The effect of older age on treatment outcomes in women with advanced ovarian cancer receiving chemotherapy: An NRG-Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG-0182-ICON5) ancillary study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of age on overall survival (OS) in women with ovarian cancer receiving chemotherapy. Secondary objectives were to describe the effect of age on treatment compliance, toxicities, progression free survival (PFS), time from surgery to chemotherapy, and rates of optimal cytoreduction. METHODS: Women enrolled in GOG 0182-ICON5 with stage III or IV epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) who underwent surgery and chemotherapy between 2001 and 2004 were included. Patients were divided into ages <70 and ≥ 70 years. Baseline characteristics, treatment compliance, toxicities, and clinical outcomes were compared. RESULTS: We included a total of 3686 patients, with 620 patients (16.8%) ≥ 70 years. OS was 37.2 months in older compared to 45.0 months in younger patients (HR 1.21, 95% CI, 1.09-1.34, p < 0.001). Older patients had an increased risk of cancer-specific-death (HR 1.16, 95% CI, 1.04-1.29) as well as non-cancer related deaths (HR 2.78, 95% CI, 2.00-3.87). Median PFS was 15.1 months in older compared to 16.0 months in younger patients (HR 1.10, 95% CI, 1.00-1.20, p = 0.056). In the carboplatin/paclitaxel arm, older patients were just as likely to complete therapy and more likely to develop grade ≥ 2 peripheral neuropathy (35.7 vs 19.7%, p < 0.001). Risk of other toxicities remained equal between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In women with advanced EOC receiving chemotherapy, age ≥ 70 was associated with shorter OS and cancer specific survival. Older patients receiving carboplatin and paclitaxel reported higher rates of grade ≥ 2 neuropathy but were not more likely to suffer from other chemotherapy related toxicities. Clintrials.gov: NCT00011986.

Clinical research in ovarian cancer: consensus recommendations from the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup.

The Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) sixth Ovarian Cancer Conference on Clinical Research was held virtually in October, 2021, following published consensus guidelines. The goal of the consensus meeting was to achieve harmonisation on the design elements of upcoming trials in ovarian cancer, to select important questions for future study, and to identify unmet needs. All 33 GCIG member groups participated in the development, refinement, and adoption of 20 statements within four topic groups on clinical research in ovarian cancer including first line treatment, recurrent disease, disease subgroups, and future trials. Unanimous consensus was obtained for 14 of 20 statements, with greater than 90% concordance in the remaining six statements. The high acceptance rate following active deliberation among the GCIG groups confirmed that a consensus process could be applied in a virtual setting. Together with detailed categorisation of unmet needs, these consensus statements will promote the harmonisation of international clinical research in ovarian cancer.

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.).

Second-line olaparib maintenance therapy is associated with poor response to subsequent chemotherapy in BRCA1/2-mutated epithelial ovarian cancer: A multicentre retrospective study.

INTRODUCTION: With expanded use of poly (adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi), there is a potential impact of PARPi resistance on platinum resistance. A post-hoc analysis of SOLO2 demonstrated a reduction in response to subsequent platinum-based therapy among patients who received prior olaparib but not placebo. The present multicentre, retrospective, observational study was conducted to determine the effects of olaparib on subsequent therapy for recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data on EOC patients with BRCA1/2-mutated tumours who received second-line platinum-based chemotherapy between January 2012 and June 2020, at three South Korean institutions (n = 197) were collected. Patients who received olaparib as maintenance therapy after second-line chemotherapy were assigned to the olaparib group (n = 105), and subjects who did not receive olaparib maintenance therapy were assigned to the control group (n = 92). The primary endpoint was time intervals from the date of second disease progression (PFS1) to the date of third disease progression (PFS2), expressed as PFS2 - PFS1. RESULTS: As expected, PFS1 in the olaparib group was longer than the control group. However, PFS2 - PFS1 in the olaparib group was significantly shorter than that of the control group (median 7.9 vs. 13.6 m; p = 0.0005). Even when the third-line PARPi maintenance (cross-over) patients were excluded from the control group, the response to subsequent therapy in the olaparib group remained poor (median 7.7 vs. 11.5; p = 0.0422). DISCUSSIONS: Patients with platinum-sensitive BRCA1/2 mutated tumours who progressed during olaparib maintenance after second-line chemotherapy were less likely to respond to third-line chemotherapy compared to controls who did not receive olaparib, suggesting that resistance to olaparib may contribute to chemotherapy resistance.

