Molecular determinants of clinical outcomes of pembrolizumab in recurrent ovarian cancer: Exploratory analysis of KEYNOTE-100.

OBJECTIVE: This prespecified exploratory analysis evaluated the association of gene expression signatures, tumor mutational burden (TMB), and multiplex immunohistochemistry (mIHC) tumor microenvironment-associated cell phenotypes with clinical outcomes of pembrolizumab in advanced recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC) from the phase II KEYNOTE-100 study. METHODS: Pembrolizumab-treated patients with evaluable RNA-sequencing (n = 317), whole exome sequencing (n = 293), or select mIHC (n = 125) data were evaluated. The association between outcomes (objective response rate [ORR], progression-free survival [PFS], and overall survival [OS]) and gene expression signatures (T-cell-inflamed gene expression profile [TcellinfGEP] and 10 non-TcellinfGEP signatures), TMB, and prespecified mIHC cell phenotype densities as continuous variables was evaluated using logistic (ORR) and Cox proportional hazards regression (PFS; OS). One-sided p-values were calculated at prespecified α = 0.05 for TcellinfGEP, TMB, and mIHC cell phenotypes and at α = 0.10 for non-TcellinfGEP signatures; all but TcellinfGEP and TMB were adjusted for multiplicity. RESULTS: No evidence of associations between ORR and key axes of gene expression was observed. Negative associations were observed between outcomes and TcellinfGEP-adjusted glycolysis (PFS, adjusted-p = 0.019; OS, adjusted-p = 0.085) and hypoxia (PFS, adjusted-p = 0.064) signatures. TMB as a continuous variable was not associated with outcomes (p > 0.05). Positive associations were observed between densities of myeloid cell phenotypes CD11c+ and CD11c+/MHCII-/CD163-/CD68- in the tumor compartment and ORR (adjusted-p = 0.025 and 0.013, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory analysis in advanced ROC did not find evidence for associations between gene expression signatures and outcomes of pembrolizumab. mIHC analysis suggests CD11c+ and CD11c+/MHCII-/CD163-/CD68- phenotypes representing myeloid cell populations may be associated with improved outcomes with pembrolizumab in advanced ROC. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02674061.

Overall Survival With Maintenance Olaparib at a 7-Year Follow-Up in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Advanced Ovarian Cancer and a BRCA Mutation: The SOLO1/GOG 3004 Trial.

PURPOSE: In SOLO1/GOG 3004 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01844986), maintenance therapy with the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib provided a sustained progression-free survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 (BRCA) mutation. We report overall survival (OS) after a 7-year follow-up, a clinically relevant time point and the longest follow-up for any poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor in the first-line setting. METHODS: This double-blind phase III trial randomly assigned patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation in clinical response to platinum-based chemotherapy to maintenance olaparib (n = 260) or placebo (n = 131) for up to 2 years. A prespecified descriptive analysis of OS, a secondary end point, was conducted after a 7-year follow-up. RESULTS: The median duration of treatment was 24.6 months with olaparib and 13.9 months with placebo, and the median follow-up was 88.9 and 87.4 months, respectively. The hazard ratio for OS was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.40 to 0.76; P = .0004 [P < .0001 required to declare statistical significance]). At 7 years, 67.0% of olaparib patients versus 46.5% of placebo patients were alive, and 45.3% versus 20.6%, respectively, were alive and had not received a first subsequent treatment (Kaplan-Meier estimates). The incidence of myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukemia remained low, and new primary malignancies remained balanced between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Results indicate a clinically meaningful, albeit not statistically significant according to prespecified criteria, improvement in OS with maintenance olaparib in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation and support the use of maintenance olaparib to achieve long-term remission in this setting; the potential for cure may also be enhanced. No new safety signals were observed during long-term follow-up.

EMPOWER CERVICAL-1: Effects of cemiplimab versus chemotherapy on patient-reported quality of life, functioning and symptoms among women with recurrent cervical cancer.

