Phase 3 Trial of Cabozantinib to Treat Advanced Neuroendocrine Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumors are limited. The efficacy of cabozantinib in the treatment of previously treated, progressive extrapancreatic or pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors is unclear. METHODS: We enrolled two independent cohorts of patients - those with extrapancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and those with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors - who had received peptide receptor radionuclide therapy or targeted therapy or both. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive cabozantinib at a dose of 60 mg daily or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review. Key secondary end points included objective response, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: In the cohort of 203 patients with extrapancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, the median progression-free survival with cabozantinib was 8.4 months, as compared with 3.9 months with placebo (stratified hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25 to 0.59; P<0.001). In the cohort of 95 patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, the median progression-free survival with cabozantinib was 13.8 months, as compared with 4.4 months with placebo (stratified hazard ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.42; P<0.001). The incidence of confirmed objective response with cabozantinib was 5% and 19% among patients with extrapancreatic and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, respectively, as compared with 0% with placebo. Grade 3 or higher adverse events were noted in 62 to 65% of the patients treated with cabozantinib, as compared with 23 to 27% of the patients who received placebo. Common treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher included hypertension, fatigue, diarrhea, and thromboembolic events. CONCLUSIONS: Cabozantinib, as compared with placebo, significantly improved progression-free survival in patients with previously treated, progressive advanced extrapancreatic or pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of cabozantinib. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; CABINET ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03375320.).

Top advances of the year: Ovarian cancer.

Although cure rates remain low and effective screening strategies are elusive, the recent advances in systemic therapies over the past year highlighted in this review have prolonged survival for women with ovarian cancer. In 2022, the first antibody-drug conjugate for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer received accelerated US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. Confirmatory studies examining the efficacy of mirvetuximab and other antibody-drug conjugates are underway. In the upfront setting, the first data establishing an overall survival benefit from poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor maintenance was demonstrated after a 7-year follow-up period. In contrast, long-term updates from poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor trials in the noncurative setting reported survival detriments, and the FDA withdrew the respective indications. Several trials attempted to improve upon the standard of care for platinum-sensitive ovarian carcinoma and those with rare ovarian cancer histologies (carcinosarcoma, clear cell carcinoma) but failed to demonstrate a clinically or statistically meaningful benefit. This leaves the open question of how to further optimize systemic therapy for advanced ovarian carcinoma to improve long-term survival and cure rates.

A phase 2 trial exploring the significance of homologous recombination status in patients with platinum sensitive or platinum resistant relapsed ovarian cancer receiving combination cediranib and olaparib.

OBJECTIVE: Combination cediranib/olaparib has reported activity in relapsed ovarian cancer. This phase 2 trial investigated the activity of cediranib/olaparib in relapsed ovarian cancer and its association with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). METHODS: Seventy patients were enrolled to cohorts of either platinum-sensitive or platinum-resistant ovarian cancer and received olaparib tablets 200 mg twice daily and cediranib tablets 30 mg once daily under a continuous dosing schedule. HRD testing was performed on pre-treatment, on-treatment and archival biopsies by sequencing key homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes and by genomic LOH analysis. The primary objective for the platinum-sensitive cohort was the association of HRD, defined as presence of HRR gene mutation, with progression-free survival (PFS). The primary objective for the platinum-resistant cohort was objective response rate (ORR), with a key secondary endpoint evaluating the association of HRD status with activity. RESULTS: In platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer (N = 35), ORR was 77.1% (95% CI 59.9-89.6%) and median PFS was 16.4 months (95% CI 13.2-18.6). Median PFS in platinum-sensitive HRR-HRD cancers (N = 22) was 16.8 months (95% CI 11.3-18.6), and 16.4 months (95% CI 9.4-NA) in HRR-HR proficient cancers (N = 13; p = 0.57). In platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (N = 35), ORR was 22.9% (95% CI 10.4-40.1%) with median PFS 6.8 months (95% CI 4.2-9.1). Median PFS in platinum-resistant HRR-HRD cancers (N = 7) was 10.5 months (95% CI 3.6-NA) and 5.6 months (95% CI 3.6-7.6) in HRR-HR proficient cancers (N = 18; p = 0.23). CONCLUSIONS: Cediranib/olaparib had clinical activity in both platinum-sensitive and -resistant ovarian cancer. Presence of HRR gene mutations was not associated with cediranib/olaparib activity in either setting.

Clinical research in ovarian cancer: consensus recommendations from the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup.

The Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) sixth Ovarian Cancer Conference on Clinical Research was held virtually in October, 2021, following published consensus guidelines. The goal of the consensus meeting was to achieve harmonisation on the design elements of upcoming trials in ovarian cancer, to select important questions for future study, and to identify unmet needs. All 33 GCIG member groups participated in the development, refinement, and adoption of 20 statements within four topic groups on clinical research in ovarian cancer including first line treatment, recurrent disease, disease subgroups, and future trials. Unanimous consensus was obtained for 14 of 20 statements, with greater than 90% concordance in the remaining six statements. The high acceptance rate following active deliberation among the GCIG groups confirmed that a consensus process could be applied in a virtual setting. Together with detailed categorisation of unmet needs, these consensus statements will promote the harmonisation of international clinical research in ovarian cancer.

Berzosertib plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone in platinum-resistant high-grade serous ovarian cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: High-grade serous ovarian cancers show increased replication stress, rendering cells vulnerable to ATR inhibition because of near universal loss of the G1/S checkpoint (through deleterious TP53 mutations), premature S phase entry (due to CCNE1 amplification, RB1 loss, or CDKN2A mRNA downregulation), alterations of homologous recombination repair genes, and expression of oncogenic drivers (through MYC amplification and other mechanisms). We hypothesised that the combination of the selective ATR inhibitor, berzosertib, and gemcitabine could show acceptable toxicity and superior efficacy to gemcitabine alone in high-grade serous ovarian cancer. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 study, 11 different centres in the US Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trials Network enrolled women (aged ≥18 years) with recurrent, platinum-resistant high-grade serous ovarian cancer (determined histologically) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, who had unlimited previous lines of cytotoxic therapy in the platinum-sensitive setting but no more than one line of cytotoxic therapy in the platinum-resistant setting. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) on day 1 and day 8, or gemcitabine plus intravenous berzosertib (210 mg/m2) on day 2 and day 9 of a 21-day cycle until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. Randomisation was done centrally using the Theradex Interactive Web Response System, stratified by platinum-free interval, and with a permuted block size of six. Following central randomisation, patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, and analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of the study drugs. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02595892, and is active but closed to enrolment. FINDINGS: Between Feb 14, 2017, and Sept 7, 2018, 88 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 70 were randomly assigned to treatment with gemcitabine alone (36 patients) or gemcitabine plus berzosertib (34 patients). At the data cutoff date (Feb 21, 2020), the median follow-up was 53·2 weeks (25·6-81·8) in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group and 43·0 weeks (IQR 23·2-69·1) in the gemcitabine alone group. Median progression-free survival was 22·9 weeks (17·9-72·0) for gemcitabine plus berzosertib and 14·7 weeks (90% CI 9·7-36·7) for gemcitabine alone (hazard ratio 0·57, 90% CI 0·33-0·98; one-sided log-rank test p=0·044). The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were decreased neutrophil count (14 [39%] of 36 patients in the gemcitabine alone group vs 16 [47%] of 34 patients in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group) and decreased platelet count (two [6%] vs eight [24%]). Serious adverse events were observed in ten (28%) patients in the gemcitabine alone group and nine (26%) patients in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group. There was one treatment-related death in the gemcitabine alone group due to sepsis and one treatment-related death in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group due to pneumonitis. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this is the first randomised study of an ATR inhibitor in any tumour type. This study shows a benefit of adding berzosertib to gemcitabine in platinum-resistant high-grade serous ovarian cancer. This combination warrants further investigation in this setting. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute.

