Efficacy of subsequent chemotherapy for patients with BRCA1/2-mutated recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer progressing on olaparib versus placebo maintenance: post-hoc analyses of the SOLO2/ENGOT Ov-21 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the SOLO2 trial (ENGOT Ov-21; NCT01874353), maintenance olaparib in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSROC) and BRCA mutation significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and prolonged overall survival (OS). Following disease progression on olaparib, efficacy of subsequent chemotherapy remains unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a post-hoc hypothesis-generating analysis of SOLO2 data to determine the efficacy of different chemotherapy regimens following RECIST disease progression in patients who received olaparib or placebo. We evaluated time to second progression (TTSP) calculated from the date of RECIST progression to the next progression/death. RESULTS: The study population comprised 147 patients who received chemotherapy as their first subsequent treatment after RECIST progression. Of these, 69 (47%) and 78 (53%) were originally randomized to placebo and olaparib arms, respectively. In the placebo-treated cohort, 27/69 and 42/69 received non-platinum and platinum-based chemotherapy, respectively, compared with 24/78 and 54/78, respectively, in the olaparib-treated cohort. Among patients treated with chemotherapy (N = 147), TTSP was significantly longer in the placebo than in the olaparib arm: 12.1 versus 6.9 months [hazard ratio (HR) 2.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.47-3.19]. Similar result was obtained on multivariable analysis adjusting for prognostic factors at RECIST progression (HR 2.13, 95% CI 1.41-3.22). Among patients treated with platinum-based chemotherapy (n = 96), TTSP was significantly longer in the placebo arm: 14.3 versus 7.0 months (HR 2.89, 95% CI 1.73-4.82). Conversely, among patients treated with non-platinum-based chemotherapy (n = 51), the TTSP was comparable in the placebo and olaparib arms: 8.3 versus 6.0 months (HR 1.58, 95% CI 0.86-2.90). CONCLUSIONS: Following progression from maintenance olaparib in the recurrent setting, the efficacy of platinum-based subsequent chemotherapy seems to be reduced in BRCA1/2-mutated patients with PSROC compared to patients not previously receiving poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi). The optimal strategy for patients who relapse after PARPi is an area of ongoing research.

Phase III, randomized trial of mirvetuximab soravtansine versus chemotherapy in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer: primary analysis of FORWARD I.

BACKGROUND: Mirvetuximab soravtansine (MIRV) is an antibody-drug conjugate comprising a folate receptor alpha (FRα)-binding antibody, cleavable linker, and the maytansinoid DM4, a potent tubulin-targeting agent. The randomized, open-label, phase III study FORWARD I compared MIRV and investigator's choice chemotherapy in patients with platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with 1-3 prior lines of therapy and whose tumors were positive for FRα expression were randomly assigned, in a 2 : 1 ratio, to receive MIRV (6 mg/kg, adjusted ideal body weight) or chemotherapy (paclitaxel, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, or topotecan). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival [PFS, Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1, blinded independent central review] in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and in the prespecified FRα high population. RESULTS: A total of 366 patients were randomized; 243 received MIRV and 109 received chemotherapy. The primary endpoint, PFS, did not reach statistical significance in either the ITT [hazard ratio (HR), 0.98, P = 0.897] or the FRα high population (HR, 0.69, P = 0.049). Superior outcomes for MIRV over chemotherapy were observed in all secondary endpoints in the FRα high population including improved objective response rate (24% versus 10%), CA-125 responses (53% versus 25%), and patient-reported outcomes (27% versus 13%). Fewer treatment-related grade 3 or higher adverse events (25.1% versus 44.0%), and fewer events leading to dose reduction (19.8% versus 30.3%) and treatment discontinuation (4.5% versus 8.3%) were seen with MIRV compared with chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with platinum-resistant EOC, MIRV did not result in a significant improvement in PFS compared with chemotherapy. Secondary endpoints consistently favored MIRV, particularly in patients with high FRα expression. MIRV showed a differentiated and more manageable safety profile than chemotherapy.

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.

Anti-NaPi2b antibody-drug conjugate lifastuzumab vedotin (DNIB0600A) compared with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer in a randomized, open-label, phase II study.

