Phase 1b study of AVB-500 in combination with paclitaxel or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: GAS6 and AXL are expressed in high-grade serous ovarian cancer but not in normal ovarian tissue. AVB-500, a novel high affinity Fc-sAXL fusion protein, binds GAS6 preventing AXL signaling. This Phase 1b study (NCT03639246) evaluated safety, efficacy, and exploratory predictive markers of AVB-500 combined with paclitaxel (PAC) or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC), and used a model informed drug development (MIDD) approach for identification of the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). METHODS: Eligible patients received AVB-500 at 10, 15, or 20 mg/kg IV q2wk combined with PAC (n = 23) or PLD (n = 30). Patients were treated until progression or unacceptable toxicity. All were followed for survival. RESULTS: No dose limiting toxicities were observed and serum GAS6 was completely suppressed across the three dose levels evaluated. AVB-500 + PAC yielded better clinical activity than AVB-500 + PLD with an ORR of 34.8% (8/23, 2 complete responses) and median DoR, PFS, and OS of 7.0, 3.1, and 10.3 months, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed AVB-500 + PAC patients who had no prior bevacizumab or whose AVB-500 trough levels were >13.8 mg/L exhibited the best clinical response. The ORR and median PFS and OS in patients with these characteristics were ≥50%, ≥7.5 months, and ≥19 months, respectively. Given AVB-500 nor the combination with chemotherapy was expected to cause DLTs, the RP2D of AVB-500 was 15 mg/kg identified using an MIDD approach. CONCLUSION: AVB-500 was well-tolerated in combination with PAC or PLD and contributed to the clinical activity of PAC in PROC patients. Subgroup analyses identified a population of PROC patients who may benefit the most from AVB-500 treatment, which will be further assessed in an ongoing Phase 3 PROC trial.

The poly (ADP ribose) polymerase inhibitor niraparib: Management of toxicities.

Niraparib is an oral poly(ADP ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor that is currently approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) as well as recently approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for the maintenance treatment of women with recurrent ovarian cancer who are in complete or partial response to platinum-based chemotherapy. The mechanisms of action of niraparib include inhibition of PARP enzymatic activity as well as increased formation of PARP-DNA complexes through "trapping" the PARP enzyme on damaged DNA. Phase I and III studies have demonstrated activity and benefit of niraparib in both BRCA mutated (BRCAm) and BRCA wild-type (BRCAwt) cancers. Phase I testing of niraparib established the maximally tolerated dose of 300mg by mouth (PO) daily, and the phase 3 ENGOT-OV16/NOVA study demonstrated the benefit of niraparib maintenance therapy compared to placebo after completion of and response to platinum-based chemotherapy in both BRCAm and BRCAwt ovarian cancer patient populations. Toxicities seen with niraparib include hematologic, gastrointestinal, fatigue, and cardiovascular. Hematologic toxicities include thrombocytopenia, anemia, neutropenia and leukopenia; upfront dose modification to 200mg niraparib for patients with baseline weight of ≤77kg and/or baseline platelets of ≤150,000K/uL should be considered to avoid significant hematologic toxicity, especially thrombocytopenia, based on recent analyses of the ENGOT-OV16/NOVA study. Cardiovascular toxicities include hypertension, tachycardia, as well as palpitations, and patients should be monitored for hypertension. PARP inhibitors have been associated with low risks of acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), and the overall risk of AML and MDS is 0.9% of all patients treated with niraparib. Niraparib testing is ongoing in newly diagnosed ovarian cancer patients as maintenance therapy following completion of platinum-based chemotherapy, in BRCAwt cancers as treatment, as well as in combinations with other biologic drugs such as immunotherapy and anti-angiogenic agents.

Effectiveness of cyanoacrylate microbial sealant in the reduction of surgical site infection in gynecologic oncology procedures: A phase III single institution prospective randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: Surgery is a cornerstone for patients with gynecologic malignancies. Surgical site infections (SSI) remain a source of post-operative morbidity. Consequences range from escalated costs, delay in adjuvant therapy, and increased morbidity. Our primary objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of a cyanoacrylate microbial sealant (CMS) to reduce post-operative SSI following laparotomy for suspected gynecologic malignancy. METHODS: Patients were randomized using a 1:1 allocation to receive either standard skin preparation or standard preparation with CMS and stratified by BMI. Patients were followed for 6weeks for SSI. Demographic data was collected through the EMR. Associations between SSI, use of CMS, and clinicopathologic factors were explored using descriptive statistics, chi-square and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: 300 patients underwent randomization. Median age of the cohort was 58. Arms were matched and there was no difference in rate of medical comorbidities. Mean BMI was 38.8kg/m2 in patients randomized to BMI≥30 and 26.3kg/m2 randomized to BMI<30. Surgical characteristics for the entire cohort: 66% malignancy, 91% clean-contaminated, 21% bowel surgery, 25% transfusion. Seventy-six (25%) patients developed a SSI: 43 patients (28%) treated with CMS, compared to 33 (21%) patients treated without CMS (p=0.18). Multivariate model demonstrated that BMI≥30 (p<0.005), surgery for malignancy (p=0.010), transfusion in the OR (p<0.001), and closure with staples (p=0.0005) were associated with post-operative SSI. CONCLUSIONS: Patients presenting to a gynecologic oncologist for surgery frequently present with multiple risk factors for SSI and laparotomy is complicated by surgical-site complications in up to 30% of cases. The addition of CMS alone does not appear to reduce risk of overall SSI. Additional risk-reducing strategies including use of antimicrobial agents and optimization of modifiable risk factors prior to surgery should be explored as pathways for reducing this significant post-operative morbidity.

A phase I trial of intraperitoneal GEN-1, an IL-12 plasmid formulated with PEG-PEI-cholesterol lipopolymer, administered with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in patients with recurrent or persistent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancers: An NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group study.

OBJECTIVE: The study's purpose was to assess safety and efficacy of escalating doses of weekly GEN-1 with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) in patients with recurrent or persistent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancers (EOC). METHODS: Patients had persistent or recurrent platinum-resistant EOC. The trial was a standard 3+3 phase I dose escalation design with patients receiving intravenous PLD 40mg/m2 (dose level 1 and 2) or 50mg/m2 (dose level 3) every 28days and intraperitoneal GEN-1 at 24mg/m2 (dose level 1) or 36mg/m2 (dose level 2 and 3) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of a 28day cycle. Cycles were repeated every 28days until disease progression. Patients were monitored for toxicity, clinical efficacy, and evidence of systemic and intraperitoneal immunologic effect. RESULTS: Sixteen evaluable patients received a median of 4cycles (range 1-8). No dose limiting toxicities were found. The adverse side effects were 4 grade 3 anemia, 2 grade 3 abdominal pain, 7 grade 3 neutropenia, and 2 grade 4 neutropenia. A clinical benefit of 57.1% (PR=21.4%; SD=35.7%) was found in the 14 patients with measurable disease. The highest number of partial responses (28.6%) and stable disease (57.1%) were found at dose level 3. The maximum tolerated dose was not reached. Increases in IL-12, IFN-γ, and TNF-α levels were found in peritoneal fluid following GEN-1 treatment. CONCLUSIONS: GEN-1 in combination with PLD has encouraging clinical benefit and biological activity in recurrent or persistent EOC and warrants further investigation with escalating doses of GEN-1.

A phase I trial of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD), carboplatin, bevacizumab and veliparib in recurrent, platinum-sensitive ovarian, primary peritoneal, and fallopian tube cancer: An NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) of veliparib combined with PLD and carboplatin (CD) in patients with recurrent, platinum-sensitive epithelial ovarian cancer. To determine the tolerability at the MTD combined with bevacizumab. METHODS: Patients received PLD (30mg/m(2), IV) and carboplatin (AUC 5, IV) on day 1 with veliparib on days 1-7 (intermittent) or days 1-28 (continuous). Standard 3+3 design was used in the dose escalation phase with DLTs based on the first cycle. Once the MTDs were determined, cohorts of 6 patients were enrolled to each regimen with bevacizumab (10mg/kg on days 1 and 15) to assess feasibility. DLTs were based on the first 4cycles of treatment in the bevacizumab cohorts. RESULTS: In the dose-escalation phase, 27 patients were treated at 3 dose levels with DLTs noted in 6 patients including grade 4 thrombocytopenia (n=4), and prolonged neutropenia >7days (n=3). At the MTD of veliparib (80mg p.o. b.i.d. for both dosing arms), myelosuppression was the DLT. At MTD, 12 additional patients were treated with bevacizumab with 9 patients experiencing DLTs including grade 4 thrombocytopenia (n=4), prolonged neutropenia >7days (n=1), grade 3 hypertension (n=5), and grade 5 sepsis (n=1). CONCLUSIONS: The MTD of veliparib combined with CD is 80mg p.o. b.i.d. in women with recurrent, platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. With bevacizumab, DLTs were noted in 9 out of 12 patients. Lower doses of veliparib will need to be considered when given in combination with platinum-based therapies.

A phase I-II evaluation of veliparib (NSC #737664), topotecan, and filgrastim or pegfilgrastim in the treatment of persistent or recurrent carcinoma of the uterine cervix: an NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the tolerability and efficacy of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibition by veliparib during cytotoxic topotecan administration with filgrastim or pegfilgrastim neutrophil support in women with persistent or recurrent uterine cervix cancer. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This phase I-II trial examined twice-daily oral veliparib (10 mg) given during once-daily intravenous topotecan (0.6 mg/m²) on days 1 to 5 of each treatment cycle. Cycles were repeated every 21 days until disease progression or until toxicity prohibited further therapy. Toxicity and objective response rate were primary endpoints. RESULTS: Twenty-seven women were enrolled. Frequently reported grade 3 or higher treatment-related toxicities were anemia (59%), thrombocytopenia (44%), leukopenia (22%), and neutropenia (19%). There were 2 partial responses (7% [90% confidence interval, 1%-22%]). Four patients had a disease progression date more than 6 months after the start of veliparib-topotecan therapy. Patients with low immunohistochemical expression (0-1+) of PARP-1 in their primary uterine cervix cancer were more likely to have a longer progression-free interval (hazard ratio, 0.25; P = 0.02) and survival (hazard ratio, 0.12; P = 0.005) after veliparib-topotecan therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical activity of a veliparib-topotecan combination was minimal in women with persistent or recurrent uterine cervix cancer. Women whose uterine cervix cancers express PARP-1 at low levels may benefit preferentially from PARP inhibitors combined with cytotoxic therapies, suggesting further study of PARP expression as an integral triage biomarker.

MILO/ENGOT-ov11: Binimetinib Versus Physician's Choice Chemotherapy in Recurrent or Persistent Low-Grade Serous Carcinomas of the Ovary, Fallopian Tube, or Primary Peritoneum.

PURPOSE: Low-grade serous ovarian carcinomas (LGSOCs) have historically low chemotherapy responses. Alterations affecting the MAPK pathway, most commonly KRAS/BRAF, are present in 30%-60% of LGSOCs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate binimetinib, a potent MEK1/2 inhibitor with demonstrated activity across multiple cancers, in LGSOC. METHODS: This was a 2:1 randomized study of binimetinib (45 mg twice daily) versus physician's choice chemotherapy (PCC). Eligible patients had recurrent measurable LGSOC after ≥ 1 prior platinum-based chemotherapy but ≤ 3 prior chemotherapy lines. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review (BICR); additional assessments included overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), clinical-benefit rate, biomarkers, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 303 patients were randomly assigned to an arm of the study at the time of interim analysis (January 20, 2016). Median PFS by BICR was 9.1 months (95% CI, 7.3 to 11.3) for binimetinib and 10.6 months (95% CI, 9.2 to 14.5) for PCC (hazard ratio,1.21; 95%CI, 0.79 to 1.86), resulting in early study closure according to a prespecified futility boundary after 341 patients had enrolled. Secondary efficacy end points were similar in the two groups: ORR 16% (complete response [CR]/partial responses[PRs], 32) versus 13% (CR/PRs, 13); median DOR, 8.1 months (range, 0.03 to ≥ 12.0 months) versus 6.7 months (0.03 to ≥ 9.7 months); and median OS, 25.3 versus 20.8 months for binimetinib and PCC, respectively. Safety results were consistent with the known safety profile of binimetinib; the most common grade ≥ 3 event was increased blood creatine kinase level (26%). Post hoc analysis suggests a possible association between KRAS mutation and response to binimetinib. Results from an updated analysis (n = 341; January 2019) were consistent. CONCLUSION: Although the MEK Inhibitor in Low-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer Study did not meet its primary end point, binimetinib showed activity in LGSOC across the efficacy end points evaluated. A higher response to chemotherapy than expected was observed and KRAS mutation might predict response to binimetinib.