Management of Malignant Bowel Obstruction: An Innovative Proactive Outpatient Nurse-Led Model of Care for Patients With Advanced Gynecologic Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) in patients with advanced gynecologic cancer (GyCa) can negatively impact clinical outcomes and quality of life. Oncology nurses can support these patients with adequate tools/processes. PROBLEM: Patients with GyCa with/at risk of MBO endure frequent emergency or hospital admissions, impacting patient care. APPROACH: Optimizing oncology nurses' role to improve care for patients with GyCa with/at risk of MBO, the gynecology oncology interprofessional team collaborated to develop a proactive outpatient nurse-led MBO model of care (MOC). OUTCOMES: The MBO MOC involves a risk-based algorithm engaging interdisciplinary care, utilizing standardized tools, risk-based assessment, management, and education for patients and nurses. The MOC has improved patient-reported confidence level of bowel self-management and decreased hospitalization. Following education, nurses demonstrated increased knowledge in MBO management. CONCLUSIONS: An outpatient nurse-led MBO MOC can improve patient care and may be extended to other cancer centers, fostering collaboration and best practice.

Adavosertib plus gemcitabine for platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory recurrent ovarian cancer: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The Wee1 (WEE1hu) inhibitor adavosertib and gemcitabine have shown preclinical synergy and promising activity in early phase clinical trials. We aimed to determine the efficacy of this combination in patients with ovarian cancer. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial, women with measurable recurrent platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory high-grade serous ovarian cancer were recruited from 11 academic centres in the USA and Canada. Women were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, a life expectancy of more than 3 months, and normal organ and marrow function. Women with ovarian cancer of non-high-grade serous histology were eligible for enrolment in a non-randomised exploratory cohort. Eligible participants with high-grade serous ovarian cancer were randomly assigned (2:1), using block randomisation (block size of three and six) and no stratification, to receive intravenous gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15) with either oral adavosertib (175 mg) or identical placebo once daily on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16, in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients and the team caring for each patient were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. The safety and efficacy analysis population comprised all patients who received at least one dose of treatment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02151292, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Sept 22, 2014, and May 30, 2018, 124 women were enrolled, of whom 99 had high-grade serous ovarian cancer and were randomly assigned to adavosertib plus gemcitabine (65 [66%]) or placebo plus gemcitabine (34 [34%]). 25 women with non-high-grade serous ovarian cancer were enrolled in the exploratory cohort. After randomisation, five patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer were found to be ineligible (four in the experimental group and one in the control group) and did not receive treatment. Median age for all treated patients (n=119) was 62 years (IQR 54-67). Progression-free survival was longer with adavosertib plus gemcitabine (median 4·6 months [95% CI 3·6-6·4] with adavosertib plus gemcitabine vs 3·0 months [1·8-3·8] with placebo plus gemcitabine; hazard ratio 0·55 [95% CI 0·35-0·90]; log-rank p=0·015). The most frequent grade 3 or worse adverse events were haematological (neutropenia in 38 [62%] of 61 participants in the adavosertib plus gemcitabine group vs ten [30%] of 33 in the placebo plus gemcitabine group; thrombocytopenia in 19 [31%] of 61 in the adavosertib plus gemcitabine group vs two [6%] of 33 in the placebo plus gemcitabine group). There were no treatment-related deaths; two patients (one in each group in the high-grade serous ovarian cancer cohort) died while on study medication (from sepsis in the experimental group and from disease progression in the control group). INTERPRETATION: The observed clinical efficacy of a Wee1 inhibitor combined with gemcitabine supports ongoing assessment of DNA damage response drugs in high-grade serous ovarian cancer, a TP53-mutated tumour type with high replication stress. This therapeutic approach might be applicable to other tumour types with high replication stress; larger confirmatory studies are required. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, US Department of Defense, Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation, and AstraZeneca.

