Side Effects from Cancer Therapies and Perspective of 1044 Long-Term Ovarian Cancer Survivors-Results of Expression VI-Carolin Meets HANNA-Holistic Analysis of Long-Term Survival with Ovarian Cancer: The International NOGGO, ENGOT, and GCIG Survey.

The aim of this survey was to increase the knowledge on the characteristics and health concerns of long-term survivors (LTS; survival > 5 years) after ovarian cancer in order to tailor follow-up care. This international survey was initiated by the NOGGO and was made available to members of ENGOT and GCIG. The survey is anonymous and consists of 68 questions regarding sociodemographic, medical (cancer) history, health concerns including distress, long-term side effects, and lifestyle. For this analysis, 1044 LTS from 14 countries were recruited. In total, 58% were diagnosed with FIGO stage III/IV ovarian cancer and 43.4% developed recurrent disease, while 26.0% were receiving cancer treatment at the time of filling in the survey. LTS who survived 5-10 years self-estimated their health status as being significantly worse than LTS who survived more than 10 years (p = 0.034), whereas distress also remained high 10 years after cancer diagnosis. Almost half of the cohort (46.1%) reported still having symptoms, which were mainly lymphedema (37.7%), fatigue (23.9%), pain (21.6%), polyneuropathy (16.9%), gastrointestinal problems (16.6%), and memory problems (15.5%). Almost all patients (94.2%) regularly received follow-up care. Specialized survivorship care with a focus on long-term side effects, lifestyle, and prevention should be offered beyond the typical five years of follow-up care.

Mitigation and management strategies for ocular events associated with tisotumab vedotin.

Tisotumab vedotin is a tissue factor-directed antibody-drug conjugate developed for treatment of recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (r/mCC). In the pivotal phase 2 study innovaTV 204, 101 r/mCC patients received tisotumab vedotin. 138 ocular treatment-related AEs (TRAEs), predominantly Grade 1 or 2, were observed in 54 (53%) patients. The most common ocular TRAEs were conjunctivitis (26 patients [26%]), dry eye (23 patients [23%]), and keratitis (11 patients [11%]). Observed ocular TRAEs are hypothesized to be conjunctival and inflammatory in nature, resulting in signs and symptoms readily recognizable by patients and healthcare providers. Generally, ocular TRAEs were manageable with ophthalmic care (prophylactic and symptom management) and dose modifications. Of 138 ocular TRAEs, 118 (86%) resolved within 30 days after last dose of tisotumab vedotin. Median time to resolution was 0.7 months (interquartile range: 0.3-1.6). To help reduce the risk of ocular AEs, an eye care plan based on clinical trial experience was developed. This encompasses an oncology care team partnering with an eye care provider, incorporates eye exams at baseline (per trial mitigation measures) and prior to each dose, includes eye drops and cold packs, avoids contact lens use, and advises prompt referral for new or worsening ocular signs and symptoms. Moreover, dose modification guidelines have been developed to manage potential ocular AEs. Ocular AEs will require patient management strategies that may be new to oncology teams. Oncologists should become familiar with symptoms that typically arise, and eye care providers should be an integral part of the comprehensive care team treating patients receiving tisotumab vedotin. With diligent monitoring for early signs and symptoms, careful adherence to required eye care, pharmacologic intervention when ocular AEs arise, and dose modifications when needed, ocular AEs can be detected early and symptoms can be alleviated before any impact on vision, to ultimately help patients stay on therapy.

Patient-derived organoids from endometrial disease capture clinical heterogeneity and are amenable to drug screening.

Endometrial disorders represent a major gynaecological burden. Current research models fail to recapitulate the nature and heterogeneity of these diseases, thereby hampering scientific and clinical progress. Here we developed long-term expandable organoids from a broad spectrum of endometrial pathologies. Organoids from endometriosis show disease-associated traits and cancer-linked mutations. Endometrial cancer-derived organoids accurately capture cancer subtypes, replicate the mutational landscape of the tumours and display patient-specific drug responses. Organoids were also established from precancerous pathologies encompassing endometrial hyperplasia and Lynch syndrome, and inherited gene mutations were maintained. Endometrial disease organoids reproduced the original lesion when transplanted in vivo. In summary, we developed multiple organoid models that capture endometrial disease diversity and will provide powerful research models and drug screening and discovery tools.

Interrelations of Sphingolipid and Lysophosphatidate Signaling with Immune System in Ovarian Cancer.

The sphingolipid and lysophosphatidate regulatory networks impact diverse mechanisms attributed to cancer cells and the tumor immune microenvironment. Deciphering the complexity demands implementation of a holistic approach combined with higher-resolution techniques. We implemented a multi-modular integrative approach consolidating the latest accomplishments in gene expression profiling, prognostic/predictive modeling, next generation digital pathology, and systems biology for epithelial ovarian cancer. We assessed patient-specific transcriptional profiles using the sphingolipid/lysophosphatidate/immune-associated signature. This revealed novel sphingolipid/lysophosphatidate-immune gene-gene associations and distinguished tumor subtypes with immune high/low context. These were characterized by robust differences in sphingolipid-/lysophosphatidate-related checkpoints and the drug response. The analysis also nominates novel survival models for stratification of patients with CD68, LPAR3, SMPD1, PPAP2B, and SMPD2 emerging as the most prognostically important genes. Alignment of proprietary data with curated transcriptomic data from public databases across a variety of malignancies (over 600 categories; over 21,000 arrays) showed specificity for ovarian carcinoma. Our systems approach identified novel sphingolipid-lysophosphatidate-immune checkpoints and networks underlying tumor immune heterogeneity and disease outcomes. This holds great promise for delivering novel stratifying and targeting strategies.

Epithelial ovarian cancer.

Epithelial ovarian cancer generally presents at an advanced stage and is the most common cause of gynaecological cancer death. Treatment requires expert multidisciplinary care. Population-based screening has been ineffective, but new approaches for early diagnosis and prevention that leverage molecular genomics are in development. Initial therapy includes surgery and adjuvant therapy. Epithelial ovarian cancer is composed of distinct histological subtypes with unique genomic characteristics, which are improving the precision and effectiveness of therapy, allowing discovery of predictors of response such as mutations in breast cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2, and homologous recombination deficiency for DNA damage response pathway inhibitors or resistance (cyclin E1). Rapidly evolving techniques to measure genomic changes in tumour and blood allow for assessment of sensitivity and emergence of resistance to therapy, and might be accurate indicators of residual disease. Recurrence is usually incurable, and patient symptom control and quality of life are key considerations at this stage. Treatments for recurrence have to be designed from a patient's perspective and incorporate meaningful measures of benefit. Urgent progress is needed to develop evidence and consensus-based treatment guidelines for each subgroup, and requires close international cooperation in conducting clinical trials through academic research groups such as the Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup.

Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy does not improve survival in advanced ovarian cancer.

Despite its widespread use, until recently, there was no randomized evidence for hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) versus surgery without HIPEC for ovarian cancer. Recently, a Dutch study (OVHIPEC) reported benefits in both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) gained from the use of HIPEC at the time of interval debulking surgery (IDS) for stage III ovarian carcinoma, whereas a Korean randomized trial failed to show a benefit of HIPEC for patients with ovarian cancer undergoing primary debulking surgery or IDS. In colorectal cancer, 2 randomized trials failed to show an improvement in survival with HIPEC. In addition to these contradictory results, there are a number of aspects of the Dutch OVHIPEC trial in ovarian cancer that can be criticized. Some criticisms include a reduction of the number of patients needed to be randomized because of too slow accrual; much lower PFS and OS in both arms than expected according to the statistical plan; the small size of the study, with imbalances between the 2 arms (eg, more low-grade tumors in the HIPEC arm); the timing of randomization before the start of IDS; the lack of clear inclusion criteria for neoadjuvant chemotherapy; and the heterogeneity of the results, with the largest effect shown at the smaller centers. Furthermore, it is questionable whether the adverse events were reported completely. In conclusion, data about HIPEC for ovarian cancer in general are not convincing, and they do not change the standard of care, which remains for ovarian cancer surgery and intravenous chemotherapy.

Manual lymph drainage may not have a preventive effect on the development of breast cancer-related lymphoedema in the long term: a randomised trial.

QUESTION: What are the short-term and long-term preventive effects of manual lymph drainage (MLD), when used in addition to information and exercise therapy, on the development of lymphoedema after axillary dissection for breast cancer? DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial with concealed allocation, blinded assessors and intention-to-treat analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Adults undergoing unilateral dissection for breast cancer were recruited, with 79 allocated to the experimental group and 81 to the control group. INTERVENTION: The experimental group received guidelines about prevention of lymphoedema, exercise therapy and MLD. The control group received the same guidelines and exercise therapy, but no MLD. The interventions in both groups were delivered for 6 months. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was cumulative incidence of arm lymphoedema defined in four ways (≥200ml,≥2cm,≥5%, and≥10% increase), which represent the difference in arm volume or circumference between the affected and healthy sides compared with the difference before surgery. Secondary outcomes included point prevalence of lymphoedema, change in arm volume difference, shoulder range of movement, quality of life and function. RESULTS: Incidence rates were comparable between experimental and control groups at all follow-up measurements. Sixty months after surgery, the cumulative incidence rate for the≥200ml definition was 35% for the experimental group versus 29% for the control group (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.54, p=0.45); for the≥2cm definition 35% versus 38% (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.45, p=0.73); for the≥5% definition 68% versus 53% (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.69, p=0.08) and for the≥10% definition 28% versus 24% (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.10, p=0.57). The secondary outcomes were comparable between the groups at most assessment points. CONCLUSION: Manual lymph drainage may not have a preventive effect on the development of breast cancer-related lymphoedema in the short and long term. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NTR 1055. [Devoogdt N, Geraerts I, Van Kampen M, De Vrieze T, Vos L, Neven P, Vergote I, Christiaens M-R, Thomis S, De Groef A (2018) Manual lymph drainage may not have a preventive effect on the development of breast cancer-related lymphoedema in the long term: a randomised trial. Journal of Physiotherapy 64: 245-254].

Is there a role for HIPEC in ovarian cancer?

Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is promoted by some as a standard treatment for peritoneal carcinomatosis of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) and other tumor entities, despite lack of robust data supporting this. Publicly available evidence addressing the value of HIPEC in EOC is rather inconclusive, revealing contradictory and inconsistent results while some studies even report harm to the patients from a higher morbidity. On this ground, we cannot recommend the implementation and use of HIPEC outside of a randomized clinical trial setting.

Tumor Treating Fields in combination with paclitaxel in recurrent ovarian carcinoma: Results of the INNOVATE pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) are an anti-mitotic therapy comprising continuous delivery of low-intensity alternating electric fields at intermediate frequencies to the tumor region by a home-use medical device. METHODS: The INNOVATE (EF-22) Study was a phase 2, single arm clinical trial, which tested the safety and efficacy of TTFields (200 kHz) in combination with weekly paclitaxel (weekly for 8 weeks and then on days 1, 8, 15 of each subsequent 28 day-cycle; starting dose 80 mg/m2) in 31 patients with recurrent, platinum-resistant ovarian carcinoma. The primary endpoint was safety and secondary endpoints included OS, PFS and RR. RESULTS: Median age was 60 (range: 45-77), 24 patients (77%) had serous histology, 16 patients (52%) ECOG score 0 and 15 (48%) ECOG 1, the median number of prior chemotherapy lines was 4 (range: 1-11). All patients received prior platinum-based chemotherapy and 30 (97%) received prior taxanes. No serious adverse events related to TTFields were reported. There was no increase in grade 3-4 adverse events compared to the frequency of such events reported in the literature with single agent weekly paclitaxel. Twenty-six patients (84%) had the expected TTFields-related dermatitis but only one patient permanently discontinued TTFields due to dermatitis. The median PFS was 8.9 months, 7 patients (25%) had partial response and the clinical benefit rate was 71%. The median overall survival was not reached: the one-year survival rate was 61%. CONCLUSION: TTFields combined with weekly paclitaxel were safe in platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer and warrants evaluation in a randomized phase 3 trial.

Carboplatin and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin versus carboplatin and paclitaxel in very platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer patients: results from a subset analysis of the CALYPSO phase III trial.

AIM: To perform a subset analysis of patients with very platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC) enrolled in the phase III CALYPSO trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The international non-inferiority trial enrolled women with ROC that relapsed >6 months following first- or second-line platinum- and paclitaxel-based therapies. Patients were randomised to CD [carboplatin-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD)] or CP (carboplatin-paclitaxel) and stratified by treatment-free interval (TFI). In this analysis, patients with a TFI>24 months were analysed separately for progression free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint of CALYPSO, overall survival (OS) and safety. RESULTS: A total of 259 very platinum-sensitive patients were included (n=131, CD; n=128, CP). Median PFS was 12.0 months for the CD arm and 12.3 months for CP [HR=1.05 (95% CI, 0.79-1.40); P=0.73 for superiority] and median OS was 40.2 months for CD and 43.9 for CP [HR=1.18 (95% CI 0.85-1.63); P=0.33 for superiority]. Overall response rates were 42% and 38%, respectively (P=0.46). Toxicities were more common with CP versus CD, including grade 3/4 neutropenia (40.8% versus 27.5%; P=0.025), nausea (4.8% versus 3.1%; P=0.47), allergic reaction (8% versus 3.1%; P=0.082) sensory neuropathy (4.8% versus 2.3%; P=0.27) and grade 2 alopecia (88% versus 9.2%; P<0.001). Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia (12.2% versus 3.2%; P=0.007) and mucositis (2.3% versus 0%; P=0.089) were more common with CD. Grade 3/4 hand-foot syndrome occurred rarely with CD (3 patients versus 0 in CP arm; P=0.089). CONCLUSION: CP and CD were equally effective treatment regimens for patients with very platinum-sensitive ROC. The favourable risk-benefit profile suggests carboplatin-PLD as treatment of choice for these patients.

Panitumumab and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian cancer with KRAS wild-type: the PaLiDo study, a phase II nonrandomized multicenter study.

OBJECTIVE: The increasing number of negative trials for ovarian cancer treatment has prompted an evaluation of new biologic agents, which in combination with chemotherapy may improve survival. The aim of this study was to investigate the response rate in platinum-resistant, KRAS wild-type ovarian cancer patients treated with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) supplemented with panitumumab. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Major eligibility criteria were relapsed ovarian/fallopian/peritoneal cancer patients with platinum-resistant disease, measurable disease by GCIG CA125 criteria and KRAS wild-type. Patients were treated with panitumumab 6 mg/kg day 1 and day 15 and with PLD 40 mg/m2 day 1, every 4 weeks. RESULTS: Forty-six patients were enrolled by 6 study sites in this multi-institutional phase II trial. The response rate in the intention-to-treat population (n = 43) was 18.6%. Progression-free and overall survival in the intention-to-treat population was 2.7 months (2.5-3.2 months, 95% confidence interval) and 8.1 months (5.6-11.7 months, 95% confidence interval), respectively. The most common treatment-related grade 3 toxicities included skin toxicity (42%), fatigue (19%), and vomiting (12%). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of PLD and panitumumab demonstrates efficacy in platinum refractory/resistant patients but the skin toxicity was considerable.

A randomised, double-blind, phase II study of two doses of pemetrexed in the treatment of platinum-resistant, epithelial ovarian or primary peritoneal cancer.

PURPOSE: We conducted a randomised phase II study to assess the safety and efficacy of standard versus high-dose pemetrexed in platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian cancer (PR-EOC). The expression of ten genes was also examined as potential biomarkers of pemetrexed/platinum activity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received pemetrexed 500mg/m(2) (Pem500) or 900mg/m(2) (Pem900) on day 1 of each 21-d cycle. Responses were defined per RECIST for measurable disease or by Gynaecologic Cancer Intergroup (GCIG) CA-125 criteria for non-measurable disease. RESULTS: Of 102 patients randomised, 98 were evaluable for toxicity (47 Pem500, 51 Pem900) and 91 were evaluable for efficacy (43 Pem500, 48 Pem900) of whom 68 had measurable disease and 23 had CA-125-defined disease. The overall RR was 9.3% (95% CI: 2.6-22.1%) on Pem500 and 10.4% (95% CI: 3.5-22.7%) on Pem900. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.8 months on both arms, and the median survival was 11.9 and 10.3 months, respectively. Lower mRNA expression of excision repair cross-complementation group 1 (ERCC1) and reduced folate carrier 1 (RFC1) were associated with longer PFS and time to treatment failure, respectively. Grade 3/4 toxicities, including fatigue, nausea and vomiting, were numerically greater on Pem900. Pemetrexed-related SAEs occurred in 17% and 28% of Pem500 and Pem900 patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Pemetrexed has activity in PR-EOC equivalent to other agents in platinum-resistant disease; however, Pem500 has the preferable toxicity profile. ERCC1 and RFC1 may merit examination as predictive biomarkers in PR-EOC.

Gemcitabine plus carboplatin compared with carboplatin in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer: an intergroup trial of the AGO-OVAR, the NCIC CTG, and the EORTC GCG.

PURPOSE: Most patients with advanced ovarian cancer develop recurrent disease. For those patients who recur at least 6 months after initial therapy, paclitaxel platinum has shown a modest survival advantage over platinum without paclitaxel; however, many patients develop clinically relevant neurotoxicity, frequently resulting in treatment discontinuation. Thus, an alternative regimen without significant neurotoxicity was evaluated by comparing gemcitabine plus carboplatin with single-agent carboplatin in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer patients. METHODS: Patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer were randomly assigned to receive either gemcitabine plus carboplatin or carboplatin alone, every 21 days. The primary objective was to compare progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-six patients (178 gemcitabine plus carboplatin; 178 carboplatin) were randomly assigned. Patients received a median of six cycles in both arms. With a median follow-up of 17 months, median PFS was 8.6 months (95% CI, 7.9 to 9.7 months) for gemcitabine plus carboplatin and 5.8 months (95% CI, 5.2 to 7.1 months) for carboplatin. The hazard ration (HR) for PFS was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.58 to 0.90; P = .0031). Response rate was 47.2% (95% CI, 39.9% to 54.5%) for gemcitabine plus carboplatin and 30.9% (95% CI, 24.1% to 37.7%) for carboplatin (P = .0016). The HR for overall survival was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.75 to1.23; P = .7349). While myelosuppression was significantly more common in the combination, sequelae such as febrile neutropenia or infections were uncommon. No statistically significant differences in quality of life scores between arms were noted. CONCLUSION: Gemcitabine plus carboplatin significantly improves PFS and response rate without worsening quality of life for patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer.