 months for olaparib versus 2.8 months for placebo (HR 0.43; 95% CI 0.26-0.71; P = 0.0023); 1-year PFS rates were 14% versus 0% (Kaplan-Meier estimates). No new safety signals were identified with olaparib rechallenge. CONCLUSIONS: In ovarian cancer patients previously treated with one prior PARP inhibitor and at least two lines of platinum-based chemotherapy, maintenance olaparib rechallenge provided a statistically significant, albeit modest, PFS improvement over placebo in both the BRCA-mutated and non-BRCA-mutated cohorts, with a proportion of patients in the maintenance olaparib rechallenge arm of both cohorts remaining progression free at 1 year.

Olaparib plus bevacizumab first-line maintenance in ovarian cancer: final overall survival results from the PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 primary analysis, maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab demonstrated a significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer patients in clinical response after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, irrespective of surgical status. Prespecified, exploratory analyses by molecular biomarker status showed substantial benefit in patients with a BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation (BRCAm) or homologous recombination deficiency (HRD; BRCAm and/or genomic instability). We report the prespecified final overall survival (OS) analysis, including analyses by HRD status. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 2 : 1 to olaparib (300 mg twice daily; up to 24 months) plus bevacizumab (15 mg/kg every 3 weeks; 15 months total) or placebo plus bevacizumab. Analysis of OS, a key secondary endpoint in hierarchical testing, was planned for ∼60% maturity or 3 years after the primary analysis. RESULTS: After median follow-up of 61.7 and 61.9 months in the olaparib and placebo arms, respectively, median OS was 56.5 versus 51.6 months in the intention-to-treat population [hazard ratio (HR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76-1.12; P = 0.4118]. Subsequent poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor therapy was received by 105 (19.6%) olaparib patients versus 123 (45.7%) placebo patients. In the HRD-positive population, OS was longer with olaparib plus bevacizumab (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45-0.85; 5-year OS rate, 65.5% versus 48.4%); at 5 years, updated PFS also showed a higher proportion of olaparib plus bevacizumab patients without relapse (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.32-0.54; 5-year PFS rate, 46.1% versus 19.2%). Myelodysplastic syndrome, acute myeloid leukemia, aplastic anemia, and new primary malignancy incidence remained low and balanced between arms. CONCLUSIONS: Olaparib plus bevacizumab provided clinically meaningful OS improvement for first-line patients with HRD-positive ovarian cancer. These prespecified exploratory analyses demonstrated improvement despite a high proportion of patients in the placebo arm receiving poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors after progression, confirming the combination as one of the standards of care in this setting with the potential to enhance cure.

Efficacy of subsequent chemotherapy for patients with BRCA1/2-mutated recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer progressing on olaparib versus placebo maintenance: post-hoc analyses of the SOLO2/ENGOT Ov-21 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the SOLO2 trial (ENGOT Ov-21; NCT01874353), maintenance olaparib in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSROC) and BRCA mutation significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and prolonged overall survival (OS). Following disease progression on olaparib, efficacy of subsequent chemotherapy remains unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a post-hoc hypothesis-generating analysis of SOLO2 data to determine the efficacy of different chemotherapy regimens following RECIST disease progression in patients who received olaparib or placebo. We evaluated time to second progression (TTSP) calculated from the date of RECIST progression to the next progression/death. RESULTS: The study population comprised 147 patients who received chemotherapy as their first subsequent treatment after RECIST progression. Of these, 69 (47%) and 78 (53%) were originally randomized to placebo and olaparib arms, respectively. In the placebo-treated cohort, 27/69 and 42/69 received non-platinum and platinum-based chemotherapy, respectively, compared with 24/78 and 54/78, respectively, in the olaparib-treated cohort. Among patients treated with chemotherapy (N = 147), TTSP was significantly longer in the placebo than in the olaparib arm: 12.1 versus 6.9 months [hazard ratio (HR) 2.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.47-3.19]. Similar result was obtained on multivariable analysis adjusting for prognostic factors at RECIST progression (HR 2.13, 95% CI 1.41-3.22). Among patients treated with platinum-based chemotherapy (n = 96), TTSP was significantly longer in the placebo arm: 14.3 versus 7.0 months (HR 2.89, 95% CI 1.73-4.82). Conversely, among patients treated with non-platinum-based chemotherapy (n = 51), the TTSP was comparable in the placebo and olaparib arms: 8.3 versus 6.0 months (HR 1.58, 95% CI 0.86-2.90). CONCLUSIONS: Following progression from maintenance olaparib in the recurrent setting, the efficacy of platinum-based subsequent chemotherapy seems to be reduced in BRCA1/2-mutated patients with PSROC compared to patients not previously receiving poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi). The optimal strategy for patients who relapse after PARPi is an area of ongoing research.