BACKGROUND: In a phase III, randomised, active-controlled study (EMPOWER-Cervical 1/GOG-3016/ENGOT-cx9; R2810-ONC-1676; NCT03257267) and cemiplimab significantly improved survival versus investigator's choice of chemotherapy among patients with recurrent cervical cancer who had progressed on platinum-based therapy. Here we report patient-reported outcomes in this pivotal study. METHODS: Patients were randomised 1:1 to open-label cemiplimab (350 mg intravenously every 3 weeks) or investigator's choice of chemotherapy in 6-week cycles. Patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 during cycles 1-16. Least-squares mean changes from baseline in global health status (GHS)/quality of life (QoL) and physical functioning (PF) were secondary end-points in the statistical hierarchy. RESULTS: Of 608 patients (304/arm), 77.8% patients had squamous cell carcinoma and 22.2% patients had adenocarcinoma. Questionnaire completion rates were ∼90% throughout. In the squamous cell carcinoma population, overall between-group differences statistically significantly favoured cemiplimab in GHS/QoL (8.49; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.77-13.21; P = 0.0003) and PF (8.35; 95% CI: 4.08-12.62; P < 0.0001). Treatment differences favoured cemiplimab in both histologic populations by cycle 2. Overall changes from baseline in most functioning and symptom scales favoured cemiplimab, with clinically meaningful treatment differences in role functioning, appetite loss and pain in both populations. The sensitivity analyses, responder analyses and time to definitive deterioration favoured cemiplimab in both populations. CONCLUSIONS: Cemiplimab conferred favourable differences in GHS/QoL and PF compared with chemotherapy among patients with recurrent cervical cancer, with benefits in PF by cycle 2, and clinically meaningful differences favouring cemiplimab in role functioning, appetite loss, and pain.

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

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

Fresh and cryopreserved ovarian tissue transplantation for preserving reproductive and endocrine function: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian tissue cryopreservation involves freezing and storing of surgically retrieved ovarian tissue in liquid or vapour nitrogen below -190°C. The tissue can be thawed and transplanted back with the aim of restoring fertility or ovarian endocrine function. The techniques for human ovarian tissue freezing and transplantation have evolved over the last 20 years, particularly in the context of fertility preservation in pre-pubertal cancer patients. Fresh ovarian tissue transplantation, using an autograft or donor tissue, is a more recent development; it has the potential to preserve fertility and hormonal function in women who have their ovaries removed for benign gynaecological conditions. The techniques of ovarian tissue cryopreservation and transplantation have progressed rapidly since inception; however, the evidence on the success of this intervention is largely based on case reports and case series. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: The aim of this study was to systematically review the current evidence by incorporating study-level and individual patient-level meta-analyses of women who received ovarian transplants, including frozen-thawed transplant, fresh or donor graft. SEARCH METHODS: The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018115233). A comprehensive literature search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from database inception to October 2020. Authors were also contacted for individual patient data if relevant outcomes were not reported in the published manuscripts. Meta-analysis was performed using inverse-variance weighting to calculate summary estimates using a fixed-effects model. OUTCOMES: The review included 87 studies (735 women). Twenty studies reported on ≥5 cases of ovarian transplants and were included in the meta-analysis (568 women). Fertility outcomes included pregnancy, live birth and miscarriage rates, and endocrine outcomes included oestrogen, FSH and LH levels. The pooled rates were 37% (95% CI: 32-43%) for pregnancy, 28% (95% CI: 24-34%) for live birth and 37% (95% CI: 30-46%) for miscarriage following frozen ovarian tissue transplantation. Pooled mean for pre-transplant oestrogen was 101.6 pmol/l (95% CI: 47.9-155.3), which increased post-transplant to 522.4 pmol/l (95% CI: 315.4-729; mean difference: 228.24; 95% CI: 180.5-276). Pooled mean of pre-transplant FSH was 66.4 IU/l (95% CI: 52.8-84), which decreased post-transplant to 14.1 IU/l (95% CI: 10.9-17.3; mean difference 61.8; 95% CI: 57-66.6). The median time to return of FSH to a value <25 IU/l was 19 weeks (interquartile range: 15-26 weeks; range: 0.4-208 weeks). The median duration of graft function was 2.5 years (interquartile range: 1.4-3.4 years; range: 0.7-5 years). The analysis demonstrated that ovarian tissue cryopreservation and transplantation could restore reproductive and hormonal functions in women. Further studies with larger samples of well-characterized populations are required to define the optimal retrieval, cryopreservation and transplantation processes. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: Ovarian tissue cryopreservation and transplantation may not only be effective in restoring fertility but also the return of reproductive endocrine function. Although this technology was developed as a fertility preservation option, it may have the scope to be considered for endocrine function preservation.

