Tisotumab Vedotin as Second- or Third-Line Therapy for Recurrent Cervical Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent cervical cancer is a life-threatening disease, with limited treatment options available when disease progression occurs after first-line combination therapy. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, multinational, open-label trial of tisotumab vedotin as second- or third-line therapy in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer. Patients were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive tisotumab vedotin monotherapy (2.0 mg per kilogram of body weight every 3 weeks) or the investigator's choice of chemotherapy (topotecan, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, irinotecan, or pemetrexed). The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 502 patients underwent randomization (253 were assigned to the tisotumab vedotin group and 249 to the chemotherapy group); the groups were similar with respect to demographic and disease characteristics. The median overall survival was significantly longer in the tisotumab vedotin group than in the chemotherapy group (11.5 months [95% confidence interval {CI}, 9.8 to 14.9] vs. 9.5 months [95% CI, 7.9 to 10.7]), results that represented a 30% lower risk of death with tisotumab vedotin than with chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.89; two-sided P = 0.004). The median progression-free survival was 4.2 months (95% CI, 4.0 to 4.4) with tisotumab vedotin and 2.9 months (95% CI, 2.6 to 3.1) with chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.82; two-sided P<0.001). The confirmed objective response rate was 17.8% in the tisotumab vedotin group and 5.2% in the chemotherapy group (odds ratio, 4.0; 95% CI, 2.1 to 7.6; two-sided P<0.001). A total of 98.4% of patients in the tisotumab vedotin group and 99.2% in the chemotherapy group had at least one adverse event that occurred during the treatment period (defined as the period from day 1 of dose 1 until 30 days after the last dose); grade 3 or greater events occurred in 52.0% and 62.3%, respectively. A total of 14.8% of patients stopped tisotumab vedotin treatment because of toxic effects. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with recurrent cervical cancer, second- or third-line treatment with tisotumab vedotin resulted in significantly greater efficacy than chemotherapy. (Funded by Genmab and Seagen [acquired by Pfizer]; innovaTV 301 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04697628.).

Dostarlimab for Primary Advanced or Recurrent Endometrial Cancer.

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

Top advances of the year: Uterine cancer.

Endometrial cancer continues to be the only gynecologic malignancy with a rising incidence and mortality, with both regional and global implications. Combination carboplatin and paclitaxel has been the recognized chemotherapy backbone for the treatment of advanced-stage or recurrent disease, with modest clinical outcomes. Over the last year, significant advances were achieved in improving oncologic outcomes by capitalizing on the molecular characterization of this heterogenous disease. These advances include incorporation of immunotherapy, identification of effective hormonal approaches, the evolution of antibody drug conjugates, and utilization of alternate targeted therapies. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: The molecular characterization of endometrial cancer has been critical in informing novel treatment strategies. Over the past year, significant gains have been made via the incorporation of immunotherapy, hormonal combinations as well as antibody drug conjugates.

Characterization and Management of Adverse Reactions in Patients With Advanced Endometrial Cancer Receiving Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab significantly improved efficacy compared with chemotherapy in patients with advanced endometrial cancer (aEC) regardless of microsatellite instability status or histologic subtype, who had disease progression following prior platinum-based therapy, in Study-309/KEYNOTE-775. The safety profile of the combination was generally consistent with that of each monotherapy drug and of the combination in patients with endometrial cancer and other solid tumors. Given the medical complexity of patients with aEC, this paper aims to characterize key adverse reactions (ARs) of the combination treatment and review management strategies, providing a guide for AR management to maximize anticancer benefits and minimize treatment discontinuation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In Study-309/KEYNOTE-775, patients received lenvatinib (20 mg orally once daily) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks) or chemotherapy (doxorubicin or paclitaxel). The incidence and median time to the first onset of ARs, dose modifications, and concomitant medications are described. Key ARs characterized include hypothyroidism, hypertension, fatigue, diarrhea, musculoskeletal disorders, nausea, decreased appetite, vomiting, stomatitis, weight decreased, proteinuria, and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome. RESULTS: As expected, the most common any-grade key ARs included: hypothyroidism, hypertension, fatigue, diarrhea, and musculoskeletal disorders. Grades 3-4 key ARs with incidence ≥10% included: hypertension, fatigue, and weight decreased. Key ARs first occurred within approximately 3 months of treatment initiation. AR management strategies consistent with the prescribing information and the study protocol are discussed. CONCLUSION: Successful AR management strategies for lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab include education of the patient and entire treatment team, preventative measures and close monitoring, and judicious use of dose modifications and concomitant medications. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV ID: NCT03517449.

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

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

Trametinib versus standard of care in patients with recurrent low-grade serous ovarian cancer (GOG 281/LOGS): an international, randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 2/3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Low-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary or peritoneum is characterised by MAPK pathway aberrations and its reduced sensitivity to chemotherapy relative to high-grade serous carcinoma. We compared the MEK inhibitor trametinib to physician's choice standard of care in patients with recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma. METHODS: This international, randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 2/3 trial was done at 84 hospitals in the USA and UK. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma and measurable disease, as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1, had received at least one platinum-based regimen, but not all five standard-of-care drugs, and had received an unlimited number of previous regimens. Patients with serous borderline tumours or tumours containing low-grade serous and high-grade serous carcinoma were excluded. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral trametinib 2 mg once daily (trametinib group) or one of five standard-of-care treatment options (standard-of-care group): intravenous paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 by body surface area on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 28-day cycle; intravenous pegylated liposomal doxorubicin 40-50 mg/m2 by body surface area once every 4 weeks; intravenous topotecan 4 mg/m2 by body surface area on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 28-day cycle; oral letrozole 2·5 mg once daily; or oral tamoxifen 20 mg twice daily. Randomisation was stratified by geographical region (USA or UK), number of previous regimens (1, 2, or ≥3), performance status (0 or 1), and planned standard-of-care regimen. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival while receiving randomised therapy, as assessed by imaging at baseline, once every 8 weeks for 15 months, and then once every 3 months thereafter, in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study therapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02101788, and is active but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Feb 27, 2014, and April 10, 2018, 260 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the trametinib group (n=130) or the standard-of-care group (n=130). At the primary analysis, there were 217 progression-free survival events (101 [78%] in the trametinib group and 116 [89%] in the standard-of-care group). Median progression-free survival in the trametinib group was 13·0 months (95% CI 9·9-15·0) compared with 7·2 months (5·6-9·9) in the standard-of-care group (hazard ratio 0·48 [95% CI 0·36-0·64]; p<0·0001). The most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the trametinib group were skin rash (17 [13%] of 128), anaemia (16 [13%]), hypertension (15 [12%]), diarrhoea (13 [10%]), nausea (12 [9%]), and fatigue (ten [8%]). The most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the standard-of-care group were abdominal pain (22 [17%]), nausea (14 [11%]), anaemia (12 [10%]), and vomiting (ten [8%]). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Trametinib represents a new standard-of-care option for patients with recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma. FUNDING: NRG Oncology, Cancer Research UK, Target Ovarian Cancer, and Novartis.

Point-of-Care Molecular Test for the Detection of 14 High-Risk Genotypes of Human Papillomavirus in a Single Tube.

Cervical cancers constitute a large disease burden in developing countries, with the human papillomavirus (HPV) being responsible for most cervical lesions. Many regions in low-resource countries lack adequate access to sensitive point-of-care (POC) screening tools, preventing timely diagnosis and treatment. To reduce screening barriers, we developed a POC HPV molecular test that detects 14 high-risk HPV types in 30 min in a single assay. We introduced innovations to the underlying amplification (recombinase polymerase amplification) and detection methodologies such as improved probe design, reagent lyophilization, and pipette-less processing to increase sensitivity while enabling minimally trained personnel to conduct reproducible testing. Based on 198 clinically derived samples, we demonstrated a sensitivity of 93% and a specificity of 73% compared to an FDA-approved polymerase chain reaction-based clinical method. Our modified pipette-less simplified assay had a sensitivity of 96% and a specificity of 83%. The application of our assay is intended as a near-patient screening tool with further evaluation by a clinician for confirmation.

Randomized phase II trial of farletuzumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy in low CA-125 platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The primary purpose of this study was to determine if farletuzumab, an antifolate receptor-α monoclonal antibody, improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo when added to standard chemotherapy regimens in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (OC) in first relapse (platinum-free interval: 6-36 months) with low cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) levels. METHODS: Eligibility included CA-125 ≤ 3 x upper limit of normal (ULN, 105 U/mL), high-grade serous, platinum-sensitive recurrent OC, previous treatment with debulking surgery, and first-line platinum-based chemotherapy with 1st recurrence between 6 and 36 months since frontline platinum-based treatment. Patients received investigator's choice of either carboplatin (CARBO)/paclitaxel (PTX) every 3 weeks or CARBO/pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) every 4 weeks x6 cycles in combination with either farletuzumab [5 mg/kg weekly] or placebo randomized in a 2:1 ratio. Maintenance treatment with farletuzumab (5 mg/kg weekly) or placebo was given until disease progression or intolerance. RESULTS: 214 patients were randomly assigned to farletuzumab+chemotherapy (142 patients) versus placebo+chemotherapy (72 patients). The primary efficacy endpoint, PFS, was not significantly different between treatment groups (1-sided α = 0.10; p-value = 0.25; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.89, 80% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71, 1.11), a median of 11.7 months (95% CI: 10.2, 13.6) versus 10.8 months (95% CI: 9.5, 13.2) for farletuzumab+chemotherapy and placebo+chemotherapy, respectively. No new safety concerns were identified with the combination of farletuzumab+chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Adding farletuzumab to standard chemotherapy does not improve PFS in patients with OC who were platinum-sensitive in first relapse with low CA-125 levels. Folate receptor-α expression was not measured in this study. (Clinical Trial Registry NCT02289950).

Immunotherapy in endometrial cancer.

The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) endometrial cancer data expanded our knowledge about the role of different immunotherapeutic approaches based on molecular subtypes. Immune checkpoint inhibitors demonstrated distinct antitumor activities as monotherapy or in combination. In microsatellite unstable (microsatellite instability-high) endometrial cancer, immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors showed promising single agent activity in recurrent settings. Different strategies are needed to enhance the response or reverse resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors, or both, in microsatellite instability-high endometrial cancer. On the other hand, single immune checkpoint inhibitors showed underwhelming efficacy in microsatellite stable endometrial cancer but this was significantly improved using a combination approach. Furthermore, studies are also needed to improve response along with ensuring safety and tolerability in microsatellite stable endometrial cancer. This review summarizes the current indications of immunotherapy for the treatment of advanced and recurrent endometrial cancer. We also outline potential future strategies for an immunotherapy based combination approach in endometrial cancer to combat resistance or enhance response to immune checkpoint inhibitors, or both.

Phase II activity trial of high-dose radiation and chemosensitization in patients with macrometastatic lymph node spread after sentinel node biopsy in vulvar cancer: GROningen INternational Study on Sentinel nodes in Vulvar cancer III (GROINSS-V III/NRG-GY024).

BACKGROUND: Standard treatment of early-stage vulvar cancer is a radical, wide, local excision of the primary tumor and a sentinel lymph node (SLN) procedure for the groins. An inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy is no longer necessary for patients who have a negative SLN or micrometastasis (≤2 mm). When there is macrometastasis (>2 mm) in the SLN, an inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy is indicated; however, this procedure is associated with major morbidity, such as wound healing, lymphoceles, and lymphedema. PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To investigate the safety of replacing inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy by chemoradiation in patients with early-stage vulvar cancer with a macrometastasis (>2 mm) and/or extracapsular extension in the sentinel node. STUDY HYPOTHESIS: Combination of 56 Gy of radiation to the inguinal site and concurrent cisplatin chemotherapy without completion inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy will be feasible and safe, with low groin recurrence rates. TRIAL DESIGN: This is a single-arm, prospective phase II treatment trial with stopping rules for unacceptable groin recurrences. Eligible patients will receive 56 Gy of radiation to the involved inguinal site and chemotherapy with concurrent cisplatin. MAJOR INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Eligible patients undergoing sentinel node procedure will have stage I, unifocal, invasive (>1 mm depth of invasion) squamous cell carcinoma of the vulva with tumor size <4 cm, and no suspicious nodes on imaging. Those eligible for the trial are those with a metastasis >2 mm in the sentinel node and/or extracapsular extension, or more than one sentinel node with micrometastasis ≤2 mm. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: Groin recurrence rate in the first 2 years after primary treatment. SAMPLE SIZE: 157 patients with macrometastases in their SLN. ESTIMATED DATES FOR COMPLETING ACCRUAL AND PRESENTING RESULTS: January 1, 2029. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05076942.

Biomarker-driven therapy in endometrial cancer.

This article reviews treatments and targets of interest in endometrial cancer by molecular subtype. The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) classifies four molecular subtypes-mismatch repair deficient (dMMR)/microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H); copy number high (CNH)/p53abn; copy number low (CNL)/no specific molecular profile (NSMP); and POLEmut-which are validated and highly prognostic. Treatment consideration by subtype is now recommended. In March and April 2022, respectively, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) fully approved and the European Medicines Agency adopted a positive opinion recommending the anti-programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) antibody pembrolizumab for advanced/recurrent dMMR/MSI-H endometrial cancer which has progressed on or following a platinum-containing therapy. A second anti-PD-1, dostarlimab, received accelerated approval by the FDA and conditional marketing authorization by the European Medicines Agency in this group. The combination of pembrolizumab/lenvatinib for mismatch repair proficient/microsatellite stable endometrial cancer, including p53abn/CNH and NSMP/CNL, received accelerated FDA approval in conjunction with Australia's Therapeutic Goods Administration and Health Canada in September 2019. The FDA and European Medicines Agency made full recommendations in July 2021 and October 2021. Trastuzumab is National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) compendium listed for human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-positive serous endometrial cancer, which is primarily within the p53abn/CNH subtype. In addition to hormonal therapy, maintenance therapy with selinexor (exportin-1 inhibitor) showed potential benefit in p53-wildtype cases in a subset analysis and is being investigated prospectively. Other treatment regimens being evaluated in NSMP/CNL are hormonal combinations with cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors and letrozole. Ongoing trials are evaluating immunotherapy in combination with frontline chemotherapy and other targeted agents. Treatment de-escalation is being evaluated in POLEmut cases given its favorable prognosis with or without adjuvant therapy. Molecular subtyping has important prognostic and therapeutic implications, and should guide patient management and clinical trial design in endometrial cancer, which is a molecularly driven disease.

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

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

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

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

Mismatch repair deficiency, next-generation sequencing-based microsatellite instability, and tumor mutational burden as predictive biomarkers for immune checkpoint inhibitor effectiveness in frontline treatment of advanced stage endometrial cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Molecular profiling is developing to inform treatment in endometrial cancer. Using real world evidence, we sought to evaluate frontline immune checkpoint inhibitor vs chemotherapy effectiveness in advanced endometrial cancer, stratified by Tumor Mutational Burden (TMB) ≥10 mut/MB and microsatellite instability (MSI). METHODS: Patients with advanced endometrial cancer in the US-based de-identified Flatiron Health-Foundation Medicine Clinico-Genomic Database were included. Data originated from patients treated between January 2011- March 2022 at 280 US clinics. Next-generation sequencing assays were performed via FoundationOne or FoundationOneCDx. Longitudinal clinical data were derived from electronic health records. Immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment included pembrolizumab, dostarlimab, and nivolumab monotherapies. Time to next treatment, time to treatment discontinuation, and overall survival were assessed with the log-rank test and Cox proportional hazard models with adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) for known prognostic factors. We used the Likelihood ratio test to compare biomarker performance. RESULTS: A total of 343 patients received chemotherapy and 28 received immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy as frontline treatment. Patients who received monotherapy were more likely to be stage III at diagnosis (immune checkpoint inhibitor: 54.6% vs chemotherapy: 15.0%; p<0.001) and more likely to test MSI-high via next-generation sequencing (immune checkpoint inhibitor: 53.6% vs chemotherapy: 19.2%; p<0.001). In MSI-high cancers, single-agent immune checkpoint inhibitor had a more favorable time to next treatment (aHR: 0.18, p=0.001) and overall survival (aHR 0.29, p=0.045). Additional analyses on 70 unique tumor specimens revealed mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR) via immunohistochemistry and MSI-high via next-generation sequencing concordance (91%), with nominal improvement of MSI over dMMR to predict time to treatment discontinuation (p=0.030), time to next treatment (p=0.032), and overall survival (p=0.22). MSI status was concordant with tumor mutational burden ≥10 in 94.3% of cases. CONCLUSION: Immune checkpoint inhibitors may have improved efficacy over chemotherapy in frontline treatment for advanced endometrial cancer defined by MSI-high using next-generation sequencing as a nominally better predictor of outcomes than dMMR with immunohistochemistry. This provides the biologic rationale of active phase III trials.

Low-grade serous ovarian cancer: expert consensus report on the state of the science.

Compared with high-grade serous carcinoma, low-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary or peritoneum is a less frequent epithelial ovarian cancer type that is poorly sensitive to chemotherapy and affects younger women, many of whom endure years of ineffective treatments and poor quality of life. The pathogenesis of this disease and its management remain incompletely understood. However, recent advances in the molecular characterization of the disease and identification of novel targeted therapies with activity in low-grade serous carcinoma offer the promise of improved outcomes. To update clinicians regarding recent scientific and clinical trial advancements and discuss unanswered questions related to low-grade serous carcinoma diagnosis and treatment, a panel of experts convened for a workshop in October 2022 to develop a consensus document addressing pathology, translational research, epidemiology and risk, clinical management, and ongoing research. In addition, the patient perspective was discussed. The recommendations developed by this expert panel-presented in this consensus document-will guide practitioners in all settings regarding the clinical management of women with low-grade serous carcinoma and discuss future opportunities to improve research and patient care.

Treatment options for molecular subtypes of endometrial cancer in 2023.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article reviews treatment strategies in endometrial cancer by molecular subtype. RECENT FINDINGS: The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) classifies four molecular subtypes of endometrial cancer - mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR)/microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H), copy number high (CNH)/p53abn, copy number low (CNL)/no specific molecular profile (NSMP), and POLEmut - which are validated and highly prognostic. Treatment consideration by subtype is now recommended. FDA-approved immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) include pembrolizumab and dostarlimab for previously treated dMMR/MSI-H EC, and pembrolizumab/lenvatinib for mismatch repair-proficient/microsatellite-stable endometrial cancer, including CNH/p53abn and CNL/NSMP. ICIs are being studied as first-line therapy in advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer by MMR status, as well as in combination with other targeted agents. Trastuzumab is NCCN compendium listed for HER2-positive serous endometrial cancer, which are primarily p53-abnormal. Antibody-drug conjugates targeting low and high HER2 levels show promise in breast cancer, and are beginning to be studied in endometrial cancer. In addition to hormonal therapy, maintenance therapy with selinexor (XPO1-inhibitor) showed potential benefit in p53 -wildtype endometrial cancer and is being investigated prospectively. Multiple prospective trials are evaluating de-escalation of care for POLEmut endometrial cancer given favorable survival regardless of adjuvant therapy. SUMMARY: Molecular subtyping has important prognostic and therapeutic implications and should be guiding patient management and clinical trial design in endometrial cancer.

A randomized phase II trial of everolimus and letrozole or hormonal therapy in women with advanced, persistent or recurrent endometrial carcinoma: A GOG Foundation study.

BACKGROUND: Blocking the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway decreases resistance to hormonal therapy in endometrial carcinoma (EC). OBJECTIVE: In this study, the aim was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of everolimus(E)/letrozole (L) or medroxyprogesterone acetate(M)/tamoxifen(T) in the treatment of metastatic EC. STUDY DESIGN: This single stage, open-label two arm randomized phase II trial accrued women with advanced/persistent/recurrent EC. Treatment with E (10 mg daily) and L (2.5 mg daily) or T (20 mg twice daily) and M (200 mg daily alternating weeks) was randomly assigned, and stratified by prior adjuvant therapy. Treatments were administered orally. Primary endpoint was response rate. RESULTS: Between February 2015 and April 2016, everolimus/letrozole (n = 37) or MT (n = 37) was assigned to 74 patients. Median follow-up was 37 months. Eight (22%; 95% CI 11% to 37%) patients responded on EL (one CR) and nine (25%; 95% CI 14% to 41%) patients responded on MT (three CRs). Median PFS for EL and MT arms was 6 months and 4 months, respectively. On EL, chemo-nave patients demonstrated a 28 month median PFS; prior chemotherapy patients had a 4-month median PFS. On MT, patients without prior therapy had a 5-month median PFS; those with prior chemotherapy demonstrated a 3-month PFS. Common grade 3 adverse events were anemia (9 [24%] patients EL vs 2 [6%] MT) and mucositis (2 [5%] vs 0 [0%]). Grade 3/4 thromboembolic events were observed with MT but not with EL (0 [0%] vs 4 [11%]). CONCLUSIONS: EL and MT demonstrated clinically meaningful efficacy in recurrent EC patients. The higher PFS observed in chemo-naïve patients is worthy of confirmation in future studies.

Efficacy of niraparib by time of surgery and postoperative residual disease status: A post hoc analysis of patients in the PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between surgical timing and postoperative residual disease status on the efficacy of niraparib first-line maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer at high risk of recurrence. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of the phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 (NCT02655016) study of niraparib in patients with newly diagnosed primary advanced ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer with a complete/partial response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Progression-free survival (PFS) was assessed by surgical status (primary debulking surgery [PDS] vs neoadjuvant chemotherapy/interval debulking surgery [NACT/IDS]) and postoperative residual disease status (no visible residual disease [NVRD] vs visible residual disease [VRD]) in the intent-to-treat population. RESULTS: In PRIMA (N = 733), 236 (32.2%) patients underwent PDS, and 481 (65.6%) received NACT/IDS before enrollment. Median PFS (niraparib vs placebo) and hazard ratios (95% CI) for progression were similar in PDS (13.7 vs 8.2 months; HR, 0.67 [0.47-0.96]) and NACT/IDS (14.2 vs 8.2 months; HR, 0.57 [0.44-0.73]) subgroups. In patients who received NACT/IDS and had NVRD (n = 304), the hazard ratio (95% CI) for progression was 0.65 (0.46-0.91). In patients with VRD following PDS (n = 183) or NACT/IDS (n = 149), the hazard ratios (95% CI) for progression were 0.58 (0.39-0.86) and 0.41 (0.27-0.62), respectively. PFS was not evaluable for patients with PDS and NVRD because of sample size (n = 37). CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc analysis, niraparib efficacy was similar across PDS and NACT/IDS subgroups. Patients who had NACT/IDS and VRD had the highest reduction in the risk of progression with niraparib maintenance.

Factors contributing to delays in initiation of front-line cervical cancer therapy: disparities in a diverse south Florida population.

OBJECTIVE: Delay in initiating cervical cancer treatment may impact outcomes. In a cohort of patients initially treated by surgery, chemoradiation, chemotherapy, or in a clinical trial, we aim to define factors contributing to prolonged time to treatment initiation. METHODS: Data from patients initiating treatment for cervical cancer at a single institution was abstracted. Time to treatment initiation was defined as the interval from the date of cancer diagnosis to the date of treatment initiation. Poisson regression model was used for analysis. RESULTS: Of 274 patients studied, the median time to treatment initiation was 60 days (range 0-551). The median times to initiate surgery (54 days, range 3-96) and chemoradiation (58 days, range 4-187) were not significantly different (relative risk (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.04, p=0.54). The shortest median initiation time was for chemotherapy (47 days; RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.19, p<0.0001) and the longest was for clinical trial (62 days; RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.24, p<0.0001). Charity care (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.14, p<0.0001), Medicare or Medicaid (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.14, p<0.0001), and self-pay (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.45, p<0.0001) delayed treatment initiation more than private insurance. Hispanic White women (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.73, p<0.0001) had a shorter treatment initiation time compared with non-Hispanic White patients, while Afro-Caribbean/Afro-Latina women (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.90, p<0.0001) and African-American patients (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.19, p<0.0001) had longer initiation times. Spanish speaking patients did not have a prolonged treatment initiation (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.71, p<0.0001), though Haitian-Creole speaking patients did (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.13, p<0.002). Diagnosis at an outside institution delayed treatment initiation time (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.30, p<0.0001) compared with diagnosis at the cancer center. CONCLUSION: Factors associated with prolonged time to treatment initiation include treatment modality, insurance status, language spoken, and institution of diagnosis. By closely examining each of these factors, barriers to treatment can be identified and modified to shorten treatment initiation time.

Changing treatments paradigms and role of immunotherapy in recurrent endometrial cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Over the past decade, the treatment of patients diagnosed with endometrial cancer (EC) shifted away from the use of chemotherapy to more novel targeted therapy and immunotherapy approaches. RECENT FINDINGS: The Cancer Genome Atlas data demonstrated different subgroups within ECs, more specifically, it facilitated the identification of predictive biomarkers. In particular, immunotherapies (immuno-oncology (IO)) are active either as monotherapy or in combination with other agents, depending on the biomarker profile of the tumor. SUMMARY: In May 2017, pembrolizumab was approved for patients with microsatellite instability high (MSI-H) EC. More recently, this approval was extended for patients harvesting tumors with a high tumor mutational burden status. Furthermore, in July 2021, the combination of pembrolizumab and lenvatinib was approved for patients who do not exhibit MSI-H disease. Given the wealth of targets in EC and different targetable mutations, the challenge will be to choose the proper treatment and the proper sequencing to derive the best outcome in the first-line setting and improve outcomes in subsequent settings. This review summarizes the current indications of immunotherapy for the treatment of advanced and recurrent EC. We outline the role of testing for uterine cancer and its implication in therapy management. Finally, we address new concepts for immunotherapy combinations with other therapies.