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.

Progression-free survival by investigator versus blinded independent central review in newly diagnosed patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer: Analysis of the VELIA/GOG-3005 trial.

OBJECTIVE: In the phase 3 VELIA/GOG-3005 trial, veliparib added to carboplatin-paclitaxel and continued as maintenance improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared to carboplatin-paclitaxel alone in patients with newly diagnosed ovarian carcinoma. Primary analysis of PFS was by investigator (INV) assessment, with a supplemental analysis of PFS by blinded independent central review (BICR). METHODS: Patients received veliparib or placebo with carboplatin-paclitaxel (6 cycles) and as maintenance (30 additional cycles). The primary analysis compared PFS in the veliparib-throughout arm to the carboplatin-paclitaxel only arm in the BRCA mutation (BRCAm), homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), and intention-to-treat (ITT) populations. Exploratory analyses of PFS in BRCA wildtype (BRCAwt), homologous recombination proficient (HRP), and HRD + BRCAwt populations were also performed. PFS per BICR and overall concordance rates between INV and BICR assessments were analyzed. RESULTS: Hazard ratios for PFS by INV and BICR were consistent in each of the primary analysis and exploratory populations. In the ITT population, median PFS per INV was 23.5 months in the veliparib-throughout arm versus 17.3 months in the control arm (hazard ratio [HR] 0.683, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.562-0.831; P < 0.001). Median PFS by BICR was 29.3 months versus 19.2 months (HR 0.687, 95% CI 0.504-0.806). In the ITT population, the overall concordance rates between INV and BICR were 78% and 75% for the veliparib-throughout and control arms, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Hazard ratios for PFS per BICR and per INV were consistent, with no suggestion of investigator bias. These findings support the reliability of PFS by INV in ovarian cancer trials.

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.

Can we predict who lives long with ovarian cancer?

Women with ovarian cancer benefit from individualized management that incorporates advanced imaging technologies, sophisticated cytoreductive surgery integrated with combination chemotherapy, genetic risk assessment, and tumor molecular profiling. However, advanced ovarian cancer remains a highly lethal disease because of early peritoneal dissemination, rapid development of resistance to key therapeutic agents, and evasion of the host immune response. Over the last 15 years, several models and nomograms have been developed to predict surgical outcomes, progression-free survival, or overall survival on the basis of clinical and pathologic data available at the primary diagnosis and recurrence. Each of these models has its strengths and limitations, and they provide a basis for future models that will incorporate functional imaging and molecular characteristics.

Differences in presentation and survival of Asians compared to Caucasians with ovarian cancer: An NRG Oncology/GOG Ancillary study of 7914 patients.

PURPOSE: To compare patient/tumor characteristics and outcomes of Asians to Caucasian patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: Ancillary data were pooled and analyzed from ten prospective randomized front-line Gynecologic Oncology Group clinical trials from 1996 to 2011. Demographic, clinicopathologic features, disease-specific and all-cause survival were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 7914 patients, 7641 were Caucasian and 273 Asian. When compared to Caucasians, Asians were younger at trial enrollment, had a better performance status, earlier-stage cancers (17.2% vs. 8.1% with stage I; p < 0.001), and were more likely to be of clear cell (15.8% vs. 6.2%, p < 0.001) and mucinous (3.3% vs. 1.9%, p < 0.001) histology. Asians had an improved 5-year disease-specific survival of 54.1% compared to 46.1% for Caucasians, p = 0.001. In multivariate analysis, the Asian race remained a significant prognostic factor for all-cause survival (HR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.72-0.99; p = 0.04). Other factors predictive of improved survival included younger age, better performance status, optimal cytoreduction, earlier stage, non-clear cell histology, and lower grade tumors. CONCLUSION: Asians enrolled into phase III ovarian cancer clinical trials were younger, with better performance status, earlier-stage of disease, and have a greater number of clear cell and mucinous tumors. After adjusting for these prognostic factors, Asians have a better survival compared to Caucasians.

