Phase I and Randomized Phase II Study of Ruxolitinib With Frontline Neoadjuvant Therapy in Advanced Ovarian Cancer: An NRG Oncology Group Study.

PURPOSE: The interleukin-6/Janus kinase (JAK)/signal transducers and activators of transcription 3 axis is a reported driver of chemotherapy resistance. We hypothesized that adding the JAK1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib to standard chemotherapy would be tolerable and improve progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with ovarian cancer in the upfront setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with ovarian/fallopian tube/primary peritoneal carcinoma recommended for neoadjuvant chemotherapy were eligible. In phase I, treatment was initiated with dose-dense paclitaxel (P) 70 mg/m2 once daily on days 1, 8, and 15; carboplatin AUC 5 intravenously day 1; and ruxolitinib 15 mg orally (PO) twice a day, every 21 days (dose level 1). Interval debulking surgery (IDS) was required after cycle 3. Patients then received three additional cycles of chemotherapy/ruxolitinib, followed by maintenance ruxolitinib. In the randomized phase II, patients were randomly assigned to paclitaxel/carboplatin with or without ruxolitinib at 15 mg PO twice a day for three cycles, IDS, followed by another three cycles of chemotherapy/ruxolitinib, without further maintenance ruxolitinib. The primary phase II end point was PFS. RESULTS: Seventeen patients were enrolled in phase I. The maximum tolerated dose and recommended phase II dose were established to be dose level 1. One hundred thirty patients were enrolled in phase II with a median follow-up of 24 months. The regimen was well tolerated, with a trend toward higher grade 3 to 4 anemia (64% v 27%), grade 3 to 4 neutropenia (53% v 37%), and thromboembolic events (12.6% v 2.4%) in the experimental arm. In the randomized phase II, the median PFS in the reference arm was 11.6 versus 14.6 in the experimental, hazard ratio (HR) for PFS was 0.702 (log-rank P = .059). The overall survival HR was 0.785 (P = .24). CONCLUSION: Ruxolitinib 15 mg PO twice a day was well tolerated with acceptable toxicity in combination with paclitaxel/carboplatin chemotherapy. The primary end point of prolongation of PFS was achieved in the experimental arm, warranting further investigation.

The effect of older age on treatment outcomes in women with advanced ovarian cancer receiving chemotherapy: An NRG-Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG-0182-ICON5) ancillary study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of age on overall survival (OS) in women with ovarian cancer receiving chemotherapy. Secondary objectives were to describe the effect of age on treatment compliance, toxicities, progression free survival (PFS), time from surgery to chemotherapy, and rates of optimal cytoreduction. METHODS: Women enrolled in GOG 0182-ICON5 with stage III or IV epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) who underwent surgery and chemotherapy between 2001 and 2004 were included. Patients were divided into ages <70 and ≥ 70 years. Baseline characteristics, treatment compliance, toxicities, and clinical outcomes were compared. RESULTS: We included a total of 3686 patients, with 620 patients (16.8%) ≥ 70 years. OS was 37.2 months in older compared to 45.0 months in younger patients (HR 1.21, 95% CI, 1.09-1.34, p < 0.001). Older patients had an increased risk of cancer-specific-death (HR 1.16, 95% CI, 1.04-1.29) as well as non-cancer related deaths (HR 2.78, 95% CI, 2.00-3.87). Median PFS was 15.1 months in older compared to 16.0 months in younger patients (HR 1.10, 95% CI, 1.00-1.20, p = 0.056). In the carboplatin/paclitaxel arm, older patients were just as likely to complete therapy and more likely to develop grade ≥ 2 peripheral neuropathy (35.7 vs 19.7%, p < 0.001). Risk of other toxicities remained equal between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In women with advanced EOC receiving chemotherapy, age ≥ 70 was associated with shorter OS and cancer specific survival. Older patients receiving carboplatin and paclitaxel reported higher rates of grade ≥ 2 neuropathy but were not more likely to suffer from other chemotherapy related toxicities. Clintrials.gov: NCT00011986.

CA-125 KELIM as a Potential Complementary Tool for Predicting Veliparib Benefit: An Exploratory Analysis From the VELIA/GOG-3005 Study.