Survival with Cemiplimab in Recurrent Cervical Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with recurrent cervical cancer have a poor prognosis. Cemiplimab, the fully human programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)-blocking antibody approved to treat lung and skin cancers, has been shown to have preliminary clinical activity in this population. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients who had disease progression after first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy, regardless of their programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status. Women were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive cemiplimab (350 mg every 3 weeks) or the investigator's choice of single-agent chemotherapy. The primary end point was overall survival. Progression-free survival and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 608 women were enrolled (304 in each group). In the overall trial population, median overall survival was longer in the cemiplimab group than in the chemotherapy group (12.0 months vs. 8.5 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 0.84; two-sided P<0.001). The overall survival benefit was consistent in both histologic subgroups (squamous-cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma [including adenosquamous carcinoma]). Progression-free survival was also longer in the cemiplimab group than in the chemotherapy group in the overall population (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.89; two-sided P<0.001). In the overall population, an objective response occurred in 16.4% (95% CI, 12.5 to 21.1) of the patients in the cemiplimab group, as compared with 6.3% (95% CI, 3.8 to 9.6) in the chemotherapy group. An objective response occurred in 18% (95% CI, 11 to 28) of the cemiplimab-treated patients with PD-L1 expression greater than or equal to 1% and in 11% (95% CI, 4 to 25) of those with PD-L1 expression of less than 1%. Overall, grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 45.0% of the patients who received cemiplimab and in 53.4% of those who received chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Survival was significantly longer with cemiplimab than with single-agent chemotherapy among patients with recurrent cervical cancer after first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy. (Funded by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi; EMPOWER-Cervical 1/GOG-3016/ENGOT-cx9 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03257267.).

Maintenance olaparib for patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation (SOLO1/GOG 3004): 5-year follow-up of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a high unmet need for treatment regimens that increase the chance of long-term remission and possibly cure for women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. In the primary analysis of SOLO1/GOG 3004, the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo in patients with a BRCA mutation; median progression-free survival was not reached. Here, we report an updated, post-hoc analysis of progression-free survival from SOLO1, after 5 years of follow-up. METHODS: SOLO1 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, done across 118 centres in 15 countries, that enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 and with BRCA-mutated, newly diagnosed, advanced, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer with a complete or partial clinical response after platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) via a web-based or interactive voice-response system to receive olaparib (300 mg twice daily) or placebo tablets orally as maintenance monotherapy for up to 2 years; randomisation was by blocks and was stratified according to clinical response after platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients, treatment providers, and data assessors were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Efficacy is reported in the intention-to-treat population and safety in patients who received at least one dose of treatment. The data cutoff for this updated, post-hoc analysis was March 5, 2020. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01844986) and is ongoing but closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between Sept 3, 2013, and March 6, 2015, 260 patients were randomly assigned to olaparib and 131 to placebo. The median treatment duration was 24·6 months (IQR 11·2-24·9) in the olaparib group and 13·9 months (8·0-24·8) in the placebo group; median follow-up was 4·8 years (2·8-5·3) in the olaparib group and 5·0 years (2·6-5·3) in the placebo group. In this post-hoc analysis, median progression-free survival was 56·0 months (95% CI 41·9-not reached) with olaparib versus 13·8 months (11·1-18·2) with placebo (hazard ratio 0·33 [95% CI 0·25-0·43]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were anaemia (57 [22%] of 260 patients receiving olaparib vs two [2%] of 130 receiving placebo) and neutropenia (22 [8%] vs six [5%]), and serious adverse events occurred in 55 (21%) of 260 patients in the olaparib group and 17 (13%) of 130 in the placebo group. No treatment-related adverse events that occurred during study treatment or up to 30 days after discontinuation were reported as leading to death. No additional cases of myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukaemia were reported since the primary data cutoff, including after the 30-day safety follow-up period. INTERPRETATION: For patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation, after, to our knowledge, the longest follow-up for any randomised controlled trial of a PARP inhibitor in this setting, the benefit derived from 2 years' maintenance therapy with olaparib was sustained beyond the end of treatment, extending median progression-free survival past 4·5 years. These results support the use of maintenance olaparib as a standard of care in this setting. FUNDING: AstraZeneca; Merck Sharpe & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

Tolerability of maintenance olaparib in newly diagnosed patients with advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation in the randomized phase III SOLO1 trial.

OBJECTIVES: In the phase III SOLO1 trial (NCT01844986), maintenance olaparib provided a substantial progression-free survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation who were in response after platinum-based chemotherapy. We analyzed the timing, duration and grade of the most common hematologic and non-hematologic adverse events in SOLO1. METHODS: Eligible patients were randomized to olaparib tablets 300 mg twice daily (N = 260) or placebo (N = 131), with a 2-year treatment cap in most patients. Safety outcomes were analyzed in detail in randomized patients who received at least one dose of study drug (olaparib, n = 260; placebo, n = 130). RESULTS: Median time to first onset of the most common hematologic (anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia) and non-hematologic (nausea, fatigue/asthenia, vomiting) adverse events was <3 months in olaparib-treated patients. The first event of anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, nausea and vomiting lasted a median of <2 months and the first event of fatigue/asthenia lasted a median of 3.48 months in the olaparib group. These adverse events were manageable with supportive treatment and/or olaparib dose modification in most patients, with few patients requiring discontinuation of olaparib. Of 162 patients still receiving olaparib at month 24, 64.2% were receiving the recommended starting dose of olaparib 300 mg twice daily. CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance olaparib had a predictable and manageable adverse event profile in the newly diagnosed setting with no new safety signals identified. Adverse events usually occurred early, were largely manageable and led to discontinuation in a minority of patients.