Outcomes of secondary cytoreductive surgery for patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Most women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer develop recurrent disease, despite maximal surgical cytoreduction and adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy. In observational studies, secondary cytoreductive surgery has been associated with improved survival; however its use is controversial, because there are concerns that the improved outcomes may reflect selection bias rather than the superiority of secondary surgery. OBJECTIVE: To compare the overall survival of women with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer treated at National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers who receive secondary surgery vs chemotherapy. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective cohort study included women from 6 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers diagnosed with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2011. The primary outcome was overall survival. Propensity score matching was used to compare similar women who received secondary surgery vs chemotherapy. Additional analyses examined how these findings may be influenced by the prevalence of unobserved confounders at the time of recurrence. RESULTS: Among 626 women, 146 (23%) received secondary surgery and 480 (77%) received chemotherapy. In adjusted analyses, patients who received secondary surgery were younger (P = 0.001), had earlier-stage disease at diagnosis (P = 0.002), and had longer disease-free intervals (P < 0.001) compared with those receiving chemotherapy. In the propensity score-matched groups (n = 244 patients), the median overall survival was 54 months in patients who received secondary surgery and 33 months in those treated with chemotherapy (P < 0.001). Among patients who received secondary surgery, 102 (70%) achieved optimal secondary cytoreduction. There were no significant differences in complication rates between the 2 groups. In sensitivity analyses, the survival advantage associated with secondary surgery could be explained by the presence of more multifocal recurrences (if 4.3 times more common), ascites (if 2.7 times more common), or carcinomatosis (if 2.1 times more common) among patients who received chemotherapy instead of secondary surgery. CONCLUSION: Patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer who received secondary surgery had favorable surgical characteristics and were likely to have minimal residual disease following secondary surgery. These patients had a superior median overall survival compared with patients who received chemotherapy, although unmeasured confounders may explain this observed difference.

Does adjuvant chemotherapy dose modification have an impact on the outcome of patients diagnosed with advanced stage ovarian cancer? An NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group study.

PURPOSE: To determine the relationship between chemotherapy dose modification (dose adjustment or treatment delay), overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for women with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian carcinoma (EOC) and primary peritoneal carcinoma (PPC) who receive carboplatin and paclitaxel. METHODS: Women with stages III and IV EOC and PPC treated on the Gynecologic Oncology Group phase III trial, protocol 182, who completed eight cycles of carboplatin with paclitaxel were evaluated in this study. The patients were grouped per dose modification and use of granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF). The primary end point was OS; Hazard ratios (HR) for PFS and OS were calculated for patients who completed eight cycles of chemotherapy. Patients without dose modification were the referent group. All statistical analyses were performed using the R programming language and environment. RESULTS: A total of 738 patients were included in this study; 229 (31%) required dose modification, 509 did not. The two groups were well-balanced for demographic and prognostic factors. The adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for disease progression and death among dose-modified patients were: 1.43 (95% CI, 1.19-1.72, P < 0.001) and 1.26 (95% CI, 1.04-1.54, P = 0.021), respectively. Use of G-CSF was more frequent in dose-modified patients with an odds ratio (OR) of 3.63 (95% CI: 2.51-5.26, P < 0.001) compared to dose-unmodified patients. CONCLUSION: Dose-modified patients were at a higher risk of disease progression and death. The need for chemotherapy dose modification may identify patients at greater risk for adverse outcomes in advanced stage EOC and PPC.

Predictive modeling for determination of microscopic residual disease at primary cytoreduction: An NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group 182 Study.