The impact of olaparib dose reduction and treatment interruption on treatment outcome in the SOLO2/ENGOT-ov21 platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Maintenance treatment with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor is now the standard of care in patients with BRCA-mutated platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer following response to chemotherapy. In the SOLO2 trial, adverse event (AE)-associated olaparib interruption, dose reduction, and discontinuation occurred in 50%, 28%, and 17% of patients, respectively. We used data from the SOLO2 trial to evaluate the impact of dose alterations on survival outcomes and identified baseline characteristics associated with dose alteration. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We computed relative dose intensity (RDI) defined as the received dose as a percentage of the standard dose (300 mg twice a day) during the first 12 weeks on treatment. Patients were categorized into RDI >98%, RDI 90%-98%, and RDI <90%. The association between RDI categories with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were examined using a 12-week landmark Cox regression analysis. Logistic regression analysis was used to correlate baseline factors with RDI at 12 weeks. RESULTS: In patients on olaparib included in the landmark analysis (n = 185), the mean 12-week RDI was 91.4%. There was no significant difference across 12-week RDI >98% (n = 110), 90%-98% (n = 29), and <90% (n = 45) categories for PFS (median, 14.2 versus 19.3 versus 34.4 months; P = 0.37) and OS (median, 49.7 versus 49.5 versus 54.1 months; P = 0.84). Risk of RDI ≤90% increased with baseline performance status 1 [odds ratio (OR): 2.54; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11-5.82] any nausea (OR: 3.17; 95% CI: 0.9-11.23), and with body weight ≤70 kg (OR: 1.86; 95% CI: 0.92-3.76). CONCLUSIONS: Dose reduction and interruption for the management of olaparib-associated AEs during the first 12 weeks did not impact on PFS and OS. When counselling patients requiring dose reductions or interruptions due to AEs, the results of this study will help assure patients that their outcomes will not be adversely affected.

European experts consensus: BRCA/homologous recombination deficiency testing in first-line ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Homologous recombination repair (HRR) enables fault-free repair of double-stranded DNA breaks. HRR deficiency is predicted to occur in around half of high-grade serous ovarian carcinomas. Ovarian cancers harbouring HRR deficiency typically exhibit sensitivity to poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPi). Current guidelines recommend a range of approaches for genetic testing to identify predictors of sensitivity to PARPi in ovarian cancer and to identify genetic predisposition. DESIGN: To establish a European-wide consensus for genetic testing (including the genetic care pathway), decision making and clinical management of patients with recently diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer, and the validity of biomarkers to predict the effectiveness of PARPi in the first-line setting. The collaborative European experts' consensus group consisted of a steering committee (n = 14) and contributors (n = 84). A (modified) Delphi process was used to establish consensus statements based on a systematic literature search, conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. RESULTS: A consensus was reached on 34 statements amongst 98 caregivers (including oncologists, pathologists, clinical geneticists, genetic researchers, and patient advocates). The statements concentrated on (i) the value of testing for BRCA1/2 mutations and HRR deficiency testing, including when and whom to test; (ii) the importance of developing new and better HRR deficiency tests; (iii) the importance of germline non-BRCA HRR and mismatch repair gene mutations for predicting familial risk, but not for predicting sensitivity to PARPi, in the first-line setting; (iv) who should be able to inform patients about genetic testing, and what training and education should these caregivers receive. CONCLUSION: These consensus recommendations, from a multidisciplinary panel of experts from across Europe, provide clear guidance on the use of BRCA and HRR deficiency testing for recently diagnosed patients with advanced ovarian cancer.

