Mirvetuximab Soravtansine in FRα-Positive, Platinum-Resistant Ovarian Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Mirvetuximab soravtansine-gynx (MIRV), a first-in-class antibody-drug conjugate targeting folate receptor α (FRα), is approved for the treatment of platinum-resistant ovarian cancer in the United States. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, global, confirmatory, open-label, randomized, controlled trial to compare the efficacy and safety of MIRV with the investigator's choice of chemotherapy in the treatment of platinum-resistant, high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Participants who had previously received one to three lines of therapy and had high FRα tumor expression (≥75% of cells with ≥2+ staining intensity) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive MIRV (6 mg per kilogram of adjusted ideal body weight every 3 weeks) or chemotherapy (paclitaxel, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, or topotecan). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival; key secondary analytic end points included objective response, overall survival, and participant-reported outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 453 participants underwent randomization; 227 were assigned to the MIRV group and 226 to the chemotherapy group. The median progression-free survival was 5.62 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.34 to 5.95) with MIRV and 3.98 months (95% CI, 2.86 to 4.47) with chemotherapy (P<0.001). An objective response occurred in 42.3% of the participants in the MIRV group and in 15.9% of those in the chemotherapy group (odds ratio, 3.81; 95% CI, 2.44 to 5.94; P<0.001). Overall survival was significantly longer with MIRV than with chemotherapy (median, 16.46 months vs. 12.75 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.89; P = 0.005). During the treatment period, fewer adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred with MIRV than with chemotherapy (41.7% vs. 54.1%), as did serious adverse events of any grade (23.9% vs. 32.9%) and events leading to discontinuation (9.2% vs. 15.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Among participants with platinum-resistant, FRα-positive ovarian cancer, treatment with MIRV showed a significant benefit over chemotherapy with respect to progression-free and overall survival and objective response. (Funded by ImmunoGen; MIRASOL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04209855.).

Phase 1b study of mirvetuximab soravtansine, a folate receptor alpha (FRα)-targeting antibody-drug conjugate, in combination with carboplatin and bevacizumab in patients with platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the antitumor activity and safety profile of the triplet combination of mirvetuximab soravtansine (MIRV), carboplatin, and bevacizumab in recurrent, platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. METHODS: Participants with recurrent, platinum-sensitive epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer (1-2 prior lines of therapy) received MIRV (6 mg/kg adjusted ideal body weight), carboplatin (AUC5), and bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) once every 3 weeks. Carboplatin could be discontinued after 6 cycles per investigator discretion; continuation of MIRV+bevacizumab as maintenance therapy was permitted. Eligibility included folate receptor alpha (FRα) expression by immunohistochemistry (≥50% of cells with ≥2+ intensity; PS2+ scoring); prior bevacizumab was allowed. Tumor response, duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs) were assessed. RESULTS: Forty-one participants received triplet therapy, with a median of 6, 12, and 13 cycles of carboplatin, MIRV, and bevacizumab, respectively. The confirmed objective response rate was 83% (9 complete and 25 partial responses). The median DOR was 10.9 months; median PFS was 13.5 months. AEs (any grade) occurred as expected, based on each agent's safety profile; most common were diarrhea (83%), nausea (76%), fatigue (73%), thrombocytopenia (71%), and blurred vision (68%). Most cases were mild to moderate (grade ≤2), except for thrombocytopenia, for which most drug-related discontinuations occurred, and neutropenia. CONCLUSIONS: This triplet regimen (MIRV+carboplatin+bevacizumab) was highly active, with a tolerable AE profile in participants with recurrent, platinum-sensitive, FRα-expressing ovarian cancer. Thrombocytopenia was the primary cause of dose modifications. These outcomes compare favorably to historical data reported for platinum-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab regimens in similar patient populations.

Phase II trial of pembrolizumab and epacadostat in recurrent clear cell carcinoma of the ovary: An NRG oncology study GY016.

INTRODUCTION: Early reports of PD-1 inhibition in ovarian clear cell carcinomas (OCCC) demonstrate promising response. We evaluated the combination of pembrolizumab and IDO-1 inhibitor epacadostat in patients with recurrent OCCC. METHODS: This single arm, two-stage, phase 2 trial included those with measurable disease and 1-3 prior regimens. Patients received intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks and oral epacadostat 100 mg twice a day. Primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR), secondary endpoints were toxicity, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The study was powered to detect an absolute 25% increase in response (15% to 40%). RESULTS: Between September 28, 2018 and April 10, 2019, 14 patients enrolled at first stage. Rate of accrual was 2.3 patients per month. Median age was 65 years (44-89), 10 (71.4%) had ≥2 prior regimens. ORR was 21% (95% CI 5-51%) within 7 months of study entry with 3 partial responses, and 4 had stable disease (disease control rate 50%). Median PFS was 4.8 months (95% CI: 1.9-9.6), OS 18.9 months (95% CI: 1.9-NR). Most common grade ≥ 3 adverse events were electrolyte abnormalities and gastrointestinal pain, nausea, vomiting, bowel obstruction. In July 2019, the study reached the pre-specified criteria to re-open to second stage; however, the study closed prematurely in February 2021 due to insufficient drug supply. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab and epacadostat demonstrated an ORR of 21% in this small cohort of recurrent OCCC. The rapid rate of accrual highlights the enthusiasm and need for therapeutic studies in patients with OCCC.

Physician-reported patient involvement and treatment decisions in first-line ovarian cancer in the USA and Europe.

OBJECTIVES: Real-world data evaluating how approvals of novel treatment regimens for ovarian cancer have impacted the treatment paradigm, including first-line maintenance, are lacking. This analysis aimed to describe treatment patterns for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer in Europe and the USA in the first-line maintenance setting. Patient characteristics, biomarker testing rates, and drivers of treatment choice were also evaluated. METHODS: A retrospective chart review study of electronic medical records in Europe and the USA was conducted for patients diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer (June 1, 2017-May 31, 2020), in line with Healthcare Market Research guidelines. Eligible physicians extracted data from electronic medical records by completing standardized patient record forms, including questions on patient involvement in treatment decisions. Patients with advanced (stage III/IV) disease were stratified by country and diagnosis date to provide information on treatment patterns. RESULTS: Patient record forms for 7072 patients with epithelial ovarian cancer were completed by 416 physicians; 5386 patients had stage III/IV ovarian cancer. Over time, the percentage of patients who were tested for BRCA mutations or homologous recombination deficiency increased. Patient preference was documented as a reason for treatment selection in approximately one-sixth of cases in the first-line adjuvant and first-line maintenance settings. The use of first-line maintenance poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor monotherapy increased over time, while the use of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor monotherapy decreased. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study showed that treatment patterns for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer varied by country. Rates of physician-reported patient involvement in treatment decisions in the first-line adjuvant and maintenance treatment settings for ovarian cancer were low, highlighting an unmet need for initiatives to improve patient involvement in shared decision-making regarding maintenance therapy selection.

Adjuvant chemotherapy following chemoradiotherapy as primary treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer versus chemoradiotherapy alone (OUTBACK): an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Standard treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer is chemoradiotherapy, but many patients relapse and die of metastatic disease. We aimed to determine the effects on survival of adjuvant chemotherapy after chemoradiotherapy. METHODS: The OUTBACK trial was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 157 hospitals in Australia, China, Canada, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and the USA. Eligible participants were aged 18 year or older with histologically confirmed squamous cell carcinoma, adenosquamous cell carcinoma, or adenocarcinoma of the cervix (FIGO 2008 stage IB1 disease with nodal involvement, or stage IB2, II, IIIB, or IVA disease), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, and adequate bone marrow and organ function. Participants were randomly assigned centrally (1:1) using a minimisation approach and stratified by pelvic or common iliac nodal involvement, requirement for extended-field radiotherapy, FIGO 2008 stage, age, and site to receive standard cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy (40 mg/m2 cisplatin intravenously once-a-week for 5 weeks, during radiotherapy with 45·0-50·4 Gy external beam radiotherapy delivered in fractions of 1·8 Gy to the whole pelvis plus brachytherapy; chemoradiotherapy only group) or standard cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy with four cycles of carboplatin (area under the receiver operator curve 5) and paclitaxel (155 mg/m2) given intravenously on day 1 of a 21 day cycle (adjuvant chemotherapy group). The primary endpoint was overall survival at 5 years, analysed in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all eligible patients who were randomly assigned). Safety was assessed in all patients in the chemoradiotherapy only group who started chemoradiotherapy and all patients in the adjuvant chemotherapy group who received at least one dose of adjuvant chemotherapy. The OUTBACK trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01414608, and the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ACTRN12610000732088. FINDINGS: Between April 15, 2011, and June 26, 2017, 926 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the chemoradiotherapy only group (n=461) or the adjuvant chemotherapy group (n=465), of whom 919 were eligible (456 in the chemoradiotherapy only group and 463 in the adjuvant chemotherapy group; median age 46 years [IQR 37 to 55]; 663 [72%] were White, 121 [13%] were Black or African American, 53 [6%] were Asian, 24 [3%] were Aboriginal or Pacific islander, and 57 [6%] were other races) and included in the analysis. As of data cutoff (April 12, 2021), median follow-up was 60 months (IQR 45 to 65). 5-year overall survival was 72% (95% CI 67 to 76) in the adjuvant chemotherapy group (105 deaths) and 71% (66 to 75) in the chemoradiotherapy only group (116 deaths; difference 1% [95% CI -6 to 7]; hazard ratio 0·90 [95% CI 0·70 to 1·17]; p=0·81). In the safety population, the most common clinically significant grade 3-4 adverse events were decreased neutrophils (71 [20%] in the adjuvant chemotherapy group vs 34 [8%] in the chemoradiotherapy only group), and anaemia (66 [18%] vs 34 [8%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 107 (30%) in the adjuvant chemotherapy group versus 98 (22%) in the chemoradiotherapy only group, most commonly due to infectious complications. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy given after standard cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy for unselected locally advanced cervical cancer increased short-term toxicity and did not improve overall survival; therefore, it should not be given in this setting. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council and National Cancer Institute.

Cannabis use among adults undergoing cancer treatment.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the risks and benefits of cannabis use in the context of cancer care. This study characterized the prevalence, reasons for use, and perceived benefits of cannabis and compared symptoms and perceived risks between those who reported past 30-day cannabis use and those who did not. METHODS: Adults undergoing cancer treatment at a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center completed measures of sociodemographic characteristics, cannabis use, use modalities, reasons for use, perceived harms/benefits of use, physical and psychological symptoms, and other substance/medication use. Analyses compared patients who used or did not use cannabis in the past 30 days. RESULTS: Participants (N = 267) were 58 years old on average, primarily female (70%), and predominantly White (88%). Over a quarter of respondents (26%) reported past 30-day cannabis use, and among those, 4.5% screened positive for cannabis use disorder. Participants who used cannabis most often used edibles (65%) or smoked cannabis (51%), and they were younger and more likely to be male, Black, and disabled, and to have lower income and Medicaid insurance than participants who did not use cannabis. Those who used cannabis reported more severe symptoms and perceived cannabis as less harmful than those who did not use cannabis. The most common medical reasons for cannabis use were pain, cancer, sleep problems, anxiety, nausea/vomiting, and poor appetite. Participants reported the greatest cannabis-related symptom relief from sleep problems, nausea/vomiting, headaches, pain, muscle spasms, and anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with cancer who used cannabis perceived benefits for many symptoms, although they showed worse overall symptomatology. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Among adults undergoing cancer treatment, 26% reported cannabis use in the past 30 days. Those who used cannabis were more likely to be male and disabled and to have lower income and Medicaid insurance than those who did not use cannabis. Participants most commonly reported using cannabis for pain, cancer, sleep, anxiety, and nausea/vomiting and reported the greatest perceived benefits for sleep, nausea/vomiting, headaches, pain, muscle spasms, and anxiety, yet participants who used cannabis also reported feeling worse physically and psychologically compared to those who did not use cannabis. Participants who used cannabis were more likely to report that cannabis was less risky to their health than alcohol, smoking, and opioids than those who did not use cannabis.

Trametinib versus standard of care in patients with recurrent low-grade serous ovarian cancer (GOG 281/LOGS): an international, randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 2/3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Low-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary or peritoneum is characterised by MAPK pathway aberrations and its reduced sensitivity to chemotherapy relative to high-grade serous carcinoma. We compared the MEK inhibitor trametinib to physician's choice standard of care in patients with recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma. METHODS: This international, randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 2/3 trial was done at 84 hospitals in the USA and UK. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma and measurable disease, as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1, had received at least one platinum-based regimen, but not all five standard-of-care drugs, and had received an unlimited number of previous regimens. Patients with serous borderline tumours or tumours containing low-grade serous and high-grade serous carcinoma were excluded. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral trametinib 2 mg once daily (trametinib group) or one of five standard-of-care treatment options (standard-of-care group): intravenous paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 by body surface area on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 28-day cycle; intravenous pegylated liposomal doxorubicin 40-50 mg/m2 by body surface area once every 4 weeks; intravenous topotecan 4 mg/m2 by body surface area on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 28-day cycle; oral letrozole 2·5 mg once daily; or oral tamoxifen 20 mg twice daily. Randomisation was stratified by geographical region (USA or UK), number of previous regimens (1, 2, or ≥3), performance status (0 or 1), and planned standard-of-care regimen. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival while receiving randomised therapy, as assessed by imaging at baseline, once every 8 weeks for 15 months, and then once every 3 months thereafter, in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study therapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02101788, and is active but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Feb 27, 2014, and April 10, 2018, 260 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the trametinib group (n=130) or the standard-of-care group (n=130). At the primary analysis, there were 217 progression-free survival events (101 [78%] in the trametinib group and 116 [89%] in the standard-of-care group). Median progression-free survival in the trametinib group was 13·0 months (95% CI 9·9-15·0) compared with 7·2 months (5·6-9·9) in the standard-of-care group (hazard ratio 0·48 [95% CI 0·36-0·64]; p<0·0001). The most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the trametinib group were skin rash (17 [13%] of 128), anaemia (16 [13%]), hypertension (15 [12%]), diarrhoea (13 [10%]), nausea (12 [9%]), and fatigue (ten [8%]). The most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the standard-of-care group were abdominal pain (22 [17%]), nausea (14 [11%]), anaemia (12 [10%]), and vomiting (ten [8%]). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Trametinib represents a new standard-of-care option for patients with recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma. FUNDING: NRG Oncology, Cancer Research UK, Target Ovarian Cancer, and Novartis.

Safety and efficacy of mirvetuximab soravtansine, a folate receptor alpha (FRα)-targeting antibody-drug conjugate (ADC), in combination with bevacizumab in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: Evaluate the antitumor activity and safety profile of the combination of mirvetuximab soravtansine and bevacizumab in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. METHODS: Patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer, whose most recent platinum-free interval was ≤6 months, were administered mirvetuximab soravtansine (6 mg/kg adjusted ideal body weight) and bevacizumab (15 mg/kg), intravenously, once every 3 weeks. Eligibility included FRα expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC; ≥25% of cells with ≥2+ intensity). Prior bevacizumab and/or PARP inhibitor (PARPi) treatment were permitted. The primary endpoint was confirmed objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety. RESULTS: Ninety-four patients received combination treatment with mirvetuximab soravtansine and bevacizumab. Median age was 62 years (range, 39-81). Fifty-two percent had ≥3 prior therapies; 59% had prior bevacizumab; and 27% had prior PARPi. ORR was 44% (95% CI 33, 54) with 5 complete responses, median DOR 9.7 months (95% CI 6.9, 14.1), and median PFS 8.2 months (95% CI 6.8, 10.0). Treatment-related adverse events were consistent with the profiles of each agent, with the most common being blurred vision (all grades 57%; grade 3, 1%), diarrhea (54%; grade 3, 1%), and nausea (51%; grade 3, 1%). CONCLUSION: The mirvetuximab soravtansine plus bevacizumab doublet is an active and well-tolerated regimen in patients with FRα-expressing platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. Promising activity was observed for patients regardless of level of FRα expression or prior bevacizumab. These data underscore the potential for mirvetuximab soravtansine as the combination partner of choice for bevacizumab in this setting.

Overall survival and patient-reported outcome results from the placebo-controlled randomized phase III IMagyn050/GOG 3015/ENGOT-OV39 trial of atezolizumab for newly diagnosed stage III/IV ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact on overall survival (OS) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of combining atezolizumab with standard therapy for newly diagnosed stage III/IV ovarian cancer. METHODS: The placebo-controlled double-blind randomized phase III IMagyn050/GOG 3015/ENGOT-OV39 trial (NCT03038100) assigned eligible patients to 3-weekly atezolizumab 1200 mg or placebo for 22 cycles with platinum-based chemotherapy and bevacizumab. Coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival (already reported) and OS in the PD-L1-positive and intent-to-treat (ITT) populations, tested hierarchically. Prespecified PRO analyses focused on disease-related abdominal pain and bloating symptoms (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-OV28), functioning, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (QLQ-C30). RESULTS: After 38 months' median follow-up, the OS hazard ratio in the PD-L1-positive population was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.66-1.06; p = 0.13); median OS was not estimable with atezolizumab versus 49.2 months with placebo. The hazard ratio for OS in the ITT population was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.78-1.09; median 50.5 versus 46.6 months, respectively). At week 9, similar proportions of patients in both arms of the neoadjuvant cohort showed ≥10-point improvement from baseline in abdominal pain and bloating, functioning, and HRQoL. In the primary surgery cohort, similar proportions of patients in each arm had improved, stable, or worsened physical and role function and HRQoL from baseline over time. Neither cohort showed differences between arms in treatment-related symptoms or overall side-effect bother. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporation of atezolizumab into standard therapy for newly diagnosed ovarian cancer does not significantly improve efficacy or impose additional treatment burden for patients. CLINICALTRIALS: gov registration: NCT03038100.

Association between Serum Biomarkers with Postoperative Complications and Delay of Adjuvant Chemotherapy Initiation in Ovarian Cancer Patients Undergoing Primary Cytoreductive Surgery: A Pilot Study.

This study sought to describe and relate the factors associated with complications and delays in adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with ovarian cancer treated with primary cytoreductive surgery. Serum from patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer scheduled for primary cytoreductive surgery were analyzed for prealbumin, 25-OH Vitamin D, intracellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1), interleukin 6 (IL-6), interleukin 8 (IL-8), monocyte chemoattractant protein 1 (MCP-1), monocyte chemoattractant protein 2 (MCP-2), macrophage derived chemokine (MDC). Postoperative complications were identified using common terminology criteria for adverse events 4.0 and 30 day after surgery. Delays in adjuvant chemotherapy were defined as >1 week interval between surgery and initiation. Patients with postoperative complications (39.6%) were significantly older, had lower serum prealbumin levels, and higher serum IL-6 and IL-8 than those without. Univariate logistic regression found that age (OR: 1.12, 95%CI: 1.00-1.35) and IL-6 (OR: 1.02, 95%CI: 0.99-1.05) were associated with postoperative complications, whereas age remained significant after multivariate analysis (OR:1.14, 95%CI: 1.00-1.29). Patients with delays in chemotherapy exhibited greater BMI and lower 25-OH Vitamin D than those without. Multivariate analysis found that increasing levels of 25-OH Vitamin D were associated with a lower risk of delayed chemotherapy initiation after controlling for age, body mass index, and tumor grade (OR: 0.93, 95%CI:0.87-0.99). This work suggests that in addition to age being predictive of postoperative complications, serum 25-OH Vitamin D may a provide insight into a patient's risk for postsurgical delays in chemotherapy initiation. These findings should, however, be confirmed in a larger study including robust survival analysis.

In a small cohort, increasing age was associated with postsurgical complications in patients with ovarian cancer following primary cytoreductive surgery.In patients with ovarian cancer following primary cytoreductive surgery delays in adjuvant chemotherapy initiation were inversely associated with serum 25-OH vitamin D status.

ARTISTRY-7: phase III trial of nemvaleukin alfa plus pembrolizumab vs chemotherapy for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

Standard single-agent nonplatinum chemotherapy provides only modest benefit in a small proportion of patients with platinum-resistant/-refractory ovarian cancer, with objective response rates of 6-20% and progression-free survival of ≈3-4 months. Nemvaleukin alfa (nemvaleukin, ALKS 4230) is a novel cytokine designed to capture and expand the therapeutic potential of high-dose interleukin-2 (IL-2) while mitigating its associated toxicity issues. Nemvaleukin preferentially activates cytotoxic CD8+ T cells and natural killer cells with minimal, non-dose-dependent effects on CD4+ regulatory T cells. The global, randomized, open-label, phase III ARTISTRY-7 trial will compare efficacy and safety of nemvaleukin plus pembrolizumab with chemotherapy in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. The primary end point is investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Clinical Trial Registration: GOG-3063; ENGOT-OV68; NCT05092360 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

In many patients with ovarian cancer who are treated with platinum-based chemotherapy, the tumor comes back after a few months and fails to respond to repeated treatment. This type of disease is called platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC). Researchers are searching for new medicines to help more patients with PROC. One treatment approach that has shown promise in different cancers is called immunotherapy. These medicines work by helping the body's immune system attack cancer cells. One of the immunotherapies being studied is called nemvaleukin. It is designed to trigger specific immune responses that may result in the immune system attacking cancer cells while potentially avoiding other immune responses that can block the attack or cause certain unwanted side effects. Nemvaleukin is being studied in a variety of cancer types. In a worldwide clinical trial called ARTISTRY-7, researchers are investigating how nemvaleukin works in patients with PROC when given with another immunotherapy called pembrolizumab. Patients who participate in this trial will be randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups: the combination of nemvaleukin and pembrolizumab, nemvaleukin by itself, pembrolizumab by itself, or a type of chemotherapy selected by the treating physician. The main purpose of ARTISTRY-7 is to understand whether the combination of nemvaleukin and pembrolizumab helps patients with PROC live longer without their cancer getting worse. At the time of this writing, ARTISTRY-7 is open for new patients to join.

Safety and management of niraparib monotherapy in ovarian cancer clinical trials.

Niraparib is a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor that has shown a significant improvement in progression-free survival irrespective of biomarker status in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. This review focuses on the adverse events associated with niraparib and their management to maintain efficacy of niraparib treatment and improve quality of life for patients. In five trials assessing efficacy of niraparib in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (PRIMA, NOVA, NORA, QUADRA, and PRIME), treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade were reported in nearly all patients (≥99%) receiving niraparib; the events were grade ≥3 in 51-74% of patients. Across all lines of therapy, treatment-emergent adverse events led to dose interruptions in 62-80% of patients receiving niraparib and dose reductions in 47-71%. Hematologic events were most frequently reported, including thrombocytopenia, anemia, and neutropenia. Common non-hematologic events included gastrointestinal events, which were generally low grade (<5% were grade ≥3). Clinical strategies to manage these and other events, such as fatigue and insomnia, cognitive behavioral therapy and pharmacologic agents, are summarized. Once-daily niraparib dosing may be advantageous for some patients for many reasons, including night-time dosing which may help alleviate gastrointestinal symptoms. An individualized starting dose (determined by baseline body weight and platelet count) of niraparib demonstrated an improved safety profile while maintaining efficacy. Patients receiving the niraparib individualized starting dose had fewer grade ≥3 adverse events, dose interruptions, and dose reductions than patients receiving a fixed starting dose. The safety profile of niraparib across five pivotal studies in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer was consistent across multiple lines of treatment, including as maintenance therapy in first-line and recurrent settings and as treatment in heavily pre-treated patients. Long-term safety data from the NOVA trial confirmed that, with appropriate and early dose modifications, niraparib is well tolerated.

Low-grade serous ovarian cancer: expert consensus report on the state of the science.

Compared with high-grade serous carcinoma, low-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary or peritoneum is a less frequent epithelial ovarian cancer type that is poorly sensitive to chemotherapy and affects younger women, many of whom endure years of ineffective treatments and poor quality of life. The pathogenesis of this disease and its management remain incompletely understood. However, recent advances in the molecular characterization of the disease and identification of novel targeted therapies with activity in low-grade serous carcinoma offer the promise of improved outcomes. To update clinicians regarding recent scientific and clinical trial advancements and discuss unanswered questions related to low-grade serous carcinoma diagnosis and treatment, a panel of experts convened for a workshop in October 2022 to develop a consensus document addressing pathology, translational research, epidemiology and risk, clinical management, and ongoing research. In addition, the patient perspective was discussed. The recommendations developed by this expert panel-presented in this consensus document-will guide practitioners in all settings regarding the clinical management of women with low-grade serous carcinoma and discuss future opportunities to improve research and patient care.

Veliparib with First-Line Chemotherapy and as Maintenance Therapy in Ovarian Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Data are limited regarding the use of poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, such as veliparib, in combination with chemotherapy followed by maintenance as initial treatment in patients with high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma. METHODS: In an international, phase 3, placebo-controlled trial, we assessed the efficacy of veliparib added to first-line induction chemotherapy with carboplatin and paclitaxel and continued as maintenance monotherapy in patients with previously untreated stage III or IV high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive chemotherapy plus placebo followed by placebo maintenance (control), chemotherapy plus veliparib followed by placebo maintenance (veliparib combination only), or chemotherapy plus veliparib followed by veliparib maintenance (veliparib throughout). Cytoreductive surgery could be performed before initiation or after 3 cycles of trial treatment. Combination chemotherapy was 6 cycles, and maintenance therapy was 30 additional cycles. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the veliparib-throughout group as compared with the control group, analyzed sequentially in the BRCA-mutation cohort, the cohort with homologous-recombination deficiency (HRD) (which included the BRCA-mutation cohort), and the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: A total of 1140 patients underwent randomization. In the BRCA-mutation cohort, the median progression-free survival was 34.7 months in the veliparib-throughout group and 22.0 months in the control group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28 to 0.68; P<0.001); in the HRD cohort, it was 31.9 months and 20.5 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.57; 95 CI, 0.43 to 0.76; P<0.001); and in the intention-to-treat population, it was 23.5 months and 17.3 months (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.83; P<0.001). Veliparib led to a higher incidence of anemia and thrombocytopenia when combined with chemotherapy as well as of nausea and fatigue overall. CONCLUSIONS: Across all trial populations, a regimen of carboplatin, paclitaxel, and veliparib induction therapy followed by veliparib maintenance therapy led to significantly longer progression-free survival than carboplatin plus paclitaxel induction therapy alone. The independent value of adding veliparib during induction therapy without veliparib maintenance was less clear. (Funded by AbbVie; VELIA/GOG-3005 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02470585.).

Impact of veliparib, paclitaxel dosing regimen, and germline BRCA status on the primary treatment of serous ovarian cancer - an ancillary data analysis of the VELIA trial.

OBJECTIVE: In the Phase 3 VELIA trial (NCT02470585), veliparib added to carboplatin plus paclitaxel concomitantly and as maintenance for women with newly-diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus chemotherapy alone. Here we present exploratory analyses by paclitaxel dosing schedule and germline BRCA (gBRCA) status. METHODS: Women with untreated ovarian carcinoma were randomized (1:1:1) to: veliparib during chemotherapy and maintenance (veliparib-throughout), veliparib during chemotherapy followed by placebo maintenance (veliparib-combination only), or placebo during chemotherapy and maintenance (control). Chemotherapy included carboplatin plus dose-dense (DD; weekly) or every-3-week (Q3W) paclitaxel (a stratification factor at randomization), selected at the investigator's discretion pre-randomization. PFS was assessed by paclitaxel dosing schedule using a Cox proportional hazard model adjusted by treatment arm and stratification factors; safety was analyzed based on paclitaxel dosing schedule and gBRCA status. RESULTS: 1132 patients were analyzed by paclitaxel schedule. Pooled treatment arms demonstrated longer median PFS with DD (n = 586) versus Q3W (n = 546) paclitaxel (ITT: 20.5 vs 15.7 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0.77; homologous recombination proficient cancer: 15.1 vs 11.8 months, HR 0.64; BRCAwt: 18.0 vs 12.9 months, HR 0.70). Comparison between arms favored veliparib-throughout versus control in both DD (PFS, 24.2 vs 18.3 months, hazard ratio 0.67) and Q3W (19.3 vs 14.6, hazard ratio 0.69) subgroups. DD paclitaxel was associated with higher incidence of Grade 3/4 neutropenia, fatigue, and anemia versus Q3W. There were no differences in toxicity between gBRCAm (n = 211) and gBRCAwt (n = 902) subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: DD paclitaxel was tolerable and associated with longer PFS in the HR proficient and gBRCAwt groups, versus Q3W. gBRCA status did not impact safety.

Impact of homologous recombination status and responses with veliparib combined with first-line chemotherapy in ovarian cancer in the Phase 3 VELIA/GOG-3005 study.

OBJECTIVE: In the Phase 3 VELIA trial (NCT02470585), PARP inhibitor (PARPi) veliparib was combined with first-line chemotherapy and continued as maintenance for patients with ovarian carcinoma enrolled regardless of chemotherapy response or biomarker status. Here, we report exploratory analyses of the impact of homologous recombination deficient (HRD) or proficient (HRP) status on progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rates during chemotherapy. METHODS: Women with Stage III-IV ovarian carcinoma were randomized to veliparib-throughout, veliparib-combination-only, or placebo. Stratification factors included timing of surgery and germline BRCA mutation status. HRD status was dichotomized at genomic instability score 33. During combination therapy, CA-125 levels were measured at baseline and each cycle; radiographic responses were assessed every 9 weeks. RESULTS: Of 1140 patients randomized, 742 had BRCA wild type (BRCAwt) tumors (HRP, n = 373; HRD/BRCAwt, n = 329). PFS hazard ratios between veliparib-throughout versus control were similar in both BRCAwt populations (HRD/BRCAwt: 22.9 vs 19.8 months; hazard ratio 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-1.09; HRP: 15.0 vs 11.5 months; hazard ratio 0.765; 95% CI 0.56-1.04). By Cycle 3, the proportion with ≥90% CA-125 reduction from baseline was higher in those receiving veliparib (pooled arms) versus control (34% vs 23%; P = 0.0004); particularly in BRCAwt and HRP subgroups. Complete response rates among patients with measurable disease after surgery were 24% with veliparib (pooled arms) and 18% with control. CONCLUSIONS: These results potentially broaden opportunities for PARPi utilization among patients who would not qualify for frontline PARPi maintenance based on other trials.

Resistance to Poly (ADP-Ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors (PARPi): Mechanisms and Potential to Reverse.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review will focus on the most common mechanisms for poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors' (PARPi) resistance and the main strategies for overcoming acquired or de novo PARPi resistance. RECENT FINDINGS: Initial approvals for PARPi as part of treatment for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) started in 2014 with patient with recurrent cancer characterized by BRCA mutations in the 3rd and 4th line and now have approvals for front-line maintenance in both the BRCA mutated and BRCAwt populations. As with all therapies, patients will eventually develop resistance to treatment. The most common mechanisms for PARPi resistance include reversion mutations, methylation events, and restoration of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) through combinations and targeting replication stress. As more and more patients receive initial treatment (and potential retreatment with PARPi), we need to better understand the mechanisms in which tumors acquire PARPi resistance.

Niraparib treatment for patients with BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer: review of clinical data and therapeutic context.

We reviewed clinical data for niraparib monotherapy in BRCA-mutated (BRCAm) epithelial ovarian cancer (OC), contextualizing results with data from other poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis). Niraparib reduced the likelihood of progression or death by 60% as first-line maintenance therapy and by 73-78% in recurrent disease. In heavily pretreated OC, efficacy was greater in the BRCAm versus non-BRCAm cohort. Quality-of-life (QoL) was maintained throughout treatment. Adverse events were consistent with the known niraparib safety profile. Cumulative efficacy, safety and QoL evidence demonstrate niraparib maintenance monotherapy has a positive benefit:risk ratio in BRCAm OC. Niraparib significantly improved progression-free survival as first-line maintenance therapy in all patients with OC (i.e., of any biomarker status).

This article reviewed niraparib monotherapy in patients with ovarian cancer (OC) who have mutations in a specific gene (BRCA). Across multiple clinical trials, niraparib maintenance treatment was able to delay further progression of disease or death compared with patients who had received placebo; the tumors of patients who had received extensive prior treatment for OC were also more likely to respond to niraparib treatment. Patients were able to have the same quality-of-life with niraparib as they would if they had not received treatment. Side effects were predictable from previous clinical trial experience. Together, these data show that niraparib, like other inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase, is beneficial in patients with OC who have a deleterious BRCA mutation. A plain language version of this article is available and is published alongside the paper online: www.futuremedicine.com/doi/suppl/10.2217/fon-2022-0206.

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

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

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

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