OBJECTIVE: Microscopic residual disease following complete cytoreduction (R0) is associated with a significant survival benefit for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Our objective was to develop a prediction model for R0 to support surgeons in their clinical care decisions. METHODS: Demographic, pathologic, surgical, and CA125 data were collected from GOG 182 records. Patients enrolled prior to September 1, 2003 were used for the training model while those enrolled after constituted the validation data set. Univariate analysis was performed to identify significant predictors of R0 and these variables were subsequently analyzed using multivariable regression. The regression model was reduced using backward selection and predictive accuracy was quantified using area under the receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC) in both the training and the validation data sets. RESULTS: Of the 3882 patients enrolled in GOG 182, 1480 had complete clinical data available for the analysis. The training data set consisted of 1007 patients (234 with R0) while the validation set was comprised of 473 patients (122 with R0). The reduced multivariable regression model demonstrated several variables predictive of R0 at cytoreduction: Disease Score (DS) (p<0.001), stage (p=0.009), CA125 (p<0.001), ascites (p<0.001), and stage-age interaction (p=0.01). Applying the prediction model to the validation data resulted in an AUC of 0.73 (0.67 to 0.78, 95% CI). Inclusion of DS enhanced the model performance to an AUC of 0.83 (0.79 to 0.88, 95% CI). CONCLUSIONS: We developed and validated a prediction model for R0 that offers improved performance over previously reported models for prediction of residual disease. The performance of the prediction model suggests additional factors (i.e. imaging, molecular profiling, etc.) should be explored in the future for a more clinically actionable tool.

What is the role of retroperitoneal exploration in optimally debulked stage IIIC epithelial ovarian cancer? An NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group ancillary data study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of retroperitoneal (RP) exploration on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients with stage IIIC disease who underwent optimal debulking surgery. METHODS: Data were collected from records of the Gynecologic Oncology Group 182 (GOG-182) study of stage IIIC EOC patients cytoreduced to no gross residual disease (R0) or minimal gross residual (<1 cm) disease (MGRD) at primary surgery. Patients with stage IIIC disease by intraperitoneal (IP) tumor were included and divided into 3 groups: 1) > 2 cm IP tumor without lymph node involvement (IP/RP-), 2) > 2 cm IP tumor with lymph node involvement (IP/RP+), and 3) > 2 cm IP tumor with no RP exploration (IP/RP?). The effects of disease distribution and RP exploration on PFS and OS were assessed using Kaplan-Meier and proportional hazards methods. RESULTS: There were 1871 stage IIIC patients in GOG-182 who underwent optimal primary debulking surgery. Of these, 689 (36.8%) underwent RP exploration with removal of lymph nodes from at least 1 para-aortic site, and 1182 (63.2%) did not. There were 269 patients in the IP/RP- group, 420 patients in the IP/RP + group, and 1182 patients in the IP/RP? group. Improved PFS (18.5 vs 16.0 months; P < .0001) and OS (53.3 vs 42.8 months; P < .0001) were associated with RP exploration versus no exploration. Patients with MGRD had improved PFS (16.8 vs 15.1 months, P = 0.0108) and OS (44.9 vs 40.5 months, P = 0.0076) versus no exploration. CONCLUSIONS: RP exploration at the time of primary surgery in patients with optimally debulked stage IIIC EOC is associated with a survival benefit. Cancer 2017;123:985-93. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Impact of primary platinum-free interval and BRCA1/2 mutation status on treatment and survival in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the relationship between primary platinum-free interval (PFI), BRCA mutation status, and overall survival (OS) in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer receiving multiple lines of therapy in a multicenter, community-based, retrospective observational cohort study of adult patients with stage III-IV high-grade ovarian cancer. METHODS: Data were retrospectively obtained from the electronic health record (EHR) of a US community oncology network, including patient characteristics, subsequent treatments, primary PFI, and BRCA status. OS was analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method, stratified by primary PFI and BRCA status. RESULTS: 750 patient charts were reviewed. BRCA testing status was known in 267 patients (16% BRCA mutation). Among patients with identified recurrent disease, 41% had a primary PFI <6months and 59% had a primary PFI ≥6months. Of second-line patients, 59% received third-line therapy, and 60% of third-line patients received fourth-line therapy within the period of observation. Median OS from the start of primary treatment for the entire population was 41.4months (95% CI, 39.0-48.3months). Median OS was significantly increased in patients with primary PFI ≥6months at second-line and third-line (P<0.0001 and P=0.002, respectively). Survival was observed to be increased among patients with BRCA mutations across multiple treatment lines, although this was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a primary PFI ≥6months demonstrated improved outcomes over multiple lines of therapy. BRCA status was known in 36% of patients, and those patients with a BRCA mutation demonstrated a trend toward delayed primary recurrence and improved clinical outcomes.

Genome-wide association study evaluating single-nucleotide polymorphisms and outcomes in patients with advanced stage serous ovarian or primary peritoneal cancer: An NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group study.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with progression free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced stage serous EOC. METHODS: Patients enrolled in GOG-172 and 182 who provided specimens for translational research and consent were included. Germline DNA was evaluated with the Illumina's HumanOMNI1-Quad beadchips and scanned using Illumina's iScan optical imaging system. SNPs with allele frequency>0.05 and genotyping rate>0.98 were included. Analysis of SNPs for PFS and OS was done using Cox regression. Statistical significance was determined using Bonferroni corrected p-values with genomic control adjustment. RESULTS: The initial GWAS analysis included 1,124,677 markers in 396 patients. To obtain the final data set, quality control checks were performed and limited to serous tumors and self-identified Caucasian race. In total 636,555 SNPs and 289 patients passed all the filters. The pre-specified statistical level of significance was 7.855e-08. No SNPs met this criteria for PFS or OS, however, two SNPs were close to significance (rs10899426 p-2.144e-08) (rs6256 p-9.774e-07) for PFS and 2 different SNPs were identified (rs295315 p-7.536e-07; rs17693104 p-7.734e-07) which were close to significance for OS. CONCLUSIONS: Using the pre-specified level of significance of 1×10-08, we did not identify any SNPs of statistical significance for OS or PFS, however several were close. The SNP's identified in this GWAS study will require validation and these preliminary findings may lead to identification of novel pathways and biomarkers.

An evaluation of progression free survival and overall survival of ovarian cancer patients with clear cell carcinoma versus serous carcinoma treated with platinum therapy: An NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group experience.

PURPOSE: We examined disparities in prognosis between patients with ovarian clear cell carcinoma (OCCC) and serous epithelial ovarian cancer (SOC). METHODS: We reviewed data from FIGO stage I-IV epithelial ovarian cancer patients who participated in 12 prospective randomized GOG protocols. Proportional hazards models were used to compare progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) by cell type (clear cell versus serous). RESULTS: There were 10,803 patients enrolled, 9531 were eligible, evaluable and treated with platinum, of whom 544 (6%) had OCCC, 7054 (74%) had SOC, and 1933 (20%) had other histologies and are not included further. In early stage (I-II) patients, PFS was significantly better in OCCC than in SOC patients. For late stage (III, IV) patients, OCCC had worse PFS and OS compared to SOC, OS HR=1.66 (1.43, 1.91; p<0.001). After adjusting for age and stratifying by protocol and treatment arm, stage, performance status, and race, OCCC had a significantly decreased OS, HR=1.53 (1.33, 1.76; p<0.001). In early stage cases, there was a significantly decreased treatment effect on PFS for consolidative therapy with weekly Paclitaxel versus observation in OCCC compared to SOC (p=0.048). CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the largest analyses to date of OCCC treated on multiple cooperative group trials. OCCC histology is more common than SOC in early stage disease. When adjusted for prognostic factors, in early stage patients, PFS was better for OCCC than for SOC; however, in late-stage patients, OCCC was significantly associated with decreased OS. Finally, treatment effect was influenced by histology.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer: Society of Gynecologic Oncology and American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline.