Patient-centred outcomes and effect of disease progression on health status in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation receiving maintenance olaparib or placebo (SOLO1): a randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the phase 3 SOLO1 trial, maintenance olaparib provided a significant progression-free survival benefit versus placebo in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation in response after platinum-based chemotherapy. We analysed health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and patient-centred outcomes in SOLO1, and the effect of radiological disease progression on health status. METHODS: SOLO1 is a randomised, double-blind, international trial done in 118 centres and 15 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older; had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-1; had newly diagnosed, advanced, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer, primary peritoneal cancer, or fallopian tube cancer with a BRCA mutation; and were in clinical complete or partial response to platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to either 300 mg olaparib tablets or placebo twice per day using an interactive voice and web response system and were treated for up to 2 years. Treatment assignment was masked for patients and for clinicians giving the interventions, and those collecting and analysing the data. Randomisation was stratified by response to platinum-based chemotherapy (clinical complete or partial response). HRQOL was a secondary endpoint and the prespecified primary HRQOL endpoint was the change from baseline in the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovarian Cancer Trial Outcome Index (TOI) score for the first 24 months. TOI scores range from 0 to 100 (higher scores indicated better HRQOL), with a clinically meaningful difference defined as a difference of at least 10 points. Prespecified exploratory endpoints were quality-adjusted progression-free survival and time without significant symptoms of toxicity (TWiST). HRQOL endpoints were analysed in all randomly assigned patients. The trial is ongoing but closed to new participants. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01844986. FINDINGS: Between Sept 3, 2013, and March 6, 2015, 1084 patients were enrolled. 693 patients were ineligible, leaving 391 eligible patients who were randomly assigned to olaparib (n=260) or placebo (n=131; one placebo patient withdrew before receiving any study treatment), with a median duration of follow-up of 40·7 months (IQR 34·9-42·9) for olaparib and 41·2 months (32·2-41·6) for placebo. There was no clinically meaningful change in TOI score at 24 months within or between the olaparib and placebo groups (adjusted mean change in score from baseline over 24 months was 0·30 points [95% CI -0·72 to 1·32] in the olaparib group vs 3·30 points [1·84 to 4·76] in the placebo group; between-group difference of -3·00, 95% CI -4·78 to -1·22; p=0·0010). Mean quality-adjusted progression-free survival (olaparib 29·75 months [95% CI 28·20-31·63] vs placebo 17·58 [15·05-20·18]; difference 12·17 months [95% CI 9·07-15·11], p<0·0001) and the mean duration of TWiST (olaparib 33·15 months [95% CI 30·82-35·49] vs placebo 20·24 months [17·36-23·11]; difference 12·92 months [95% CI 9·30-16·54]; p<0·0001) were significantly longer with olaparib than with placebo. INTERPRETATION: The substantial progression-free survival benefit provided by maintenance olaparib in the newly diagnosed setting was achieved with no detrimental effect on patients' HRQOL and was supported by clinically meaningful quality-adjusted progression-free survival and TWiST benefits with maintenance olaparib versus placebo. FUNDING: AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Olaparib tablets as maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation (SOLO2/ENGOT-Ov21): a final analysis of a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Olaparib, a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, has previously been shown to extend progression-free survival versus placebo when given to patients with relapsed high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer who were platinum sensitive and who had a BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation, as part of the SOLO2/ENGOT-Ov21 trial. The aim of this final analysis is to investigate the effect of olaparib on overall survival. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial was done across 123 medical centres in 16 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at baseline of 0-1, had histologically confirmed, relapsed, high-grade serous or high-grade endometrioid ovarian cancer, including primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer, and had received two or more previous platinum regimens. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive olaparib tablets (300 mg in two 150 mg tablets twice daily) or matching placebo tablets using an interactive web or voice-response system. Stratification was by response to previous chemotherapy and length of platinum-free interval. Treatment assignment was masked to patients, treatment providers, and data assessors. The primary endpoint of progression-free survival has been reported previously. Overall survival was a key secondary endpoint and was analysed in all patients as randomly allocated. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one treatment dose. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01874353, and is no longer recruiting patients. FINDINGS: Between Sept 3, 2013 and Nov 21, 2014, 295 patients were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either olaparib (n=196 [66%]) or placebo (n=99 [34%]). One patient, randomised in error, did not receive olaparib. Median follow-up was 65·7 months (IQR 63·6-69·3) with olaparib and 64·5 months (63·4-68·7) with placebo. Median overall survival was 51·7 months (95% CI 41·5-59·1) with olaparib and 38·8 months (31·4-48·6) with placebo (hazard ratio 0·74 [95% CI 0·54-1·00]; p=0·054), unadjusted for the 38% of patients in the placebo group who received subsequent PARP inhibitor therapy. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse event was anaemia (which occurred in 41 [21%] of 195 patients in the olaparib group and two [2%] of 99 patients in the placebo group). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 50 (26%) of 195 patients receiving olaparib and eight (8%) of 99 patients receiving placebo. Treatment-emergent adverse events with a fatal outcome occurred in eight (4%) of the 195 patients receiving olaparib, six of which were judged to be treatment-related (attributed to myelodysplastic syndrome [n=3] and acute myeloid leukaemia [n=3]). INTERPRETATION: Olaparib provided a median overall survival benefit of 12·9 months compared with placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation. Although statistical significance was not reached, these findings are arguably clinically meaningful and support the use of maintenance olaparib in these patients. FUNDING: AstraZeneca and Merck.

Efficacy of Maintenance Olaparib for Patients With Newly Diagnosed Advanced Ovarian Cancer With a BRCA Mutation: Subgroup Analysis Findings From the SOLO1 Trial.

PURPOSE: In SOLO1, maintenance olaparib (300 mg twice daily) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with newly diagnosed BRCA1- and/or BRCA2-mutated advanced ovarian cancer compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.30; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.41; median not reached v 13.8 months). We investigated PFS in SOLO1 for subgroups of patients based on preselected baseline factors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Investigator-assessed PFS subgroup analyses of SOLO1 included clinical response after platinum-based chemotherapy (complete [CR] or partial response [PR]), surgery type (upfront or interval surgery), disease status after surgery (residual or no gross residual disease), and BRCA mutation status (BRCA1 or BRCA2). Additionally, we evaluated PFS in patients with stage III disease who underwent upfront surgery and had no gross residual disease. We also report objective response rate. RESULTS: The risk of disease progression or death was reduced with olaparib compared with placebo by 69% (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.46) and 63% (HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.58) in patients undergoing upfront or interval surgery; 56% (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.77) and 67% (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.46) in patients with residual or no residual disease after surgery; 66% (HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.47) and 69% in women with clinical CR or PR at baseline (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.52); and 59% (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.56) and 80% (HR 0.20; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.37) in patients with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, respectively. CONCLUSION: Patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer achieve substantial benefit from maintenance olaparib treatment regardless of baseline surgery outcome, response to chemotherapy, or BRCA mutation type.