Background: Lifastuzumab vedotin (LIFA) is a humanized anti-NaPi2b monoclonal antibody conjugated to a potent antimitotic agent, monomethyl auristatin E, which inhibits cell division by blocking the polymerization of tubulin. This study is the first to compare an antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) to standard-of-care in ovarian cancer (OC) patients. Patients and methods: Platinum-resistant OC patients were randomized to receive LIFA [2.4 mg/kg, intravenously, every 3 weeks (Q3W)] or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) (40 mg/m2, intravenously, Q4W). NaPi2b expression and serum CA-125 and HE4 levels were assessed. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) in intent-to-treat (ITT) and NaPi2b-high patients. Results: Ninety-five patients were randomized (47 LIFA; 48 PLD). The stratified PFS hazard ratio was 0.78 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.46-1.31; P = 0.34] with a median PFS of 5.3 versus 3.1 months (LIFA versus PLD arm, respectively) in the ITT population, and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.40-1.26; P = 0.24) with a median PFS of 5.3 months versus 3.4 months (LIFA versus PLD arm, respectively) in NaPi2b-high patients. The objective response rate was 34% (95% CI, 22% to 49%, LIFA) versus 15% (95% CI, 7% to 28%, PLD) in the ITT population (P = 0.03), and 36% (95% CI, 22% to 52%, LIFA) versus 14% (95% CI, 6% to 27%, PLD) in NaPi2b-high patients (P = 0.02). Toxicities included grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) (46% LIFA; 51% PLD), serious AEs (30% both arms), and AEs leading to discontinuation of drug (9% LIFA; 8% PLD). Five (11%) LIFA versus 2 (4%) PLD patients had grade ≥2 neuropathy. Conclusion: LIFA Q3W was well tolerated and improved objective response rate with a modest, nonstatistically significant improvement of PFS compared with PLD in platinum-resistant OC. While the response rate for the monomethyl auristatin E-containing ADC was promising, response durations were relatively short, thereby highlighting the importance of evaluating both response rates and duration of response when evaluating ADCs in OC. Clinical trials.gov: NCT01991210.

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.

Fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference of the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup: recurrent disease.

This manuscript reports the consensus statements regarding recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC), reached at the fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference (OCCC), which was held in Tokyo, Japan, in November 2015. Three important questions were identified: (i) What are the subgroups for clinical trials in ROC? The historical definition of using platinum-free interval (PFI) to categorise patients as having platinum-sensitive/resistant disease was replaced by therapy-free interval (TFI). TFI can be broken down into TFIp (PFI), TFInp (non-PFI) and TFIb (biological agent-free interval). Additional criteria to consider include histology, BRCA mutation status, number/type of previous therapies, outcome of prior surgery and patient reported symptoms. (ii) What are the control arms for clinical trials in ROC? When platinum is considered the best option, the control arm should be a platinum-based therapy with or without an anti-angiogenic agent or a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor. If platinum is not considered the best option, the control arm could include a non-platinum drug, either as single agent or in combination. (iii) What are the endpoints for clinical trials in ROC? Overall survival (OS) is the preferred endpoint for patient cohorts with an expected median OS < or = 12 months. Progression-free survival (PFS) is an alternative, and it is the preferred endpoint when the expected median OS is > 12 months. However, PFS alone should not be the only endpoint and must be supported by additional endpoints including pre-defined patient reported outcomes (PROs), time to second subsequent therapy (TSST), or time until definitive deterioration of quality of life (TUDD).

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.

A phase I study of the combination of ro4929097 and cediranib in patients with advanced solid tumours (PJC-004/NCI 8503).

BACKGROUND: The Notch signalling pathway has been implicated in tumour initiation, progression, angiogenesis and development of resistance to vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) targeting, providing a rationale for the combination of RO4929097, a γ-secretase inhibitor, and cediranib, a VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor. METHODS: Patients received escalating doses of RO4929097 (on a 3 days-on and 4 days-off schedule) in combination with cediranib (once daily). Cycle 1 was 42 days long with RO4929097 given alone for the first 3 weeks followed by the co-administration of both RO4929097 and cediranib starting from day 22. Cycle 2 and onwards were 21 days long. Soluble markers of angiogenesis were measured in plasma samples. Archival tumour specimens were assessed for expression of three different components of Notch signalling pathway and genotyping. RESULTS: In total, 20 patients were treated in three dose levels (DLs). The recommended phase II dose was defined as 20 mg for RO4929097 on 3 days-on and 4 days-off schedule and 30 mg daily for cediranib. The most frequent treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were diarrhoea, hypertension, fatigue and nausea. Eleven patients had a best response of stable disease and one patient achieved partial response. We did not detect any correlation between tested biomarkers of angiogenesis or the Notch pathway and treatment effect. There was no correlation between mutational status and time to treatment failure. CONCLUSION: RO4929097 in combination with cediranib is generally well tolerated at the DLs tested. Preliminary evidence of antitumour efficacy with prolonged disease stabilisation in some patients with progressive malignancies warrants further clinical investigation of this treatment strategy.