PURPOSE: In VELIA trial, veliparib combined with carboplatin-paclitaxel, followed by maintenance (veliparib-throughout) was associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with carboplatin-paclitaxel alone in patients with high-grade ovarian carcinomas. We explored the prognostic value of the modeled cancer antigen (CA)-125 elimination rate constant K (KELIM), which is known to be an indicator of the intrinsic tumor chemosensitivity (the faster the rate of CA-125 decline, the higher the KELIM and the higher the chemosensitivity), and its association with benefit from veliparib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individual KELIM values were estimated from longitudinal CA-125 kinetics. Patients were categorized as having favorable (≥ median) or unfavorable (< median) KELIM. The prognostic value of KELIM for veliparib-related PFS benefit was explored in cohorts treated with primary or interval debulking surgery, according to the surgery completeness, the disease progression risk group, and the homologous recombination (HR) status (BRCA mutation, HR deficiency [HRD], or HR proficiency [HRP]). RESULTS: The data from 854 of 1,140 enrolled patients were analyzed (primary debulking surgery, n = 700; interval debulking surgery, n = 154). Increasing KELIM values were associated with higher benefit from veliparib in HRD cancer, as were decreasing KELIM values in HRP cancer. The highest PFS benefit from veliparib was observed in patients with both favorable KELIM and BRCA mutation (hazard ratio, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.61) or BRCA wild-type HRD cancer (hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.70), consistent with the association between poly (adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor efficacy and platinum sensitivity. In contrast, seventy-four percent of patients with a BRCA mutation and unfavorable KELIM progressed within 18 months while on veliparib. The patients with HRP cancer and unfavorable KELIM might have benefited from the veliparib chemosensitizing effect. CONCLUSION: In addition to HRD/BRCA status, the tumor primary chemosensitivity observed during the first-line chemotherapy might be another complementary determinant of poly (adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor efficacy.

Identification of Patients With Ovarian Cancer Experiencing the Highest Benefit From Bevacizumab in the First-Line Setting on the Basis of Their Tumor-Intrinsic Chemosensitivity (KELIM): The GOG-0218 Validation Study.

PURPOSE: In patients with high-grade ovarian cancer, predictors of bevacizumab efficacy in first-line setting are needed. In the ICON-7 trial, a poor tumor intrinsic chemosensitivity (defined by unfavorable modeled cancer antigen-125 [CA-125] ELIMination rate constant K [KELIM] score) was a predictive biomarker. Only the patients with high-risk disease (suboptimally resected stage III, or stage IV) exhibiting unfavorable KELIM score < 1.0 had overall survival (OS) benefit from bevacizumab (median: 29.7 v 20.6 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.78). An external validation study in the GOG-0218 trial was performed. METHODS: In GOG-0218, 1,873 patients were treated with carboplatin-paclitaxel ± concurrent-maintenance bevacizumab/placebo. Patient KELIM values were calculated with CA-125 kinetics during the first 100 chemotherapy days by the Lyon University team. The association between KELIM score (favorable ≥ 1.0, or unfavorable < 1.0) and bevacizumab benefit for progression-free survival (PFS)/OS was independently assessed by NGR-GOG using univariate/multivariate analyses. RESULTS: KELIM was assessable in 1,662 patients with ≥ 3 CA-125 available values. An unfavorable KELIM score was associated with bevacizumab benefit compared with placebo (PFS: HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.82; OS: HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.03), whereas a favorable KELIM was not (PFS: HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.17; OS: HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.39). The highest benefit was observed in patients with a high-risk disease exhibiting unfavorable KELIM, for PFS (median: 9.1 v 5.6 months; HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.78), and for OS (median: 35.1 v 29.1 months; HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.97). CONCLUSION: This GOG-0218 trial investigation validates ICON-7 findings about the association between poor tumor chemosensitivity and benefit from concurrent-maintenance bevacizumab, suggesting that bevacizumab may mainly be effective in patients with poorly chemosensitive disease. Bevacizumab may be prioritized in patients with a high-risk and poorly chemosensitive disease to improve their PFS/OS (patient KELIM score calculator available on the Biomarker Kinetics website).

Clinical research in ovarian cancer: consensus recommendations from the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup.

The Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) sixth Ovarian Cancer Conference on Clinical Research was held virtually in October, 2021, following published consensus guidelines. The goal of the consensus meeting was to achieve harmonisation on the design elements of upcoming trials in ovarian cancer, to select important questions for future study, and to identify unmet needs. All 33 GCIG member groups participated in the development, refinement, and adoption of 20 statements within four topic groups on clinical research in ovarian cancer including first line treatment, recurrent disease, disease subgroups, and future trials. Unanimous consensus was obtained for 14 of 20 statements, with greater than 90% concordance in the remaining six statements. The high acceptance rate following active deliberation among the GCIG groups confirmed that a consensus process could be applied in a virtual setting. Together with detailed categorisation of unmet needs, these consensus statements will promote the harmonisation of international clinical research in ovarian cancer.