Heterotopic transplantation of cryopreserved ovarian tissue in cancer patients: a case series.

Transplantation of cryopreserved ovarian tissue offers patients a chance to preserve fertility during cancer treatment. In this study of ten young women with gynecological cancer, heterotopic sites were tested for serum hormones and follicle growth to estimate transplant longevity and prospects for assisted conception. Frozen-thawed grafts were implanted subcutaneously in the forearm (FA) (2 cases), the abdominal wall (AW) (11 cases), and the peritoneal lining (P) (3 cases) . In the follow-up of 36 months, a total of 80 ovarian cycles in different heterotopic sites were analyzed. FA and AW grafts had wildly fluctuating FSH, while estradiol (E2) reached preovulatory levels only in AW and P grafts. Follicular growth was active in P sites (1.2 ± 0.1 mm/d) and sluggish in FA and AW sites (0.4 ± 0.1 mm/d). A mature oocyte was only retrieved from the AW, while seven other aspirations were unsuccessful. Meanwhile, a patient delivered twice after treatment for Hodgkin's lymphoma when orthotopic transplantation was performed, first from an IVF cycle and subsequently from a natural cycle. In conclusion, these findings offer no strong encouragement for fertility preservation by transplanting cryopreserved ovarian tissue to subcutaneous sites, and although the peritoneal site gave better results, graft longevity averaged the same at around 3 years.

Phase IB Dose Escalation and Expansion Study of AKT Inhibitor Afuresertib with Carboplatin and Paclitaxel in Recurrent Platinum-resistant Ovarian Cancer.

PURPOSE: Preclinically, AKT kinase inhibition restores drug sensitivity in platinum-resistant tumors. Here the pan-AKT kinase inhibitor afuresertib was given in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin (PC) in patients with recurrent platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian cancer (PROC) and primary platinum-refractory ovarian cancer (PPROC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Part I was a combination 3+3 dose escalation study for recurrent ovarian cancer. Patients received daily continuous oral afuresertib at 50-150 mg/day with intravenous paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) and carboplatin (AUC5) every 3 weeks for six cycles followed by maintenance afuresertib at 125 mg/day until progression or toxicity. Part II was a single-arm evaluation of the clinical activity of this combination in recurrent PROC (Cohort A) or PPROC (Cohort B). Patients received oral afuresertib at the MTD defined in Part I in combination with PC for six cycles, followed by maintenance afuresertib. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability of afuresertib in combination with PC (Part I, dose escalation), and investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR) as per RECIST version 1.1 (Part II). RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients enrolled into Part I, and 30 into Part II. Three dose-limiting toxicities of grade 3 rash were observed, one at 125 mg and two at 150 mg afuresertib. The MTD of afuresertib in combination with PC was therefore identified as 125 mg/day. The most common (≥50%) drug-related adverse events observed in Part I of the study were nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, alopecia, fatigue, and neutropenia and, in Part II, were diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, and alopecia. The Part II ORR in the intention to treat patients was 32% [95% confidence interval (CI), 15.9-52.4] by RECIST 1.1 and 52% (95% CI, 31.3-72.2) by GCIG CA125 criteria. Median progression-free survival was 7.1 months (95% CI, 6.3-9.0 months). CONCLUSIONS: Afuresertib plus PC demonstrated efficacy in recurrent PROC with the MTD of afuresertib defined as 125 mg/day.

