Maintenance olaparib rechallenge in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer previously treated with a PARP inhibitor (OReO/ENGOT-ov38): a phase IIIb trial.

BACKGROUND: Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor maintenance therapy is the standard of care for some patients with advanced ovarian cancer. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of PARP inhibitor rechallenge. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial (NCT03106987) enrolled patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer who had received one prior PARP inhibitor therapy for ≥18 and ≥12 months in the BRCA-mutated and non-BRCA-mutated cohorts, respectively, following first-line chemotherapy or for ≥12 and ≥6 months, respectively, following a second or subsequent line of chemotherapy. Patients were in response following their last platinum-based chemotherapy regimen and were randomized 2 : 1 to maintenance olaparib tablets 300 mg twice daily or placebo. Investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint. RESULTS: Seventy four patients in the BRCA-mutated cohort were randomized to olaparib and 38 to placebo, and 72 patients in the non-BRCA-mutated cohort were randomized to olaparib and 36 to placebo; >85% of patients in both cohorts had received ≥3 prior lines of chemotherapy. In the BRCA-mutated cohort, the median PFS was 4.3 months with olaparib versus 2.8 months with placebo [hazard ratio (HR) 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37-0.87; P = 0.022]; 1-year PFS rates were 19% versus 0% (Kaplan-Meier estimates). In the non-BRCA-mutated cohort, median PFS was 5.3 months for olaparib versus 2.8 months for placebo (HR 0.43; 95% CI 0.26-0.71; P = 0.0023); 1-year PFS rates were 14% versus 0% (Kaplan-Meier estimates). No new safety signals were identified with olaparib rechallenge. CONCLUSIONS: In ovarian cancer patients previously treated with one prior PARP inhibitor and at least two lines of platinum-based chemotherapy, maintenance olaparib rechallenge provided a statistically significant, albeit modest, PFS improvement over placebo in both the BRCA-mutated and non-BRCA-mutated cohorts, with a proportion of patients in the maintenance olaparib rechallenge arm of both cohorts remaining progression free at 1 year.

Olaparib maintenance monotherapy in platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer patients without a germline BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation: OPINION primary analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The phase IIIb OPINION trial (NCT03402841) investigated olaparib maintenance monotherapy in patients without a deleterious or suspected deleterious germline BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation (gBRCAm) who had platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSROC) and had received ≥2 previous lines of platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS: In this single-arm, open-label, international study, patients who had responded to platinum-based chemotherapy received maintenance olaparib tablets (300 mg twice daily) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) (modified RECIST version 1.1). A key secondary endpoint was PFS by homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) and somatic BRCAm (sBRCAm) status. The primary analysis of PFS was planned for 18 months after the last patient received their first dose. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy-nine patients were enrolled and received olaparib. At data cutoff (October 2, 2020), 210 PFS events had occurred (75.3% maturity) and median PFS was 9.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.6-10.9) in the overall population. At 12 and 18 months, 38.5% and 24.3% of patients were progression-free, respectively. In the predefined biomarker subgroups, median PFS was 16.4, 11.1, 9.7, and 7.3 months in sBRCAm, HRD-positive including sBRCAm, HRD-positive excluding sBRCAm, and HRD-negative patients, respectively. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were nausea (48.4%) and fatigue/asthenia (44.1%). TEAEs led to dose interruption, dose reduction, and treatment discontinuation in 47.0%, 22.6%, and 7.5% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Maintenance olaparib demonstrated clinical benefit in patients without a gBRCAm, and across all subgroups, compared with historical placebo controls. There were no new safety signals.

Impact of somatic molecular profiling on clinical trial outcomes in rare epithelial gynecologic cancer patients.

OBJECTIVES: Conducting clinical trials in rare malignancies is challenging due to the limited number of patients and differences in biologic behavior. We investigated the feasibility and clinical utility of using genomic profiling for rare gynecologic malignancies. METHODS: Rare epithelial gynecologic cancer patients were analyzed for somatic variants through an institutional molecular profiling program using the Sequenom MassArray platform or the TruSeq Amplicon Cancer Panel on the MiSeq platform. Clinical trial outcomes by RECIST 1.1, and time on treatment were evaluated. RESULTS: From March 2012 to November 2015, 767 gynecologic patients were enrolled and 194 (27%) were classified as rare epithelial malignancies. At least one somatic mutation was identified in 72% of patients, most commonly in TP53 (39%), KRAS (28%) and PIK3CA (27%). A total of 14% of patients were treated on genotype-matched trials. There were no significant differences in overall response rate between genotype-matched versus unmatched trials, nor in median time on treatment between genotype trials and the immediate prior systemic standard treatment. Among 13 evaluable Low Grade Serous ovarian cancer patients treated on genotype-matched trials with MEK inhibitor-based targeted combinations, there were four partial responses. CONCLUSIONS: Somatic molecular profiling is feasible and enables the identification of patients with rare gynecologic cancers who are candidates for genotype-matched clinical trials. Genotype-matched trials, predominantly MEK-based combinations in KRAS and/or NRAS mutant Low Grade Serous ovarian cancer patients, and genotype-unmatched trials, have shown potential clinical activity. Prospective trials with integrated genotyping are warranted to assess the clinical utility of next generation sequencing tests as a standard clinical application in rare malignancies.

Risk of uterine cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

BACKGROUND: Whether BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers have a clinically relevant elevated risk of uterine cancer has implications for risk-reducing surgery. AIM: This multicentre, prospective cohort study assessed uterine cancer risk for mutation carriers compared with the general population. METHODS: Eligible mutation carriers were enrolled in the Kathleen Cuningham Foundation Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer (kConFab) cohort study, had a uterus present and no history of uterine cancer at cohort entry. Epidemiological, lifestyle and clinical data were collected at cohort entry and updated three-yearly. Cancer events were verified using pathology reports. Follow-up was censored at death or last contact. Relative risk of uterine cancer was estimated using the standardised incidence ratio (SIR), with the expected number of cases determined using population-based data for Australia. RESULTS: Of 1,111 mutation carriers in kConFab, 283 were excluded due to prior hysterectomy (N = 278), prior uterine cancer (N = 2) or being non-residents (N = 3). After a median follow-up of 9.0 years, five incident uterine cancers were reported in the 828 eligible women (419 had prior breast cancer and 160 had prior tamoxifen use), compared to 2.04 expected (SIR = 2.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.80-5.72; P = 0.11). In 438 BRCA1 mutation carriers and 390 BRCA2 mutation carriers, three and two incident cases of uterine cancer were reported, respectively, compared to 1.04 expected (SIR = 2.87; 95% CI: 0.59-8.43; P = 0.18) and 0.99 expected (SIR = 2.01; 95% CI: 0.24-7.30; P = 0.52), respectively. All cases were endometrioid subtype, International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics stage I-II disease. No serous uterine cancers were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are consistent with those from most other reports and do not support routine risk-reducing hysterectomy for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

Molecularly targeted therapies in cancer: a guide for the nuclear medicine physician.

Molecular imaging continues to influence every aspect of cancer care including detection, diagnosis, staging and therapy response assessment. Recent advances in the understanding of cancer biology have prompted the introduction of new targeted therapy approaches. Precision medicine in oncology has led to rapid advances and novel approaches optimizing the use of imaging modalities in cancer care, research and development. This article focuses on the concept of targeted therapy in cancer and the challenges that exist for molecular imaging in cancer care.

Genotype-matched treatment for patients with advanced type I epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).

BACKGROUND: Genomic alterations that activate the MAPK signaling pathway frequently occur in Type I Epithelial Ovarian Cancers (EOCs). We evaluated therapeutic response outcomes in patients with type I EOC treated with genotype-matched therapy on clinical trials enrolled in a prospective molecular profiling program. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Formalin fixed paraffin embedded tumor tissues were prospectively screened for genomic alterations using MALDI-ToF mass-spectrometry platform or targeted sequencing using the Illumina MiSeq TruSeq Amplicon Cancer Panel. Treatment outcomes on genotype-matched trials were retrospectively reviewed using RECIST version 1.1 and Gynecological Cancer Intergroup CA125 related-response criteria RESULTS: 55 patients with type I EOC underwent molecular profiling, 41 (75%) low grade serous (LGS), 9 (16%) clear cell (CC), and 5 (9%) mucinous (MC) histologies. Thirty-five patients (64%) were found to have ≥1 somatic mutations: 23 KRAS, 6 NRAS, 5 PIK3CA, 2 PTEN, 1 BRAF, 1 AKT, 1 TP53, and 1 CTNNB1. Fifteen patients were subsequently enrolled in genotype-matched phase I or II trials, including 14 patients with KRAS/NRAS mutations treated with MEK inhibitor targeted combinations. Among 14 RECIST evaluable patients, there were 7 partial responses (PR), 7 stable disease (SD) and 1 disease progression (PD). CA125 responses were observed in 10/10 evaluable KRAS/NRAS mutant patients treated with MEK inhibitor combinations CONCLUSIONS: Genotyping and targeted sequencing of Type I EOCs frequently identifies actionable mutations. Matched treatment with MEK-based combination therapy in KRAS and/or NRAS mutant type I EOC patients is an active therapeutic strategy.

