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.

Niraparib first-line maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer: final overall survival results from PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial.

BACKGROUND: The phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial met its primary endpoint. Niraparib first-line maintenance significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) among patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer (aOC) that responded to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, regardless of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) status. Final overall survival (OS) results are reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 2:1 to niraparib or placebo, stratified by response to first-line treatment, receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and tumor HRD status. After reaching 60% target maturity, OS was evaluated via a stratified log-rank test using randomization stratification factors and summarized using Kaplan-Meier methodology. OS testing was hierarchical (overall population first, then the homologous recombination-deficient [HRd] population). Other secondary outcomes and long-term safety were assessed; an updated, ad hoc analysis of investigator-assessed PFS was also conducted (cutoff date, 08Apr2024). RESULTS: Median follow-up was 73.9 months. In the overall population, the OS hazard ratio (HR) was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.84-1.23; P= 0.8834) for niraparib (n= 487) versus placebo (n;= 246). In the HRd (n= 373) and homologous recombination-proficient (n= 249) populations, the OS HRs were 0.95 (95% CI, 0.71-1.29) and 0.93 (95% CI 0.69-1.26), respectively. Subsequent poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor therapy was received by 11.7% and 15.8% of niraparib patients and 37.8% and 48.4% of placebo patients in the overall and HRd populations, respectively. The 5-year PFS rate numerically favored niraparib in the overall (niraparib, 22%; placebo, 12%) and HRd populations (niraparib, 35%; placebo, 16%). Myelodysplastic syndromes/acute myeloid leukemia incidence was <2.5% (niraparib, 2.3%; placebo, 1.6%). No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with newly diagnosed aOC at high risk of recurrence, there was no difference in OS between treatment arms. In the HRd population, patients alive at 5 years were twice as likely to be progression free with niraparib treatment than placebo. Long-term safety remained consistent with the established niraparib safety profile.

Overall survival in patients with endometrial cancer treated with dostarlimab plus carboplatin-paclitaxel in the randomized ENGOT-EN6/GOG-3031/RUBY trial.

BACKGROUND: Part 1 of the RUBY trial (NCT03981796) evaluated dostarlimab plus carboplatin-paclitaxel compared with placebo plus carboplatin-paclitaxel in patients with primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (EC). At the first interim analysis, the trial met one of its dual primary endpoints with statistically significant progression-free survival benefits in the mismatch repair-deficient/microsatellite instability-high (dMMR/MSI-H) and overall populations. Overall survival (OS) results are reported from the second interim analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: RUBY is a phase III, global, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Part 1 of RUBY enrolled eligible patients with primary advanced stage III or IV or first recurrent EC who were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to receive either dostarlimab (500 mg) or placebo, plus carboplatin-paclitaxel every 3 weeks for 6 cycles followed by dostarlimab (1000 mg) or placebo every 6 weeks for up to 3 years. OS was a dual primary endpoint. RESULTS: A total of 494 patients were randomized (245 in the dostarlimab arm; 249 in the placebo arm). In the overall population, with 51% maturity, RUBY met the dual primary endpoint for OS at this second interim analysis, with a statistically significant reduction in the risk of death [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54-0.89, P = 0.0020] in patients treated with dostarlimab plus carboplatin-paclitaxel versus carboplatin-paclitaxel alone. The risk of death was lower in the dMMR/MSI-H population (HR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.17-0.63, nominal P = 0.0002) and a trend in favor of dostarlimab was seen in the mismatch repair-proficient/microsatellite stable population (HR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.60-1.04, nominal P = 0.0493). The safety profile for dostarlimab plus carboplatin-paclitaxel was consistent with the first interim analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Dostarlimab in combination with carboplatin-paclitaxel demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful OS benefit in the overall population of patients with primary advanced or recurrent EC while demonstrating an acceptable safety profile.

