Dostarlimab for Primary Advanced or Recurrent Endometrial Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Dostarlimab is an immune-checkpoint inhibitor that targets the programmed cell death 1 receptor. The combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy may have synergistic effects in the treatment of endometrial cancer. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, global, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Eligible patients with primary advanced stage III or IV or first recurrent endometrial cancer were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either dostarlimab (500 mg) or placebo, plus carboplatin (area under the concentration-time curve, 5 mg per milliliter per minute) and paclitaxel (175 mg per square meter of body-surface area), every 3 weeks (six cycles), followed by dostarlimab (1000 mg) or placebo every 6 weeks for up to 3 years. The primary end points were progression-free survival as assessed by the investigator according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.1, and overall survival. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: Of the 494 patients who underwent randomization, 118 (23.9%) had mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR), microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) tumors. In the dMMR-MSI-H population, estimated progression-free survival at 24 months was 61.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 46.3 to 73.4) in the dostarlimab group and 15.7% (95% CI, 7.2 to 27.0) in the placebo group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.50; P<0.001). In the overall population, progression-free survival at 24 months was 36.1% (95% CI, 29.3 to 42.9) in the dostarlimab group and 18.1% (95% CI, 13.0 to 23.9) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.80; P<0.001). Overall survival at 24 months was 71.3% (95% CI, 64.5 to 77.1) with dostarlimab and 56.0% (95% CI, 48.9 to 62.5) with placebo (hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.87). The most common adverse events that occurred or worsened during treatment were nausea (53.9% of the patients in the dostarlimab group and 45.9% of those in the placebo group), alopecia (53.5% and 50.0%), and fatigue (51.9% and 54.5%). Severe and serious adverse events were more frequent in the dostarlimab group than in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Dostarlimab plus carboplatin-paclitaxel significantly increased progression-free survival among patients with primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer, with a substantial benefit in the dMMR-MSI-H population. (Funded by GSK; RUBY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03981796.).

Discordance between GCIG CA-125 progression and RECIST progression in the CALYPSO trial of patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: CA-125 alone is widely used to diagnose progressive disease (PD) in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PSROC) on chemotherapy. However, there are increasing concerns regarding its accuracy. We assessed concordance between progression defined by CA-125 and RECIST using data from the CALYPSO trial. METHODS: We computed concordance rates for PD by CA-125 and RECIST to determine the positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV). RESULTS: Of 769 (79%) evaluable participants, 387 had CA-125 PD, where only 276 had concordant RECIST PD (PPV 71%, 95% CI 67-76%). For 382 without CA-125 PD, 255 had RECIST PD but 127 did not (NPV 33%, 95% CI 29-38). There were significant differences in NPV according to baseline CA-125 (≤100 vs >100: 42% vs 25%, P < 0.001); non-measurable vs measurable disease (51% vs 26%, P < 0.001); and platinum-free-interval (>12 vs 6-12 months: 41% vs 14%, P < 0.001). We observed falling CA-125 levels in 78% of patients with RECIST PD and CA-125 non-PD. CONCLUSION: Approximately 2 in 3 women with PSROC have RECIST PD but not CA-125 PD by GCIG criteria. Monitoring CA-125 levels alone is not reliable for detecting PD. Further research is required to investigate the survival impact of local therapy in radiological detected early asymptomatic PD.

Randomized Trial of Cytoreductive Surgery for Relapsed Ovarian Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Treatment for patients with recurrent ovarian cancer has been mainly based on systemic therapy. The role of secondary cytoreductive surgery is unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with recurrent ovarian cancer who had a first relapse after a platinum-free interval (an interval during which no platinum-based chemotherapy was used) of 6 months or more to undergo secondary cytoreductive surgery and then receive platinum-based chemotherapy or to receive platinum-based chemotherapy alone. Patients were eligible if they presented with a positive Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie (AGO) score, defined as an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance-status score of 0 (on a 5-point scale, with higher scores indicating greater disability), ascites of less than 500 ml, and complete resection at initial surgery. A positive AGO score is used to identify patients in whom a complete resection might be achieved. The primary end point was overall survival. We also assessed quality of life and prognostic factors for survival. RESULTS: A total of 407 patients underwent randomization: 206 were assigned to cytoreductive surgery and chemotherapy, and 201 to chemotherapy alone. A complete resection was achieved in 75.5% of the patients in the surgery group who underwent the procedure. The median overall survival was 53.7 months in the surgery group and 46.0 months in the no-surgery group (hazard ratio for death, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.59 to 0.96; P = 0.02). Patients with a complete resection had the most favorable outcome, with a median overall survival of 61.9 months. A benefit from surgery was seen in all analyses in subgroups according to prognostic factors. Quality-of-life measures through 1 year of follow-up did not differ between the two groups, and we observed no perioperative mortality within 30 days after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: In women with recurrent ovarian cancer, cytoreductive surgery followed by chemotherapy resulted in longer overall survival than chemotherapy alone. (Funded by the AGO Study Group and others; DESKTOP III ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01166737.).

Patterns of initial ovarian cancer recurrence on niraparib maintenance monotherapy in patients with no baseline evidence of disease after first-line chemotherapy: An ad hoc subgroup analysis of PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012.

OBJECTIVES: Patterns of disease recurrence on poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor maintenance therapy are unclear and may affect subsequent treatment. This ad hoc subgroup analysis of the phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 study evaluated patterns of initial recurrence in patients with advanced ovarian cancer (AOC). METHODS: PRIMA included participants at high risk for disease progression. This ad hoc analysis only evaluated participants randomized to niraparib maintenance without evidence of disease at baseline. The number and site(s) of initial recurrent lesions at investigator-assessed progressive disease (PD) were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 314 niraparib-treated patients analyzed, 190 developed ≥1 new lesion (median number of new lesions, 1.0; interquartile range, 1-2). In total, 93.2% (177/190) of patients developed 1-3 lesions at first disease progression. The most common sites of recurrence were the peritoneum (30.0% [57/190]), lymph nodes (26.3% [50/190]), and liver (20.5% [39/190]). Similar results were observed when patients with PD were stratified by biomarker status, disease stage at diagnosis, and type of debulking surgery. Patients with homologous recombination-proficient tumors, stage III disease, or a history of primary debulking developed a median of 2.0 new lesions at first progression; patients with homologous recombination-deficient tumors, stage IV disease, or a history of interval debulking developed a median of 1.0 new lesion. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients with AOC without lesions at first-line maintenance treatment initiation develop oligometastatic disease at first recurrence. Prospective evaluation is required to determine whether these patients have improved outcomes when local therapies are combined with continuous, systemic, targeted maintenance therapy.

Implementing MyChoice® CDx HRD testing for the Nordics: lessons from 2021 to 2023.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of homologous recombinant deficient (HRD) phenotypes is key for managing Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) treatment. To accommodate the need for a validated HRD platform and enhance targeted treatment of ovarian cancer patients, a Nordic core facility for the myChoice® CDx platform was established in Denmark. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Comparative calculations and statistics are based on information from test requisitions and results (Genome Instability Score [GIS], BRCA status and combined HRD status) obtained from ovarian and breast cancer samples submitted for HRD-testing by myChoice® CDx through the Nordic core facility in the 2-year period. RESULTS: Copenhagen University Hospital received 1,948 requisitions during the 2-year period. Conclusive results were obtained in 89% of the tests, while 7% were inconclusive due to the lack of GIS and 4% were not able to be analysed. Comparing the conclusive HRD status results across countries, Sweden had the highest percentage of HRD positives (38%) compared to Denmark, Norway, and Finland (28-32%). INTERPRETATION: The myChoice® CDx Nordic core facility has been well received among the Nordic countries and provides new insights on the influence of national guidelines on HRD testing. Overall, we experienced an efficient turnaround time and a high fraction of conclusive results. Interestingly, prior somatic BRCA testing is redundant when assessing HRD status through myChoice® CDx test since somatic BRCA screening is already a significant component of the myChoice® CDx test. Thus, it should be considered to omit prior somatic BRCA testing to ensure a rationalised HRD diagnostic flow optimised for clinical use.

Management of endometrial cancer in Latin America: raising the standard of care and optimizing outcomes.

Molecular characterization of endometrial cancer is allowing for increased understanding of the natural history of tumors and paving a more solid pathway for novel therapies. It is becoming increasingly apparent that molecular classification is superior to histological classification in terms of reproducibility and prognostic discrimination. In particular, the Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer allows classification of endometrial cancer into groups very close to those determined by the Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network-that is, DNA polymerase epsilon-mutated, mismatch repair-deficient, p53 abnormal, and non-specific molecular profile tumors. The transition from the chemotherapy era to the age of targeted agents and immunotherapy, which started later in endometrial cancer than in many other tumor types, requires widespread availability of specialized pathology and access to novel agents. Likewise, surgical expertise and state-of-the-art radiotherapy modalities are required to ensure adequate care. Nevertheless, Latin American countries still face considerable barriers to implementation of international guidelines. As we witness the dawn of precision medicine as applied to endometrial cancer, we must make continued efforts towards improving the quality of care in this region. The current article discusses some of these challenges and possible solutions.

Physician-reported patient involvement and treatment decisions in first-line ovarian cancer in the USA and Europe.

OBJECTIVES: Real-world data evaluating how approvals of novel treatment regimens for ovarian cancer have impacted the treatment paradigm, including first-line maintenance, are lacking. This analysis aimed to describe treatment patterns for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer in Europe and the USA in the first-line maintenance setting. Patient characteristics, biomarker testing rates, and drivers of treatment choice were also evaluated. METHODS: A retrospective chart review study of electronic medical records in Europe and the USA was conducted for patients diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer (June 1, 2017-May 31, 2020), in line with Healthcare Market Research guidelines. Eligible physicians extracted data from electronic medical records by completing standardized patient record forms, including questions on patient involvement in treatment decisions. Patients with advanced (stage III/IV) disease were stratified by country and diagnosis date to provide information on treatment patterns. RESULTS: Patient record forms for 7072 patients with epithelial ovarian cancer were completed by 416 physicians; 5386 patients had stage III/IV ovarian cancer. Over time, the percentage of patients who were tested for BRCA mutations or homologous recombination deficiency increased. Patient preference was documented as a reason for treatment selection in approximately one-sixth of cases in the first-line adjuvant and first-line maintenance settings. The use of first-line maintenance poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor monotherapy increased over time, while the use of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor monotherapy decreased. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study showed that treatment patterns for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer varied by country. Rates of physician-reported patient involvement in treatment decisions in the first-line adjuvant and maintenance treatment settings for ovarian cancer were low, highlighting an unmet need for initiatives to improve patient involvement in shared decision-making regarding maintenance therapy selection.

ENGOT-EN20/GOG-3083/XPORT-EC-042 - A phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter trial of selinexor in maintenance therapy after systemic therapy for patients with p53 wild-type, advanced, or recurrent endometrial carcinoma: rationale, methods, and trial design.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer have a poor prognosis and limited treatment options. Biomarkers such as tumor protein 53 (TP53) in endometrial cancer can integrate novel strategies for improved and individualized treatment that could impact patient outcomes. In an exploratory analysis of the phase III ENGOT-EN5/GOG-3055/SIENDO study of selinexor maintenance monotherapy 80 mg in advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer, a pre-specified subgroup of patients with TP53 wild type (wt) endometrial cancer showed preliminary activity at long-term follow-up with a generally manageable safety profile (median progression-free survival 27.4 months vs 5.2 months placebo, HR=0.41). PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of selinexor compared with placebo as maintenance therapy in patients with advanced or recurrent TP53wt endometrial cancer. STUDY HYPOTHESIS: Selinexor administered at 60 mg weekly as maintenance therapy will show manageable safety and maintain efficacy in patients with TP53wt advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer after systemic therapy versus placebo. TRIAL DESIGN: This is a prospective, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized phase III study designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of selinexor as a maintenance therapy in patients with advanced or recurrent TP53wt endometrial cancer. MAJOR INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Eligible patients must have histologically confirmed endometrial cancer, TP53wt confirmed by next-generation sequencing, completed at least 12 weeks of platinum-based therapy with or without immunotherapy, with confirmed partial response or complete response, and primary Stage IV disease or at first relapse. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: The primary endpoint is investigator-assessed progression-free survival per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1 in the intent-to-treat population. SAMPLE SIZE: A total of 220 patients will be enrolled. ESTIMATED DATES FOR COMPLETING ACCRUAL AND PRESENTING RESULTS: Accrual is expected to be completed in 2024 with presentation of results in 2025. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05611931.

Impact of metformin, statins, and beta blockers on survival in patients with primary ovarian cancer: combined analysis of four prospective trials of AGO-OVAR and ENGOT/GCIG collaborators.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the association of co-medication with metformin, a statin, or beta blocker with survival in patients with primary ovarian cancer. METHODS: Individual data from three phase III, randomized controlled trials (AGO-OVAR 11, AGO-OVAR 12, and AGO-OVAR 16) and one phase II trial (AGO-OVAR 15) were pooled and analyzed. Patients were classified as ever user if the specific co-medication was documented at least once during the trial, and were compared with never users as controls. Association of co-medications and outcomes were adjusted for potential confounders (age, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, histology, residual disease after surgery, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and assigned treatment within the trial) in multivariate Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: Overall, n=2857 patients were included. Ever users were: 100 patients received metformin (3.5%), 226 patients received statins (7.9%), and 475 (16.6%) patients received beta blockers (n=391 selective beta blockers; 84 non-selective beta blockers) as co-medication. There were no significant differences regarding the baseline characteristics except that ever users were significantly older, more obese, and had more comorbidities, according to the Charlson Comorbidity Index, compared with controls. Multivariate analyses for progression free survival and overall survival revealed neither a significant impact of metformin on survival (progression free survival hazard ratio (HR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval CI 0.69 to 1.29, p=0.7; overall survival HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.17, p=0.28) nor for statins (progression free survival HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.18, p=0.87; overall survival HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.12, p=0.37). In contrast, ever users of selective beta blockers had a significantly higher risk for recurrence and death (progression free survival HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.41, p=0.009; overall survival HR 1.25 95% CI 1.06 to 1.47, p=0.009). CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, co-medication with metformin or statins had no significant impact on survival in patients with primary ovarian cancer. In contrast, co-medication with a beta blocker was associated with worse survival. However, whether this observation is related to the underlying condition rather than a direct negative impact on tumor biology remains unclear.

Patient-reported outcomes in the subpopulation of patients with mismatch repair-deficient/microsatellite instability-high primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer treated with dostarlimab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone in the ENGOT-EN6-NSGO/GOG3031/RUBY trial.

OBJECTIVE: In the ENGOT-EN6-NSGO/GOG3031/RUBY trial, dostarlimab+carboplatin-paclitaxel demonstrated significant improvement in progression free survival and a positive trend in overall survival compared with placebo+carboplatin-paclitaxel, with manageable toxicity, in patients with primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. Here we report on patient-reported outcomes in the mismatch repair-deficient/microsatellite instability-high population, a secondary endpoint in the trial. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to dostarlimab+carboplatin-paclitaxel or placebo+carboplatin-paclitaxel every 3 weeks for 6 cycles followed by dostarlimab or placebo monotherapy every 6 weeks for ≤3 years or until disease progression. Patient-reported outcomes, assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 and Endometrial Cancer Module, were prespecified secondary endpoints. A mixed model for repeated measures analysis, a prespecified exploratory analysis, was conducted to generate least-squares means to compare between-treatment differences while adjusting for correlations across multiple time points within a patient and controlling for the baseline value. Results are provided with 2-sided, nominal p values. RESULTS: Of 494 patients enrolled, 118 were mismatch repair-deficient/microsatellite instability-high. In this population, mean change from baseline to end of treatment showed visual improvements in global quality of life (QoL), emotional and social function, pain, and back/pelvis pain for dostarlimab+carboplatin-paclitaxel. Meaningful differences (least-squares mean [standard error]) favoring the dostarlimab arm were reported for change from baseline to end of treatment for QoL (14.7 [5.45]; p=0.01), role function (12.7 [5.92]); p=0.03), emotional function (14.3 [4.92]; p<0.01), social function (13.5 [5.43]; p=0.01), and fatigue (-13.3 [5.84]; p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with mismatch repair-deficient/microsatellite instability-high primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer receiving dostarlimab+carboplatin-paclitaxel demonstrated improvements in several QoL domains over patients receiving placebo+carboplatin-paclitaxel. The observed improvements in progression free survival and overall survival while improving or maintaining QoL further supports dostarlimab+carboplatin-paclitaxel as a standard of care in this setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03981796.