Evaluation of toxicities related to novel therapy in clinical trials for women with gynecologic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Women with gynecologic cancer may be at increased risk for adverse events (AEs) due to peritoneal disease burden and prior treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, and pelvic radiotherapy). This study compared the toxicity profiles of patients with and without gynecologic cancer enrolled in phase 1 trials. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of the National Cancer Institute phase 1 database for all trials enrolling 1 or more patients with gynecologic cancer over 2 decades (1995-2015). Clinical parameters collected included demographics, cancer history, trial information, AEs, and responses. AEs (according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events) were documented for each patient during treatment, and they were counted once and analyzed on the basis of the highest grade and drug attribution. Multiple regression models were used to compare AEs at the baseline and during treatment. RESULTS: A total of 4269 patients enrolled in 150 trials were divided into 3 groups: 1) women with gynecologic cancer (n = 685), 2) women with nongynecologic cancer (n = 1698), and 3) men with cancer (n = 1886). The median age was 58 years. The mean number of total AEs reported during treatment was highest for women with gynecologic cancer (17.1 vs 14.7 vs 13.5; P < .001), even though they were similar at the baseline (7.0 vs 7.4 vs 7.0; P = .09). The mean number of drug-related AEs was also highest for women with gynecologic cancer (8.3 vs 6.9 vs 6.2; P < .001). Grade 3 to 5 AEs were similar (2.3 vs 2.3 vs 2.1); however, grade 2 AEs were more frequent in women with gynecologic cancer (4.6 vs 3.9 vs 3.5). Treatment discontinuations due to AEs were similar (9% vs 9% vs 10%). CONCLUSIONS: Women with gynecologic cancer experienced more frequent low-grade AEs during treatment, and this warrants attention to support their symptom burden. Study dose management should be considered for recurrent grade 2 AEs, particularly during continuous therapy.

Phase II trial of bevacizumab and sorafenib in recurrent ovarian cancer patients with or without prior-bevacizumab treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether blocking multiple points of the angiogenesis pathway by addition of sorafenib, a multi-kinase inhibitor against VEGFR2/3, Raf, c-Kit, and PDGFR, to bevacizumab would yield clinical activity in ovarian cancer (OvCa). METHODS: This phase II study tested bevacizumab plus sorafenib in two cohorts; bevacizumab-naïve and bevacizumab-exposed patients. Bevacizumab (5 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks) was given with sorafenib 200 mg bid 5 days-on/2 days-off. The primary objective was response rate using a Simon two-stage optimal design. Progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicity were the secondary endpoints. Exploratory correlative studies included plasma cytokine concentrations, tissue proteomics and dynamic contrast-enhanced-magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI). RESULTS: Between March 2007 and August 2012, 54 women were enrolled, 41 bevacizumab-naive and 13 bevacizumab-prior, with median 5 (2-9) and 6 (5-9) prior systemic therapies, respectively. Nine of 35 (26%) evaluable bevacizumab-naive patients attained partial responses (PR), and 18 had stable disease (SD) ≥ 4 months. No responses were seen in the bevacizumab-prior group and 7 (54%) patients had SD ≥ 4 months, including one exceptional responder with SD of 27 months. The overall median PFS was 5.5 months (95%CI: 4.0-6.8 months). Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events (≥5%) included hypertension (17/54 [31%]; grade 3 in 16 patients and grade 4 in one patient) and venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (5/54 [9%]; grade 3 in 4 patients and grade 4 in one patient). Pretreatment low IL8 concentration was associated with PFS ≥ 4 months (p = .031). CONCLUSIONS: The bevacizumab and sorafenib combination did not meet the pre-specified primary endpoint although some clinical activity was seen in heavily-pretreated bevacizumab-naive OvCa patients with platinum-resistant disease. Anticipated class toxicities required close monitoring and dose modifications.

New strategies in ovarian cancer treatment.