NSGO-OV-UMB1/ENGOT-OV30: A phase II study of durvalumab in combination with the anti-CD73 monoclonal antibody Oleclumab in patients with relapsed ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVES: In patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), the clinical efficacy of monotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) against PD-1/PD-L1 is modest. To enhance response rates to these immunotherapeutic agents and broaden the indications for their use, new approaches involving combinational therapy are needed. The immune regulator CD73 is a potential target, as it promotes tumor escape by producing immunosuppressive extracellular adenosine in the tumor microenvironment. Here, we present the results from the NSGO-OV-UMB1/ENGOT-OV-30 trial evaluating the activity of combining the anti-CD73 antibody oleclumab with the anti-PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitor durvalumab in patients with recurrent EOC. METHODS: In this phase II open-label non-randomized study, patients with CD73-positive relapsed EOC were intravenously administered oleclumab (3000 mg, Q2W) and durvalumab (1500 mg, Q4W). The primary endpoint was disease control rate (DCR) at 16 weeks. The expression of PD-L1 and CD8 was assessed by immunohistochemistry of archival tumors. RESULTS: This trial included 25 patients with a median age of 66 years (47-77 years). Twenty-two patients were evaluable for treatment activity analysis. The DCR was 27%, the median progression-free survival was 2.7 months (95% CI: 2.2-4.2) and the median overall survival was 8.4 months (95% CI: 5.0-13.4). Infiltration of CD8+ cells and PD-L1 expression on tumor cells were observed in partially overlapping sets of 74% of the tumor samples. Neither CD8- nor PD-L1-positivity were significantly associated with better DCR. CONCLUSIONS: Combined treatment with oleclumab and durvalumab was safe and demonstrated limited anti-tumor activity in patients with recurrent EOC.

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.

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.

Niraparib maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer using an individualized starting dose (NORA): a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial☆.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated maintenance treatment with niraparib, a potent inhibitor of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 1/2, in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled study conducted at 30 centers in China, adults with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer who had responded to their most recent platinum-containing chemotherapy were randomized 2 : 1 to receive oral niraparib (300 mg/day) or matched placebo until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (NCT03705156). Following a protocol amendment, patients with a bodyweight <77 kg or a platelet count <150 × 103/µl received 200 mg/day, and all other patients 300 mg/day, as an individualized starting dose (ISD). Randomization was carried out by an interactive web response system and stratified by BRCA mutation, time to recurrence following penultimate chemotherapy, and response to most recent chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by blinded independent central review. RESULTS: Between 26 September 2017 and 2 February 2019, 265 patients were randomized to receive niraparib (n = 177) or placebo (n = 88); 249 patients received an ISD (300 mg, n = 14; 200 mg, n = 235) as per protocol. In the intention-to-treat population, median PFS was significantly longer for patients receiving niraparib versus placebo: 18.3 [95% confidence interval (CI), 10.9-not evaluable] versus 5.4 (95% CI, 3.7-5.7) months [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.23-0.45; P < 0.0001], and a similar PFS benefit was observed in patients receiving an ISD, regardless of BRCA mutation status. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 50.8% and 19.3% of patients who received niraparib and placebo, respectively; the most common events were neutrophil count decreased (20.3% versus 8.0%) and anemia (14.7% versus 2.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Niraparib maintenance treatment reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 68% and prolonged PFS compared to placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer. Individualized niraparib dosing is effective and safe and should be considered standard practice in this setting.

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.

Phase 2 study of the Exportin 1 inhibitor selinexor in patients with recurrent gynecological malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Selinexor is an oral inhibitor of the nuclear export protein Exportin 1 (XPO1) with demonstrated antitumor activity in solid and hematological malignancies. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of selinexor in heavily pretreated, recurrent gynecological malignancies. METHODS: In this phase 2 trial, patients received selinexor (35 or 50 mg/m2 twice-weekly [BIW] or 50 mg/m2 once-weekly [QW]) in 4-week cycles. Primary endpoint was disease control rate (DCR) including complete response (CR), partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD) ≥12 weeks. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety. RESULTS: 114 patients with ovarian (N = 66), endometrial (N = 23) or cervical (N = 25) cancer were enrolled. Median number of prior regimens for ovarian, endometrial and cervical cancer was 6 (1-11), 2 (1-5), and 3 (1-6) respectively. DCR was 30% (ovarian 30%; endometrial 35%; cervical 24%), which included confirmed PRs in 8%, 9%, and 4% of patients with ovarian, endometrial, and cervical cancer respectively. Median PFS and OS for patients with ovarian, endometrial and cervical cancer were 2.6, 2.8 and 1.4 months, and 7.3, 7.0, and 5.0 months, respectively. Common Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) were thrombocytopenia (17%), fatigue (14%), anemia (10%), nausea (9%) and hyponatremia (9%). Patients with ovarian cancer receiving 50 mg/m2 QW had fewer high-grade AEs with similar efficacy as BIW treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Selinexor demonstrated single-agent activity and disease control in patients with heavily pretreated ovarian and endometrial cancers. Side effects were a function of dose level and treatment frequency, similar to previous reports, reversible and mitigated with supportive care.

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.

Latest clinical evidence and further development of PARP inhibitors in ovarian cancer.

For several decades, the systemic treatment of ovarian cancer has involved chemotherapy, with the relatively recent addition of antiangiogenic strategies given with chemotherapy and in the maintenance setting. In the past decade, numerous poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP)-inhibiting agents have been assessed. We review key trials that have led to the approval of three PARP inhibitors-olaparib, niraparib and rucaparib-as maintenance therapy for platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer. We discuss the efficacy and safety of these agents in the populations studied in clinical trials. We then provide an overview of the numerous avenues of ongoing research for PARP inhibitors in different treatment settings: as treatment rather than maintenance strategies and in combination with other anticancer approaches, including antiangiogenic and immunotherapeutic agents. Three phase III trials (NOVA, SOLO2 and ARIEL3) demonstrated remarkable improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with PARP inhibitors given as maintenance therapy in patients with complete or partial response after platinum-based therapy for platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Differences in trial design and patient populations influence the conclusions that can be drawn from these trials. Overall survival data are pending and there is a limited experience regarding long-term safety. PARP inhibitors have transformed the management of ovarian cancer and have changed the course of disease for many patients. Although recent approvals are irrespective of BRCA mutation or homologous repair deficiency status, genetic profiles, as well as dosing schedules, tolerability and affordability, may influence patient selection and the setting in which PARP inhibitors are used. The development and evolution of PARP inhibitors continue, with new agents, strategies, combinations and indications under intensive evaluation.

Safety and dose modification for patients receiving niraparib.

Background: Niraparib is a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor approved in the USA and Europe for maintenance treatment of adult patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer who are in complete or partial response to platinum-based chemotherapy. In the pivotal ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial, the dose reduction rate due to treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) was 68.9%, and the discontinuation rate due to TEAE was 14.7%, including 3.3% due to thrombocytopenia. A retrospective analysis was carried out to identify clinical parameters that predict dose reductions. Patients and methods: All analyses were carried out on the safety population, comprising all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. Patients were analyzed according to the study drug consumed (i.e., as treated). A predictive modeling method (decision trees) was used to identify important variables for predicting the likelihood of developing grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia within 30 days after the first dose of niraparib and determine cut-off points for chosen variables. Results: Following dose modification, 200 mg was the most commonly administered dose in the ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial. Baseline platelet count and baseline body weight were identified as risk factors for increased incidence of grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia. Patients with a baseline body weight <77 kg or a baseline platelet count <150 000/µl in effect received an average daily dose ∼200 mg (median = 207 mg) due to dose interruption and reduction. Progression-free survival in patients who were dose reduced to either 200 or 100 mg was consistent with that of patients who remained at the 300 mg starting dose. Conclusions: The analysis presented suggests that patients with baseline body weight of <77 kg or baseline platelets of <150 000/µl may benefit from a starting dose of 200 mg/day. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01847274.

Bevacizumab with or after chemotherapy for platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer: exploratory analyses of the AURELIA trial.

BACKGROUND: In the open-label randomized phase III AURELIA trial, adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC) significantly improved progression-free survival and response rate versus chemotherapy alone, but not overall survival (OS). We explored the effect of bevacizumab use after disease progression (PD) in patients randomized to chemotherapy alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In AURELIA, 361 women with PROC were randomized to chemotherapy alone or with bevacizumab. Patients initially randomized to chemotherapy were offered bevacizumab after PD. Post hoc analyses assessed efficacy and safety in three subgroups: chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy followed by bevacizumab after PD, and chemotherapy plus bevacizumab at randomization. RESULTS: Of the 182 patients randomized to chemotherapy alone, 72 (40%) received bevacizumab after PD and 110 (60%) never received bevacizumab. There were no significant differences in patient and disease characteristics between these subgroups at baseline or the time of PD. Compared with patients never receiving bevacizumab, the risk of death was significantly reduced in patients receiving bevacizumab either upfront with chemotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-0.90] or after PD (HR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.43-0.86). The tolerability of bevacizumab was similar with administration upfront or after PD. CONCLUSIONS: Post-PD bevacizumab use may have confounded OS results in AURELIA. In these exploratory analyses of non-randomized subgroups, bevacizumab use, either with chemotherapy or after PD on chemotherapy alone, improved OS compared with no bevacizumab. Combining bevacizumab with chemotherapy at first appearance of platinum resistance maximises the likelihood of patients receiving this active treatment for PROC. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00976911.

Fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference of the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup: recurrent disease.

This manuscript reports the consensus statements regarding recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC), reached at the fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference (OCCC), which was held in Tokyo, Japan, in November 2015. Three important questions were identified: (i) What are the subgroups for clinical trials in ROC? The historical definition of using platinum-free interval (PFI) to categorise patients as having platinum-sensitive/resistant disease was replaced by therapy-free interval (TFI). TFI can be broken down into TFIp (PFI), TFInp (non-PFI) and TFIb (biological agent-free interval). Additional criteria to consider include histology, BRCA mutation status, number/type of previous therapies, outcome of prior surgery and patient reported symptoms. (ii) What are the control arms for clinical trials in ROC? When platinum is considered the best option, the control arm should be a platinum-based therapy with or without an anti-angiogenic agent or a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor. If platinum is not considered the best option, the control arm could include a non-platinum drug, either as single agent or in combination. (iii) What are the endpoints for clinical trials in ROC? Overall survival (OS) is the preferred endpoint for patient cohorts with an expected median OS < or = 12 months. Progression-free survival (PFS) is an alternative, and it is the preferred endpoint when the expected median OS is > 12 months. However, PFS alone should not be the only endpoint and must be supported by additional endpoints including pre-defined patient reported outcomes (PROs), time to second subsequent therapy (TSST), or time until definitive deterioration of quality of life (TUDD).

ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO Consensus Conference on Endometrial Cancer: diagnosis, treatment and follow-up.

The first joint European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), European SocieTy for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) and European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) consensus conference on endometrial cancer was held on 11-13 December 2014 in Milan, Italy, and comprised a multidisciplinary panel of 40 leading experts in the management of endometrial cancer. Before the conference, the expert panel prepared three clinically relevant questions about endometrial cancer relating to the following four areas: prevention and screening, surgery, adjuvant treatment and advanced and recurrent disease. All relevant scientific literature, as identified by the experts, was reviewed in advance. During the consensus conference, the panel developed recommendations for each specific question and a consensus was reached. Results of this consensus conference, together with a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation, are detailed in this article. All participants have approved this final article.

Poor concordance between CA-125 and RECIST at the time of disease progression in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer: analysis of the AURELIA trial.

BACKGROUND: Data on CA-125 as a predictor of disease progression (PD) in ovarian cancer come predominantly from patients with platinum-sensitive disease receiving chemotherapy alone. We assessed concordance between CA-125-defined and RECIST-defined PD using data from the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) randomized phase III AURELIA trial in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with PROC were randomized to receive single-agent chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. PD by CA-125 was defined according to GCIG criteria (except that confirmatory CA-125 measurement was not required). This exploratory analysis included patients with RECIST PD and a CA-125 reading ≤28 days before and ≤21 days after RECIST-defined PD. RESULTS: Of 218 eligible patients, only 94 (43%, 95% confidence interval 36% to 50%) had concordant RECIST and CA-125 PD status (42% in the chemotherapy-alone arm; 45% in the bevacizumab combination arm, P = 0.6). There was no evidence of CA-125-defined PD in the remaining 124 patients despite PD according to imaging. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between patients with PD defined by both RECIST and CA-125 and those with RECIST-only PD. CA-125 was even less sensitive in detecting PD in patients with early (<8 weeks after randomization) compared with later RECIST-defined PD (69% versus 53%, respectively, not meeting CA-125 criteria; P = 0.053). There was no significant difference in survival after PD in patients with concordant PD by RECIST and CA-125 versus those with PD only by RECIST. We validated our findings in an independent study population of PROC. CONCLUSIONS: In this platinum-resistant population, PD was typically detected earlier by imaging than by CA-125, irrespective of bevacizumab treatment. Disease status by CA-125 at the time of PD was not prognostic for overall survival. Regular radiologic assessment as well as symptom benefit assessment should be considered during PROC follow-up.

Cystic Lymph Node: Caution of Safety in Calot's Triangle Dissection.

Different landmarks are described in laparoscopic cholecystectomy for correct identification and orientation of structures to make the procedure as safe as possible. Among these one of the important landmarks is cystic lymphnode which always lies lateral to the biliary tree and forms the medial end point of dissection. This study was done to determine frequency of identification of cystic lymph node in our population. This retrospective descriptive study was conducted on 217 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy for cholelithiasis from January 2012 to December 2013 over a period of two years in Jamal Noor Hospital and Hamdard University Hospital Karachi. All procedures were recorded and reviewed. Frequency of identification of cystic lymph node was documented in different levels of difficulty and whether it was possible to keep the dissection lateral to lymph node. Difficulty was assessed per-operatively by Cuschieri's scale. During dissection cystic lymph node was identified in 170(78.34%) cases. In majority of patients i.e. 165(97.05%), it was related to cystic artery. In 78(45.88%) patient dissection was possible lateral to lymph node. Cystic lymph node can be identified in majority of patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy and this identification helps in safe dissection of Calot's triangle. Efforts should be made to remain lateral to lymph node to avoid injuries to hepatic pedicle.