Olaparib maintenance monotherapy in platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer patients without a germline BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation: OPINION primary analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The phase IIIb OPINION trial (NCT03402841) investigated olaparib maintenance monotherapy in patients without a deleterious or suspected deleterious germline BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation (gBRCAm) who had platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSROC) and had received ≥2 previous lines of platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS: In this single-arm, open-label, international study, patients who had responded to platinum-based chemotherapy received maintenance olaparib tablets (300 mg twice daily) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) (modified RECIST version 1.1). A key secondary endpoint was PFS by homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) and somatic BRCAm (sBRCAm) status. The primary analysis of PFS was planned for 18 months after the last patient received their first dose. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy-nine patients were enrolled and received olaparib. At data cutoff (October 2, 2020), 210 PFS events had occurred (75.3% maturity) and median PFS was 9.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.6-10.9) in the overall population. At 12 and 18 months, 38.5% and 24.3% of patients were progression-free, respectively. In the predefined biomarker subgroups, median PFS was 16.4, 11.1, 9.7, and 7.3 months in sBRCAm, HRD-positive including sBRCAm, HRD-positive excluding sBRCAm, and HRD-negative patients, respectively. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were nausea (48.4%) and fatigue/asthenia (44.1%). TEAEs led to dose interruption, dose reduction, and treatment discontinuation in 47.0%, 22.6%, and 7.5% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Maintenance olaparib demonstrated clinical benefit in patients without a gBRCAm, and across all subgroups, compared with historical placebo controls. There were no new safety signals.

The systemic treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer revisited.

Treatment approaches for relapsed ovarian cancer have evolved over the past decade from a calendar-based decision tree to a patient-oriented biologically driven algorithm. Nowadays, platinum-based chemotherapy should be offered to all patients with a reasonable chance of responding to this therapy. The treatment-free interval for platinum is only one of many factors affecting patients' eligibility for platinum re-treatment. Bevacizumab increases the response to chemotherapy irrespective of the cytotoxic regimen and can be valuable in patients with an urgent need for symptom relief (e.g. pleural effusion, ascites). For patients with recurrent high-grade ovarian cancer, which responds to platinum-based treatment, maintenance therapy with a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor can be offered, regardless of the BRCA mutation status. Here we review contemporary decision-making processes in the systemic treatment of relapsed ovarian cancer.

Phase III, randomized trial of mirvetuximab soravtansine versus chemotherapy in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer: primary analysis of FORWARD I.

BACKGROUND: Mirvetuximab soravtansine (MIRV) is an antibody-drug conjugate comprising a folate receptor alpha (FRα)-binding antibody, cleavable linker, and the maytansinoid DM4, a potent tubulin-targeting agent. The randomized, open-label, phase III study FORWARD I compared MIRV and investigator's choice chemotherapy in patients with platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with 1-3 prior lines of therapy and whose tumors were positive for FRα expression were randomly assigned, in a 2 : 1 ratio, to receive MIRV (6 mg/kg, adjusted ideal body weight) or chemotherapy (paclitaxel, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, or topotecan). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival [PFS, Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1, blinded independent central review] in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and in the prespecified FRα high population. RESULTS: A total of 366 patients were randomized; 243 received MIRV and 109 received chemotherapy. The primary endpoint, PFS, did not reach statistical significance in either the ITT [hazard ratio (HR), 0.98, P = 0.897] or the FRα high population (HR, 0.69, P = 0.049). Superior outcomes for MIRV over chemotherapy were observed in all secondary endpoints in the FRα high population including improved objective response rate (24% versus 10%), CA-125 responses (53% versus 25%), and patient-reported outcomes (27% versus 13%). Fewer treatment-related grade 3 or higher adverse events (25.1% versus 44.0%), and fewer events leading to dose reduction (19.8% versus 30.3%) and treatment discontinuation (4.5% versus 8.3%) were seen with MIRV compared with chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with platinum-resistant EOC, MIRV did not result in a significant improvement in PFS compared with chemotherapy. Secondary endpoints consistently favored MIRV, particularly in patients with high FRα expression. MIRV showed a differentiated and more manageable safety profile than chemotherapy.