Maintenance Olaparib in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Advanced Ovarian Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Most women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer have a relapse within 3 years after standard treatment with surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy. The benefit of the oral poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib in relapsed disease has been well established, but the benefit of olaparib as maintenance therapy in newly diagnosed disease is uncertain. METHODS: We conducted an international, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy of olaparib as maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage III or IV) high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer, primary peritoneal cancer, or fallopian-tube cancer (or a combination thereof) with a mutation in BRCA1, BRCA2, or both ( BRCA1/2) who had a complete or partial clinical response after platinum-based chemotherapy. The patients were randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive olaparib tablets (300 mg twice daily) or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: Of the 391 patients who underwent randomization, 260 were assigned to receive olaparib and 131 to receive placebo. A total of 388 patients had a centrally confirmed germline BRCA1/2 mutation, and 2 patients had a centrally confirmed somatic BRCA1/2 mutation. After a median follow-up of 41 months, the risk of disease progression or death was 70% lower with olaparib than with placebo (Kaplan-Meier estimate of the rate of freedom from disease progression and from death at 3 years, 60% vs. 27%; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.23 to 0.41; P<0.001). Adverse events were consistent with the known toxic effects of olaparib. CONCLUSIONS: The use of maintenance therapy with olaparib provided a substantial benefit with regard to progression-free survival among women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation, with a 70% lower risk of disease progression or death with olaparib than with placebo. (Funded by AstraZeneca and Merck; SOLO1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844986 .).

Efficacy of Neoadjuvant Therapy With Cisplatin Plus Mitomycin C in BRCA1-Mutated Ovarian Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Cisplatin and mitomycin C exert high activity towards BRCA1-deficient cells. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a combination of these drugs in hereditary BRCA1-associated ovarian cancer (OC). METHODS: Twelve OC patients, who could not be treated by primary debulking surgery owing to extensive tumor spread, were given neoadjuvant cisplatin (100 mg/m) and mitomycin C (10 mg/m) every 4 weeks for 3 (n = 9), 2 (n = 2), or 4 (n = 1) cycles. RESULTS: The decrease of tumor burden and complete surgical cytoreduction were achieved in all patients. Pathologic complete response, defined as the absence of tumor cells in surgically removed tissues, was observed in 2 (17%) of 12 cases. Retrospective analysis of 62 OC in BRCA1 mutation carriers subjected to conventional neoadjuvant chemotherapy schemes revealed 36 objective tumor responses (58%) and 37 instances (60%) of complete cytoreductive surgery; however, none of these patients demonstrated pathologic complete response. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of cisplatin plus mitomycin C showed promising results in BRCA1-driven OC and therefore deserves further clinical evaluation.

Safety and efficacy of NEPA, an oral fixed combination of netupitant and palonosetron, in older patients.

OBJECTIVES: Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is critical in older patients with cancer. NEPA is an oral fixed combination of netupitant 300mg, a new NK1 receptor antagonist (RA), and palonosetron 0.5mg, a pharmacologically distinct 5-HT3 RA. This retrospective analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of NEPA in older patients. METHODS: Patients aged ≥65 and ≥70years from one phase II and two phase III trials were considered. Chemotherapy-naive patients with malignant tumors were treated with anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC), non-AC-based moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (non-AC MEC), or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Following single-dose NEPA, patients received oral dexamethasone on day 1 (AC and non-AC MEC) or days 1-4 (HEC). Efficacy was evaluated through complete response (CR) in cycle 1. Safety was evaluated by AEs and ECGs. Data were summarized by descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Overall, 214 patients were ≥65years and 80 were ≥70years. A higher CR was observed in older patients versus the total population; in the acute phase >90% of patients ≥65years experienced CR. Efficacy was maintained over multiple cycles of chemotherapy. No significant nausea rates were generally higher in the older patients versus total population. Similar rates of AEs in the first treatment cycle were reported for patients ≥65years, ≥70years, and total population (72.9% vs 67.5% vs 70.0%, respectively). No cardiac safety concerns were raised. CONCLUSION: NEPA is highly effective in older patients receiving MEC or HEC regimens. NEPA is also well tolerated, demonstrating suitability for use in older patients who may have comorbidities.

First-in-human, phase I/IIa clinical study of the peptidase potentiated alkylator melflufen administered every three weeks to patients with advanced solid tumor malignancies.

