Cediranib and Olaparib Combination Compared With Cediranib or Olaparib Alone, or Chemotherapy in Platinum-Resistant or Primary Platinum-Refractory Ovarian Cancer: NRG-GY005.

PURPOSE: We assessed the efficacy of cediranib, olaparib, and cediranib/olaparib compared with standard-of-care chemotherapy (SOC) in platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory epithelial ovarian cancer (PROC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: NRG-GY005 is an open-label, four-arm, phase II/III superiority trial enrolling patients with high-grade serous/endometrioid PROC and one to three previous therapies. Key exclusion criteria included previous receipt of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor or receipt of antiangiogenic therapy in the recurrent setting. Treatment arms (SOC [once weekly paclitaxel, topotecan, or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin], cediranib, olaparib, or cediranib/olaparib) were equally randomized. A preplanned interim futility analysis on the basis of progression-free survival (PFS) selected treatment arms to advance to phase III. PFS and overall survival (OS) were phase III coprimary end points, with hierarchical testing of PFS followed by OS to preserve type 1 error control, designed to have 90% power for a 0.625 PFS hazard ratio (HR). OS was tested after PFS in the multiple hierarchical testing procedure. Secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR) and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Five hundred sixty-two eligible patients were enrolled for phase II/III. Three arms met PFS criteria to carry forward to phase III (SOC, cediranib/olaparib, and cediranib). Median PFS was 3.4, 5.2, and 4 months with SOC, cediranib/olaparib, and cediranib, respectively, with a median follow-up duration of 42.2 months. PFS HR estimates for cediranib/olaparib and cediranib (v SOC) were 0.796 (98.3% CI, 0.597 to 1.060) and 0.972 (98.3% CI, 0.726 to 1.300), respectively. Median OS was 13.6, 12.8, and 10.5 months, and of 443 patients with measurable disease, ORR was 8.6%, 24.7%, and 13.1% for SOC, cediranib/olaparib, and cediranib, respectively. No new safety signals were identified. In patients receiving cediranib/olaparib, no statistically significant difference was observed on the NFOSI-DRS-P subscale compared with SOC (98.3% CI, -1.3 to 1.5, P = .8725). CONCLUSION: The cediranib-containing arms demonstrated clinical activity on the basis of PFS but were not superior compared with SOC.

Results of a randomized phase II trial of paclitaxel and carboplatin versus bleomycin, etoposide and cisplatin for newly diagnosed and recurrent Chemonaive stromal ovarian tumors: An NRG oncology/gynecologic oncology group study14.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and toxicity of paclitaxel and carboplatin (PC) compared to bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEP) for treatment of newly diagnosed Stage IIA-IV or recurrent chemotherapy-naive ovarian sex cord-stromal tumors (SCST). METHODS: This phase II noninferiority trial randomly assigned patients to receive PC (6 cycles P 175 mg/m2 and C AUC = 6 IV every 3 weeks), or BEP (4 cycles B 20 units/m2 IV push day 1, E 75 mg/m2 IV days 1-5, and cisplatin 20 mg/m2 IV days 1-5 every 3 weeks). The primary endpoint was progression- free survival (PFS). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01042522. RESULTS: At the interim analysis, 63 patients (31 PC and 32 B.P. had accrued between Feb 8, 2010 and Apr 30, 2020. Median age was 48 years. 87% had granulosa cell tumors. 37% had measurable disease. The DSMB closed accrual early for futility of PC arm. The futility analysis was supported by an estimated HR = 1.11 [95% CI: 0.57 to 2.13] which exceeded the pre-determined threshold for non-inferiority (1.10). Median PFS was 27.7 months [11.2 to 41.0] for PC and 19.7 months for BEP [95% CI: 10.4-52.7]. PC patients had fewer grade 3 or higher adverse events (PC 77% vs BEP 90%). CONCLUSIONS: The study met its pre-specified criterion for stopping early for futility and so failed to demonstrate non-inferiority of PC versus BEP in ovarian SCSTs, in a non-inferiority test with a hazard ratio margin of 1.1. Both PC and BEP may be considered in patients with advanced/recurrent SCST.

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

The Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) Endometrial Cancer Consensus Conference on Clinical Research (ECCC) was held in Incheon, South Korea, Nov 2-3, 2023. The aims were to develop consensus statements for future trials in endometrial cancer to achieve harmonisation on design elements, select important questions, and identify unmet needs. All 33 GCIG member groups participated in the development, refinement, and finalisation of 18 statements within four topic groups, addressing adjuvant treatment in high-risk disease; treatment for metastatic and recurrent disease; trial designs for rare endometrial cancer subgroups and special circumstances; and specific methodology and adaptation for trials in low-resource settings. In addition, eight areas of unmet need were identified. This was the first GCIG Consensus Conference to include patient advocates and an expert on inclusion, diversity, equity, and access to take part in all aspects of the process and output. Four early-career investigators were also selected for participation, ensuring that they represented different GCIG member groups and regions. Unanimous consensus was obtained for 16 of the 18 statements, with 97% concordance for the remaining two. Using the described methodology from previous Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conferences, this conference did not require even one minority statement. The high acceptance rate following active involvement in the preparation, discussion, and refinement of the statements by all representatives confirmed the consensus progress within a global academic setting, and the expectation that the ECCC will lead to greater harmonisation, actualisation, inclusion, and resolution of unmet needs in clinical research for individuals living with and beyond endometrial cancer worldwide.