Germline BRCA1/2 testing practices in ovarian cancer: Current state and opportunities for new directions.

PURPOSE: Given the implications for clinical care and prevention in identifying a BRCA1/2 mutation, the objective of this study was to determine current BRCA1/2 testing practices in ovarian cancer and to identify future directions. METHODS: Two parallel complementary web-based surveys were sent by email to representatives of Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) and to referral centers in countries with and without GCIG membership. Questions posed addressed indications of BRCA1/2 testing for ovarian cancer; the implication of genetic counseling; and prevention strategies employed. RESULTS: Among the GCIG, 22 collaborative groups from 19 countries answered the survey. For the complementary survey, 22 referral centers replied. Findings show criteria to offer germline BRCA1/2 testing are mixed; 55% of GCIG members based testing decisions on histology and, among all respondents the main testing criterion remains family history. Typically, genetic counseling is scheduled prior to the genetic testing; however, if negative, results may not be communicated by the genetic counselor. Time between testing and communicating results varies widely between the groups. Lastly, recommendations to relatives regarding risk reduction surgery are inconsistent. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights the need for collaborative efforts to devise international guidelines around BRCA1/2 testing in ovarian cancer to ensure consistent BRCA1/2 screening practices are adopted. Clinical practice is evolving rapidly and as BRCA1/2 testing is expected to become more widespread, new approaches are required. Coordinating BRCA1/2 testing practices is crucial in terms of care for the patient diagnosed with ovarian cancer but also towards cancer prevention for affected family members.

A phase I combination dose-escalation study of eribulin mesylate and gemcitabine in patients with advanced solid tumours: a study of the Princess Margaret Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Eribulin mesylate is a synthetic microtubule inhibitor that showed cytotoxic synergy in combination with gemcitabine preclinically. This combination was assessed in a Phase I dose-finding trial in patients diagnosed with advanced solid tumours who had received up to two prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (CP cohort). METHODS: Dose escalation was performed in a 3+3 design to identify the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). Two additional expansion cohorts in women with gynaecologic cancers at the RP2D (G), and further dose escalation of metastatic chemotherapy-naive patients (CN), were evaluated. RESULTS: 45 patients were treated: 21 (CP), 10 (G) and 14 (CN). The initial combination of eribulin and gemcitabine was administered on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle; however, due to 2 out of 6 dose-limiting haematological toxicities at the first dose level, a reduced dose-intense schedule was assessed. The RP2D was defined at 1.0 mg m(-2) eribulin and 1000 mg m(-2) gemcitabine day 1 and 8 q3 weeks. No other significant toxicities were observed in the G expansion cohort. Neutropenia prevented further dose escalation in the CN cohort. Objective responses were seen in all three cohorts - 2/21 (CP), 1/10 (G) and 2/14 (CN). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of eribulin and gemcitabine was well tolerated at the RP2D.

A phase 2 study of cediranib in recurrent or persistent ovarian, peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer: a trial of the Princess Margaret, Chicago and California Phase II Consortia.

PURPOSE: Cediranib is a potent multitargeted inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) 1, 2 and 3. The study was initiated to evaluate the activity of cediranib in patients (pts) with recurrent ovarian, peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer (OC). METHODS: Eligible pts had persistent/recurrent OC following one prior platinum-based chemotherapy with measurable disease or progression based on Gynecologic Cancer Inter Group CA-125 criteria. Because of toxicities observed in the first 23 pts, the initial starting dose of oral daily (od) cediranib was reduced from 45mg to 30mg. The primary endpoint was objective response rate at 16weeks. This study was stratified into two arms: platinum-sensitive (PL-S) and platinum-resistant (PL-R). RESULTS: 74 pts were enrolled; 39 were PL-S and 35 PL-R, with a median age of 58years [31-87]. In PL-S group, 10 (26%) partial responses (PR) and 20 (51%) stable disease (SD) were confirmed while in the PL-R arm there were no confirmed PR and 23 pts (66%) had SD. The main grade 3/4 toxicities observed at the 30 mg starting dose were hypertension (27%), fatigue (20%) and diarrhea (14%). The median progression-free survival for all patients was 4.9months [3.9-7.0], 7.2months [4.3-9] for PL-S and 3.7months [2.6-4.5] for PL-R groups. The median overall survival was 18.9months (95% CI: 13.5-31.5); 27.7months [17.8-43.3] for PL-S and 11.9months [8.1-18.9] for PL-R groups. CONCLUSION: Cediranib shows significant activity in recurrent platinum sensitive OC. The toxicities were expected and manageable at the dose of 30mg od.