Patient self-reporting of tolerability using PRO-CTCAE in a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial comparing gemcitabine in combination with adavosertib or placebo in patients with platinum resistant or refractory epithelial ovarian carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial assessed gemcitabine in combination with the wee1 inhibitor adavosertib or placebo in platinum resistant or refractory high grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC), demonstrating improved progression free and overall survival favouring the adavosertib/gemcitabine arm. An exploratory objective of the study included the PRO-CTCAE assessment, to capture self-reporting of frequency, severity and/or interference of symptomatic adverse events (syAEs). METHODS: PRO-CTCAE items at baseline, days 1 and 15 of each cycle and off treatment, were completed in two centres, with the objective of characterizing syAEs in the first three months of therapy. The maximum post-baseline score proportion for each syAE was tabulated per patient. The 12-week area under the curve (AUC12w) as a measure of syAE over-time and incremental AUC12w (iAUC12w) for adjustment to baseline syAEs. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients were approached for PRO-CTCAE surveys and 55 were evaluable. Among patients with HGSOC, 28 received gemcitabine/adavosertib (arm A) and 19 gemcitabine/placebo (arm B). Survey completion rates were high. The proportion of participants with positive (≥1) PRO-CTCAE scores was higher for difficulty swallowing with gemcitabine/adavosertib (arm A 35.7% vs arm B 5.3%, p = 0.02). The high score (≥3) syAEs showed more frequent diarrhea with gemcitabine/adavosertib (arm A 25% vs arm B 0%, p = 0.03). The proportions of worsening syAEs over time were higher in patients receiving gemcitabine/adavosertib for difficulty swallowing (arm A 35.7% vs arm B 5.3%; p = 0.03) and fatigue severity (arm A 71.43% vs arm B 42.1%; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The longitudinal assessment of patient self-reported tolerability showed greater difficulty swallowing and fatigue severity in patients receiving gemcitabine/adavosertib, compared to gemcitabine/placebo. PRO-CTCAE provides complementary and objective assessment of drug tolerability from a patient's perspective.

Optimizing clinical research procedures in public health emergencies.

Public Health Emergencies of International Concern, such as the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, have a devastating impact on an individual and societal level, and there is an urgent need to learn, understand and bridge the therapeutic gap at a time of extreme stress on the patient, health care systems and staff. Well-designed, controlled clinical trials play a crucial role in the discovery of novel diagnostic and management strategies; however, these catastrophic circumstances pose unique challenges in initiating research studies at institutional, national, and international levels, highlighting the importance of a coordinated, collaborative approach. This review discusses key elements necessary to consider for developing clinical trials within a Public Health Emergency setting.

Updates on systemic therapy for cervical cancer.

Cervical cancer is one of the most common cancers in the world both in terms of incidence and mortality, more so important in low- and middle-income countries. Surgery and radiotherapy remain the backbone of treatment for non-metastatic cervical cancer, with significant improvement in survival provided by addition of chemotherapy to radiotherapy. Survival as well as quality of life is improved by chemotherapy in metastatic disease. Platinum-based chemotherapy with/without bevacizumab is the mainstay of treatment for metastatic disease and has shown improvement in survival. The right combinations and sequence of treatment modalities and medicines are still evolving. Data regarding the molecular and genomic biology of cervical cancer have revealed multiple potential targets for treatment, and several new agents are presently under evaluation including targeted therapies, immunotherapies and vaccines. This review discusses briefly the current standards, newer updates as well as future prospective approaches in systemic therapies for cervical cancer.

DUETTE: a phase II randomized, multicenter study to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of a second maintenance treatment in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer, who have previously received poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor maintenance treatment.

BACKGROUND: With the success of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor therapy in the first-line and second-line treatment settings, a new patient population is emerging with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer, who have previously received a PARP inhibitor in the maintenance setting and for whom no second maintenance standard of care exists. DUETTE (NCT04239014) will evaluate the combination of ceralasertib (a potent, selective inhibitor of the serine/threonine kinase ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related protein (ATR) + olaparib, or olaparib monotherapy, compared with placebo, in this patient population of unmet need. PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: The primary objective is to assess the efficacy of ceralasertib + olaparib combination, and olaparib monotherapy, compared with placebo, as second maintenance therapy in platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer. STUDY HYPOTHESIS: This study will test the hypothesis that ceralasertib + olaparib, or olaparib monotherapy, is tolerable, and effective at prolonging progression-free survival compared with placebo. TRIAL DESIGN: This is a phase II, multicenter study where patients will be randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive either (Arm 1) ceralasertib + olaparib, (Arm 2) olaparib monotherapy, or (Arm 3) placebo. The olaparib and placebo arms will be double-blinded, whereas the ceralasertib + olaparib arm will be open label. Patients will be stratified according to BRCA status, and response to platinum-based chemotherapy. MAJOR INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Eligible patients will have histologically diagnosed high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer, with platinum-sensitive relapse on, or after, completion of at least 6 months of any prior PARP inhibitor maintenance therapy (a minimum of 12 months is required if the patient received PARP inhibitor maintenance following first-line chemotherapy). If the prior PARP inhibitor used was olaparib then patients must have received treatment without significant toxicity or the need for a permanent dose reduction. Disease relapse in the second-line or third-line setting is allowed. Patients who have received secondary debulking surgery are potentially eligible if they meet all other inclusion criteria. PRIMARY ENDPOINTS: The primary endpoint is progression-free survival determined by blinded independent central review according to RECIST 1.1, with sensitivity analysis of progression-free survival using investigator assessments according to RECIST 1.1. SAMPLE SIZE: 192 patients. ESTIMATED DATES FOR COMPLETING ACCRUAL AND PRESENTING RESULTS: December 2022. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04239014.