Temsirolimus in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel in patients with advanced solid tumors: a NCIC-CTG, phase I, open-label dose-escalation study (IND 179).

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to assess the safety, tolerability, recommended phase II dose (RPTD), and preliminary antitumor activity of the combination of carboplatin-paclitaxel (Taxol)-temsirolimus. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with solid malignancies suitable for carboplatin-paclitaxel (CP) chemotherapy and two or less prior lines of chemotherapy received 15, 20, or 25 mg of temsirolimus per week with CP given every 21 days. Thirty-eight eligible patients were entered into six dose levels with the first two levels administering temsirolimus on days 8 and 15 and the subsequent four dose levels switching to days 1 and 8 temsirolimus administration. RESULTS: Days 8 and 15 administration of temsirolimus was not feasible due to myelosuppression on day 15. CP on day 1 with temsirolimus on days 1 and 8 was well tolerated. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was grade 4 thrombocytopenia (n=2) and grade 3 fatigue (n=1). Relative dose intensities for carboplatin, paclitaxel, and temsirolimus at the RPTD were 92%, 82%, and 56%, respectively. Non-DLT treatment-related adverse events occurring in >20% of patients included fatigue, mucositis, alopecia, neuropathy, nausea, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and infection. Grade 3/4 non-hematological toxicity was rare. Partial responses (PRs) and disease stabilization were seen in 46% and 49% of patients, respectively. Nine of 11 (82%) endometrial cancer patients had objective PRs. CONCLUSION: Carboplatin-paclitaxel-temsirolimus is well tolerated and the RPTD is carboplatin area under the curve 5 mg/ml/min, paclitaxel 175 mg/m2, both given on day 1 with temsirolimus 25 mg on days 1 and 8.

A phase II study single agent of aflibercept (VEGF Trap) in patients with recurrent or metastatic gynecologic carcinosarcomas and uterine leiomyosarcoma. A trial of the Princess Margaret Hospital, Chicago and California Cancer Phase II Consortia.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this multi-institutional non randomized phase II trial was to determine the efficacy and safety of single agent aflibercept (VEGF Trap), a recombinant fusion protein that blocks multiple vascular endothelial growth factor isoforms, in women with gynecologic soft tissue sarcoma. METHODS: Patients were enrolled in two cohorts each with Simon two stage designs: uterine leiomyosarcoma and carcinosarcoma of endometrial, ovarian or fallopian tube origin. Eligibility criteria included ≤2 prior lines of chemotherapy for metastatic disease and ECOG performance status of ≤2. Aflibercept 4mg/kg was administered intravenously on day 1 of a 14 day cycle. Primary endpoints were objective response and disease stabilization (Progression Free Survival (PFS) at 6 months). RESULTS: 41 patients with uterine leiomyosarcoma and 22 patients with carcinosarcoma (19 uterine, 3 ovarian) were enrolled on study. In the leiomyosarcoma cohort, eleven (27%) patients had stable disease (SD), 4 with SD lasting at least 24 weeks. The 6 month PFS was 17%, with median time to progression (TTP) of 1.8 (95% CI:1.6-2.1) months. In the carcinosarcoma cohort, two (9%) patients had SD, one lasting >24 weeks, median TTP was 1.6 months (95%CI: 1.1-1.7) No partial responses were observed in patients from either cohort. Grade 3 or more aflibercept related toxicity was uncommon and included hypertension, fatigue, headache and abdominal pain. CONCLUSIONS: Single agent aflibercept has modest activity in patients with uterine leiomyosarcoma and minimal activity in women with carcinosarcoma.

Progression-free survival in advanced ovarian cancer: a Canadian review and expert panel perspective.