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 association of histopathologic features after neoadjuvant chemo-immunotherapy with clinical outcome: Sub-analyses from the randomized double-blinded, placebo-controlled, Phase III IMagyn050/GOG3015/ENGOT-ov39 study.

OBJECTIVE: Histopathologic characteristics after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) may correlate with outcome. This study evaluates histopathologic features after immunotherapy and NACT/bevacizumab, and associated clinical outcomes. METHODS: Evaluable tissue from IMagyn050/GOG3015/ENGOT-ov39 patients from prespecified anatomic sites from interval cytoreductive surgery (ICS) after NACT/bevacizumab plus atezolizumab/placebo underwent central histopathologic scoring and analyzed with clinical outcomes. RESULTS: The predefined population had 243 evaluable NACT patients, with 48.1% tumors being PD-L1-positive. No statistically significant differences in PFS (16.9 months vs. 19.2 months, p = 0.21) or OS (41.5 months vs. 45.1 months, p = 0.67) between treatment arms were seen. Substantial residual tumor (RT) (3+) was identified in 26% atezolizumab vs. 24% placebo arms (p = 0.94). Most showed no (1+) necrosis (82% vs. 96%, respectively, p = 0.69), moderate (2+) to severe (3+) fibrosis (71% vs. 75%, respectively, p = 0.82), and extensive (2+) inflammation (53% vs. 47% respectively, p = 0.48). No significant histopathologic differences were identified by tissue site or by arm. Multivariate analyses showed increased risk for progression with moderate and substantial RT (13.6 mon vs. 21.1 mon, hazard ratio 2.0, p < 0.01; 13.6 mon vs. 21.1 mon, HR 1.9, p < 0.01, respectively); but decreased risk for death with extensive inflammation (46.9 mon vs. 36.3 mon, HR 0.65, p = 0.02). Inflammation also correlated with greater likelihood of response to NACT/bevacizumab plus immunotherapy (odds ratio 2.9, p < 0.01). Modeling showed inflammation as a consistent but modest predictor for OS. CONCLUSIONS: Detailed histologic assessment of ICS specimens appear to identify characteristics, such as inflammation and residual tumor, that may provide insight to certain clinical outcomes. Future work potentially leveraging emerging tools may provide further insight into outcomes.

Overall survival and patient-reported outcome results from the placebo-controlled randomized phase III IMagyn050/GOG 3015/ENGOT-OV39 trial of atezolizumab for newly diagnosed stage III/IV ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact on overall survival (OS) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of combining atezolizumab with standard therapy for newly diagnosed stage III/IV ovarian cancer. METHODS: The placebo-controlled double-blind randomized phase III IMagyn050/GOG 3015/ENGOT-OV39 trial (NCT03038100) assigned eligible patients to 3-weekly atezolizumab 1200 mg or placebo for 22 cycles with platinum-based chemotherapy and bevacizumab. Coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival (already reported) and OS in the PD-L1-positive and intent-to-treat (ITT) populations, tested hierarchically. Prespecified PRO analyses focused on disease-related abdominal pain and bloating symptoms (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-OV28), functioning, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (QLQ-C30). RESULTS: After 38 months' median follow-up, the OS hazard ratio in the PD-L1-positive population was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.66-1.06; p = 0.13); median OS was not estimable with atezolizumab versus 49.2 months with placebo. The hazard ratio for OS in the ITT population was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.78-1.09; median 50.5 versus 46.6 months, respectively). At week 9, similar proportions of patients in both arms of the neoadjuvant cohort showed ≥10-point improvement from baseline in abdominal pain and bloating, functioning, and HRQoL. In the primary surgery cohort, similar proportions of patients in each arm had improved, stable, or worsened physical and role function and HRQoL from baseline over time. Neither cohort showed differences between arms in treatment-related symptoms or overall side-effect bother. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporation of atezolizumab into standard therapy for newly diagnosed ovarian cancer does not significantly improve efficacy or impose additional treatment burden for patients. CLINICALTRIALS: gov registration: NCT03038100.

Carboplatin dosing in the treatment of ovarian cancer: An NRG oncology group study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of using National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines to estimate renal function on carboplatin dosing and explore adverse effects associated with a more accurate estimation of lower creatinine clearance (CrCl). METHODS: Retrospective data were obtained for 3830 of 4312 patients treated on GOG182 (NCT00011986)-a phase III trial of platinum-based chemotherapy for advanced-stage ovarian cancer. Carboplatin dose per patient on GOG182 was determined using the Jelliffe formula. We recalculated CrCl to determine dosing using Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) and Cockcroft-Gault (with/without NCCN recommended modifications) formulas. Associations between baseline CrCl and toxicity were described using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Sensitivity and positive predictive values described the model's ability to discriminate between subjects with/without the adverse event. RESULTS: AUC statistics (range, 0.52-0.64) showed log(CrClJelliffe) was not a good predictor of grade ≥3 adverse events (anemia, thrombocytopenia, febrile neutropenia, auditory, renal, metabolic, neurologic). Of 3830 patients, 628 (16%) had CrCl <60 mL/min. Positive predictive values for adverse events ranged from 1.8%-15%. Using the Cockcroft-Gault, Cockcroft-Gault with NCCN modifications, and MDRD (instead of Jelliffe) formulas to estimate renal function resulted in a >10% decrease in carboplatin dosing in 16%, 32%, and 5.2% of patients, respectively, and a >10% increase in carboplatin dosing in 41%, 9.6% and 12% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: The formula used to estimate CrCl affects carboplatin dosing. Estimated CrCl <60 mL/min (by Jelliffe) did not accurately predict adverse events. Efforts continue to better predict renal function. Endorsing National Cancer Institute initiatives to broaden study eligibility, our data do not support a minimum threshold CrCl <60 mL/min as an exclusion criterion from clinical trials.

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.

Influence of Genomic Landscape on Cancer Immunotherapy for Newly Diagnosed Ovarian Cancer: Biomarker Analyses from the IMagyn050 Randomized Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: To explore whether patients with BRCA1/2-mutated or homologous recombination deficient (HRD) ovarian cancers benefitted from atezolizumab in the phase III IMagyn050 (NCT03038100) trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer were randomized to either atezolizumab or placebo with standard chemotherapy and bevacizumab. Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status of tumor-infiltrating immune cells (IC) was determined centrally (VENTANA SP142 assay). Genomic alterations, including deleterious BRCA1/2 alterations, genomic loss of heterozygosity (gLOH), tumor mutation burden (TMB), and microsatellite instability (MSI), were evaluated using the FoundationOne assay. HRD was defined as gLOH ≥ 16%, regardless of BRCA1/2 mutation status. Potential associations between progression-free survival (PFS) and genomic biomarkers were evaluated using standard correlation analyses and log-rank of Kaplan-Meier estimates. RESULTS: Among biomarker-evaluable samples, 22% (234/1,050) harbored BRCA1/2 mutations and 46% (446/980) were HRD. Median TMB was low irrespective of BRCA1/2 or HRD. Only 3% (29/1,024) had TMB ≥10 mut/Mb, and 0.3% (3/1,022) were MSI-high. PFS was better in BRCA2-mutated versus BRCA2-non-mutated tumors and in HRD versus proficient tumors. PD-L1 positivity (≥1% expression on ICs) was associated with HRD but not BRCA1/2 mutations. PFS was not improved by adding atezolizumab in BRCA2-mutated or HRD tumors; there was a trend toward enhanced PFS with atezolizumab in BRCA1-mutated tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Most ovarian tumors have low TMB despite BRCA1/2 mutations or HRD. Neither BRCA1/2 mutation nor HRD predicted enhanced benefit from atezolizumab. This is the first randomized double-blind trial in ovarian cancer demonstrating that genomic instability triggered by BRCA1/2 mutation or HRD is not associated with improved sensitivity to immune checkpoint inhibitors. See related commentary by Al-Rawi et al., p. 1645.

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.

Atezolizumab, Bevacizumab, and Chemotherapy for Newly Diagnosed Stage III or IV Ovarian Cancer: Placebo-Controlled Randomized Phase III Trial (IMagyn050/GOG 3015/ENGOT-OV39).

PURPOSE: To evaluate the addition of the humanized monoclonal antiprogrammed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) antibody, atezolizumab, to platinum-based chemotherapy and bevacizumab in newly diagnosed stage III or IV ovarian cancer (OC). METHODS: This multicenter placebo-controlled double-blind randomized phase III trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03038100) enrolled patients with newly diagnosed untreated International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III or IV OC who either had undergone primary cytoreductive surgery with macroscopic residual disease or were planned to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval surgery. Patients were stratified by FIGO stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, tumor immune cell PD-L1 staining, and treatment strategy and randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 3-weekly cycles of atezolizumab 1,200 mg or placebo (day 1, cycles 1-22), with paclitaxel plus carboplatin (day 1, cycles 1-6) plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg (day 1, cycles 2-22), omitting perioperative bevacizumab in neoadjuvant patients. The co-primary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival in the intention-to-treat and PD-L1-positive populations. RESULTS: Between March 8, 2017, and March 26, 2019, 1,301 patients were enrolled. The median progression-free survival was 19.5 versus 18.4 months with atezolizumab versus placebo, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.07; stratified log-rank P = .28), in the intention-to-treat population and 20.8 versus 18.5 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.99; P = .038), in the PD-L1-positive population. The interim (immature) overall survival results showed no significant benefit from atezolizumab. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (21% with atezolizumab v 21% with placebo), hypertension (18% v 20%, respectively), and anemia (12% v 12%). CONCLUSION: Current evidence does not support the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in newly diagnosed OC. Insight from this trial should inform further evaluation of immunotherapy in OC.

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.