TP53 mutations in high grade serous ovarian cancer and impact on clinical outcomes: a comparison of next generation sequencing and bioinformatics analyses.

OBJECTIVE: Mutations in TP53 are found in the majority of high grade serous ovarian cancers, leading to gain of function or loss of function of its protein product, p53, involved in oncogenesis. There have been conflicting reports as to the impact of the type of these on prognosis. We aim to further elucidate this relationship in our cohort of patients. METHODS: 229 patients with high grade serous ovarian cancer underwent tumor profiling through an institutional molecular screening program with targeted next generation sequencing. TP53 mutations were classified using methods previously described in the literature. Immunohistochemistry on formalin-fixed paraffin embedded tissue was used to assess for TP53 mutation. Using divisive hierarchal clustering, we generated patient clusters with similar clinicopathologic characteristics to investigate differences in outcomes. RESULTS: Six different classification schemes of TP53 mutations were studied. These did not show an association with first platinum-free interval or overall survival. Next generation sequencing reliably predicted mutation in 80% of cases, similar to the proportion detected by immunohistochemistry. Divisive hierarchical clustering generated four main clusters, with cluster 3 having a significantly worse prognosis (p<0.0001; log-rank test). This cluster had a higher concentration of gain of function mutations and these patients were less likely to have undergone optimal debulking surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Different classifications of TP53 mutations did not show an impact on outcomes in this study. Immunohistochemistry was a good predictor for TP53 mutation. Cluster analysis showed that a subgroup of patients with gain of function mutations (cluster 3) had a worse prognosis.

Resisting RECIST-Uniformity Versus Clinical Validity.

OBJECTIVES: The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) International Working Group developed criteria for tumor response and progression to standardize radiological assessment in patients receiving chemotherapy in phase 2 trials. However, it is unclear whether the defined percentage change in tumor size and volume reflects true clinical benefit for the patient. The RECIST criteria were designed to improve objectivity in trials, but not to replace clinical decision making. The aim of this study was to understand clinicians' opinions about RECIST in current oncology practice. METHODS: Using Web-based questionnaires, we investigated attitudes to the use of RECIST at a large comprehensive cancer center and in an international group of gynecologic cancer specialists through the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup. The results reported here relate to the survey focusing on gynecologic cancer. RESULTS: Sixty medical professionals from 13 countries responded to the survey. The majority of respondents worked at a tertiary or specialist cancer center (51; 86%). Overall, 66% of respondents felt RECIST increased trial objectivity and was a good measure of response. The majority of respondents (81%) reported that they infrequently challenged RECIST evaluation. Overall, 60% felt more than 10% of patients came off trial for clinical rather than radiological progression. In the context of a new small lesion, only 35% felt that should always be considered disease progression. The importance of both clinician and radiologist input was highlighted with nontarget progression. Nontarget progression and target progression were recognized as equally important for clinical decision making (72%). CONCLUSIONS: RECIST is a key criterion for endpoint assessment in clinical trials with its value recognized by clinicians. However, this survey also highlights the practical limitations of RECIST. Disconnect can be seen between the radiological result and the clinical picture-learning from these patients is critical. Continued efforts to improve metrics assessing patient benefit in trials remains a priority.

New Targeted Agents in Endometrial Cancer: Are We Really Making Progress?

Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecological malignancy in Europe and North America. Metastatic and recurrent disease is generally incurable with poor prognosis. Recent advances in molecular profiling of endometrial cancer have elucidated four distinct molecular subtypes with different biology and prognosis which should facilitate the development of treatments tailored to disease-specific subgroups. To date, some molecular-targeted agents have shown interesting clinical activity in the recurrent setting, but no targeted therapies are approved for endometrial cancer. Novel pan-PI3K, AKT, and dual PI3K-mTOR inhibitors are being investigated with early signs of activity, but there are concerns about tolerability and toxicity in this often elderly patient population with comorbidities. The development of anti-angiogenic therapies, PARP inhibitors, and immunotherapies, alone or in combinations, appear to be promising strategies. This paper will describe the current evidence supporting the efficacy of molecular-targeted agents already tested in the treatment of metastatic and recurrent EC, and provide some insights on emerging data related to novel-targeted therapies.

Outcomes and endpoints in trials of cancer treatment: the past, present, and future.

Cancer treatment should allow patients to live better or longer lives, and ideally, both. Trial endpoints should show clinically meaningful improvements in patient survival or quality of life. Alternative endpoints such as progression-free survival, disease-free survival, and objective response rate have been used to identify benefit earlier, but their true validity as surrogate endpoints is controversial. In this Review we discuss the measurement, assessment, and benefits and limitations of trial endpoints in use for cancer treatment. Many stakeholders are affected, including regulatory agencies, industry partners, clinicians, and most importantly, patients. In an accompanying Review, reflections from individual stakeholders are incorporated into a discussion of what the future holds for clinical trial endpoints and design.

Outcomes and endpoints in cancer trials: bridging the divide.

Cancer is not one disease. Outcomes and endpoints in trials should incorporate the therapeutic modality and cancer type because these factors affect clinician and patient expectations. In this Review, we discuss how to: define the importance of endpoints; make endpoints understandable to patients; improve the use of patient-reported outcomes; advance endpoints to parallel changes in trial design and therapeutic interventions; and integrate these improvements into trials and practice. Endpoints need to reflect benefit to patients, and show that changes in tumour size either in absolute terms (response and progression) or relative to control (progression) are clinically relevant. Improvements in trial design should be accompanied by improvements in available endpoints. Stakeholders need to come together to determine the best approach for research that ensures accountability and optimises the use of available resources.

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.

Molecular determinants of outcome with mammalian target of rapamycin inhibition in endometrial cancer.

BACKGROUND: Targeting the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)/AKT/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway is of increasing interest as a therapeutic strategy in many tumors. The aim of this study was to identify molecular markers associated with mTOR inhibitor activity in women with metastatic endometrial cancer. METHODS: Archival tumor samples were collected from 94 women with recurrent or metastatic endometrial cancer who participated in 3 National Cancer Insitute of Canada Clinical Trials Group phase 2 trials investigating single-agent mTOR inhibitors: IND160A and IND160B (temsirolimus) and IND192 (ridaforolimus). Analyses included mutational profiling using the OncoCarta Panel version 1.0 and immunohistochemical expression of the tumor suppressor gene PTEN (phosphatase and tensin homologue) and stathmin, a marker of PI3K activation. Associations between biomarker results and clinical outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Mutations were found in 32 of 73 analyzed tumors, PIK3CA (21 patients) was the most common mutated gene. Co-mutations were seen in 8 tumors, most frequently KRAS and PIK3CA (4 cases). PTEN loss was observed in 46 of 85 samples analyzed and increased stathmin expression was observed in 15 of 65 analyzed samples. No correlation was observed between biomarkers and response or progression. In patients taking concurrent metformin, there was a trend toward lower progression, of 11.8% versus 32.5% (P = .14). CONCLUSIONS: No predictive biomarker or combination of biomarkers for mTOR inhibitor activity were identified in this study. Restriction and enrichment of study entry, especially based on archival tumor tissue, should be undertaken with caution in trials using these agents.

Chasing Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Ovarian Cancer: Novel Combinations and Biomarker Discovery.

A deep understanding of the tumor microenvironment and the recognition of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes as a prognostic factor have resulted in major milestones in immunotherapy that have led to therapeutic advances in treating many cancers. Yet, the translation of this knowledge to clinical success for ovarian cancer remains a challenge. The efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors as single agents or combined with chemotherapy has been unsatisfactory, leading to the exploration of alternative combination strategies with targeted agents (e.g., poly-ADP-ribose inhibitors (PARP)and angiogenesis inhibitors) and novel immunotherapy approaches. Among the different histological subtypes, clear cell ovarian cancer has shown a higher sensitivity to immunotherapy. A deeper understanding of the mechanism of immune resistance within the context of ovarian cancer and the identification of predictive biomarkers remain central discovery benchmarks to be realized. This will be critical to successfully define the precision use of immune checkpoint inhibitors for the treatment of ovarian cancer.

Angiogenesis: A Pivotal Therapeutic Target in the Drug Development of Gynecologic Cancers.

Since the discovery of angiogenesis and its relevance to the tumorigenesis of gynecologic malignancies, a number of therapeutic agents have been developed over the last decade, some of which have become standard treatments in combination with other therapies. Limited clinical activity has been demonstrated with anti-angiogenic monotherapies, and ongoing trials are focused on combination strategies with cytotoxic agents, immunotherapies and other targeted treatments. This article reviews the science behind angiogenesis within the context of gynecologic cancers, the evidence supporting the targeting of these pathways and future directions in clinical trials.

With Our Powers Combined: Exploring PARP Inhibitors and Immunotherapy.

ABSTRACT: The use of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies has seen substantial clinical success in oncology therapeutic development. Although multiple agents within these classes have achieved regulatory approval globally-in several malignancies in early and advanced stages-drug resistance remains an issue. Building on preclinical evidence, several early trials and late-phase studies are underway. This review explores the therapeutic potential of combination poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in solid tumors, including the scientific and therapeutic rationale, available clinical evidence, and considerations for future trial and biomarker development across different malignancies using ovarian and other solid cancer subtypes as key examples.

Angiogenesis Inhibitors as Anti-Cancer Therapy Following Renal Transplantation: A Case Report and Review of the Literature.

Solid organ transplant recipients on long-term immunosuppressive medication are at increased risk of developing malignancy, and treatment of advanced cancers with angiogenesis inhibitors in this context has not been widely studied. We present a case of recurrent high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma treated with paclitaxel and bevacizumab in the context of prior renal transplantation where the patient responded well to treatment with controlled toxicities, discussing the potential for increased rates of adverse events and drug interactions in this select population.

Ethical frameworks in clinical research processes during COVID-19: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic there have been significant developments in research, its conduct and the supporting ethical framework. While many protocols have been delayed, halted or modified, other research efforts have been accelerated, generating controversy. The goal of this paper is to determine the rates of references surrounding the ethical oversight of research as reported in current COVID-19-related research publications. DESIGN: Scoping review. SETTING: Population-based observational or interventional studies from December 2019 to May 2020 with sample size of two or more. Studies were searched through electronic databases including Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials. PARTICIPANTS: Eligibility criteria included participants within published studies who tested positive for COVID-19. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Data were extracted and charting methods included taking note of references to ethical frameworks, institutional review board (IRB), ethics committee (EC) or research ethics board (REB) involvement, consent processes, and other variables. RESULTS: 11 556 articles were screened, with 656 included in the final analysis. References to ethics were present in 530 (80.8%) studies, with 491 (74.8%) involving IRB/ECs/REBs and 126 (19.2%) not referencing ethics. Consent processes were outlined in 201 (30.6%) studies, with 198 (30.2%) reporting that they obtained consent waivers, however, 257 (39.2%) did not mention consent at all. Differences (p<0.001) in ethics-related references were apparent when analysed by continent, publication type, sample size and IF. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of published articles pertaining to COVID-19 research made mention of ethical considerations, however, national and regional variations in research ethics review requirements introduce heterogeneity between studies and raise important questions about the conduct of scientific research during global public emergencies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Open Science Framework: https://osfio/z67wb.

Can TP53 variant negative be high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma? A case series.

•TP53 variant negative high-grade serous ovarian cancer is rare and can still show p53 abnormal immunohistochemistry.•Diagnostic and therapeutic considerations include pathologic, molecular and clinical domains.•Genetic reassessment through more comprehensive assays should be considered to ensure no missed rare or complex variants.•Presence of BRCA mutations can occur in TP53 variant high-grade serous ovarian cancer.