Insights from basic science dissecting carcinogenesis in the fallopian tube and ovary have led to a deeper understanding of the origin, molecular characteristics, and types of ovarian cancers. This logically then has led to the development of novel approaches to treat ovarian cancer. Increasingly, novel agents are being developed to target the different growth pathways. The identification of molecular markers associated with different histopathologies has resulted in newer clinical trial designs to capture both clinical and translational endpoints. Unique molecular characteristics in DNA damage and repair pathways and unique cell surface markers have driven new drug development, yielding promise for both patients with platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant ovarian cancers. Specific examples described include the histology-selective mutations, such as ARID1A in clear cell and endometrioid ovarian cancers; the rationale for using cell cycle checkpoint inhibitors when there already is a p53-mediated loss of cell cycle checkpoint regulation or combinations of agents that will both induce neoantigen formation and unleash immune modulators; and techniques to enhance the therapeutic delivery of known agents. A systematic and thoughtful approach to combining agents in clinical trials is needed so that irrespective of the trial outcomes, the results inform both clinical and translational endpoints.

Critical questions in ovarian cancer research and treatment: Report of an American Association for Cancer Research Special Conference.

Substantial progress has been made in understanding ovarian cancer at the molecular and cellular level. Significant improvement in 5-year survival has been achieved through cytoreductive surgery, combination platinum-based chemotherapy, and more effective treatment of recurrent cancer, and there are now more than 280,000 ovarian cancer survivors in the United States. Despite these advances, long-term survival in late-stage disease has improved little over the last 4 decades. Poor outcomes relate, in part, to late stage at initial diagnosis, intrinsic drug resistance, and the persistence of dormant drug-resistant cancer cells after primary surgery and chemotherapy. Our ability to accelerate progress in the clinic will depend on the ability to answer several critical questions regarding this disease. To assess current answers, an American Association for Cancer Research Special Conference on "Critical Questions in Ovarian Cancer Research and Treatment" was held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on October 1-3, 2017. Although clinical, translational, and basic investigators conducted much of the discussion, advocates participated in the meeting, and many presentations were directly relevant to patient care, including treatment with poly adenosine diphosphate ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, attempts to improve immunotherapy by overcoming the immune suppressive effects of the microenvironment, and a better understanding of the heterogeneity of the disease.

Prexasertib, a cell cycle checkpoint kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor, in BRCA wild-type recurrent high-grade serous ovarian cancer: a first-in-class proof-of-concept phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: High-grade serous ovarian carcinoma is characterised by TP53 mutations, DNA repair defects, and genomic instability. We hypothesised that prexasertib (LY2606368), a cell cycle checkpoint kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor, would be active in BRCA wild-type disease. METHODS: In an open-label, single-centre, two-stage, proof-of-concept phase 2 study, we enrolled women aged 18 years or older with measurable, recurrent high-grade serous or high-grade endometrioid ovarian carcinoma. All patients had a negative family history of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer or known BRCA wild-type status, measurable disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score 0-2, and adequate haematological, renal, hepatic, and bone-marrow function. Patients received intravenous prexasertib 105 mg/m2 administered over 1 h every 14 days in 28-day cycles until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint of investigator-assessed tumour response, based on RECIST version 1.1, was assessed per protocol (assessable patients who had undergone CT imaging at baseline and attended at least one protocol-specified follow-up) and by intention to treat. The final analysis of this cohort of patients with BRCA wild-type high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma is reported here. This ongoing trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02203513, and continues to enrol patients for the BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer cohort. FINDINGS: Between Jan 20, 2015, and Nov 2, 2016, we enrolled 28 women with a median age of 64 years (IQR 58·0-69·5) who had previously received a median of 5·0 (IQR 2·5-5·0) systemic therapies. Most patients (22 [79%]) had platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory disease. All women received at least one dose of prexasertib, but four (14%) of 28 patients were not assessable for RECIST response. Eight (33%, 95% CI 16-55) of 24 patients assessable per protocol had partial responses. In the intention-to-treat population, eight (29%, 95% CI 13-49) of 28 had a partial responses. The most common (in >10% patients) grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia in 26 (93%) of 28 patients, reduced white blood cell count in 23 (82%), thrombocytopenia in seven (25%), and anaemia in three (11%). Grade 4 neutropenia was reported in 22 (79%) patients after the first dose of prexasertib and was transient (median duration 6 days [IQR 4-8]) and recovered without growth-factor support in all cases. The treatment-related serious adverse event of grade 3 febrile neutropenia was reported in two (7%) patients. One patient died during the study due to tumour progression. INTERPRETATION: Prexasertib showed clinical activity and was tolerable in patients with BRCA wild-type high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma. This drug warrants further development in this setting, especially for patients with platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory disease. FUNDING: Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health and National Cancer Institute.