PURPOSE: To provide guidance to clinicians regarding the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval cytoreduction among women with stage IIIC or IV epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: The Society of Gynecologic Oncology and the American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the literature. RESULTS: Four phase III clinical trials form the primary evidence base for the recommendations. The published studies suggest that for selected women with stage IIIC or IV epithelial ovarian cancer, neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval cytoreduction are non-inferior to primary cytoreduction and adjuvant chemotherapy with respect to overall and progression-free survival and are associated with less perioperative morbidity and mortality. RECOMMENDATIONS: All women with suspected stage IIIC or IV invasive epithelial ovarian cancer should be evaluated by a gynecologic oncologist prior to initiation of therapy. The primary clinical evaluation should include a CT of the abdomen and pelvis, and chest imaging (CT preferred). Women with a high perioperative risk profile or a low likelihood of achieving cytoreduction to <1cm of residual disease (ideally to no visible disease) should receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Women who are fit for primary cytoreductive surgery, and with potentially resectable disease, may receive either neoadjuvant chemotherapy or primary cytoreductive surgery. However, primary cytoreductive surgery is preferred if there is a high likelihood of achieving cytoreduction to <1cm (ideally to no visible disease) with acceptable morbidity. Before neoadjuvant chemotherapy is delivered, all patients should have confirmation of an invasive ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/NACT-ovarian-guideline and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki.

Sister Society Meeting on Global Education Development and Collaboration: Meeting Report.

OBJECTIVES: To identify common barriers to teaching and training and to identify strategies that would be useful in developing future training programs in gynecologic oncology in low- and middle- income countries. METHODS: There is a lack of overall strategy to meet the needs of education and training in gynecologic oncology in low- and middle- income countries, the leaderships of sister societies and global health volunteers met at the European Society of Gynecologic Oncology in October 23, 2015. The challenges of the training programs supported by gynecologic oncology societies, major universities and individual efforts were presented and discussed. Strategies to improve education and training were identified. RESULTS: Major challenges include language barriers, limited surgical equipment, inadequate internet access, lack of local support for sustainability in training programs, inadequate pathology and radiation oncology, finance and a global deficiency in identifying sites and personnel in partnering or developing training programs. The leaderships identified various key components including consultation with the local Ministry of Health, local educational institutions; inclusion of the program into existing local programs, a needs assessment, and the development of curriculum and regional centers of excellence. CONCLUSIONS: Proper preparation of training sites and trainers, the development of global curriculum, the establishment of centers of excellence, and the ability to measure outcomes are important to improve education and training in gynecologic oncology in low- and middle- income countries.

Ascites predicts treatment benefit of bevacizumab in front-line therapy of advanced epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube and peritoneal cancers: an NRG Oncology/GOG study.

OBJECTIVES: Predictive factors for efficacy of bevacizumab in advanced ovarian cancer have remained elusive. We investigated ascites both as a prognostic factor and as a predictor of efficacy for bevacizumab. METHODS: Using data from GOG 0218, patients receiving cytotoxic therapy plus concurrent and maintenance bevacizumab were compared to those receiving cytotoxic therapy plus placebo. The presence of ascites was determined prospectively. Chi-square and Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests compared baseline variables between subgroups. Survival was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method, and Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate independent prognostic factors and estimate their covariate-adjusted effects on survival. RESULTS: Treatment arms were balanced with respect to ascites and other prognostic factors. Overall, 886 (80%) women had ascites, 221 (20%) did not. Those with ascites were more likely to have: poorer performance status (p<0.001); serous histology (p=0.012); higher baseline CA125 (p<0.001); and suboptimal cytoreduction (p=0.004). In multivariate survival analysis, ascites was prognostic of poor OS (Adjusted HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.00-1.48, p=0.045), but not PFS. In predictive analysis, patients without ascites treated with bevacizumab had no significant improvement in either PFS (AHR 0.81, 95% CI 0.59-1.10, p=0.18) or OS (AHR 0.94, 95% CI 0.65-1.36, p=0.76). Patients with ascites treated with bevacizumab had significantly improved PFS (AHR 0.71, 95% CI 0.62-0.81, p<0.001) and OS (AHR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70-0.96, p=0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Ascites in women with advanced ovarian cancer is prognostic of poor overall survival. Ascites may predict the population of women more likely to derive long-term benefit from bevacizumab.