Ovarian cancer is leading cause of gynecologic cancer mortality in Canada. To date, overall survival (os) has been the most-used endpoint in oncology trials because of its relevance and objectivity. However, as a result of various factors, including the pattern of sequential salvage therapies, measurement of os and collection of os data are becoming particularly challenging. Phase ii and iii trials have therefore adopted progression-free survival (pfs) as a more convenient surrogate endpoint; however, the clinical significance of pfs remains unclear. This position paper presents discussion topics and findings from a pan-Canadian meeting of experts that set out to evaluate the relevance of pfs as a valid endpoint in ovarian cancer;reach a Canadian consensus on the relevance of pfs in ovarian cancer; andtry to address how pfs translates into clinical benefit in ovarian cancer.Overall, the findings and the group consensus posit that future studies should ensure that trials are designed to evaluate pfs, os, and other clinically relevant endpoints such as disease-related symptoms or quality of life;incorporate interim futility analyses intended to stop accrual early when the experimental regimen is not active;stop trials early to declare superiority only when compelling evidence suggests that a new treatment provides benefit for a pre-specified, clinically relevant endpoint such as os or symptom relief; anddiscourage early release of secondary endpoint results when such a release might increase the frequency of crossover to the experimental intervention.

Phase ii/iii study of intraperitoneal chemotherapy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for ovarian cancer: ncic ctg ov.21.

Three large randomized clinical trials have shown a survival benefit in women with stage iii epithelial ovarian cancer (eoc) who receive intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy after optimal primary debulking surgery. The most recent Gynecologic Oncology Group study, gog 172, showed an improvement in median overall survival of approximately 17 months. That result led to a U.S. National Cancer Institute (nci) clinical announcement recommending that IP chemotherapy be considered for this group of women with eoc. However, IP chemotherapy is associated with increased toxicity, and rates for completion of treatment are low (42% in gog 172). The optimal IP regimen and duration of treatment has yet to be defined. Women undergoing chemotherapy before optimal debulking surgery were not included in the studies or in the nci clinical announcement. The National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group has developed a protocol for a randomized phase ii/iii study which will examine whether IP platinum-taxane-based chemotherapy benefits women who have received neoadjuvant chemotherapy before optimal surgical debulking. To address whether the less systemically toxic carboplatin can be substituted for cisplatin IP, the first phase of the study will have 3 arms: 1 intravenous-only, and 2 IP-containing regimens. At the end of the first stage, and provided that IP therapy is feasible to administer in this patient population, one of the IP regimens, either IP carboplatin or IP cisplatin, will proceed into a phase iii comparison with the intravenous arm. This exciting new study has gathered international support.

A phase II study of sunitinib in patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian and primary peritoneal carcinoma: an NCIC Clinical Trials Group Study.

PURPOSE: Sunitinib is a multitargeted receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor. We conducted a two-stage phase II study to evaluate the objective response rate of oral sunitinib in recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligibility required measurable disease and one or two prior chemotherapies, at least one platinum based. Platinum-sensitive or -resistant disease was allowed. Initial dose schedule was sunitinib 50 mg daily, 4 of 6 weeks. Observation of fluid accumulations during off-treatment periods resulted in adoption of continuous 37.5 mg daily dosing in the second stage of accrual. RESULTS: Of 30 eligible patients, most had serous histology (67%), were platinum sensitive (73%) and had two prior chemotherapies (60%). One partial response (3.3%) and three CA125 responses (10%) were observed, all in platinum-sensitive patients using intermittent dosing. Sixteen (53%) had stable disease. Five had >30% decrease in measurable disease. Overall median progression-free survival was 4.1 months. Common adverse events included fatigue, gastrointestinal symptoms, hand-foot syndrome and hypertension. No gastrointestinal perforation occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Single-agent sunitinib has modest activity in recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer, but only at the 50 mg intermittent dose schedule, suggesting that dose and schedule may be vital considerations in further evaluation of sunitinib in this cancer setting.

Diagnosis of epithelial ovarian carcinoma prior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: There are no evidence based guidelines for the diagnosis of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) prior to the initiation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to review our diagnostic practice, provide guidelines for clinical practice, and suggest a diagnostic strategy for validation in future prospective trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by debulking surgery was performed. Final diagnoses were based on expert pathology review of surgical specimens. Diagnostic strategies were defined as histologic, cytologic and clinical. Performance of these strategies in predicting final pathology was compared. RESULTS: Between 1994 and 2007, 149 patients were identified. Initial diagnosis was made on the basis of: cytology (paracentesis, thoracentesis, or fine needle aspirate) 72% (108 patients); histology (core biopsy, surgery) 18% (26), clinical (Radiology and CA-125) 10% (15). The final diagnosis was consistent with invasive EOC in 96% of patients. The diagnostic accuracies of the 3 strategies were: cytology 98%, histology 92%, and clinical 87%, (p=0.04). Specific EOC subtype was identified in 59% of patients (histology 77% and cytology 55%). When available, the initial subtype corresponded to the final subtype in 85% of cases: histology 80%, cytology 86%. CONCLUSION: Diagnosis of epithelial ovarian cancer based on cytology and histology are superior to clinical factors alone. In a centre with trained gynecologic cytopathologists, a diagnosis of EOC by cytology is not significantly inferior to a diagnosis made by histology. These data are important for clinical practice and the design of future clinical trials.