Cervical re-injection of indocyanine green to improve sentinel lymph node detection in endometrial cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the role of cervical re-injection of indocyanine green (ICG) to increase the detection rate of sentinel lymph node (SLN) in patients with endometrial cancer (EC) who underwent robotic-assisted surgical staging. METHODS: We retrospectively identified consecutive EC patients undergoing robotic-assisted staging with SLN biopsy at our Institution between June 2016 and April 2020. Patients were excluded if they had open abdominal surgical approach, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and advanced stage [International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III-IV] at diagnosis. According to our SLN protocol, in case of either unilateral or no SLN detection, we performed an ipsilateral or bilateral cervical re-injection of ICG. RESULTS: In total, 251 patients meeting inclusion criteria were included in the analysis. At first injection, bilateral detection was achieved in 184 (73.3%), unilateral detection in 57 (22.7%), and no detection in 10 (4.0%) patients. Cervical re-injection was performed in 51 of 67 patients with failed bilateral mapping. After cervical re-injection, bilateral detection rate increased to 94.5% (222/235), while unilateral and no detection were 5.1% (12/235) and 0.4% (1/235), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that cervical re-injection of ICG, in case of failed bilateral mapping of SLN, brings about a significant improvement in SLN detection rates, therefore reducing the number of side-specific required lymphadenectomies.

The forefront of ovarian cancer therapy: update on PARP inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: In recurrent ovarian cancer, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP)-inhibiting agents have transformed the treatment of platinum-sensitive disease. New data support use of PARP inhibitors earlier in the treatment algorithm. DESIGN: We review results from recent phase III trials evaluating PARP inhibitors as treatment and/or maintenance therapy for patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer. We discuss the efficacy and safety of these agents in the all-comer and biomarker-selected populations studied in clinical trials, and compare the strengths and limitations of the various trial designs. We also consider priorities for future research, with a particular focus on patient selection and future regimens for populations with high unmet need. RESULTS: Four phase III trials (SOLO-1, PAOLA-1/ENGOT-OV25, PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26 and VELIA/GOG-3005) demonstrated remarkable improvements in progression-free survival with PARP inhibitor therapy (olaparib, niraparib or veliparib) for newly diagnosed ovarian cancer. Differences in trial design (treatment and/or maintenance setting; single agent or combination; bevacizumab or no bevacizumab), patient selection (surgical outcome, biomarker eligibility, prognosis) and primary analysis population (intention-to-treat, BRCA mutated or homologous recombination deficiency positive) affect the conclusions that can be drawn from these trials. Overall survival data are pending and there is limited experience regarding long-term safety. CONCLUSIONS: PARP inhibitors play a pivotal role in the management of newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, which will affect subsequent treatment choices. Refinement of testing for patient selection and identification of regimens to treat populations that appear to benefit less from PARP inhibitors are a priority.

Comparison between laparoscopy and laparotomy in the surgical re-staging of granulosa cell tumors of the ovary.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of laparoscopic (LPS) and laparotomic (LPT) re-staging in patients with incompletely surgically staged ovarian granulosa cell tumors (OGCT). METHODS: We conducted a medical chart retrospective analysis of all patients with sex cord stromal tumors (SCSTs) who were managed in our division between March 1994 and March 2017. After a complete review of surgical and pathological notes, patients with incomplete staging were restaged according to the FIGO guidelines. Statistical analysis was conducted using Statistical Package version 20.0 for Windows (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, Illinois). RESULTS: Out of a total of 170 patients SCSTs, 84 patients (49,5%) received primary surgery that included a hysterectomy; 86 patients (50,5%) underwent fertility-sparing surgery. Eighty-one patients (48%) with diagnosis of OGCT were incompletely surgically staged at another institution. We evaluated our results in terms of laparoscopic approach (56 patients) and open treatment (25 patients). Among the IA patient's group, 1 was upstaged to IIB stage and 2 to IIIB; among patients with IC stage, 1 was upstaged to IIA, 2 to IIB and 1 to IIIB stage. Adjuvant chemotherapy was given to the upstaged patients with final stage IIB-IIIC. No statistically significant difference between laparoscopy and open-surgery was detected in terms of upstaged patients after second surgery (p = 0,36). CONCLUSION: According to our series, laparoscopic restaging compared to the open approach seems to be a feasible and efficient technique to complete surgical staging in patients with GCTs incorrectly staged. Surgical restaging seems to upstage a considerable number of OGCT, mainly in the initial stage IC group of patients. However, the impact of restaging on final outcome and survival remains to be demonstrated.

ESMO-ESGO consensus conference recommendations on ovarian cancer: pathology and molecular biology, early and advanced stages, borderline tumours and recurrent disease†.

The development of guidelines recommendations is one of the core activities of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and European Society of Gynaecologial Oncology (ESGO), as part of the mission of both societies to improve the quality of care for patients with cancer across Europe. ESMO and ESGO jointly developed clinically relevant and evidence-based recommendations in several selected areas in order to improve the quality of care for women with ovarian cancer. The ESMO-ESGO consensus conference on ovarian cancer was held on 12-14 April 2018 in Milan, Italy, and comprised a multidisciplinary panel of 40 leading experts in the management of ovarian cancer. Before the conference, the expert panel worked on five clinically relevant questions regarding ovarian cancer relating to each of the following four areas: pathology and molecular biology, early-stage and borderline tumours, advanced stage disease and recurrent disease. Relevant scientific literature, as identified using a systematic search, was reviewed in advance. During the consensus conference, the panel developed recommendations for each specific question and a consensus was reached. The recommendations presented here are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. This article presents the recommendations of this ESMO-ESGO consensus conference, together with a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation.

Antitumor activity and safety of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced recurrent ovarian cancer: results from the phase II KEYNOTE-100 study.

BACKGROUND: Advanced recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC) is the leading cause of gynecologic cancer-related death in developed countries and new treatments are needed. Previous studies of immune checkpoint blockade showed low objective response rates (ORR) in ROC with no identified predictive biomarker. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This phase II study of pembrolizumab (NCT02674061) examined two patient cohorts with ROC: cohort A received one to three prior lines of treatment with a platinum-free interval (PFI) or treatment-free interval (TFI) between 3 and 12 months and cohort B received four to six prior lines with a PFI/TFI of ≥3 months. Pembrolizumab 200 mg was administered intravenously every 3 weeks until cancer progression, toxicity, or completion of 2 years. Primary end points were ORR by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 per blinded independent central review by cohort and by PD-L1 expression measured as combined positive score (CPS). Secondary end points included duration of response (DOR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: Cohort A enrolled 285 patients; the first 100 served as the training set for PD-L1 biomarker analysis. Cohort B enrolled 91 patients. ORR was 7.4% for cohort A and 9.9% for cohort B. Median DOR was 8.2 months for cohort A and not reached for cohort B. DCR was 37.2% and 37.4%, respectively, in cohorts A and B. Based on the training set analysis, CPS 1 and 10 were selected for evaluation in the confirmation set. In the confirmation set, ORR was 4.1% for CPS <1, 5.7% CPS ≥1, and 10.0% for CPS ≥10. PFS was 2.1 months for both cohorts. Median OS was not reached for cohort A and was 17.6 months for cohort B. Toxicities were consistent with other single-agent pembrolizumab trials. CONCLUSIONS: Single-agent pembrolizumab showed modest activity in patients with ROC. Higher PD-L1 expression was correlated with higher response. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02674061.

Carboplatin-paclitaxel compared to Carboplatin-Paclitaxel-Bevacizumab in advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer: MITO END-2 - A randomized phase II trial.

