PARP inhibition with rucaparib alone followed by combination with atezolizumab: Phase Ib COUPLET clinical study in advanced gynaecological and triple-negative breast cancers.

BACKGROUND: Combining PARP inhibitors (PARPis) with immune checkpoint inhibitors may improve clinical outcomes in selected cancers. We evaluated rucaparib and atezolizumab in advanced gynaecological or triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). METHODS: After identifying the recommended dose, patients with PARPi-naive BRCA-mutated or homologous recombination-deficient/loss-of-heterozygosity-high platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer or TNBC received rucaparib plus atezolizumab. Tumour biopsies were collected pre-treatment, during single-agent rucaparib run-in, and after starting combination therapy. RESULTS: The most common adverse events with rucaparib 600 mg twice daily and atezolizumab 1200 mg on Day 1 every 3 weeks were gastrointestinal effects, fatigue, liver enzyme elevations, and anaemia. Responding patients typically had BRCA-mutated tumours and higher pre-treatment tumour levels of PD-L1 and CD8 + T cells. Markers of DNA damage repair decreased during rucaparib run-in and combination treatment in responders, but typically increased in non-responders. Apoptosis signature expression showed the reverse. CD8 + T-cell activity and STING pathway activation increased during rucaparib run-in, increasing further with atezolizumab. CONCLUSIONS: In this small study, rucaparib plus atezolizumab demonstrated acceptable safety and activity in BRCA-mutated tumours. Increasing anti-tumour immunity and inflammation might be a key mechanism of action for clinical benefit from the combination, potentially guiding more targeted development of such regimens. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03101280).

Results of a randomised Phase II trial of olaparib, chemotherapy or olaparib and cediranib in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: OCTOVA compared the efficacy of olaparib (O) versus weekly paclitaxel (wP) or olaparib + cediranib (O + C) in recurrent ovarian cancer (OC). AIMS: The main aim of the OCTOVA trial was to determine the progression-free survival (PFS) of olaparib (O) versus the oral combination of olaparib plus cediranib (O + C) and weekly paclitaxel (wP) in recurrent ovarian cancer (OC). METHODS: In total, 139 participants who had relapsed within 12 months of platinum therapy were randomised to O (300 mg twice daily), wP (80 mg/m2 d1,8,15, q28) or O + C (300 mg twice daily/20 mg daily, respectively). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) of olaparib (O) versus olaparib plus cediranib (O + C) or weekly paclitaxel (wP). The sample size was calculated to observe a PFS hazard ratio (HR) 0.64 in favour of O + C compared to O (20% one-sided type I error, 80% power). RESULTS: The majority had platinum-resistant disease (90%), 22% prior PARPi, 34% prior anti-angiogenic therapy, 30% germline BRCA1/2 mutations. The PFS was increased for O + C vs O (O + C 5.4 mo (2.3, 9.6): O 3.7 mo (1.8, 7.6) HR = 0.73; 60% CI: 0.59, 0.89; P = 0.1) and no different between wP and O (wP 3.9 m (1.9, 9.1); O 3.7 mo (1.8, 7.6) HR = 0.89, 60% CI: 0.72, 1.09; P = 0.69). The main treatment-related adverse events included manageable diarrhoea (4% Grade 3) and hypertension (4% Grade 3) in the O + C arm. DISCUSSION: OCTOVA demonstrated the activity of O + C in women with recurrent disease, offering a potential non-chemotherapy option. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14784018, registered on 19th January 2018 http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN14784018 .

Phase I/II sequencing study of azacitidine, epacadostat, and pembrolizumab in advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase 1 (IDO1), an interferon-inducible enzyme, contributes to tumor immune intolerance. Immune checkpoint inhibition may increase interferon levels; combining IDO1 inhibition with immune checkpoint blockade represents an attractive strategy. Epigenetic agents trigger interferon responses and may serve as an immunotherapy priming method. We evaluated whether epigenetic therapy plus IDO1 inhibition and immune checkpoint blockade confers clinical benefit to patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: ECHO-206 was a Phase I/II study where treatment-experienced patients with advanced solid tumors (N = 70) received azacitidine plus an immunotherapy doublet (epacadostat [IDO1 inhibitor] and pembrolizumab). Sequencing of treatment was also assessed. Primary endpoints were safety/tolerability (Phase I), maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or pharmacologically active dose (PAD; Phase I), and investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR; Phase II). RESULTS: In Phase I, no dose-limiting toxicities were reported, the MTD was not reached; a PAD was not determined. ORR was 5.7%, with four partial responses. The most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were fatigue (42.9%) and nausea (42.9%). Twelve (17.1%) patients experienced ≥1 fatal AE, one of which (asthenia) was treatment-related. CONCLUSIONS: Although the azacitidine-epacadostat-pembrolizumab regimen was well tolerated, it was not associated with substantial clinical response in patients with advanced solid tumors previously exposed to immunotherapy.