Hysterectomy-corrected rates of endometrial cancer among women younger than age 50 in the United States.

PURPOSE: This analysis describes the impact of hysterectomy on incidence rates and trends in endometrioid endometrial cancer in the United States among women of reproductive age. METHODS: Hysterectomy prevalence for states containing Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry was estimated using data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) between 1992 and 2010. The population was adjusted for age, race, and calendar year strata. Age-adjusted incidence rates and trends of endometrial cancer among women age 20-49 corrected for hysterectomy were estimated. RESULTS: Hysterectomy prevalence varied by age, race, and ethnicity. Increasing incidence trends were observed, and were attenuated after correcting for hysterectomy. Among all women, the incidence was increasing 1.6% annually (95% CI 0.9, 2.3) and this increase was no longer significant after correction for hysterectomy (+ 0.7; 95% CI - 0.1, 1.5). Stage at diagnosis was similar with and without correction for hysterectomy. The largest increase in incidence over time was among Hispanic women; even after correction for hysterectomy, incidence was increasing (1.8%; 95% CI 0.2, 3.4) annually. CONCLUSION: Overall, endometrioid endometrial cancer incidence rates in the US remain stable among women of reproductive age. Routine reporting of endometrial cancer incidence does not accurately measure incidence among racial and ethnic minorities.

Clinical trials in gynecologic oncology: Past, present, and future.

The Gynecologic Oncology Group has historically performed ground-breaking, practice-changing clinical trials in women's cancers. The current standard of care for initial treatment of ovarian, endometrial, cervical, and trophoblastic cancers was determined by clinical trials completed within this cooperative group structure. For example, trial GOG-0111 set the standard for combining platinum and taxane chemotherapy in ovarian cancer, and more recently GOG-0240 provided evidence for adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy for women with advanced cervical cancer. The landscape of clinical trial design has markedly changed in recent decades, with a clear emphasis on streamlining drug development towards specific patient populations and indications for investigational agents. Translational science in gynecologic cancers can set the stage for rapid and efficient introduction of new therapies for our patients. The gynecologic oncology community of researchers and clinicians is well positioned to enter into the new era of drug development, with breakthrough discoveries increasing each year. It is clear that we must incorporate smarter clinical trial design to get the right drugs to the right patients expeditiously, so we can continue to improve outcome for women with gynecologic cancers.

Moving forward with actionable therapeutic targets and opportunities in endometrial cancer: A NCI clinical trials planning meeting report.

The incidence of endometrial cancer (EC) in the U.S. has been rising, from an estimated annual incidence of 49,560 in 2013 to 61,380 in 2017. Meanwhile, the SEER-based relative survival of women with EC in the U.S. has remained flat [82.3% from 1987 to 1989, 82.8% from 2007 to 2013] and our recent increased understanding of EC biology and subtypes has not been translated into therapeutic advances. The U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) therefore convened a Uterine Clinical Trials Planning Meeting in January 2016 to initiate and accelerate design of molecularly-targeted EC trials. Prior to the meeting a group of experts in this field summarized available data, emphasizing data on human samples, to identify potentially actionable alterations in EC, and the results of their work has been separately published. The Clinical Trials Meeting planners focused on discussion of (1) novel trial designs, including window-of opportunity trials and appropriate control groups for randomized trials, (2) targets specific to serous carcinoma and promises and pitfalls of separate trials for women with tumors of this histology (3) specific recommendations for future randomized trials.