OBJECTIVE: Increased Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor (VEGF) expression in endometrial cancer (EC) is associated with a poor prognosis. Preliminary clinical data reported Bevacizumab effectiveness in EC both as single agent and in combination with chemotherapy. METHODS: In a phase II trial, patients with advanced (FIGO stage III-IV) or recurrent EC were randomized to receive Carboplatin-Paclitaxel standard dose for 6-8 cycles vs Carboplatin-Paclitaxel and Bevacizumab 15 mg/kg in combination with chemotherapy and maintenance until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). RESULTS: 108 patients were randomized; PFS (10.5 vs 13.7 months, HR 0.84 p = 0.43), overall response rate (ORR 53.1% vs 74.4%) and overall survival (OS) (29.7 vs 40.0 months, HR 0.71 p = 0.24) resulted in a non-significant increase in Bevacizumab treated patients. The PFS increase became significant when an exploratory analysis with the Breslow test was used. Moreover, patients treated with Bevacizumab experienced a significant increase in 6-month disease control rate (70.4% vs 90.7%). Cardiovascular events were more frequent in the experimental arm ("de novo" grade ≥2 hypertension 21% vs 0% and grade ≥2 thromboembolic events 11% vs 2% in the Bevacizumab vs standard treatment arm, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced/recurrent EC failed to demonstrate a significant increase in PFS in the MITO END-2 trial. Nevertheless, these preliminary data suggests some effectiveness of the antiangiogenic agent which merits further exploration in a larger population with a better molecular characterization.

Early tumor regrowth is a contributor to impaired survival in patients with completely resected advanced ovarian cancer. An exploratory analysis of the Intergroup trial AGO-OVAR 12.

OBJECTIVE: Surgical assessment of residual tumor provides the strongest prognostic information in advanced ovarian cancer (AOC), with the best outcome observed after complete resection. Postoperative radiological assessment before initiation of chemotherapy can supplement the information obtained by surgical assessment; however, it may also reveal conflicting findings. METHODS: Patients with AOC enrolled in the AGO-OVAR 12 trial underwent baseline imaging before the first chemotherapy cycle. The findings from surgical and radiologic assessment for disease extend were compared. Additionally, an integrated approach was assessed. RESULTS: Complete data from all 3 assessment methods were available for 1345 patients. Of 689 patients with complete resection, tumor was observed in 28% and 22% of patients undergoing radiologic and integrated assessment, respectively. Patients with surgical- radiological and surgical-integrated concordant findings showed a 5-year overall survival (5Y-OS) of 72% and 71%, whereas patients with surgical-radiological and surgical-integrated discordant results showed inferior 5Y-OS of 47% and 49%, respectively. Patients with surgically assessed residual disease had a 5-YOS of 37%. The interval between surgery and baseline assessment was independently associated with discordance between assessment methods, which might reflect early tumor regrowth. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline tumor assessment before chemotherapy provides information that stratifies patients with complete resection into different prognostic groups. Integrating the data from different assessment methods might lead to improved definitions of prognostic groups. Further investigation to determine if earlier initiation of chemotherapy after debulking surgery could increase survival of patients with early tumor regrowth is warranted.

Overall survival results of AGO-OVAR16: A phase 3 study of maintenance pazopanib versus placebo in women who have not progressed after first-line chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The AGO-OVAR16 study was designed to test the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of pazopanib maintenance after first-line chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer (AOC). METHODS: Nine hundred and forty patients with histologically confirmed AOC, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage II-IV, were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 800 mg pazopanib once daily or placebo for up to 24 months, unless there was disease progression, toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or death. The primary endpoint (investigator-assessed progression-free survival [PFS]) was met and previously reported. The results of final analyses of overall survival (OS) are reported here. RESULTS: A third OS interim analysis showed futility and led to study closure and a final OS analysis after last patient last visit. At the time of the final OS analysis, 494 (89.7% of the planned 551) events had occurred. No difference was observed in OS between pazopanib and placebo. The hazard ratio (HR) was 0.960 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.805-1.145), and the median OS from randomization was 59.1 months in pazopanib and 64.0 months in placebo arms. For the East Asian patients, similar to the first three interim OS analyses, a numerical negative trend was observed favoring placebo (HR, 1.332; 95% CI: 0.863-2.054). Exploratory analyses showed a trend for a longer time to first subsequent anti-cancer therapy or death with pazopanib over placebo (HR, 0.829; 95% CI: 0.713-0.965), with a median estimate of 19.0 and 14.5 months, respectively. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION: Although pazopanib prolonged PFS, this was not associated with improvement in median OS. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00866697.