Single-agent trabectedin as second-line therapy of persistent or recurrent endometrial cancer: results of a multicenter phase II study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of single-agent trabectedin in women with persistent or recurrent endometrial cancer. METHODS: In this open-label, phase II multicenter trial, women with persistent or recurrent endometrial carcinoma were administered trabectedin as a 3-hour intravenous infusion every 21 days at a starting dose of 1.3 mg/m(2) with dexamethasone pretreatment. Clinical objective response was the primary efficacy endpoint. Secondary endpoints were time to progression (TTP), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: The median age of the 50 women entering the study was 63 years (range, 22-87), with all having history of prior chemotherapy (92% combination regimens) and the majority having undergone surgery (92%) or radiation therapy (68%). Patients received trabectedin for a median duration of 6.8 weeks (range, 3-20). A median of 2 cycles (range, 1-6) was administered, with a median dose intensity of 0.4 mg/m(2) per week (range, 0.27-0.43) and a median relative dose intensity of 92% (range, 61.5-100.2%). One patient exhibited a complete response for an objective response rate of 2.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.1%, 11.5%). Median TTP and PFS were both 1.8 months (95% CI: 1.4, 2.9), and median OS was 6.7 months (95% CI: 5.2, 13.9). Most frequent adverse events were nausea (62%), asthenia (50%), vomiting (42%), and increased alanine aminotransferase (40%). CONCLUSION: Single-agent trabectedin displayed minimal antitumor activity in this pretreated population of women with persistent or recurrent endometrial cancer.

Chemotherapy for recurrent, metastatic, or persistent cervical cancer: a systematic review.

To determine the front-line chemotherapeutic options for women with recurrent, metastatic, or persistent cervical cancer. The Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing chemotherapy regimens for patients with recurrent, metastatic, or persistent cervical cancer. Studies were included if response rate, survival, toxicity, or quality of life data were reported. Fifteen RCTs were identified. The proportion of patients with prior chemoradiotherapy ranged from 0% to 57%. Four of the 15 RCTs detected significant improvements in overall response with combination cisplatin-based chemotherapy when compared with single-agent cisplatin. One of the 15 RCTs reported a significant median survival advantage with topotecan and cisplatin when compared with single-agent cisplatin (9.4 vs 6.5 months, P = 0.017); 57% of patients in this trial had previous chemoradiotherapy. Significant increases in grade 3 and 4 adverse events, especially severe hematologic toxicities, were detected among patients treated with that combination of chemotherapy. Thus, we conclude that cisplatin and topotecan should be discussed as a reasonable treatment option for appropriate patients who may wish to maximize the response and survival benefits associated with combination chemotherapy. Patients should understand that prior chemoradiotherapy with cisplatin may moderate the benefits observed, and that the relative benefits in response and survival outcomes come at the expense of increased toxicity. The improvement in median survival of 2.9 months represents a novel survival benefit in this difficult-to-treat patient population. Further randomized trials are needed to inform the role of single-agent or combination chemotherapy regimens, particularly in patients with prior chemoradiotherapy.

Characterisation of the lung toxicity of the cell cycle inhibitor temsirolimus.

The aims of this study were reviewing our experience regarding the pulmonary toxicity of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor temsirolimus, discussing potential pathogenic mechanisms and proposing management strategies. Medical records and radiological reports of 22 patients treated with weekly doses of temsirolimus 25 mg were reviewed. Eight (36%) out of 22 patients developed pulmonary abnormalities compatible with drug-induced pneumonitis. Half were asymptomatic and in those with symptoms, dyspnea and dry cough were the most common. Radiologically two different patterns, ground glass opacities and lung parenchymal consolidation, were described. The management of this toxicity was variable, ranging from no intervention to discontinuation of the drug. In our experience temsirolimus may cause drug-induced pneumonitis at a higher incidence than that previously reported. The presentation and its severity are variable. The risk of developing this toxicity may be increased among subjects with abnormal pre-treatment pulmonary functions or history of lung disease.