Olaparib With or Without Cediranib Versus Platinum-Based Chemotherapy in Recurrent Platinum-Sensitive Ovarian Cancer (NRG-GY004): A Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III Trial.

PURPOSE: Platinum-based chemotherapy is the standard of care for platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer, but complications from repeated platinum therapy occur. We assessed the activity of two all-oral nonplatinum alternatives, olaparib or olaparib/cediranib, versus platinum-based chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: NRG-GY004 is an open-label, randomized, phase III trial conducted in the United States and Canada. Eligible patients had high-grade serous or endometrioid platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to platinum-based chemotherapy, olaparib, or olaparib/cediranib. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary end points included activity within germline BRCA-mutated or wild-type subgroups and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). RESULTS: Between February 04, 2016, and November 13, 2017, 565 eligible patients were randomly assigned. Median PFS was 10.3 (95% CI, 8.7 to 11.2), 8.2 (95% CI, 6.6 to 8.7), and 10.4 (95% CI, 8.5 to 12.5) months with chemotherapy, olaparib, and olaparib/cediranib, respectively. Olaparib/cediranib did not improve PFS versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.86; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.10; P = .077). In women with germline BRCA mutation, the PFS HR versus chemotherapy was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.32 to 0.94) for olaparib/cediranib and 0.63 (95% CI, 0.37 to 1.07) for olaparib. In women without a germline BRCA mutation, the PFS HR versus chemotherapy was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.73 to 1.30) for olaparib/cediranib and 1.41 (95% CI, 1.07 to 1.86) for olaparib. Hematologic adverse events occurred more commonly with chemotherapy; however, nonhematologic adverse events were higher with olaparib/cediranib. In 489 patients evaluable for PROs, patients receiving olaparib/cediranib scored on average 1.1 points worse on the NFOSI-DRS-P subscale (97.5% CI, -2.0 to -0.2, P = .0063) versus chemotherapy; no difference between olaparib and chemotherapy was observed. CONCLUSION: Combination olaparib/cediranib did not improve PFS compared with chemotherapy and resulted in reduced PROs. Notably, in patients with a germline BRCA mutation, both olaparib and olaparib/cediranib had significant clinical activity.

Second-line olaparib maintenance therapy is associated with poor response to subsequent chemotherapy in BRCA1/2-mutated epithelial ovarian cancer: A multicentre retrospective study.

INTRODUCTION: With expanded use of poly (adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi), there is a potential impact of PARPi resistance on platinum resistance. A post-hoc analysis of SOLO2 demonstrated a reduction in response to subsequent platinum-based therapy among patients who received prior olaparib but not placebo. The present multicentre, retrospective, observational study was conducted to determine the effects of olaparib on subsequent therapy for recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data on EOC patients with BRCA1/2-mutated tumours who received second-line platinum-based chemotherapy between January 2012 and June 2020, at three South Korean institutions (n = 197) were collected. Patients who received olaparib as maintenance therapy after second-line chemotherapy were assigned to the olaparib group (n = 105), and subjects who did not receive olaparib maintenance therapy were assigned to the control group (n = 92). The primary endpoint was time intervals from the date of second disease progression (PFS1) to the date of third disease progression (PFS2), expressed as PFS2 - PFS1. RESULTS: As expected, PFS1 in the olaparib group was longer than the control group. However, PFS2 - PFS1 in the olaparib group was significantly shorter than that of the control group (median 7.9 vs. 13.6 m; p = 0.0005). Even when the third-line PARPi maintenance (cross-over) patients were excluded from the control group, the response to subsequent therapy in the olaparib group remained poor (median 7.7 vs. 11.5; p = 0.0422). DISCUSSIONS: Patients with platinum-sensitive BRCA1/2 mutated tumours who progressed during olaparib maintenance after second-line chemotherapy were less likely to respond to third-line chemotherapy compared to controls who did not receive olaparib, suggesting that resistance to olaparib may contribute to chemotherapy resistance.

Impact of homologous recombination status and responses with veliparib combined with first-line chemotherapy in ovarian cancer in the Phase 3 VELIA/GOG-3005 study.

OBJECTIVE: In the Phase 3 VELIA trial (NCT02470585), PARP inhibitor (PARPi) veliparib was combined with first-line chemotherapy and continued as maintenance for patients with ovarian carcinoma enrolled regardless of chemotherapy response or biomarker status. Here, we report exploratory analyses of the impact of homologous recombination deficient (HRD) or proficient (HRP) status on progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rates during chemotherapy. METHODS: Women with Stage III-IV ovarian carcinoma were randomized to veliparib-throughout, veliparib-combination-only, or placebo. Stratification factors included timing of surgery and germline BRCA mutation status. HRD status was dichotomized at genomic instability score 33. During combination therapy, CA-125 levels were measured at baseline and each cycle; radiographic responses were assessed every 9 weeks. RESULTS: Of 1140 patients randomized, 742 had BRCA wild type (BRCAwt) tumors (HRP, n = 373; HRD/BRCAwt, n = 329). PFS hazard ratios between veliparib-throughout versus control were similar in both BRCAwt populations (HRD/BRCAwt: 22.9 vs 19.8 months; hazard ratio 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-1.09; HRP: 15.0 vs 11.5 months; hazard ratio 0.765; 95% CI 0.56-1.04). By Cycle 3, the proportion with ≥90% CA-125 reduction from baseline was higher in those receiving veliparib (pooled arms) versus control (34% vs 23%; P = 0.0004); particularly in BRCAwt and HRP subgroups. Complete response rates among patients with measurable disease after surgery were 24% with veliparib (pooled arms) and 18% with control. CONCLUSIONS: These results potentially broaden opportunities for PARPi utilization among patients who would not qualify for frontline PARPi maintenance based on other trials.

Impact of veliparib, paclitaxel dosing regimen, and germline BRCA status on the primary treatment of serous ovarian cancer - an ancillary data analysis of the VELIA trial.

OBJECTIVE: In the Phase 3 VELIA trial (NCT02470585), veliparib added to carboplatin plus paclitaxel concomitantly and as maintenance for women with newly-diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus chemotherapy alone. Here we present exploratory analyses by paclitaxel dosing schedule and germline BRCA (gBRCA) status. METHODS: Women with untreated ovarian carcinoma were randomized (1:1:1) to: veliparib during chemotherapy and maintenance (veliparib-throughout), veliparib during chemotherapy followed by placebo maintenance (veliparib-combination only), or placebo during chemotherapy and maintenance (control). Chemotherapy included carboplatin plus dose-dense (DD; weekly) or every-3-week (Q3W) paclitaxel (a stratification factor at randomization), selected at the investigator's discretion pre-randomization. PFS was assessed by paclitaxel dosing schedule using a Cox proportional hazard model adjusted by treatment arm and stratification factors; safety was analyzed based on paclitaxel dosing schedule and gBRCA status. RESULTS: 1132 patients were analyzed by paclitaxel schedule. Pooled treatment arms demonstrated longer median PFS with DD (n = 586) versus Q3W (n = 546) paclitaxel (ITT: 20.5 vs 15.7 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0.77; homologous recombination proficient cancer: 15.1 vs 11.8 months, HR 0.64; BRCAwt: 18.0 vs 12.9 months, HR 0.70). Comparison between arms favored veliparib-throughout versus control in both DD (PFS, 24.2 vs 18.3 months, hazard ratio 0.67) and Q3W (19.3 vs 14.6, hazard ratio 0.69) subgroups. DD paclitaxel was associated with higher incidence of Grade 3/4 neutropenia, fatigue, and anemia versus Q3W. There were no differences in toxicity between gBRCAm (n = 211) and gBRCAwt (n = 902) subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: DD paclitaxel was tolerable and associated with longer PFS in the HR proficient and gBRCAwt groups, versus Q3W. gBRCA status did not impact safety.