A Phase 1/2 trial of SRA737 (a Chk1 inhibitor) administered orally in patients with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: This was a first-in-human Phase 1/2 open-label dose-escalation study of the novel checkpoint kinase 1 (Chk1) inhibitor SRA737. METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumours enrolled in dose-escalation cohorts and received SRA737 monotherapy orally on a continuous daily (QD) dosing schedule in 28-day cycles. Expansion cohorts included up to 20 patients with prospectively selected, pre-specified response predictive biomarkers. RESULTS: In total, 107 patients were treated at dose levels from 20-1300 mg. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of SRA737 was 1000 mg QD, the recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) was 800 mg QD. Common toxicities of diarrhoea, nausea and vomiting were generally mild to moderate. Dose-limiting toxicity at daily doses of 1000 and 1300 mg QD SRA737 included gastrointestinal events, neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. Pharmacokinetic analysis at the 800 mg QD dose showed a mean Cmin of 312 ng/mL (546 nM), exceeding levels required to cause growth delay in xenograft models. No partial or complete responses were seen. CONCLUSIONS: SRA737 was well tolerated at doses that achieved preclinically relevant drug concentrations but single agent activity did not warrant further development as monotherapy. Given its mechanism of action resulting in abrogating DNA damage repair, further clinical development of SRA737 should be as combination therapy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02797964.

Efficacy and safety of rucaparib treatment in patients with BRCA-mutated, relapsed ovarian cancer: final results from Study 10.

BACKGROUND: Study 10, a four-part Phase 1/2 study, evaluated oral rucaparib monotherapy in patients with advanced solid tumours. Here we report the final efficacy and safety results in heavily pretreated patients with ovarian cancer who received rucaparib in Study 10 Parts 2A and 2B. METHODS: Parts 2A and 2B (Phase 2 portions) enrolled patients with relapsed, high-grade, platinum-sensitive or platinum-resistant, BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer who had received 2-4 (Part 2A) or 3-4 (Part 2B) prior chemotherapies. Patients received oral rucaparib 600 mg twice daily (starting dose). The primary endpoint was the investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST v1.1. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were enrolled: 42 in Part 2A (all had platinum-sensitive disease) and 12 in Part 2B (4 with platinum-sensitive disease; 8 with platinum-resistant disease). ORR was 59.3% (95% CI 45.0-72.4%). The median time to onset of the most common nonhaematological treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was typically early (<56 days) and was later for haematological TEAEs (53-84 days). The median duration of grade ≥3 TEAEs was ≤13 days. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with relapsed, platinum-sensitive or platinum-resistant germline BRCA-mutant high-grade ovarian cancer who had received ≥2 prior chemotherapies, rucaparib had robust antitumour activity with a safety profile consistent with prior reports. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01482715.

A Phase 1B open-label study of gedatolisib (PF-05212384) in combination with other anti-tumour agents for patients with advanced solid tumours and triple-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: This Phase 1b study (B2151002) evaluated the PI3K/mTOR inhibitor gedatolisib (PF-05212384) in combination with other anti-tumour agents in advanced solid tumours. METHODS: Patients with various malignancies were administered gedatolisib (90‒310 mg intravenously every week [QW]) plus docetaxel (arm A) or cisplatin (arm B) (each 75 mg/m2 intravenously Q3W) or dacomitinib (30 or 45 mg/day orally). The safety and tolerability of combination therapies were assessed during dose escalation; objective response (OR) and safety were assessed during dose expansion. RESULTS: Of 110 patients enrolled, 107 received gedatolisib combination treatment. Seven of 70 (10.0%) evaluable patients had dose-limiting toxicities; the most common was grade 3 oral mucositis (n = 3). Based upon reprioritisation of the sponsor's portfolio, dose expansion focused on arm B, gedatolisib (180 mg QW) plus cisplatin in patients (N = 22) with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). OR (95% CI) was achieved in four of ten patients in first-line (overall response rate 40.0% [12.2-73.8%]) and four of 12 in second/third-line (33.3% [9.9-65.1%]) settings. One patient in each TNBC arm (10%, first-line; 8.3%, second/third-line) achieved a complete response. CONCLUSIONS: Gedatolisib combination therapy showed an acceptable tolerability profile, with clinical activity at the recommended Phase 2 dose in patients with TNBC. CLINICAL TRIAL: ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01920061.