Patient care and access to clinical trials in gynaecological oncology: global implications of the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: Our prospective international survey evaluated the impact of the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management gynaecological malignancies from the multidisciplinary physicians' perspective with particular focus on clinical infrastructures and trial participation. METHODS: Our survey consisted of 53 COVID-related questions. It was sent to healthcare professionals in gynaecological oncology centres across Europe and Pan-Arabian region via the study groups and gynaecological societies from April 2020 to October 2020. All healthcare professionals treating gynaecological cancers were able to participate in our survey. RESULTS: A total of 255 answers were collected from 30 countries. The majority (73%) of participants were gynaecological oncologists from university hospitals (71%) with at least an Intensive Care Unit with cardiopulmonary support available at their institutions. Most institutions continued to perform elective surgeries only for oncological cases (98%). Patients had to wait on average 2 weeks longer for their surgery appointments compared to previous years (range 0-12 weeks). Most cases that were prioritised for surgical intervention across all gynaecological tumours were early-stage disease (74%), primary situation (61%) and good ECOG status (63%). The radicality of surgery did not change in the majority of cases (78%) across all tumour types. During the pandemic, only 38% of clinicians stated they would start a new clinical trial. Almost half of the participants stated the pandemic negatively impacted the financial structure and support for clinical trials. Approximately 20% of clinicians did not feel well-informed regarding clinical algorithm for COVID-19 patients throughout the pandemic. Thirty percent stated that they are currently having trouble in providing adequate medical care due to staff shortage. CONCLUSION: Despite well-established guidelines, pandemic clearly affected clinical research and patientcare. Our survey underlines the necessity for building robust emergency algorithms tailored to gynaecological oncology to minimise negative impact in crises and to preserve access to clinical trials.

Prospective evaluation of the tolerability and efficacy of niraparib dosing based on baseline body weight and platelet count: Results from the PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial.

BACKGROUND: The PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 (NCT02655016) trial was amended to prospectively evaluate the safety and efficacy of an individualized starting dose (ISD) regimen of niraparib for first-line maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. METHODS: In the phase 3 PRIMA trial, patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer with a complete/partial response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy (N = 733) were initially treated with a fixed starting dose (FSD) regimen of 300 mg once daily. Subsequently, the protocol was amended so newly enrolled patients received an ISD: 200 mg once daily in patients with baseline body weight < 77 kg or baseline platelet count < 150,000/µL, and 300 mg once daily in all other patients. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed by starting dose. RESULTS: Overall, 475 (64.8%) patients were assigned to an FSD (niraparib, n = 317; placebo, n = 158) and 258 (35.2%) were assigned to an ISD (niraparib, n = 170; placebo, n = 88). Efficacy in patients who received FSD or ISD was similar for the overall (FSD hazard ratio [HR], 0.59 [95% CI, 0.46-0.76] vs. ISD HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.48-0.98]) and the homologous recombination-deficient (FSD HR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.30-0.64] vs. ISD HR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.22-0.72]) populations. In patients with low body weight/platelet count, rates of grades ≥3 and 4 hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events, dose interruptions, and dose reductions were lower for those who received ISD than for those who received FSD. CONCLUSIONS: In PRIMA, similar dose intensity, similar efficacy, and improved safety were observed with the ISD compared with the FSD regimen.

Advances in the Management of Recurrent Cervical Cancer: State of the Art and Future Perspectives.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review aims to give an insight into the currently available options for recurrent/metastatic (R/M) cervical cancer (CC), along with the main future, potentially practice-changing perspectives in this field. RECENT FINDINGS: Improvements in terms of tumor responses were observed with the use of immune checkpoints inhibitors (ICIs) in the previously treated CC population, followed by emerging striking data in terms of both antitumor activity and survival rates with the addition of the ICIs to platinum-based chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in the first-line setting. Furthermore, the CC treatment landscape took another step forward in 2021 with the introduction of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) in the second-line setting, a highly targeted therapeutic strategy, which demonstrated to be a valid alternative option in the recurrent setting. R/M CC is a hard-to-treat disease. However, after several years of limited systemic therapeutic options for the recurrent setting, the year 2018 marked a turning point for R/M CC patients, with the introduction of immunotherapy in the treatment paradigm, which completely reshaped the therapeutic armamentarium of the disease. Besides, another valuable treatment option represented by ADCs demonstrated its efficacy in the recurrent setting, thus further widening the treatment landscape for those patients. Yet, the introduction of immunotherapy in the upfront setting brought along new issues to be addressed such as the emerging ICIs resistance and the following need for alternative options in the post-ICIs setting. Several innovative therapeutic strategies are under investigation in ongoing clinical trials, with the aim of overcoming ICIs resistance with the addition of immunomodulatory agents or bypassing the ICIs resistance with novel alternative drugs.

Evolving treatment paradigms in metastatic or recurrent low-grade endometrial cancer: When is hormonal-based therapy the preferred option?

Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecologic malignancy in developed countries, with increasing incidence and mortality rates worldwide. While most cases are successfully treated with surgery, first-line treatment options for metastatic or recurrent endometrial cancer involve significant toxicities. Imprecise classification of heterogeneous subgroups further complicates treatment decisions and interpretation of clinical trial results. Recent advances in molecular classification are guiding treatment decisions for metastatic or recurrent endometrial cancers. Integrating molecular characteristics with traditional clinicopathology can both reduce overtreatment or undertreatment and help guide the appropriate choice of therapies and effective design of future studies. Here we discuss the treatment of metastatic or recurrent low-grade endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the uterine corpus, which is distinct from high-grade tumors histologically, molecularly, and in treatment response.

The promise of combining CDK4/6 inhibition with hormonal therapy in the first-line treatment setting for metastatic or recurrent endometrial adenocarcinoma.

Metastatic or recurrent endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the uterine corpus is often incurable with limited treatment options. First-line treatment often includes cytotoxic chemotherapy, which incurs significant toxicities for many patients. Endometrial cancer, specifically endometrioid cancer, is a hormone-sensitive disease and, while single-agent hormonal therapies have demonstrated clinical benefit, resistance to these agents often leads to the use of chemotherapy. There is a lack of approved endocrine treatment options in the metastatic setting for most recurrent endometrial cancers, representing an unmet clinical need. Emerging evidence suggests that hormonal therapy in combination with other targeted treatments, such as cyclin dependent kinase (CDK)4/6 inhibitors, is well tolerated and effective in select patient populations. We discuss the clinical evidence suggesting that the combination of CDK4/6 inhibitors and hormonal therapy has the potential to represent an important addition to the first-line treatment options for patients with low-grade advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer.

Safety and management of niraparib monotherapy in ovarian cancer clinical trials.

Niraparib is a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor that has shown a significant improvement in progression-free survival irrespective of biomarker status in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. This review focuses on the adverse events associated with niraparib and their management to maintain efficacy of niraparib treatment and improve quality of life for patients. In five trials assessing efficacy of niraparib in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (PRIMA, NOVA, NORA, QUADRA, and PRIME), treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade were reported in nearly all patients (≥99%) receiving niraparib; the events were grade ≥3 in 51-74% of patients. Across all lines of therapy, treatment-emergent adverse events led to dose interruptions in 62-80% of patients receiving niraparib and dose reductions in 47-71%. Hematologic events were most frequently reported, including thrombocytopenia, anemia, and neutropenia. Common non-hematologic events included gastrointestinal events, which were generally low grade (<5% were grade ≥3). Clinical strategies to manage these and other events, such as fatigue and insomnia, cognitive behavioral therapy and pharmacologic agents, are summarized. Once-daily niraparib dosing may be advantageous for some patients for many reasons, including night-time dosing which may help alleviate gastrointestinal symptoms. An individualized starting dose (determined by baseline body weight and platelet count) of niraparib demonstrated an improved safety profile while maintaining efficacy. Patients receiving the niraparib individualized starting dose had fewer grade ≥3 adverse events, dose interruptions, and dose reductions than patients receiving a fixed starting dose. The safety profile of niraparib across five pivotal studies in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer was consistent across multiple lines of treatment, including as maintenance therapy in first-line and recurrent settings and as treatment in heavily pre-treated patients. Long-term safety data from the NOVA trial confirmed that, with appropriate and early dose modifications, niraparib is well tolerated.

Optimizing disease progression assessment using blinded central independent review and comparing it with investigator assessment in the PRIMA/ENGOT-ov26/GOG-3012 trial: challenges and solutions.

OBJECTIVE: Progression-free survival is an established clinically meaningful endpoint in ovarian cancer trials, but it may be susceptible to bias; therefore, blinded independent centralized radiological review is often included in trial designs. We compared blinded independent centralized review and investigator-assessed progressive disease performance in the PRIMA/ENGOT-ov26/GOG-3012 trial examining niraparib monotherapy. METHODS: PRIMA/ENGOT-ov26/GOG-3012 was a randomized, double-blind phase 3 trial; patients with newly diagnosed stage III/IV ovarian cancer received niraparib or placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST] v1.1), determined by two independent radiologists, an arbiter if required, and by blinded central clinician review. Discordance rates between blinded independent centralized review and investigator assessment of progressive disease and non-progressive disease were routinely assessed. To optimize disease assessment, a training intervention was developed for blinded independent centralized radiological reviewers, and RECIST refresher training was provided for investigators. Discordance rates were determined post-intervention. RESULTS: There was a 39% discordance rate between blinded independent centralized review and investigator-assessed progressive disease/non-progressive disease in an initial patient subset (n=80); peritoneal carcinomatosis was the most common source of discordance. All reviewers underwent training, and as a result, changes were implemented, including removal of two original reviewers and identification of 10 best practices for reading imaging data. Post-hoc analysis indicated final discordance rates between blinded independent centralized review and investigator improved to 12% in the overall population. Median progression-free survival and hazard ratios were similar between blinded independent centralized review and investigators in the overall population and across subgroups. CONCLUSION: PRIMA/ENGOT-ov26/GOG-3012 highlights the need to optimize blinded independent centralized review and investigator concordance using early, specialized, ovarian-cancer-specific radiology training to maximize validity of outcome data.

European Society of Gynaecological Oncology Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Vulvar Cancer - Update 2023.

BACKGROUND: As part of its mission to improve the quality of care for women with gynecological cancers across Europe, the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) first published in 2017 evidence-based guidelines for the management of patients with vulvar cancer. OBJECTIVE: To update the ESGO guidelines based on the new evidence addressing the management of vulvar cancer and to cover new topics in order to provide comprehensive guidelines on all relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment of vulvar cancer. METHODS: The ESGO Council nominated an international development group comprised of practicing clinicians who provide care to vulvar cancer patients and have demonstrated leadership through their expertize in clinical care and research, national and international engagement and profile as well as dedication to the topics addressed to serve on the expert panel (18 experts across Europe). To ensure that the statements were evidence-based, new data identified from a systematic search were reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the international development group. Prior to publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 206 international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives. RESULTS: The updated guidelines cover comprehensively diagnosis and referral, staging, pathology, pre-operative investigations, surgical management (local treatment, groin treatment, sentinel lymph node procedure, reconstructive surgery), (chemo)radiotherapy, systemic treatment, treatment of recurrent disease (vulvar, inguinal, pelvic, and distant recurrences), and follow-up. Management algorithms are also defined.

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.

Niraparib in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Advanced Ovarian Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Niraparib, an inhibitor of poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase (PARP), has been associated with significantly increased progression-free survival among patients with recurrent ovarian cancer after platinum-based chemotherapy, regardless of the presence or absence of BRCA mutations. The efficacy of niraparib in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer after a response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy is unknown. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer in a 2:1 ratio to receive niraparib or placebo once daily after a response to platinum-based chemotherapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival in patients who had tumors with homologous-recombination deficiency and in those in the overall population, as determined on hierarchical testing. A prespecified interim analysis for overall survival was conducted at the time of the primary analysis of progression-free survival. RESULTS: Of the 733 patients who underwent randomization, 373 (50.9%) had tumors with homologous-recombination deficiency. Among the patients in this category, the median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the niraparib group than in the placebo group (21.9 months vs. 10.4 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31 to 0.59; P<0.001). In the overall population, the corresponding progression-free survival was 13.8 months and 8.2 months (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.76; P<0.001). At the 24-month interim analysis, the rate of overall survival was 84% in the niraparib group and 77% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.44 to 1.11). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or higher were anemia (in 31.0% of the patients), thrombocytopenia (in 28.7%), and neutropenia (in 12.8%). No treatment-related deaths occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer who had a response to platinum-based chemotherapy, those who received niraparib had significantly longer progression-free survival than those who received placebo, regardless of the presence or absence of homologous-recombination deficiency. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02655016.).