Systematic Analysis of Homologous Recombination Deficiency Testing in Ovarian Cancer-Development of Recommendations for Optimal Assay Performance.

Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) assays are an important element of personalized oncology in ovarian carcinomas, but the optimal tissue requirements for these complex molecular assays remain unclear. As a result, a considerable percentage of assays are not successful, leading to suboptimal diagnoses for these patients. In this study, we have systematically analyzed tumor and tissue parameters for HRD analysis in a large cohort of real-world cancer samples. The aim of this study is to give recommendations for pathologists and gynecologic oncologists for selection of tissue samples to maximize the success rate of HRD analyses. Tumor samples from 2702 patients were sent to the Institute of Pathology of the Philipps-University Marburg between October 2020 and September 2022, of which 2654 were analyzed using the Myriad MyChoice HRD+ CDx assay. A total of 2396 of 2654 samples (90.3%) were successfully tested, of which 984 of 2396 (41.1%) were HRD positive and 1412 (58.9%) were HRD negative. Three hundred sixty-three of 2396 samples (15.2%) were BRCA1/2-mutated; 27 samples had a BRCA1/2 mutation and a genomic instability score (GIS) < 42. Twenty-two samples (0.9%) failed GIS measurement but displayed a BRCA1/2 mutation. BRCA1/2-mutated samples showed significantly (P < .0001) higher GIS values than those with a wild-type BRCA1/2 status. Tumor cell content, tumor area, and histology significantly (P < .0001) affected the probability of successfully analyzing a sample. Based on a systematic analysis of tumor cell content and tumor area, we recommend selecting patient high-grade serous ovarian cancer samples that display a tumor cell content ≥30% and a tumor area ≥0.5 cm2 (based on their hematoxylin and eosin) for HRD testing to allow for optimal chances of a successful analysis and conclusive results. Considering histologic and sample conditions, success rates of up to 98% can be achieved. Our comprehensive evaluation contributes to further standardization of recommendations on HRD testing in ovarian cancer, which will have a large impact on personalized therapeutic strategies in this highly aggressive tumor type.

Efficacy and safety of niraparib in patients aged 65 years and older with advanced ovarian cancer: Results from the PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of age on the efficacy and safety of niraparib first-line maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer with a complete/partial response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of the phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 study (NCT02655016). Patients in the intent-to-treat population were categorized according to age at baseline (<65 years vs ≥65 years), and progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) were evaluated for each age subgroup (clinical cutoff date, May 17, 2019). Safety findings were also evaluated according to a fixed starting dose (FSD) or an individualized starting dose (ISD). RESULTS: Of 733 randomized patients, 289 (39.4%) were ≥65 years (190 niraparib, 99 placebo) at baseline. Median PFS (niraparib vs placebo) and hazard ratios (95% CI) were similar in patients aged <65 years (13.9 vs 8.2 months; HR, 0.61 [0.47-0.81]) and ≥65 years (13.7 vs 8.1 months; HR, 0.53 [0.39-0.74]). The incidences of any-grade and grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were similar across age subgroups; in the niraparib arm, TEAEs leading to dose discontinuation occurred in 7.8% of patients <65 years and 18.4% of patients ≥65 years. ISD use lowered the incidence of grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia events in niraparib-treated patients compared with the FSD (<65 years: 42.8% vs 18.0%; ≥65 years 57.0% vs 26.1%). HRQOL was comparable across age subgroups. CONCLUSION: Niraparib efficacy, safety, and HRQOL were generally comparable across age subgroups, although patients ≥65 years had a higher rate of discontinuations due to TEAEs. ISD use reduced grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia events regardless of age.

Health-related quality of life in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer treated with niraparib vs placebo: Results from the phase 3 randomized PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with ovarian cancer (OC) who received niraparib as first-line maintenance therapy. METHODS: PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 (NCT02655016) enrolled patients with newly diagnosed advanced OC who responded to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomized (2:1) to niraparib or placebo once daily in 28-day cycles until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or death. HRQoL was assessed as a prespecified secondary end point using patient-reported responses to the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QOL Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), the EORTC QLQ Ovarian Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-OV28), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovarian Symptom Index (FOSI), and EQ-5D-5L questionnaires. Assessments were collected at baseline and every 8 weeks (±7 days) for 56 weeks, beginning on cycle 1/day 1, then every 12 weeks (±7 days) thereafter while the patient received study treatment. RESULTS: Among trial participants (niraparib, n = 487; placebo, n = 246), PRO adherence exceeded 80% for all instruments across all cycles. Patients reported no decline over time in HRQoL measured via EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/QoL and FOSI overall scores. Scores for abdominal/gastrointestinal symptoms (EORTC QLQ-OV28) and nausea and vomiting, appetite loss, and constipation (EORTC QLQ-C30) were higher (worse symptoms) in niraparib-treated patients than placebo-treated patients; except for constipation, these differences resolved over time. Patients did not self-report any worsening from baseline of fatigue, headache, insomnia, or abdominal pain on questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some early, largely transient increases in gastrointestinal symptoms, patients with OC treated with niraparib first-line maintenance therapy reported no worsening in overall HRQoL.

Role of fertility-sparing surgery and further prognostic factors in borderline tumors of the ovary.

OBJECTIVE: Borderline tumors of the ovary are a rare group of ovarian neoplasms with distinctive histological features. Considering their favorable prognosis and occurrence at a younger age, fertility-sparing surgery may be considered. Several risk factors have been identified as contributing to a higher recurrence rate, while the impact of pathohistological features varies in the literature. This study aimed to analyze risk factors for recurrence in patients with borderline tumors of the ovary. METHODS: Analysis included patients treated with first diagnosis of a borderline tumor at our center between January 1997 and December 2022 to analyze disease-free survival and to identify the role of fertility-sparing surgery, defined as preservation of at least one ovary, pathohistological features, and other prognostic factors for relapse. All stages classified according to the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) were included. RESULTS: Among 507 patients, 26 patients (5.2%) had a recurrence, with 21 (4.1%) showing borderline histology and 5 (1%) with invasive relapses. Recurrence rate was higher following fertility-sparing surgery (p<0.0001). Median follow-up period was 49.2 (range 42.0-57.6) months. Among 153 patients (30.2%) who had fertility-sparing surgery, 21 (13.7%) experienced a recurrence (including one invasive relapse). Fertility-sparing surgery (HR 20; 95% CI 6.9 to 60; p<0.001), FIGO stage I with bilateral presence of tumor (HR 6.4; 95% CI 1.3 to 31; p=0.020), FIGO stage II (HR 15; 95% CI 3.4 to 68; p<0.001), FIGO stages III-IV (HR 38; 95% CI 10 to 140; p<0.001) in comparison with FIGO stage I with unilateral tumor, microinvasion (HR 8.6; 95% CI 2.7 to 28; p<0.001), and micropapillary growth patterns (HR 4.4; 95% CI 1.8 to 10; p=0.001) were identified as independent risk factors for recurrence in multivariate analysis. None of these factors were associated with an increased risk of disease-related death. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that although a fertility-preserving approach is associated with increased recurrence rates of a borderline tumor, it does not affect overall survival and can therefore be regarded as oncologically safe for patients desiring to preserve fertility. Additionally, presence of micropapillary patterns and microinvasion were identified as prognostic risk factors.

Progression-free survival and safety at 3.5 years of follow-up: results from the randomized phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial of niraparib maintenance treatment in patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer - a plain language summary.

What is this summary about? This PLSP provides a short summary of an original scientific article that presented results from the PRIMA study after 3.5 years of follow-up time. The original article was published in the European Journal of Cancer in 2023.The PRIMA study included adult patients with newly diagnosed advanced high-risk ovarian cancer whose tumors shrunk or became undetectable after treatment with chemotherapy with or without surgery. The PRIMA study evaluated how well the drug niraparib, also known as Zejula, worked at delaying or preventing ovarian cancer from coming back (recurring) or getting worse (progressing) compared with placebo (a substance with no effects that a doctor gives to a patient instead of a drug). The first results from the PRIMA study were published in 2019, when patients had participated in the PRIMA study for about 1.2 years.The article this PLSP is based on reports longer-term data from the PRIMA study, when patients had participated in the PRIMA study for about 3.5 years. Patients were monitored (or followed) for a longer time to understand how well niraparib continued to work and to evaluate whether the safety of niraparib changed with additional time being monitored.What were the results? Patients who took niraparib had more time before their cancer came back or got worse than patients who took placebo. In terms of safety, no new types of side effects with niraparib treatment were observed with additional time being monitored as part of the PRIMA study.What do the results mean? These results support that niraparib remains an important treatment option to help delay the cancer from coming back or getting worse in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer that responded to initial treatment.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02655016 (PRIMA study) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Olaparib Addition to Maintenance Bevacizumab Therapy in Ovarian Carcinoma With BRCA-Like Genomic Aberrations.

Importance: Testing for homologous recombination deficiency is required for the optimal treatment of high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer. The search for accurate biomarkers is ongoing. Objective: To investigate whether progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients with high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer treated with maintenance olaparib or placebo differed between patients with a tumor BRCA-like genomic profile and patients without a tumor BRCA-like profile. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was a secondary analysis of the PAOLA-1 randomized clinical trial that compared olaparib plus bevacizumab with placebo plus bevacizumab as maintenance treatment in patients with advanced high-grade ovarian cancer after a good response to first-line platinum with taxane chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, irrespective of germline or tumor BRCA1/2 mutation status. All patients with available tumor DNA were included in the analysis. The current analysis tested for an interaction between BRCA-like status and olaparib treatment on survival outcomes. The original trial was conducted between July 2015 and September 2017; at the time of data extraction for analysis in March 2022, a median follow-up of 54.1 months (IQR, 28.5-62.2 months) and a total follow-up time of 21 711 months was available, with 336 PFS and 245 OS events. Exposures: Tumor homologous recombination deficiency was assessed using the BRCA-like copy number aberration profile classifier. Myriad MyChoice CDx was previously measured. The trial was randomized between the olaparib and bevacizumab and placebo plus bevacizumab groups. Main Outcomes and Measures: This secondary analysis assessed hazard ratios (HRs) of olaparib vs placebo among biomarker strata and tested for interaction between BRCA-like status and olaparib treatment on PFS and OS, using Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: A total of 469 patients (median age, 60 [range 26-80] years) were included in this study. The patient cohort consisted of women with International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics stage III (76%) high-grade serous (95%) ovarian cancer who had no evaluable disease or complete remission at initial or interval debulking surgery (76%). Thirty-one percent of the tumor samples (n = 138) harbored a pathogenic BRCA mutation, and BRCA-like classification was performed for 442 patients. Patients with a BRCA-like tumor had a longer PFS after olaparib treatment than after placebo (36.4 vs 18.6 months; HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.37-0.65; P < .001). No association of olaparib with PFS was found in patients with a non-BRCA-like tumor (17.6 vs 16.6 months; HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.68-1.51; P = .93). The interaction was significant (P = .004), and HRs and P values (for interaction) were similar in the relevant subgroups, OS, and multivariable analyses. Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of the PAOLA-1 randomized clinical trial, patients with a BRCA-like tumor, but not those with a non-BRCA-like tumor, had a significantly longer survival after olaparib plus bevacizumab treatment than placebo plus bevacizumab treatment. Thus, the BRCA1-like classifier could be used as a biomarker for olaparib plus bevacizumab as a maintenance treatment.