Folate receptor alpha in ovarian cancer tissue and patient serum is associated with disease burden and treatment outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Survival rates for ovarian cancer remain poor, and monitoring and prediction of therapeutic response may benefit from additional markers. Ovarian cancers frequently overexpress Folate Receptor alpha (FRα) and the soluble receptor (sFRα) is measurable in blood. Here we investigated sFRα as a potential biomarker. METHODS: We evaluated sFRα longitudinally, before and during neo-adjuvant, adjuvant and palliative therapies, and tumour FRα expression status by immunohistrochemistry. The impact of free FRα on the efficacy of anti-FRα treatments was evaluated by an antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity assay. RESULTS: Membrane and/or cytoplasmic FRα staining were observed in 52.7% tumours from 316 ovarian cancer patients with diverse histotypes. Circulating sFRα levels were significantly higher in patients, compared to healthy volunteers, specifically in patients sampled prior to neoadjuvant and palliative treatments. sFRα was associated with FRα cell membrane expression in the tumour. sFRα levels decreased alongside concurrent tumour burden in patients receiving standard therapies. High concentrations of sFRα partly reduced anti-FRα antibody tumour cell killing, an effect overcome by increased antibody doses. CONCLUSIONS: sFRα may present a non-invasive marker for tumour FRα expression, with the potential for monitoring patient response to treatment. Larger, prospective studies should evaluate FRα for assessing disease burden and response to systemic treatments.

Lurbinectedin in patients with pretreated endometrial cancer: results from a phase 2 basket clinical trial and exploratory translational study.

Second-line treatment of endometrial cancer is an unmet medical need. Lurbinectedin showed promising antitumor activity in a phase I study in combination with doxorubicin in advanced endometrial cancer. This phase 2 Basket trial evaluated lurbinectedin 3.2 mg/m2 1-h intravenous infusion every 3 weeks in a cohort of 73 patients with pretreated endometrial cancer. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) according to RECIST v1.1. Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), safety and an exploratory translational study. Confirmed complete (CR) and partial response (PR) was reported in two and six patients, respectively (ORR = 11.3%; 95%CI, 5.0-21.0%). Median DoR was 9.2 months (95%CI, 3.4-18.0 months), median PFS was 2.6 months (95%CI, 1.4-4.0 months) and median OS was 9.3 months (95%CI, 6.1-12.8 months). Molecular subtypes showed differences in PFS rate at 6 months (p53abn 23.7% vs. "No Specific Molecular Profile" [NSMP] 42.9%) and median OS (p53abn 6.6 months vs. NSMP 16.1 months). The most common treatment-related adverse events (mostly grade 1/2) were fatigue (54.8% of patients), nausea (50.7%), vomiting (26.0%) decreased appetite (17.8%). and constipation, (19.2%). The most common grade 3/4 toxicity was neutropenia (43.8%; grade 4, 19.2%; febrile neutropenia, 4.1%). In conclusion, considering the exploratory aim of this trial and the hints of antitumor activity observed together with a predictable and manageable safety profile, further biomarker-based development of lurbinectedin is recommended in this indication in combination with other agents. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02454972.

A plain language summary of results from the GARNET study of dostarlimab in patients with endometrial cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: Dostarlimab, also known by the brand name JEMPERLI, is a medicine that can be used to treat certain types of endometrial cancer. GARNET is an ongoing phase 1 clinical study that is testing the safety and side effects of dostarlimab and the best way to administer it to patients. The results presented in this summary are from a time point in the middle of the study. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: The results from the GARNET study published in 2022 showed how well dostarlimab worked for people participating in the study. Dostarlimab was found to reduce the size of tumors in patients with certain types of endometrial cancer. The patients treated with dostarlimab had side effects that could be managed and few severe side effects. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: The results of the GARNET study led to dostarlimab being approved to treat patients with certain types of endometrial cancer. For patients with advanced-stage endometrial cancer, or endometrial cancer that has come back after chemotherapy (recurrent), there are few treatment options. The results suggest that dostarlimab may provide long-term benefits for these patients.

Assessing the quality of patient-reported outcome measurements for gynecological cancers: a systematic review.

Aim: To provide perspective on patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) instruments to adopt in patients diagnosed with gynecological cancers. Methods: A systematic search was conducted to identify PROMs developed for or applied in gynecological cancer populations. PROMs identified in more than one study subsequently underwent assessment according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) criteria. Results: Overall, 55 PROMs were identified within the gynecological cancer setting, and 20 were assessed according to COSMIN guidelines. Most PROMs had limited information reported, but a best fit approach was adopted to recommend a number of instruments for use in patients with gynecological cancer. Conclusion: Further study to assess the methodological quality of each PROM utilized in gynecological cancers is warranted to endorse the recommendations of this review.

Gynecological cancers are cancers which occur in the reproductive system of women. The cervical cancer screening program and development of new treatments mean that women with gynecological cancers are now living longer than before. However, these new treatments may have side effects that can affect the quality of life of women with cancer. Many care providers now agree that looking at women's quality of life during their gynecological cancer journey is an important part of their treatment. Patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) are questionnaires that the patient completes to measure their symptoms and quality of life. There are a lot of PROMs available to choose from, and it can be difficult to select one that is relevant and understandable for all women with gynecological cancer. This article searched the literature to find all PROMs that can be completed by women with gynecological cancer and then measured each of the PROM's quality. PROM quality was measured by looking at validity (whether the questionnaire measures what it is supposed to measure), reliability (that the questionnaire is not subject to different errors in measuring), and sensitivity (that the questionnaire can measure changes in questionnaire scores over time). Overall, this study found that there were a few PROMs that were of good enough quality to be completed by women with gynecological cancers. These questionnaires are called the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire Cervical Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-CX24), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire Endometrial Cancer (EORTC QLQ-EN24), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Gynecologic Oncology Group ­ Neurotoxicity (FACT-GOG/Ntx), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy ­ Ovarian (FACT-O) and Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI). Each questionnaire can be filled out by women with different types of gynecological cancer, and the FSFI measures sexual problems that women may experience after cancer treatment.

Homologous recombination deficiency in newly diagnosed FIGO stage III/IV high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer: a multi-national observational study.

OBJECTIVE: Olaparib plus bevacizumab maintenance therapy improves survival outcomes in women with newly diagnosed, advanced, high-grade ovarian cancer with a deficiency in homologous recombination. We report data from the first year of routine homologous recombination deficiency testing in the National Health Service (NHS) in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland between April 2021 and April 2022. METHODS: The Myriad myChoice companion diagnostic was used to test DNA extracted from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor tissue in women with newly diagnosed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III/IV high-grade epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer. Tumors with homologous recombination deficiency were those with a BRCA1/2 mutation and/or a Genomic Instability Score (GIS) ≥42. Testing was coordinated by the NHS Genomic Laboratory Hub network. RESULTS: The myChoice assay was performed on 2829 tumors. Of these, 2474 (87%) and 2178 (77%) successfully underwent BRCA1/2 and GIS testing, respectively. All complete and partial assay failures occurred due to low tumor cellularity and/or low tumor DNA yield. 385 tumors (16%) contained a BRCA1/2 mutation and 814 (37%) had a GIS ≥42. Tumors with a GIS ≥42 were more likely to be BRCA1/2 wild-type (n=510) than BRCA1/2 mutant (n=304). The distribution of GIS was bimodal, with BRCA1/2 mutant tumors having a higher mean score than BRCA1/2 wild-type tumors (61 vs 33, respectively, χ2 test p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: This is the largest real-world evaluation of homologous recombination deficiency testing in newly diagnosed FIGO stage III/IV high-grade epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer. It is important to select tumor tissue with adequate tumor content and quality to reduce the risk of assay failure. The rapid uptake of testing across England, Wales, and Northern Ireland demonstrates the power of centralized NHS funding, center specialization, and the NHS Genomic Laboratory Hub network.

Rucaparib versus standard-of-care chemotherapy in patients with relapsed ovarian cancer and a deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation (ARIEL4): an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Few prospective studies have compared poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors to chemotherapy for the treatment of BRCA1-mutated or BRCA2-mutated ovarian carcinoma. We aimed to assess rucaparib versus platinum-based and non-platinum-based chemotherapy in this setting. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study (ARIEL4), conducted in 64 hospitals and cancer centres across 12 countries (Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Poland, Russia, Spain, Ukraine, the UK, and the USA), we recruited patients aged 18 years and older with BRCA1-mutated or BRCA2-mutated ovarian carcinoma, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and who had received two or more previous chemotherapy regimens. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (2:1), using an interactive response technology and block randomisation (block size of six) and stratified by progression-free interval after the most recent platinum-containing therapy, to oral rucaparib (600 mg twice daily) or chemotherapy (administered per institutional guidelines). Patients assigned to the chemotherapy group with platinum-resistant or partially platinum-sensitive disease were given paclitaxel (starting dose 60-80 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15); those with fully platinum-sensitive disease received platinum-based chemotherapy (single-agent cisplatin or carboplatin, or platinum-doublet chemotherapy). Patients were treated in 21-day or 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, assessed in the efficacy population (all randomly assigned patients with deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations without reversion mutations), and then in the intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned patients). Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of assigned study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02855944; enrolment is complete, and the study is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2017, and Sept 24, 2020, 930 patients were screened, of whom 349 eligible patients were randomly assigned to rucaparib (n=233) or chemotherapy (n=116). Median age was 58 years (IQR 52-64) and 332 (95%) patients were White. As of data cutoff (Sept 30, 2020), median follow-up was 25·0 months (IQR 13·8-32·5). In the efficacy population (220 patients in the rucaparib group; 105 in the chemotherapy group), median progression-free survival was 7·4 months (95% CI 7·3-9·1) in the rucaparib group versus 5·7 months (5·5-7·3) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·64 [95% CI 0·49-0·84]; p=0·0010). In the intention-to-treat population (233 in the rucaparib group; 116 in the chemotherapy group), median progression-free survival was 7·4 months (95% CI 6·7-7·9) in the rucaparib group versus 5·7 months (5·5-6·7) in the chemotherapy group (HR 0·67 [95% CI 0·52-0·86]; p=0·0017). Most treatment-emergent adverse events were grade 1 or 2. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse event was anaemia or decreased haemoglobin (in 52 [22%] of 232 patients in the rucaparib group vs six [5%] of 113 in the chemotherapy group). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 62 (27%) patients in the rucaparib group versus 13 (12%) in the chemotherapy group; serious adverse events considered related to treatment by the investigator occurred in 32 (14%) patients in the rucaparib group and six (5%) in the chemotherapy group. Three deaths were considered to be potentially related to rucaparib (one due to cardiac disorder, one due to myelodysplastic syndrome, and one with an unconfirmed cause). INTERPRETATION: Results from the ARIEL4 study support rucaparib as an alternative treatment option to chemotherapy for patients with relapsed, BRCA1-mutated or BRCA2-mutated ovarian carcinoma. FUNDING: Clovis Oncology.

Macrophages in ovarian cancer and their interactions with monoclonal antibody therapies.

The unmet clinical need for effective treatments in ovarian cancer has yet to be addressed using monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), which have largely failed to overcome tumour-associated immunosuppression, restrict cancer growth, and significantly improve survival. In recent years, experimental mAb design has moved away from solely targeting ovarian tumours and instead sought to modulate the wider tumour microenvironment (TME). Tumour-associated macrophages (TAMs) may represent an attractive therapeutic target for mAbs in ovarian cancer due to their high abundance and close proximity to tumour cells and their active involvement in facilitating several pro-tumoural processes. Moreover, the expression of several antibody crystallisable fragment (Fc) receptors and broad phenotypic plasticity of TAMs provide opportunities to modulate TAM polarisation using mAbs to promote anti-tumoural phenotypes. In this review, we discuss the role of TAMs in ovarian cancer TME and the emerging strategies to target the contributions of these cells in tumour progression through the rationale design of mAbs.

Patient-reported outcomes in the GARNET trial in patients with advanced or recurrent mismatch repair-deficient/microsatellite instability-high endometrial cancer treated with dostarlimab.

OBJECTIVE: There is an increase in patient-reported outcome assessments to gain information on new drug candidates from the patient's perspective. A data gap remains in patient-reported outcome measurements for anti-programmed death 1 (anti-PD-1) therapies in endometrial cancer. We present patient-reported outcome measures collected from patients with mismatch repair-deficient/microsatellite instability-high advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer treated with dostarlimab, an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody, in an expansion cohort of the GARNET trial. METHODS: GARNET (NCT02715284) is a phase I single-arm study of dostarlimab monotherapy in multiple tumor types. Patients with advanced or recurrent mismatch repair-deficient/microsatellite instability-high endometrial cancer were treated with 500 mg of intravenous dostarlimab once every 3 weeks for four cycles, then 1000 mg of intravenous dostarlimab every 6 weeks. Patient-reported outcome assessments were an exploratory endpoint, measured using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). RESULTS: At data cut-off, 88 patients with mismatch repair-deficient endometrial cancer were included in the analysis. Patient-reported outcome assessment completion was >95.5% throughout cycle 7 of the trial, with no individual domain completion <90.9%. Quality of life, emotional functioning, and social functioning showed improvement compared with baseline. All symptom scores showed either improvement or stability from baseline through cycle 7. Categorical change in response across all symptom scales and single-item response scores showed stability or improvement for most patients. For patients who saw a worsening of their categorical change in response, ≤7.4% experienced a 2-category worsening and ≤2.5% experienced a 3-category worsening. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients remained stable or had improved quality of life while receiving dostarlimab for the treatment of recurrent or advanced mismatch repair-deficient endometrial cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02715284.

Avelumab alone or in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer (JAVELIN Ovarian 200): an open-label, three-arm, randomised, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with ovarian cancer will relapse after receiving frontline platinum-based chemotherapy and eventually develop platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory disease. We report results of avelumab alone or avelumab plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) compared with PLD alone in patients with platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer. METHODS: JAVELIN Ovarian 200 was an open-label, parallel-group, three-arm, randomised, phase 3 trial, done at 149 hospitals and cancer treatment centres in 24 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer (maximum of three previous lines for platinum-sensitive disease, none for platinum-resistant disease) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via interactive response technology to avelumab (10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks), avelumab plus PLD (40 mg/m2 intravenously every 4 weeks), or PLD and stratified by disease platinum status, number of previous anticancer regimens, and bulky disease. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival by blinded independent central review and overall survival in all randomly assigned patients, with the objective to show whether avelumab alone or avelumab plus PLD is superior to PLD. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02580058. The trial is no longer enrolling patients and this is the final analysis of both primary endpoints. FINDINGS: Between Jan 5, 2016, and May 16, 2017, 566 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (combination n=188; PLD n=190, avelumab n=188). At data cutoff (Sept 19, 2018), median duration of follow-up for overall survival was 18·4 months (IQR 15·6-21·9) for the combination group, 17·4 months (15·2-21·3) for the PLD group, and 18·2 months (15·8-21·2) for the avelumab group. Median progression-free survival by blinded independent central review was 3·7 months (95% CI 3·3-5·1) in the combination group, 3·5 months (2·1-4·0) in the PLD group, and 1·9 months (1·8-1·9) in the avelumab group (combination vs PLD: stratified HR 0·78 [repeated 93·1% CI 0·59-1·24], one-sided p=0·030; avelumab vs PLD: 1·68 [1·32-2·60], one-sided p>0·99). Median overall survival was 15·7 months (95% CI 12·7-18·7) in the combination group, 13·1 months (11·8-15·5) in the PLD group, and 11·8 months (8·9-14·1) in the avelumab group (combination vs PLD: stratified HR 0·89 [repeated 88·85% CI 0·74-1·24], one-sided p=0·21; avelumab vs PLD: 1·14 [0·95-1·58], one-sided p=0·83]). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (18 [10%] in the combination group vs nine [5%] in the PLD group vs none in the avelumab group), rash (11 [6%] vs three [2%] vs none), fatigue (ten [5%] vs three [2%] vs none), stomatitis (ten [5%] vs five [3%] vs none), anaemia (six [3%] vs nine [5%] vs three [2%]), neutropenia (nine [5%] vs nine [5%] vs none), and neutrophil count decreased (eight [5%] vs seven [4%] vs none). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 32 (18%) patients in the combination group, 19 (11%) in the PLD group, and 14 (7%) in the avelumab group. Treatment-related adverse events resulted in death in one patient each in the PLD group (sepsis) and avelumab group (intestinal obstruction). INTERPRETATION: Neither avelumab plus PLD nor avelumab alone significantly improved progression-free survival or overall survival versus PLD. These results provide insights for patient selection in future studies of immune checkpoint inhibitors in platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer. FUNDING: Pfizer and Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.

Quantitative Multiplex Immunofluorescence Evaluation of the Tumor Microenvironment in Pretreatment Tumors of Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer and Serous Ovarian Carcinoma Treated with Liposomal Eribulin.

Eribulin inhibits microtubule polymerization and suppresses epithelial-mesenchymal transition. Conventional pathology approaches have not identified a precise predictive biomarker for Eribulin. We performed qmIF on pre-treatment tissue from 11 patients (6 TNBC, 5 HGSOC) treated with Eribulin-LF. T-lymphocytes were the dominant immune-subset in TME, with higher levels detected in stroma vs tumor (9% vs 2%). Greater density of CD3+ (p = 0.01) and CD3 + CD8+ (p = 0.03) cells and closer proximity between CD3 + CD8+ and tumor cells was observed in the patients with disease control (PR + SD) vs. progressive disease. QmIF identified an association between TIL infiltration and Eribulin-LF sensitivity, which should be evaluated further in prospective studies.

Lurbinectedin versus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin or topotecan in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer: A multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label phase 3 study (CORAIL).

OBJECTIVE: The randomized phase 3 CORAIL trial evaluated whether lurbinectedin improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared to pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) or topotecan in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to lurbinectedin 3.2 mg/m2 1-h i.v. infusion q3wk (experimental arm), versus PLD 50 mg/m2 1-h i.v. infusion q4wk or topotecan 1.50 mg/m2 30-min i.v. infusion Days 1-5 q3wk (control arm). Stratification factors were PS (0 vs. ≥1), prior PFI (1-3 months vs. >3 months), and prior chemotherapy lines (1-2 vs. 3). The primary endpoint was PFS by Independent Review Committee in all randomized patients. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02421588. RESULTS: 442 patients were randomized: 221 in lurbinectedin arm and 221 in control arm (127 PLD and 94 topotecan). With a median follow-up of 25.6 months, median PFS was 3.5 months (95% CI, 2.1-3.7) in the lurbinectedin arm and 3.6 months (95% CI, 2.7-3.8) in the control arm (stratified log-rank p = 0.6294; HR = 1.057). Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were most frequent in the control arm: 64.8% vs. 47.9% (p = 0.0005), mainly due to hematological toxicities. The most common grade ≥ 3 AEs were: fatigue (7.3% of patients) and nausea (5.9%) with lurbinectedin; mucosal inflammation (8.5%) and fatigue (8.0%) in the control arm. CONCLUSIONS: The primary endpoint of improvement in PFS was not met. Lurbinectedin showed similar antitumor efficacy and was better tolerated than current standard of care in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

Characterization of patients with long-term responses to rucaparib treatment in recurrent ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To describe molecular and clinical characteristics of patients with high-grade recurrent ovarian carcinoma (HGOC) who had long-term responses to the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor rucaparib. METHODS: This post hoc analysis pooled patients from Study 10 (NCT01482715; Parts 2A and 2B; n = 54) and ARIEL2 (NCT01891344; Parts 1 and 2; n = 491). Patients with investigator-assessed complete or partial response per RECIST were classified based on duration of response (DOR): long (≥1 year), intermediate (6 months to <1 year), or short (<6 months). Next-generation sequencing was used to detect deleterious mutations and loss of heterozygosity (LOH) in tumors. RESULTS: Overall, 25.3% (138/545) of enrolled patients were responders. Of these, 27.5% (38/138) had long-term responses; 28.3% (39/138) were intermediate- and 34.8% (48/138) were short-term responders. Most of the long-term responders harbored a BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA) mutation (71.1%, 27/38), and BRCA structural variants were most frequent among long-term responders (14.8%; 4/27). Responders with HGOC harboring a BRCA structural variant (n = 5) had significantly longer DOR than patients with other mutation types (n = 81; median not reached vs 0.62 years; HR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.10-0.43; unadjusted p = 0.014). Among responders with BRCA wild-type HGOC, most long- and intermediate-term responders had high genome-wide LOH: 81.8% (9/11) and 76.9% (10/13), respectively, including 7 with deleterious RAD51C, RAD51D, or CDK12 mutations. CONCLUSION: Among patients who responded to rucaparib, a substantial proportion achieved responses lasting ≥1 year. These analyses demonstrate the relationship between DOR to PARP inhibitor treatment and molecular characteristics in HGOC, such as presence of reversion-resistant BRCA structural variants.

Population exposure-efficacy and exposure-safety analyses for rucaparib in patients with recurrent ovarian carcinoma from Study 10 and ARIEL2.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate correlations between rucaparib exposure and selected efficacy and safety endpoints in patients with recurrent ovarian carcinoma using pooled data from Study 10 and ARIEL2. METHODS: Efficacy analyses were limited to patients with carcinomas harboring a deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation who had received ≥2 prior lines of chemotherapy. Safety was evaluated in all patients who received ≥1 rucaparib dose. Steady-state daily area under the concentration-time curve (AUCss) and maximum concentration (Cmax,ss) for rucaparib were calculated for each patient and averaged by actual dose received over time (AUCavg,ss and Cmax,avg,ss) using a previously developed population pharmacokinetic model. RESULTS: Rucaparib exposure was dose-proportional and not associated with baseline patient weight. In the exposure-efficacy analyses (n = 121), AUCavg,ss was positively associated with independent radiology review-assessed RECIST response in the subgroup of patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent disease (n = 75, p = 0.017). In the exposure-safety analyses (n = 393, 40 mg once daily to 840 mg twice daily [BID] starting doses), most patients received a 600 mg BID rucaparib starting dose, with 27% and 21% receiving 1 or ≥2 dose reductions, respectively. Cmax,ss was significantly correlated with grade ≥2 serum creatinine increase, grade ≥3 alanine transaminase/aspartate transaminase increase, platelet decrease, fatigue/asthenia, and maximal hemoglobin decrease (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The exposure-response analyses provide support for the approved starting dose of rucaparib 600 mg BID for maximum clinical benefit with subsequent dose modification only following the occurrence of a treatment-emergent adverse event in patients with BRCA-mutated recurrent ovarian carcinoma.

Doxorubicin plus lurbinectedin in patients with advanced endometrial cancer: results from an expanded phase I study.

OBJECTIVE: Second-line treatment of endometrial cancer is an unmet medical need. We conducted a phase I study evaluating lurbinectedin and doxorubicin intravenously every 3 weeks in patients with solid tumors. The aim of this study was to characterise the efficacy and safety of lurbinectedin and doxorubicin for patients with endometrial cancer. METHODS: Thirty-four patients were treated: 15 patients in the escalation phase (doxorubicin 50 mg/m2 and lurbinectedin 3.0-5.0 mg) and 19 patients in the expansion cohort (doxorubicin 40 mg/m2 and lurbinectedin 2.0 mg/m2). All histological subtypes were eligible and patients had received one to two prior lines of chemotherapy for advanced disease. Antitumor activity was evaluated every two cycles according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Adverse events were graded according to the National Cancer Institute-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4. RESULTS: Median age (range) was 65 (51-78) years. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status was up to 1 in 97% of patients. In the escalation phase, 4 (26.7%) of 15 patients had confirmed response: two complete and two partial responses (95% CI 7.8% to 55.1%). Median duration of response was 19.5 months. Median progression-free survival was 7.3 (2.5 to 10.1) months. In the expansion cohort, confirmed partial response was reported in 8 (42.1%) of 19 patients (95% CI 20.3% to 66.5%). Median duration of response was 7.5 (6.4 to not reached) months, median progression-free survival was 7.7 (2.0 to 16.7) months and median overall survival was 14.2 (4.5 to not reached) months. Fatigue (26.3% of patients), and transient and reversible myelosuppression (neutropenia, 78.9%; febrile neutropenia, 21.1%; thrombocytopenia, 15.8%) were the main grade 3 and higher toxicities in the expanded cohort. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with recurrent advanced endometrial cancer treated with doxorubicin and lurbinectedin, response rates (42%) and duration of response (7.5 months) were favorable. Further evaluation of doxorubicin and lurbinectedin is warranted in this patient population.