Phase 1b study of AVB-500 in combination with paclitaxel or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: GAS6 and AXL are expressed in high-grade serous ovarian cancer but not in normal ovarian tissue. AVB-500, a novel high affinity Fc-sAXL fusion protein, binds GAS6 preventing AXL signaling. This Phase 1b study (NCT03639246) evaluated safety, efficacy, and exploratory predictive markers of AVB-500 combined with paclitaxel (PAC) or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC), and used a model informed drug development (MIDD) approach for identification of the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). METHODS: Eligible patients received AVB-500 at 10, 15, or 20 mg/kg IV q2wk combined with PAC (n = 23) or PLD (n = 30). Patients were treated until progression or unacceptable toxicity. All were followed for survival. RESULTS: No dose limiting toxicities were observed and serum GAS6 was completely suppressed across the three dose levels evaluated. AVB-500 + PAC yielded better clinical activity than AVB-500 + PLD with an ORR of 34.8% (8/23, 2 complete responses) and median DoR, PFS, and OS of 7.0, 3.1, and 10.3 months, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed AVB-500 + PAC patients who had no prior bevacizumab or whose AVB-500 trough levels were >13.8 mg/L exhibited the best clinical response. The ORR and median PFS and OS in patients with these characteristics were ≥50%, ≥7.5 months, and ≥19 months, respectively. Given AVB-500 nor the combination with chemotherapy was expected to cause DLTs, the RP2D of AVB-500 was 15 mg/kg identified using an MIDD approach. CONCLUSION: AVB-500 was well-tolerated in combination with PAC or PLD and contributed to the clinical activity of PAC in PROC patients. Subgroup analyses identified a population of PROC patients who may benefit the most from AVB-500 treatment, which will be further assessed in an ongoing Phase 3 PROC trial.

Progression-free survival by investigator versus blinded independent central review in newly diagnosed patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer: Analysis of the VELIA/GOG-3005 trial.

OBJECTIVE: In the phase 3 VELIA/GOG-3005 trial, veliparib added to carboplatin-paclitaxel and continued as maintenance improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared to carboplatin-paclitaxel alone in patients with newly diagnosed ovarian carcinoma. Primary analysis of PFS was by investigator (INV) assessment, with a supplemental analysis of PFS by blinded independent central review (BICR). METHODS: Patients received veliparib or placebo with carboplatin-paclitaxel (6 cycles) and as maintenance (30 additional cycles). The primary analysis compared PFS in the veliparib-throughout arm to the carboplatin-paclitaxel only arm in the BRCA mutation (BRCAm), homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), and intention-to-treat (ITT) populations. Exploratory analyses of PFS in BRCA wildtype (BRCAwt), homologous recombination proficient (HRP), and HRD + BRCAwt populations were also performed. PFS per BICR and overall concordance rates between INV and BICR assessments were analyzed. RESULTS: Hazard ratios for PFS by INV and BICR were consistent in each of the primary analysis and exploratory populations. In the ITT population, median PFS per INV was 23.5 months in the veliparib-throughout arm versus 17.3 months in the control arm (hazard ratio [HR] 0.683, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.562-0.831; P < 0.001). Median PFS by BICR was 29.3 months versus 19.2 months (HR 0.687, 95% CI 0.504-0.806). In the ITT population, the overall concordance rates between INV and BICR were 78% and 75% for the veliparib-throughout and control arms, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Hazard ratios for PFS per BICR and per INV were consistent, with no suggestion of investigator bias. These findings support the reliability of PFS by INV in ovarian cancer trials.

CamGFR v2: A New Model for Estimating the Glomerular Filtration Rate from Standardized or Non-standardized Creatinine in Patients with Cancer.

PURPOSE: Management of patients with cancer, specifically carboplatin dosing, requires accurate knowledge of glomerular filtration rate (GFR). Direct measurement of GFR is resource limited. Available models for estimated GFR (eGFR) are optimized for patients without cancer and either isotope dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS)- or non-IDMS-standardized creatinine measurements. We present an eGFR model for patients with cancer compatible with both creatinine measurement methods. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: GFR measurements, biometrics, and IDMS- or non-IDMS-standardized creatinine values were collected for adult patients from three cancer centers. Using statistical modeling, an IDMS and non-IDMS creatinine-compatible eGFR model (CamGFR v2) was developed. Its performance was compared with that of the existing models Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI), Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD), Full Age Spectrum (FAS), Lund-Malmö revised, and CamGFR v1, using statistics for bias, precision, accuracy, and clinical robustness. RESULTS: A total of 3,083 IDMS- and 4,612 non-IDMS-standardized creatinine measurements were obtained from 7,240 patients. IDMS-standardized creatinine values were lower than non-IDMS-standardized values in within-center comparisons (13.8% lower in Cambridge; P < 0.0001 and 19.3% lower in Manchester; P < 0.0001), and more consistent between centers. CamGFR v2 was the most accurate [root-mean-squared error for IDMS, 14.97 mL/minute (95% confidence interval, 13.84-16.13) and non-IDMS, 15.74 mL/minute (14.86-16.63)], most clinically robust [proportion with >20% error of calculated carboplatin dose for IDMS, 0.12 (0.09-0.14) and non-IDMS, 0.17 (0.15-0.2)], and least biased [median residual for IDMS, 0.73 mL/minute (-0.68 to 2.2) and non-IDMS, -0.43 mL/minute (-1.48 to 0.91)] eGFR model, particularly when eGFR was larger than 60 ml/minute. CONCLUSIONS: CamGFR v2 can utilize IDMS- and non-IDMS-standardized creatinine measurements and outperforms previous models. CamGFR v2 should be examined prospectively as a practice-changing standard of care for eGFR-based carboplatin dosing.

Multicenter Validation of the CamGFR Model for Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate.

Important oncological management decisions rely on kidney function assessed by serum creatinine-based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). However, no large-scale multicenter comparisons of methods to determine eGFR in patients with cancer are available. To compare the performance of formulas for eGFR based on routine clinical parameters and serum creatinine not calibrated with isotope dilution mass spectrometry, we studied 3620 patients with cancer and 166 without cancer who had their glomerular filtration rate (GFR) measured with an exogenous nuclear tracer at one of seven clinical centers. The mean measured GFR was 86 mL/min. Accuracy of all models was center dependent, reflecting intercenter variability of isotope dilution mass spectrometry-creatinine measurements. CamGFR was the most accurate model for eGFR (root-mean-squared error 17.3 mL/min) followed by the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration model (root-mean-squared error 18.2 mL/min).

Veliparib with First-Line Chemotherapy and as Maintenance Therapy in Ovarian Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Data are limited regarding the use of poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, such as veliparib, in combination with chemotherapy followed by maintenance as initial treatment in patients with high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma. METHODS: In an international, phase 3, placebo-controlled trial, we assessed the efficacy of veliparib added to first-line induction chemotherapy with carboplatin and paclitaxel and continued as maintenance monotherapy in patients with previously untreated stage III or IV high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive chemotherapy plus placebo followed by placebo maintenance (control), chemotherapy plus veliparib followed by placebo maintenance (veliparib combination only), or chemotherapy plus veliparib followed by veliparib maintenance (veliparib throughout). Cytoreductive surgery could be performed before initiation or after 3 cycles of trial treatment. Combination chemotherapy was 6 cycles, and maintenance therapy was 30 additional cycles. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the veliparib-throughout group as compared with the control group, analyzed sequentially in the BRCA-mutation cohort, the cohort with homologous-recombination deficiency (HRD) (which included the BRCA-mutation cohort), and the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: A total of 1140 patients underwent randomization. In the BRCA-mutation cohort, the median progression-free survival was 34.7 months in the veliparib-throughout group and 22.0 months in the control group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28 to 0.68; P<0.001); in the HRD cohort, it was 31.9 months and 20.5 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.57; 95 CI, 0.43 to 0.76; P<0.001); and in the intention-to-treat population, it was 23.5 months and 17.3 months (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.83; P<0.001). Veliparib led to a higher incidence of anemia and thrombocytopenia when combined with chemotherapy as well as of nausea and fatigue overall. CONCLUSIONS: Across all trial populations, a regimen of carboplatin, paclitaxel, and veliparib induction therapy followed by veliparib maintenance therapy led to significantly longer progression-free survival than carboplatin plus paclitaxel induction therapy alone. The independent value of adding veliparib during induction therapy without veliparib maintenance was less clear. (Funded by AbbVie; VELIA/GOG-3005 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02470585.).

Outcomes of secondary cytoreductive surgery for patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Most women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer develop recurrent disease, despite maximal surgical cytoreduction and adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy. In observational studies, secondary cytoreductive surgery has been associated with improved survival; however its use is controversial, because there are concerns that the improved outcomes may reflect selection bias rather than the superiority of secondary surgery. OBJECTIVE: To compare the overall survival of women with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer treated at National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers who receive secondary surgery vs chemotherapy. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective cohort study included women from 6 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers diagnosed with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2011. The primary outcome was overall survival. Propensity score matching was used to compare similar women who received secondary surgery vs chemotherapy. Additional analyses examined how these findings may be influenced by the prevalence of unobserved confounders at the time of recurrence. RESULTS: Among 626 women, 146 (23%) received secondary surgery and 480 (77%) received chemotherapy. In adjusted analyses, patients who received secondary surgery were younger (P = 0.001), had earlier-stage disease at diagnosis (P = 0.002), and had longer disease-free intervals (P < 0.001) compared with those receiving chemotherapy. In the propensity score-matched groups (n = 244 patients), the median overall survival was 54 months in patients who received secondary surgery and 33 months in those treated with chemotherapy (P < 0.001). Among patients who received secondary surgery, 102 (70%) achieved optimal secondary cytoreduction. There were no significant differences in complication rates between the 2 groups. In sensitivity analyses, the survival advantage associated with secondary surgery could be explained by the presence of more multifocal recurrences (if 4.3 times more common), ascites (if 2.7 times more common), or carcinomatosis (if 2.1 times more common) among patients who received chemotherapy instead of secondary surgery. CONCLUSION: Patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer who received secondary surgery had favorable surgical characteristics and were likely to have minimal residual disease following secondary surgery. These patients had a superior median overall survival compared with patients who received chemotherapy, although unmeasured confounders may explain this observed difference.

Differences in presentation and survival of Asians compared to Caucasians with ovarian cancer: An NRG Oncology/GOG Ancillary study of 7914 patients.

PURPOSE: To compare patient/tumor characteristics and outcomes of Asians to Caucasian patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: Ancillary data were pooled and analyzed from ten prospective randomized front-line Gynecologic Oncology Group clinical trials from 1996 to 2011. Demographic, clinicopathologic features, disease-specific and all-cause survival were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 7914 patients, 7641 were Caucasian and 273 Asian. When compared to Caucasians, Asians were younger at trial enrollment, had a better performance status, earlier-stage cancers (17.2% vs. 8.1% with stage I; p < 0.001), and were more likely to be of clear cell (15.8% vs. 6.2%, p < 0.001) and mucinous (3.3% vs. 1.9%, p < 0.001) histology. Asians had an improved 5-year disease-specific survival of 54.1% compared to 46.1% for Caucasians, p = 0.001. In multivariate analysis, the Asian race remained a significant prognostic factor for all-cause survival (HR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.72-0.99; p = 0.04). Other factors predictive of improved survival included younger age, better performance status, optimal cytoreduction, earlier stage, non-clear cell histology, and lower grade tumors. CONCLUSION: Asians enrolled into phase III ovarian cancer clinical trials were younger, with better performance status, earlier-stage of disease, and have a greater number of clear cell and mucinous tumors. After adjusting for these prognostic factors, Asians have a better survival compared to Caucasians.

Final Overall Survival of a Randomized Trial of Bevacizumab for Primary Treatment of Ovarian Cancer.

PURPOSE: We report the final, protocol-specified analysis of overall survival (OS) in GOG-0218, a phase III, randomized trial of bevacizumab in women with newly diagnosed ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma. METHODS: A total of 1,873 women with incompletely resected stage III to IV disease were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to six 21-day cycles of intravenous carboplatin (area under the concentration v time curve 6) and paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) versus chemotherapy plus concurrent bevacizumab (15 mg/kg, cycles 2 to 6) versus chemotherapy plus concurrent and maintenance bevacizumab (cycles 2 to 22). Inclusion criteria included a Gynecologic Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2 and no history of clinically significant vascular events or evidence of intestinal obstruction. OS was analyzed in the intention-to-treat population. A total of 1,195 serum and/or tumor specimens were sequenced for BRCA1/2 and damaging mutations in homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes. Intratumoral microvessel density was studied using CD31 immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 102.9 months. Relative to control (n = 625), for patients receiving bevacizumab-concurrent (n = 625), the hazard ratio (HR) of death was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.94 to 1.20); for bevacizumab-concurrent plus maintenance (n = 623), the HR was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.85 to 1.09). Disease-specific survival was not improved in any arm. No survival advantage was observed after censoring patients who received bevacizumab at crossover or as second line. Median OS for stage IV bevacizumab-concurrent plus maintenance was 42.8 v 32.6 months for stage IV control (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.95). Relative to wild type, the HR for death for BRCA1/2 mutated carcinomas was 0.62 (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.73), and for non-BRCA1/2 HRR, the HR was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.51 to 0.85). BRCA1/2, HRR, and CD31 were not predictive of bevacizumab activity. CONCLUSION: No survival differences were observed for patients who received bevacizumab compared with chemotherapy alone. Testing for BRCA1/2 mutations and homologous recombination deficiency is essential.