PURPOSE: Melflufen (melphalan flufenamide, previously designated J1) is an optimized and targeted derivative of melphalan, hydrolyzed by aminopeptidases overexpressed in tumor cells resulting in selective release and trapping of melphalan, and enhanced activity in preclinical models. METHODS: This was a prospective, single-armed, open-label, first-in-human, dose-finding phase I/IIa study in 45 adult patients with advanced and progressive solid tumors without standard treatment options. Most common tumor types were ovarian carcinoma (n = 20) and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC, n = 11). RESULTS: In the dose-escalating phase I part of the study, seven patients were treated with increasing fixed doses of melflufen (25-130 mg) Q3W. In the subsequent phase IIa part, 38 patients received in total 115 cycles of therapy at doses of 30-75 mg. No dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were observed at 25 and 50 mg; at higher doses DLTs were reversible neutropenias and thrombocytopenias, particularly evident in heavily pretreated patients, and the recommended phase II dose (RPTD) was set to 50 mg. Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) evaluation after 3 cycles of therapy (27 patients) showed partial response in one (ovarian cancer), and stable disease in 18 patients. One NSCLC patient received nine cycles of melflufen and progressed after 7 months of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, melflufen can safely be given to cancer patients, and the toxicity profile was as expected for alkylating agents; RPTD is 50 mg Q3W. Reversible and manageable bone marrow suppression was identified as a DLT. Clinical activity is suggested in ovarian cancer, but modest activity in treatment of refractory NSCLC.

Phase III randomized trial of second-line ixabepilone versus paclitaxel or doxorubicin in women with advanced endometrial cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this multicenter, open label, randomized phase III study was to determine whether ixabepilone resulted in improved overall survival (OS) compared with commonly used single-agent chemotherapy (doxorubicin or paclitaxel) in women with locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic endometrial cancer with at least one failed prior platinum-based chemotherapeutic regimen. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to ixabepilone (40mg/m(2)), or either paclitaxel (175mg/m(2)) or doxorubicin (60mg/m(2)), every 21days. Patients that had previously received an anthracycline were randomized to ixabepilone or paclitaxel; all other patients were randomized to ixabepilone or doxorubicin. An interim analysis of futility for OS was planned. RESULTS: At the time of database lock, 496 patients were randomized to receive ixabepilone (n=248) or control (n=248); nine patients in the control arm were not treated. The interim analysis of futility for OS (219 events) favored the control chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio=1.3 [95% confidence interval: 1.0-1.7], stratified log rank test P=0.0397), indicating that the study would not meet its primary objective. The study was discontinued based on the interim OS results. The frequency of adverse events was comparable between the treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: The study did not meet its primary objective of improving OS in the ixabepilone arm compared to the control chemotherapy arm. A favorable risk/benefit ratio was not observed for ixabepilone versus control at the time of the interim analysis. The safety results were consistent with the known safety profiles of ixabepilone and control.

Trabectedin plus pegylated liposomal Doxorubicin in recurrent ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of trabectedin plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) with that of PLD alone in women with recurrent ovarian cancer after failure of first-line, platinum-based chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women > or = 18 years, stratified by performance status (0 to 1 v 2) and platinum sensitivity, were randomly assigned to receive an intravenous infusion of PLD 30 mg/m(2) followed by a 3-hour infusion of trabectedin 1.1 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks or PLD 50 mg/m(2) every 4 weeks. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent radiology assessment. RESULTS: Patients (N = 672) were randomly assigned to trabectedin/PLD (n = 337) or PLD (n = 335). Median PFS was 7.3 months with trabectedin/PLD v 5.8 months with PLD (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.96; P = .0190). For platinum-sensitive patients, median PFS was 9.2 months v 7.5 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.95; P = .0170). Overall response rate (ORR) was 27.6% for trabectedin/PLD v 18.8% for PLD (P = .0080); for platinum-sensitive patients, it was 35.3% v 22.6% (P = .0042), respectively. ORR, PFS, and overall survival among platinum-resistant patients were not statistically different. Neutropenia was more common with trabectedin/PLD. Grade 3 to 4 transaminase elevations were also more common with the combination but were transient and noncumulative. Hand-foot syndrome and mucositis were less frequent with trabectedin/PLD than with PLD alone. CONCLUSION: When combined with PLD, trabectedin improves PFS and ORR over PLD alone with acceptable tolerance in the second-line treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer.