Profiling the immune landscape in mucinous ovarian carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: Mucinous ovarian carcinoma (MOC) is a rare histotype of ovarian cancer, with low response rates to standard chemotherapy, and very poor survival for patients diagnosed at advanced stage. There is a limited understanding of the MOC immune landscape, and consequently whether immune checkpoint inhibitors could be considered for a subset of patients. METHODS: We performed multicolor immunohistochemistry (IHC) and immunofluorescence (IF) on tissue microarrays in a cohort of 126 MOC patients. Cell densities were calculated in the epithelial and stromal components for tumor-associated macrophages (CD68+/PD-L1+, CD68+/PD-L1-), T cells (CD3+/CD8-, CD3+/CD8+), putative T-regulatory cells (Tregs, FOXP3+), B cells (CD20+/CD79A+), plasma cells (CD20-/CD79a+), and PD-L1+ and PD-1+ cells, and compared these values with clinical factors. Univariate and multivariable Cox Proportional Hazards assessed overall survival. Unsupervised k-means clustering identified patient subsets with common patterns of immune cell infiltration. RESULTS: Mean densities of PD1+ cells, PD-L1- macrophages, CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, and FOXP3+ Tregs were higher in the stroma compared to the epithelium. Tumors from advanced (Stage III/IV) MOC had greater epithelial infiltration of PD-L1- macrophages, and fewer PD-L1+ macrophages compared with Stage I/II cancers (p = 0.004 and p = 0.014 respectively). Patients with high epithelial density of FOXP3+ cells, CD8+/FOXP3+ cells, or PD-L1- macrophages, had poorer survival, and high epithelial CD79a + plasma cells conferred better survival, all upon univariate analysis only. Clustering showed that most MOC (86%) had an immune depleted (cold) phenotype, with only a small proportion (11/76,14%) considered immune inflamed (hot) based on T cell and PD-L1 infiltrates. CONCLUSION: In summary, MOCs are mostly immunogenically 'cold', suggesting they may have limited response to current immunotherapies.

Polygenic risk of paclitaxel-induced peripheral neuropathy: a genome-wide association study.

BACKGROUND: Genetic risk factors for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN), a major dose-limiting side-effect of paclitaxel, are not well understood. METHODS: We performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) in 183 paclitaxel-treated patients to identify genetic loci associated with CIPN assessed via comprehensive neuropathy phenotyping tools (patient-reported, clinical and neurological grading scales). Bioinformatic analyses including pathway enrichment and polygenic risk score analysis were used to identify mechanistic pathways of interest. RESULTS: In total, 77% of the cohort were classified with CIPN (n = 139), with moderate/severe neuropathy in 36%. GWAS was undertaken separately for the three measures of CIPN. GWAS of patient-reported CIPN identified 4 chromosomal regions that exceeded genome-wide significance (rs9846958, chromosome 3; rs117158921, chromosome 18; rs4560447, chromosome 4; rs200091415, chromosome 10). rs4560447 is located within a protein-coding gene, LIMCH1, associated with actin and neural development and expressed in the dorsal root ganglia (DRG). There were additional risk loci that exceeded the statistical threshold for suggestive genome-wide association (P < 1 × 10-5) for all measures. A polygenic risk score calculated from the top 46 ranked SNPs was highly correlated with patient-reported CIPN (r2 = 0.53; P = 1.54 × 10-35). Overlap analysis was performed to identify 3338 genes which were in common between the patient-reported CIPN, neurological grading scale and clinical grading scale GWAS. The common gene set was subsequently analysed for enrichment of gene ontology (GO) and Reactome pathways, identifying a number of pathways, including the axon development pathway (GO:0061564; P = 1.78 × 10-6) and neuronal system (R-HSA-112316; adjusted P = 3.33 × 10-7). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the potential role of axon development and regeneration pathways in paclitaxel-induced CIPN.

Evaluating patient-reported symptoms and late adverse effects following completion of first-line chemotherapy for ovarian cancer using the MOST (Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment concerns).

OBJECTIVES: Knowledge on the course of symptoms patients with ovarian cancer experience is limited. We documented the prevalence and trajectories of symptoms after first-line chemotherapy using the Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment concerns (MOST). METHODS: A total of 726 patients who received platinum-based chemotherapy for ovarian cancer were asked to complete the MOST every 3 months, beginning 6 months post-diagnosis and continuing for up to 4 years. We used descriptive statistics to examine temporal changes in MOST-S26 index scores for disease or treatment-related (MOST-DorT), neurotoxicity (MOST-NTx), abdominal (MOST-Abdo), and psychological (MOST-Psych) symptoms, and wellbeing (MOST-Wellbeing) and selected individual symptoms. We used group-based trajectory models to identify groups with persistently poor symptoms. RESULTS: The median MOST-Abdo, MOST-DorT and MOST-Wellbeing score were worst at chemotherapy-end but improved and stabilised by 1, 3 and 12 months after treatment, respectively. The median MOST-NTx score peaked at 1 month after treatment before improving, while the median MOST-Psych score did not change substantially over time. Long-term moderate-to-severe fatigue (32%), trouble sleeping (31%), sore hands and feet (21%), pins and needles (20%) and anxiety (18%) were common. Trajectory models revealed groups of patients with persistent symptoms had MOST-DorT scores above 30 and MOST-NTx scores above 40 at treatment-end. CONCLUSIONS: Although many patients report improvements in symptoms by 3 months after first-line chemotherapy for ovarian cancer, patients who score > 30/100 on MOST-S26-DorT or > 40/100 on MOST-S26-NTx at the end of chemotherapy are likely to have persistent symptoms. The MOST could triage this at-risk subset for early intervention.

Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment concerns (MOST) indexes and their associations with health-related quality of life in recurrent ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: The Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment (MOST) concerns is a validated patient-reported symptom assessment tool for assessing symptom benefit and adverse effects of palliative chemotherapy in women with recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC). We aimed to examine (i) how symptoms within MOST symptom indexes track together (i.e. co-occur) and (ii) the association between MOST symptom indexes and key aspects of health-related quality of life (HRQL). METHOD: A prospective cohort of women with ROC completed the MOST-T35, EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-OV28 at baseline and before each cycle of chemotherapy. Analyses were conducted on baseline and end-of-treatment data. Exploratory factor analysis and hierarchical cluster analysis identified groups of co-occurring symptoms. Path models examined associations between MOST symptom indexes and HRQL. RESULTS: Data from 762 women at baseline and 681 at treatment-end who completed all 22 symptom-specific MOST items and at least one HRQL measure were analysed. Four symptom clusters emerged at baseline and treatment-end: abdominal symptoms, symptoms associated with peripheral neuropathy, nausea and vomiting, and psychological symptoms. Psychological symptoms (MOST-Psych) and symptoms due to disease (ovarian cancer) or treatment (MOST-DorT) were associated with poorer scores on QLQ-C30 and OV28 functioning domains and worse overall health at both time points. CONCLUSION: Four MOST symptom clusters were consistent across statistical methods and time points. These findings suggest that routine standardized assessment of psychological and physical symptoms in clinical practice with MOST plus appropriate symptom management referral pathways is an intervention for improving HRQL that warrants further research.

Symptom burden and quality of life with chemotherapy for recurrent ovarian cancer: the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup-Symptom Benefit Study.

OBJECTIVE: The Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG)-Symptom Benefit Study was designed to evaluate the effects of chemotherapy on symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQL) in women having chemotherapy for platinum resistant/refractory recurrent ovarian cancer (PRR-ROC) and potentially platinum sensitive with ≥3 lines of chemotherapy (PPS-ROC ≥3). METHODS: Participants completed the Measure of Ovarian Cancer Symptoms and Treatment (MOST) and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire QLQ-C30 questionnaires at baseline and every 3-4 weeks until progression. Participants were classified symptomatic if they rated ≥4 of 10 in at least one-third of symptoms in the MOST index. Improvement in MOST was defined as two consecutive scores of ≤3 in at least half of the symptomatic items at baseline. Improvement in HRQL was defined as two consecutive scores ≥10 points above baseline in the QLQ-C30 summary score scale (range 0-100). RESULTS: Of 948 participants enrolled, 910 (96%) completed baseline questionnaires: 546 with PRR-ROC and 364 with PPS-ROC ≥3. The proportions of participants symptomatic at baseline as per MOST indexes were: abdominal 54%, psychological 53%, and disease- or treatment-related 35%. Improvement was reported in MOST indexes: abdominal 40%, psychological 35%, and disease- or treatment-related 38%. Median time to improvement in abdominal symptoms occurred earlier for PRR-ROC than for PPS-ROC ≥3 (4 vs 6 weeks, p=0.044); median duration of improvement was also similar (9.0 vs 11.7 weeks, p=0.65). Progression-free survival was longer among those with improvement in abdominal symptoms than in those without (median 7.2 vs 2.5 months, p<0.0001). Improvements in HRQL were reported by 77/448 (17%) with PRR-ROC and 61/301 (20%) with PPS-ROC ≥3 (p=0.29), and 102/481 (21%) of those with abdominal symptoms at baseline. CONCLUSION: Over 50% of participants reported abdominal and psychological symptoms at baseline. Of those, 40% reported an improvement within 2 months of starting chemotherapy. Approximately one in six participants reported an improvement in HRQL. Symptom monitoring and supportive care is important as chemotherapy palliated less than half of symptomatic participants.

Molecular and clinical predictors of improvement in progression-free survival with maintenance PARP inhibitor therapy in women with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The authors performed a meta-analysis to better quantify the benefit of maintenance poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) therapy to inform practice in platinum-sensitive, recurrent, high-grade ovarian cancer for patient subsets with the following characteristics: germline BRCA mutation (gBRCAm), somatic BRCA mutation (sBRCAm), wild-type BRCA but homologous recombinant-deficient (HRD), homologous recombinant-proficient (HRP), and baseline clinical prognostic characteristics. METHODS: Randomized trials comparing a PARPi versus placebo as maintenance treatment were identified from electronic databases. Treatment estimates of progression-free survival were pooled across trials using the inverse variance weighted method. RESULTS: Four trials included 972 patients who received a PARPi (olaparib, 31%; niraparib, 35%; or rucaparib, 34%) and 530 patients who received placebo. For patients who had germline BRCA1 mutation (gBRCAm1) (N = 471), the hazard ratio (HR) was 0.29 (95% CI, 0.23-0.37); for those who had germline BRCA2 mutation (gBRCAm2) (N = 236), the HR was 0.26 (95% CI, 0.17-0.39); and, for those who had sBRCAm (N = 123), the HR was 0.22 (95% CI, 0.12-0.41). The treatment effect was similar between the gBRCAm and sBRCAm subsets (P = .48). In patients who had wild-type BRCA HRD tumors (excluding sBRCAm; N = 309), the HR was 0.41 (95% CI, 0.31-0.56); and, in those who had wild-type BRCA HRP tumors (N = 346), the HR was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.49-0.83). The relative treatment effect was greater for the BRCAm versus HRD (P = .03), BRCAm versus HRP (P < .00001), and HRD versus HRP (P < .00001) subsets. There was no difference in benefit based on age, response after recent chemotherapy, and prior bevacizumab. CONCLUSIONS: In platinum-sensitive, recurrent, high-grade ovarian cancer, maintenance PARPi improves progression-free survival for all patient subsets. PARPi therapy has a similar magnitude of benefit for sBRCAm and gBRCAm. Although patients with BRCAm derive the greatest benefit, the absence of a BRCAm or HRD could not be used to exclude patients from maintenance PARPi therapy.

REZOLVE (ANZGOG-1101): A phase 2 trial of intraperitoneal bevacizumab to treat symptomatic ascites in patients with chemotherapy-resistant, epithelial ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the activity of intraperitoneal bevacizumab (IP-bev) in delaying re-accumulation of malignant ascites in women with chemotherapy-resistant epithelial ovarian cancer (CR-EOC) who have ceased chemotherapy. Secondary outcomes were safety and quality of life. METHODS: Women with CR-EOC and malignant ascites that reaccumulated within 28 days of their last paracentesis (P-1) were administered IP-bev 5 mg/kg following their first therapeutic paracentesis on study (P0). Additional doses of IP-bev were allowed at each subsequent paracentesis (P1, P2, etc) provided the interval from the last dose was 42 days or greater (median time from first to second therapeutic ascitic drainage). RESULTS: 24 participants (median age 67 years [range 38-86]; median 4.5 lines prior systemic treatment [range 1-12]; ECOG performance status of 0 in 1, 1 in 8, and 2-3 in 15) were recruited. The doses of IP-bev administered were 1 in 13 participants, 2 in 5, 3 in 2, 4 in 1, and 5 in 1. The proportion with a TTP of >42 days using competing risk analysis was 77% (95% CI 58-92). Median time from P0 to P1 or death was 48 days (range 8-248). Median paracentesis-free interval (P0-P1 or death) was 4.29-fold (95% CI 2.4-5.8) higher following a first dose of IP-bev compared with the time between paracenteses prior to study entry (P-1-P0). CONCLUSION: IP-bev was safe, active, and warrants further study as a palliative intervention for recurrent ascites in CR-EOC patients receiving best supportive care.

Development and validation of the measure of ovarian symptoms and treatment concerns for surveillance (MOST-S26): An instrument to complement the clinical follow-up of women with ovarian cancer after completion of first-line treatment.

OBJECTIVE: The Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment (MOST-T35) is a patient-reported symptom index, developed and validated in the context of palliative chemotherapy for recurrent ovarian cancer (OC). We aimed to develop and validate a version suitable for surveillance of symptoms following first-line treatment for OC to support clinical follow-up. METHODS: In a prospective study of women following completion of first-line chemotherapy for OC, patients completed MOST-T35 every 3 months for up to 3.5 years and other patient-reported outcome measures. Construct validity (Spearman's correlations), discriminative validity (t-tests/ANOVAs assessing differences between clinically distinct groups), ability to detect clinically important symptoms (receiver operating characteristic analysis), and responsiveness (t-tests examining change) were assessed. RESULTS: Data from 726 women who received ≥3 cycles of chemotherapy, did not progress within 3 months, and completed ≥one MOST-T35 were analysed. The revised version, MOST-S26, has 26 items and 5 multi-item indexes: peripheral neuropathy (MOST-NTx), disease or treatment-related (MOST-DorT), abdominal (MOST-Abdo), and psychological symptoms (MOST-Psych), and MOST-Wellbeing, plus 9 individual items. Construct validity was confirmed (r range = 0.43-0.88). Discriminative validity confirmed expected differences between groups. MOST-NTx and MOST-Psych detected improvements in peripheral neuropathy and psychological symptoms respectively, whereas MOST-Abdo detected worsening of abdominal symptoms pre-recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: This study developed and validated the MOST-S26, for surveillance of women in follow-up after first-line chemotherapy for OC. MOST-S26 reliably detected improvement in symptoms of peripheral neuropathy, psychological distress and may detect symptoms of relapse. Administration of MOST-S26 in follow-up consultations could identify concerning symptoms and facilitate timely and appropriate intervention.

A healthy lifestyle and survival among women with ovarian cancer.

Ovarian cancer has a poor survival rate and, understandably, women often want to know whether there is anything they can do to improve their prognosis. Our goal was to investigate the association between a healthy lifestyle prediagnosis and postdiagnosis and survival in a cohort of Australian women with invasive epithelial ovarian cancer. We calculated a healthy lifestyle index (HLI) based on women's self-reported smoking status, height, weight, physical activity, diet and alcohol consumption before diagnosis (n = 678) and after completing primary treatment (n = 512). Clinical data and vital status for each woman were ascertained through medical records. Cox proportional hazards regression was conducted to calculate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for all-cause mortality. There was a suggestive association between a more healthy lifestyle before diagnosis and better survival (HR 0.79, 95% CI: 0.59-1.04), however, the association was stronger for lifestyle after diagnosis, with women in the highest tertile having significantly better survival than women in the lowest tertile (HR 0.61, 95% CI: 0.40-0.93; P-trend = .02). Current smoking, particularly postdiagnosis, was associated with higher mortality (HR 1.68, 95% CI: 1.17-2.42; HR 2.82, 95% CI: 1.29-6.14, for prediagnosis and postdiagnosis smoking, respectively), but women who quit after diagnosis had survival outcomes similar to nonsmokers (HR 0.99, 95% CI: 0.57-1.72). Higher physical activity after diagnosis was associated with better survival (HR 0.60, 95% CI: 0.39-0.92; P-trend = .02). A healthy lifestyle after diagnosis, in particular not smoking and being physically active, may help women with ovarian cancer improve their prognosis.

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity: a critical analysis.

With a 3-fold increase in the number of cancer survivors noted since the 1970s, there are now over 28 million cancer survivors worldwide. Accordingly, there is a heightened awareness of long-term toxicities and the impact on quality of life following treatment in cancer survivors. This review will address the increasing importance and challenge of chemotherapy-induced neurotoxicity, with a focus on neuropathy associated with the treatment of breast cancer, colorectal cancer, testicular cancer, and hematological cancers. An overview of the diagnosis, symptomatology, and pathophysiology of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy will be provided, with a critical analysis of assessment strategies, neuroprotective approaches, and potential treatments. The review will concentrate on neuropathy associated with taxanes, platinum compounds, vinca alkaloids, thalidomide, and bortezomib, providing clinical information specific to these chemotherapies.

10-year performance of four models of breast cancer risk: a validation study.

BACKGROUND: Independent validation is essential to justify use of models of breast cancer risk prediction and inform decisions about prevention options and screening. Few independent validations had been done using cohorts for common breast cancer risk prediction models, and those that have been done had small sample sizes and short follow-up periods, and used earlier versions of the prediction tools. We aimed to validate the relative performance of four commonly used models of breast cancer risk and assess the effect of limited data input on each one's performance. METHODS: In this validation study, we used the Breast Cancer Prospective Family Study Cohort (ProF-SC), which includes 18 856 women from Australia, Canada, and the USA who did not have breast cancer at recruitment, between March 17, 1992, and June 29, 2011. We selected women from the cohort who were 20-70 years old and had no previous history of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy or ovarian cancer, at least 2 months of follow-up data, and information available about family history of breast cancer. We used this selected cohort to calculate 10-year risk scores and compare four models of breast cancer risk prediction: the Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm model (BOADICEA), BRCAPRO, the Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT), and the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study model (IBIS). We compared model calibration based on the ratio of the expected number of breast cancer cases to the observed number of breast cancer cases in the cohort, and on the basis of their discriminatory ability to separate those who will and will not have breast cancer diagnosed within 10 years as measured with the concordance statistic (C-statistic). We did subgroup analyses to compare the performance of the models at 10 years in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers (ie, BRCA-positive women), tested non-carriers and untested participants (ie, BRCA-negative women), and participants younger than 50 years at recruitment. We also assessed the effect that limited data input (eg, restriction of the amount of family history and non-genetic information included) had on the models' performance. FINDINGS: After median follow-up of 11·1 years (IQR 6·0-14·4), 619 (4%) of 15 732 women selected from the ProF-SC cohort study were prospectively diagnosed with breast cancer after recruitment, of whom 519 (84%) had histologically confirmed disease. BOADICEA and IBIS were well calibrated in the overall validation cohort, whereas BRCAPRO and BCRAT underpredicted risk (ratio of expected cases to observed cases 1·05 [95% CI 0·97-1·14] for BOADICEA, 1·03 [0·96-1·12] for IBIS, 0·59 [0·55-0·64] for BRCAPRO, and 0·79 [0·73-0·85] for BRCAT). The estimated C-statistics for the complete validation cohort were 0·70 (95% CI 0·68-0·72) for BOADICEA, 0·71 (0·69-0·73) for IBIS, 0·68 (0·65-0·70) for BRCAPRO, and 0·60 (0·58-0·62) for BCRAT. In subgroup analyses by BRCA mutation status, the ratio of expected to observed cases for BRCA-negative women was 1·02 (95% CI 0·93-1·12) for BOADICEA, 1·00 (0·92-1·10) for IBIS, 0·53 (0·49-0·58) for BRCAPRO, and 0·97 (0·89-1·06) for BCRAT. For BRCA-positive participants, BOADICEA and IBIS were well calibrated, but BRCAPRO underpredicted risk (ratio of expected to observed cases 1·17 [95% CI 0·99-1·38] for BOADICEA, 1·14 [0·96-1·35] for IBIS, and 0·80 [0·68-0·95] for BRCAPRO). We noted similar patterns of calibration for women younger than 50 years at recruitment. Finally, BOADICEA and IBIS predictive scores were not appreciably affected by limiting input data to family history for first-degree and second-degree relatives. INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that models that include multigenerational family history, such as BOADICEA and IBIS, have better ability to predict breast cancer risk, even for women at average or below-average risk of breast cancer. Although BOADICEA and IBIS performed similarly, further improvements in the accuracy of predictions could be possible with hybrid models that incorporate the polygenic risk component of BOADICEA and the non-family-history risk factors included in IBIS. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, Victorian Breast Cancer Research Consortium, Cancer Australia, National Breast Cancer Foundation, Queensland Cancer Fund, Cancer Councils of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, and South Australia, and Cancer Foundation of Western Australia.

Alcohol consumption, cigarette smoking, and familial breast cancer risk: findings from the Prospective Family Study Cohort (ProF-SC).

BACKGROUND: Alcohol consumption and cigarette smoking are associated with an increased risk of breast cancer (BC), but it is unclear whether these associations vary by a woman's familial BC risk. METHODS: Using the Prospective Family Study Cohort, we evaluated associations between alcohol consumption, cigarette smoking, and BC risk. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazard models to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We examined whether associations were modified by familial risk profile (FRP), defined as the 1-year incidence of BC predicted by Breast Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA), a pedigree-based algorithm. RESULTS: We observed 1009 incident BC cases in 17,435 women during a median follow-up of 10.4 years. We found no overall association of smoking or alcohol consumption with BC risk (current smokers compared with never smokers HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.85-1.23; consuming ≥ 7 drinks/week compared with non-regular drinkers HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.92-1.32), but we did observe differences in associations based on FRP and by estrogen receptor (ER) status. Women with lower FRP had an increased risk of ER-positive BC associated with consuming ≥ 7 drinks/week (compared to non-regular drinkers), whereas there was no association for women with higher FRP. For example, women at the 10th percentile of FRP (5-year BOADICEA = 0.15%) had an estimated HR of 1.46 (95% CI 1.07-1.99), whereas there was no association for women at the 90th percentile (5-year BOADICEA = 4.2%) (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.80-1.44). While the associations with smoking were not modified by FRP, we observed a positive multiplicative interaction by FRP (pinteraction = 0.01) for smoking status in women who also consumed alcohol, but not in women who were non-regular drinkers. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate alcohol intake was associated with increased BC risk, particularly for women with ER-positive BC, but only for those at lower predicted familial BC risk (5-year BOADICEA < 1.25). For women with a high FRP (5-year BOADICEA ≥ 6.5%) who also consumed alcohol, being a current smoker was associated with increased BC risk.

Regular use of aspirin and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and breast cancer risk for women at familial or genetic risk: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The use of aspirin and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) has been associated with reduced breast cancer risk, but it is not known if this association extends to women at familial or genetic risk. We examined the association between regular NSAID use and breast cancer risk using a large cohort of women selected for breast cancer family history, including 1054 BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. METHODS: We analyzed a prospective cohort (N = 5606) and a larger combined, retrospective and prospective, cohort (N = 8233) of women who were aged 18 to 79 years, enrolled before June 30, 2011, with follow-up questionnaire data on medication history. The prospective cohort was further restricted to women without breast cancer when medication history was asked by questionnaire. Women were recruited from seven study centers in the United States, Canada, and Australia. Associations were estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusted for demographics, lifestyle factors, family history, and other medication use. Women were classified as regular or non-regular users of aspirin, COX-2 inhibitors, ibuprofen and other NSAIDs, and acetaminophen (control) based on self-report at follow-up of ever using the medication for at least twice a week for ≥1 month prior to breast cancer diagnosis. The main outcome was incident invasive breast cancer, based on self- or relative-report (81% confirmed pathologically). RESULTS: From fully adjusted analyses, regular aspirin use was associated with a 39% and 37% reduced risk of breast cancer in the prospective (HR = 0.61; 95% CI = 0.33-1.14) and combined cohorts (HR = 0.63; 95% CI = 0.57-0.71), respectively. Regular use of COX-2 inhibitors was associated with a 61% and 71% reduced risk of breast cancer (prospective HR = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.15-0.97; combined HR = 0.29; 95% CI = 0.23-0.38). Other NSAIDs and acetaminophen were not associated with breast cancer risk in either cohort. Associations were not modified by familial risk, and consistent patterns were found by BRCA1 and BRCA2 carrier status, estrogen receptor status, and attained age. CONCLUSION: Regular use of aspirin and COX-2 inhibitors might reduce breast cancer risk for women at familial or genetic risk.

Benign breast disease increases breast cancer risk independent of underlying familial risk profile: Findings from a Prospective Family Study Cohort.

Benign breast disease (BBD) is an established breast cancer (BC) risk factor, but it is unclear whether the magnitude of the association applies to women at familial or genetic risk. This information is needed to improve BC risk assessment in clinical settings. Using the Prospective Family Study Cohort, we used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association of BBD with BC risk. We also examined whether the association with BBD differed by underlying familial risk profile (FRP), calculated using absolute risk estimates from the Breast Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) model. During 176,756 person-years of follow-up (median: 10.9 years, maximum: 23.7) of 17,154 women unaffected with BC at baseline, we observed 968 incident cases of BC. A total of 4,704 (27%) women reported a history of BBD diagnosis at baseline. A history of BBD was associated with a greater risk of BC: HR = 1.31 (95% CI: 1.14-1.50), and did not differ by underlying FRP, with HRs of 1.35 (95% CI: 1.11-1.65), 1.26 (95% CI: 1.00-1.60), and 1.40 (95% CI: 1.01-1.93), for categories of full-lifetime BOADICEA score <20%, 20 to <35%, ≥35%, respectively. There was no difference in the association for women with BRCA1 mutations (HR: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.04-2.58), women with BRCA2 mutations (HR: 1.34; 95% CI: 0.78-2.3) or for women without a known BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation (HR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.13-1.53) (pinteraction = 0.95). Women with a history of BBD have an increased risk of BC that is independent of, and multiplies, their underlying familial and genetic risk.

Do all patients with recurrent ovarian cancer need systemic therapy?

The scientific organizing committee of the 12th International Symposium on Advanced Ovarian Cancer: Optimal Therapy. Update proposed the question regarding whether all patients with recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC) need systemic therapy. This article has addressed this question and focused on the clinical scenarios in which the benefits of systemic therapy in patients with ROC are limited, including the frail elderly and patients with multiple medical comorbidities, as well as a subset of patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer who have a particularly poor prognosis with a short survival. The challenges of identifying and selecting which patients are unlikely to benefit from systemic therapy were addressed. The benefit of systemic therapy also can be questioned in specific histological subtypes of ROC such as low-grade serous cancers as well as clear cell and mucinous cancers in view of low response rates. Finally, the contentious question regarding the timing of chemotherapy in asymptomatic patients with CA 125 disease progression after response to first-line chemotherapy was addressed and an argument made challenging the current treatment paradigm. Clearly, not all patients with ROC need or should be offered systemic therapy, and ultimately the recommendations need to be based on evidence and communicated in a clear and sensitive manner to patients and their families.

Age-specific breast cancer risk by body mass index and familial risk: prospective family study cohort (ProF-SC).

BACKGROUND: The association between body mass index (BMI) and risk of breast cancer depends on time of life, but it is unknown whether this association depends on a woman's familial risk. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study of a cohort enriched for familial risk consisting of 16,035 women from 6701 families in the Breast Cancer Family Registry and the Kathleen Cunningham Foundation Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer followed for up to 20 years (mean 10.5 years). There were 896 incident breast cancers (mean age at diagnosis 55.7 years). We used Cox regression to model BMI risk associations as a function of menopausal status, age, and underlying familial risk based on pedigree data using the Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA), all measured at baseline. RESULTS: The strength and direction of the BMI risk association depended on baseline menopausal status (P < 0.001); after adjusting for menopausal status, the association did not depend on age at baseline (P = 0.6). In terms of absolute risk, the negative association with BMI for premenopausal women has a much smaller influence than the positive association with BMI for postmenopausal women. Women at higher familial risk have a much larger difference in absolute risk depending on their BMI than women at lower familial risk. CONCLUSIONS: The greater a woman's familial risk, the greater the influence of BMI on her absolute postmenopausal breast cancer risk. Given that age-adjusted BMI is correlated across adulthood, maintaining a healthy weight throughout adult life is particularly important for women with a family history of breast cancer.

A Systematic Review of Health-Related Quality of Life Reporting in Ovarian Cancer Phase III Clinical Trials: Room to Improve.

BACKGROUND: Epithelial ovarian cancer (OC) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality for women worldwide. Patients may experience a multitude of disease- and treatment-related symptoms that can impact quality of life (QOL) and should be measured and reported in clinical trials. This systematic review investigated the adequacy of reporting of QOL in randomized phase III trials in OC in both the first-line and recurrent disease setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of MEDLINE and EMBASE identified randomized clinical trials of systemic therapy in OC from 1980 to 2014. The adequacy of reporting QOL was evaluated with respect to adherence to established guidelines on reporting QOL in clinical trials and the recent recommendations on the inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials from the Fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference. RESULTS: Of 3,247 abstracts, 35 studies, including 24,664 patients, met inclusion criteria. Twenty-two trials (63%) were in the first-line setting, with 13 (37%) in the recurrent setting. The inclusion of QOL assessments increased from 2% (1980s) to 62% (2010+). Quality of life was a co-primary endpoint in only one trial.Minimal clinically important differences in QOL were defined in eight trials (23%), with results included in the abstract in 37% and article in 86%. Compliance was reported in 26 trials (74%), with 13 trials (37%) reporting specifically how they dealt with missing data. Only seven trials reported the reasons for missing data (20%).Group results were published in 29 trials (83%), with 6 (17%) reporting individual patient results. Results were more commonly reported as a mean overall score (21 trials; 60%), with specific domain scores in only 9 trials (26%). No studies reported QOL beyond progression or included predefined context-specific endpoints based on objectives of treatment (i.e., palliation/cure/maintenance) and the patient population. Duration of benefit of palliative chemotherapy was reported in only one study. CONCLUSION: Inclusion and reporting of QOL as a trial endpoint has improved in phase III trials in OC, but there are still significant shortfalls that need to be addressed in future trials. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The impact of treatment on quality of life (QOL) is an important consideration in patients with ovarian cancer for whom treatment is often given with palliative intent. Both the disease and treatment impact a patient's QOL and require careful evaluation in clinical trials. Matching the QOL questions to the patient population of interest is critical. Similar rigor to that used to assess progression-based endpoints is essential to guide clinical decisions. This systematic review demonstrated that although the inclusion and reporting of QOL as a trial endpoint has improved in phase III trials there are still significant shortfalls that need to be addressed in future trials.

Does the primary site really matter? Profiling mucinous ovarian cancers of uncertain primary origin (MO-CUP) to personalise treatment and inform the design of clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: Advanced stage mucinous ovarian cancers are diagnostically and therapeutically challenging. Histotype specific trials have failed due to low recruitment after excluding non-ovarian primaries. Mucinous ovarian cancers are commonly metastatic from other sites however lack definitive diagnostic markers. We suggest a classification of mucinous ovarian cancers of uncertain primary origin 'MO-CUPs' in clinical trials. This study aims to identify drug targets to guide treatment and future trials. METHODS: We analyzed a large de-identified, multi-platform tumor profiling dataset of MO-CUPs enriched for advanced stage and recurrent cases submitted to Caris Life Sciences. Available data included a 45-gene next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel, gene amplification of HER2 and cMET and 18 immunohistochemical (IHC) markers of drug sensitivity/resistance. RESULTS: Mucinous tumors from 333 patients were analyzed, including 38 borderline tumors and 295 invasive cancers. The most common mutations in a subset (n = 128) of invasive cancers were KRAS (60%), TP53 (38%), PIK3CA (13%) and PTEN (9%). Borderline tumors had higher rates of BRAF mutations, and PGP and TOP2A overexpression than invasive cases. KRAS mutant invasive cancers had lower expression of thymidylate synthase (p = 0.01) and higher expression of TUBB3 (p = 0.01) than KRAS wildtype tumors. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the largest series profiling mucinous ovarian cancers and almost certainly includes cases of ovarian and non-ovarian origin. Given the difficulty recruiting patients to histotype-specific trials in rare subsets of ovarian cancer, it may be more important to focus on identifying potential treatment targets and to personalise treatment and design clinical trials in MO-CUPS agnostic of primary site to overcome these issues.

Measuring what matters MOST: validation of the Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment, a patient-reported outcome measure of symptom burden and impact of chemotherapy in recurrent ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup Symptom Benefit Study (GCIG-SBS) Stage 2 aimed to review, revise, and validate a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM), the Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment concerns (MOST), developed in GCIG-SBS Stage 1 (MOSTv1, 35 items), and document recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC) symptom burden and benefit. METHODS: GCIG-SBS Stage 2 recruited patients with platinum-resistant/refractory ROC (PRR-ROC) or potentially platinum-sensitive ROC with ≥ 3 lines of prior chemotherapy (PPS-ROC ≥ 3). Patients completed MOSTv1, QLQ-C30, QLQ-OV28, and FACT-O/FOSI at baseline and before cycle 3 of chemotherapy (pre-C3), and global assessments of change (MOST-Change) pre-C3. Clinicians rated patients' cancer-related symptoms, performance status, and adverse events. Convergent and divergent validity (Spearman's correlations), discriminative validity (effect sizes between groups classified by clinician-rated characteristics), and responsiveness (paired t tests in patients expected to experience clinically meaningful change) were assessed. RESULTS: Of 948 recruits, 903 completed PROMs at baseline and 685 pre-C3. Baseline symptom burden was substantial for PRR-ROC and PPS-ROC ≥ 3. MOSTv2 has 24 items and five multi-item scales: abdominal symptoms (MOST-Abdo), disease or treatment-related symptoms (MOST-DorT), chemotherapy-related symptoms (MOST-Chemo), psychological symptoms (MOST-Psych), and MOST-Well-being. Correlations confirmed concurrent and divergent validity. Discriminative validity was confirmed by effect sizes that conformed with a priori hypotheses. MOST-Abdo was responsive to improvements in abdominal symptoms and MOST-Chemo detected the adverse effects of chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: The MOSTv2 validly quantifies patient-reported symptom burden, adverse effects, and symptom benefit in ROC, and as such is fit-for-purpose for clinical trials of palliative chemotherapy in ROC. Further research is required to assess test-retest reliability.

Factors associated with deciding between risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy and ovarian cancer screening among high-risk women enrolled in GOG-0199: An NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group study.

OBJECTIVES: Women at increased genetic risk of ovarian cancer (OC) are recommended to have risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) after completion of reproductive planning. Effective screening has not been established, and novel screening modalities are being evaluated. METHODS: Participants chose either RRSO or a novel OC screening regimen (OCS) as their risk management option, and provided demographic and other data on BRCA mutation status, cancer worry, perceived intervention risks/benefits, perceived cancer risk, and quality-of-life at enrollment. We performed univariate and multivariate analyses to evaluate factors influencing decision between RRSO and OCS. RESULTS: Of 2287 participants enrolled, 904 (40%) chose RRSO and 1383 (60%) chose OCS. Compared with participants choosing OCS, participants choosing RRSO were older (p<0.0001), more likely to carry deleterious BRCA1/2 mutations (p<0.0001), perceive RRSO as effective, be more concerned about surgical harms and OCS limitations, and report higher perceived OC risk and OC-related worry. OCS participants were more likely to perceive screening as effective, be more concerned about menopausal symptoms, infertility, and loss of femininity, and report better overall quality-of-life. Twenty-four percent of participants believed they would definitely develop OC, and half estimated their lifetime OC risk as >50%, both higher than objective risk estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer worry, BRCA1/2 mutation status, and perceived intervention-related risks and benefits were associated with choosing between RRSO and OCS. Efforts to promote individualized, evidence-based, shared medical decision-making among high-risk women facing management choices should focus on conveying accurate OC risk estimates, clarifying the current understanding of intervention-related benefits and limitations, and addressing OC worry.