PARP Inhibitors: The Cornerstone of DNA Repair-Targeted Therapies.

The activity and therapeutic licensing of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors is the culmination of 50 years of research. However, the biology, mechanisms of action, adequate treatment combinations, and targeted populations for these agents need to be explored further. PARP activity is essential for the repair of single-strand DNA breaks via the base excision repair pathway. This pathway is the default repair pathway in cells with deficient high-fidelity double-strand break homologous recombination (HR) repair, such as occurs with loss of BRCA1 or BRCA2 function. Therefore, inhibition of PARP function results in cell death in HR-deficient tumors, and sensitizes tumor cells to cytotoxic agents that induce DNA damage. Applications of PARP inhibition are now being expanded beyond tumors with HR deficiency-to HR-competent tumors in which HR has been synthetically impaired through use of other agents given in combination with PARP inhibitors, or resulting from PARP inhibition in the setting of BRCA1 or BRCA2 loss.

Pharmacodynamic markers and clinical results from the phase 2 study of the SMAC mimetic birinapant in women with relapsed platinum-resistant or -refractory epithelial ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Inhibitors of apoptosis proteins (IAPs) are key regulators of apoptosis and are frequently dysregulated in ovarian cancer. It was hypothesized that blocking IAPs with birinapant would increase tumor cell death and result in objective responses for women with platinum-refractory and -resistant ovarian cancer. METHODS: In this phase 2, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program-sponsored study, patients received birinapant at 47 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 of 28-day cycles. Pharmacokinetics were obtained during cycle 1. Plasma, peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs), and percutaneous tumor biopsy samples were collected before cycle 1 and after 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was an objective response or progression-free survival lasting greater than 6 months in a mini-max design. RESULTS: Eleven patients received birinapant; after this, accrual was terminated for lack of a clinical benefit. Birinapant was well tolerated, with predominantly grade 2 adverse events and 1 case of grade 3 lymphopenia. Pretreatment biopsy samples and PBMCs were collected; paired posttreatment biopsy samples and PBMCs were collected from 7 and 10 patients, respectively. There was consistent downregulation of cellular inhibitor of apoptosis protein 1 in tumors (P = .016) and PBMCs (P < .01). Procaspase 3 also decreased in tumors (P = .031) and PBMCs (P < .01); cleaved caspase 3 colocalized with H2A histone family member X (γ-H2AX) in tumors after birinapant exposure. Peripheral T and B cells decreased significantly after treatment, but natural killer cells did not (P = .04, P = .05, and P = .43, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Birinapant shows consistent target suppression in vivo without single-agent antitumor activity in this small population. Single-agent pharmacodynamics are necessary to understand the drug's mechanism of action and set the stage for rational combination therapy. Preclinical studies are ongoing to identify optimal synergistic combinations for future clinical trials.

The generalizability of NCI-sponsored clinical trials accrual among women with gynecologic malignancies.

OBJECTIVES: Enrollment of a representative population to cancer clinical trials ensures scientific reliability and generalizability of results. This study evaluated the similarity of patients enrolled in NCI-supported group gynecologic cancer trials to the incident US population. METHODS: Accrual to NCI-sponsored ovarian, uterine, and cervical cancer treatment trials between 2003 and 2012 were examined. Race, ethnicity, age, and insurance status were compared to the analogous US patient population estimated using adjusted SEER incidence data. RESULTS: There were 18,913 accruals to 156 NCI-sponsored gynecologic cancer treatment trials, ovarian (56%), uterine (32%), and cervical cancers (12%). Ovarian cancer trials included the least racial, ethnic and age diversity. Black women were notably underrepresented in ovarian trials (4% versus 11%). Hispanic patients were underrepresented in ovarian and uterine trials (4% and 5% versus 18% and 19%, respectively), but not in cervical cancer trials (14 versus 11%). Elderly patients were underrepresented in each disease area, with the greatest underrepresentation seen in ovarian cancer patients over the age of 75 (7% versus 29%). Privately insured women were overrepresented among accrued ovarian cancer patients (87% versus 76%), and the uninsured were overrepresented among women with uterine or cervical cancers. These patterns did not change over time. CONCLUSIONS: Several notable differences were observed between the patients accrued to NCI funded trials and the incident population. Improving representation of racial and ethnic minorities and elderly patients on cancer clinical trials continues to be a challenge and priority.

Ovarian cancer treatment: The end of empiricism?

The diagnosis, investigation, and management of ovarian cancer are in a state of flux-balancing ever rapid advances in our understanding of its biology with 3 decades of clinical trials. Clinical trials that started with empirically driven selections have evolved in an evidence-informed manner to gradually improve outcome. Has this improved understanding of the biology and associated calls to action led to appropriate changes in therapy? In this review, the authors discuss incorporating emerging data on biology, combinations, dose, and scheduling of new and existing agents with patient preferences in the management of women with ovarian cancer.

Ovarian cancer.

Epithelial ovarian cancer is the commonest cause of gynaecological cancer-associated death. The disease typically presents in postmenopausal women, with a few months of abdominal pain and distension. Most women have advanced disease (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics [FIGO] stage III), for which the standard of care remains surgery and platinum-based cytotoxic chemotherapy. Although this treatment can be curative for most patients with early stage disease, most women with advanced disease will develop many episodes of recurrent disease with progressively shorter disease-free intervals. These episodes culminate in chemoresistance and ultimately bowel obstruction, the most frequent cause of death. For women whose disease continues to respond to platinum-based drugs, the disease can often be controlled for 5 years or more. Targeted treatments such as antiangiogenic drugs or poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors offer potential for improved survival. The efficacy of screening, designed to detect the disease at an earlier and curable stage remains unproven, with key results expected in 2015.

Development of a multiparameter flow cytometric assay as a potential biomarker for homologous recombination deficiency in women with high-grade serous ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVES: PARP inhibitors (PARPi) are a novel class of drugs with activity in patients with acquired or germline homologous recombination (HR) deficiency-associated high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC). We hypothesized that measuring γH2AX as an indicator of DNA double-strand breaks (DSB), and MRE11 or RAD51 as an indicator of DSB repair, would reflect HR status and predict response to PARPi-based therapy. Our aim was to develop and use high-throughput multiparametric flow cytometry to quantify γH2AX with MRE11 or RAD51 in PBMCs as a readily available surrogate. METHODS: Healthy donor PBMCs were used for assay development and optimization. We validated induction of γH2AX, MRE11 and RAD51 by staining with fluorophore-conjugated antibodies. The multiparameter flow cytometric method was applied to PBMC samples from recurrent HGSOC patients who were treated with PARPi, olaparib and carboplatin. RESULTS: Stimulation was necessary for quantification of a DNA damage response to olaparib/carboplatin in healthy donor PBMCs. The flow cytometric protocol could not distinguish between cytoplasmic and nuclear RAD51, erroneously indicating activation in response to injury. Thus, MRE11 was selected as the marker of DSB repair. PBMCs from 15 recurrent HGSOC patients were then examined. Patients who did not respond to PARPi therapy had a significantly higher pre-treatment level of γH2AX (p = 0.01), and a higher ratio of γH2AX/MRE11 (11.0 [3.5-13.2] v. 3.3 [2.8-9.9], p < 0.03) compared with responders. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully developed and applied a multiparameter flow cytometry assay to measure γH2AX and MRE11 in PBMCs. Prospective studies will be required to validate this surrogate biomarker assay as a potential predictive biomarker of PARPi-based therapy.