Results of a randomised Phase II trial of olaparib, chemotherapy or olaparib and cediranib in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: OCTOVA compared the efficacy of olaparib (O) versus weekly paclitaxel (wP) or olaparib + cediranib (O + C) in recurrent ovarian cancer (OC). AIMS: The main aim of the OCTOVA trial was to determine the progression-free survival (PFS) of olaparib (O) versus the oral combination of olaparib plus cediranib (O + C) and weekly paclitaxel (wP) in recurrent ovarian cancer (OC). METHODS: In total, 139 participants who had relapsed within 12 months of platinum therapy were randomised to O (300 mg twice daily), wP (80 mg/m2 d1,8,15, q28) or O + C (300 mg twice daily/20 mg daily, respectively). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) of olaparib (O) versus olaparib plus cediranib (O + C) or weekly paclitaxel (wP). The sample size was calculated to observe a PFS hazard ratio (HR) 0.64 in favour of O + C compared to O (20% one-sided type I error, 80% power). RESULTS: The majority had platinum-resistant disease (90%), 22% prior PARPi, 34% prior anti-angiogenic therapy, 30% germline BRCA1/2 mutations. The PFS was increased for O + C vs O (O + C 5.4 mo (2.3, 9.6): O 3.7 mo (1.8, 7.6) HR = 0.73; 60% CI: 0.59, 0.89; P = 0.1) and no different between wP and O (wP 3.9 m (1.9, 9.1); O 3.7 mo (1.8, 7.6) HR = 0.89, 60% CI: 0.72, 1.09; P = 0.69). The main treatment-related adverse events included manageable diarrhoea (4% Grade 3) and hypertension (4% Grade 3) in the O + C arm. DISCUSSION: OCTOVA demonstrated the activity of O + C in women with recurrent disease, offering a potential non-chemotherapy option. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14784018, registered on 19th January 2018 http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN14784018 .

Extended panel testing in ovarian cancer reveals BRIP1 as the third most important predisposition gene.

PURPOSE: The prevalence of germline pathogenic variants (PVs) in homologous recombination repair (HRR) and Lynch syndrome (LS) genes in ovarian cancer (OC) is uncertain. METHODS: An observational study reporting the detection rate of germline PVs in HRR and LS genes in all OC cases tested in the North West Genomic Laboratory Hub between September 1996 and May 2024. Effect sizes are reported using odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for unselected cases tested between April 2021 and May 2024 versus 50,703 controls from the Breast Cancer Risk after Diagnostic Gene Sequencing study. RESULTS: 2934 women were tested for BRCA1/2 and 433 (14.8%) had a PV. In up to 1572 women tested for PVs in non-BRCA1/2 HRR genes, detection rates were PALB2 = 0.8%, BRIP1 = 1.1%, RAD51C = 0.4% and RAD51D = 0.4%. In 940 unselected cases, BRIP1 (OR = 8.7, 95% CI 4.6-15.8) was the third most common OC predisposition gene followed by RAD51C (OR = 8.3, 95% CI 3.1-23.1), RAD51D (OR = 6.5, 95% CI 2.1-19.7), and PALB2 (OR = 3.9, 95% CI 1.5-10.3). No PVs in LS genes were detected in unselected cases. CONCLUSION: Panel testing in OC resulted in a detection rate of 2% to 3% for germline PVs in non-BRCA1/2 HRR genes, with the largest contributor being BRIP1. Screening for LS in unselected cases of OC is unnecessary.

The VALTIVE1 study protocol: a study for the validation of Tie2 as the first tumour vascular response biomarker for VEGF inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Anti-angiogenic, VEGF inhibitors (VEGFi) increase progression-free survival (PFS) and, in some cases, overall survival in many solid tumours. However, their use has been compromised by a lack of informative biomarkers. We have shown that plasma Tie2 is the first tumour vascular response biomarker for VEGFi in ovarian, colorectal and gall bladder cancer: If plasma Tie2 concentrations do not change after 9 weeks of treatment with a VEGFi, the patient does not benefit, whereas a confirmed reduction of at least 10% plasma Tie2 defines a vascular response with a hazard ratio (HR) for PFS of 0.56. The aim of the VALTIVE1 study is to validate the utility of plasma Tie2 as a vascular response biomarker and to optimise the Tie2-definition of vascular response so that the subsequent randomised discontinuation VALTIVE2 study can be powered optimally. METHODS: VALTIVE1 is a multi-centre, single arm, non-interventional biomarker study, with a sample size of 205 participants (176 bevacizumab-treated participants + 29 participants receiving bevacizumab and olaparib/PARPi), who are 16 years or older, have FIGO stage IIIc/IV ovarian cancer on treatment with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and bevacizumab. Their blood plasma samples will be collected before, during, and after treatment and the concentration of Tie2 will be determined. The primary objective is to define the PFS difference between Tie2-defined vascular responders and Tie2-defined vascular non-responders in patients receiving bevacizumab for high-risk Ovarian Cancer. Secondary objectives include defining the relationship between Tie2-defined vascular progression and disease progression assessed according to RECIST 1.1 criteria and assessing the impact of PARPi on the plasma concentration of Tie2 and, therefore, the decision-making utility of Tie2 as a vascular response biomarker for bevacizumab during combined bevacizumab-PARPi maintenance. DISCUSSION: There is an urgent need to establish a test that tells patients and their doctors when VEGFi are working and when they stop working. The data generated from this study will be used to design a second trial aiming to prove conclusively the value of the Tie2 test. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04523116. Registered on 21 Aug 2020.

Once daily cediranib and weekly paclitaxel to prevent malignant bowel obstruction in at-risk patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (CEBOC): a single-arm, phase II safety trial.

OBJECTIVE: Cytotoxic chemotherapy for ovarian cancer can be augmented by co-administration of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors but these are contraindicated in patients with bowel obstruction due to the risk of gastrointestinal perforation. We evaluated the safety and feasibility of paclitaxel plus cediranib to treat patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer at risk of malignant bowel obstruction. METHODS: A phase II trial included eligible patients between March 2018 and February 2021, identified by clinical symptoms and radiographic risk factors for malignant bowel obstruction. Cediranib (20 mg/day) was added to paclitaxel (70 mg/m2/week) within 9 weeks of starting paclitaxel if pretreatment bowel symptoms had improved. The primary endpoint was the number of patients treated for ≥5 days with cediranib that were free of grade 3-5 gastrointestinal perforation or fistula. Secondary endpoints were hospitalization for bowel obstruction, grade ≥3 adverse events, treatment compliance assessed by relative dose intensity, objective response, progression-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: Thirty patients were recruited. Of these, 12 received paclitaxel alone and 17 received paclitaxel and cediranib in combination. One patient died before starting treatment. No patient developed a grade 3-5 gastrointestinal perforation or fistula (one sided 95% confidence interval (CI) upper limit 0.16). One patient required hospitalization for bowel obstruction but recovered with conservative management. The most common cediranib-related grade ≥3 adverse events were fatigue (3/17), diarrhorea (2/17), and hypomagnesemia (2/17). Relative dose intensity for paclitaxel was 90% (interquartile range (IQR) 85-100%; n=29) and for cediranib 88% (IQR 76-93%; n=17). The objective response in patients who received paclitaxel and cediranib was 65.0% (one complete and 10 partial responses). Median progression-free survival was 6.9 months (95% CI 4.4-11.5 months; n=17) and overall survival was 19.4 months (95% CI 10.1-20.4 months; n=17). Median follow-up was 12.4 months (8.9-not reached; n=17). CONCLUSIONS: The unexpectedly high withdrawal rate during paclitaxel alone, before introducing cediranib, meant we were unable to definitely conclude that paclitaxel plus cediranib did not cause gastrointestinal perforation or fistula. The regimen was however tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EudraCT 2016-004618-93.

Maintenance olaparib in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer: Outcomes by somatic and germline BRCA and other homologous recombination repair gene mutation status in the ORZORA trial.

BACKGROUND: The open-label, single-arm, multicenter ORZORA trial (NCT02476968) evaluated the efficacy and safety of maintenance olaparib in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSR OC) who had tumor BRCA mutations (BRCAm) of germline (g) or somatic (s) origin or non-BRCA homologous recombination repair mutations (HRRm) and were in response to their most recent platinum-based chemotherapy after ≥2 lines of treatment. METHODS: Patients received maintenance olaparib capsules (400 mg twice daily) until disease progression. Prospective central testing at screening determined tumor BRCAm status and subsequent testing determined gBRCAm or sBRCAm status. Patients with predefined non-BRCA HRRm were assigned to an exploratory cohort. The co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS; modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1) in BRCAm and sBRCAm cohorts. Secondary endpoints included health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and tolerability. RESULTS: 177 patients received olaparib. At the primary data cut-off (17 April 2020), the median follow-up for PFS in the BRCAm cohort was 22.3 months. The median PFS (95% CI) in BRCAm, sBRCAm, gBRCAm and non-BRCA HRRm cohorts was 18.0 (14.3-22.1), 16.6 (12.4-22.2), 19.3 (14.3-27.6) and 16.4 (10.9-19.3) months, respectively. Most patients with BRCAm reported improvements (21.8%) or no change (68.7%) in HRQoL and the safety profile was as expected. CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance olaparib had similar clinical activity in PSR OC patients with sBRCAm and those with any BRCAm. Activity was also observed in patients with a non-BRCA HRRm. ORZORA further supports use of maintenance olaparib in all patients with BRCA-mutated, including sBRCA-mutated, PSR OC.

Homologous recombination deficiency in newly diagnosed FIGO stage III/IV high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer: a multi-national observational study.

OBJECTIVE: Olaparib plus bevacizumab maintenance therapy improves survival outcomes in women with newly diagnosed, advanced, high-grade ovarian cancer with a deficiency in homologous recombination. We report data from the first year of routine homologous recombination deficiency testing in the National Health Service (NHS) in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland between April 2021 and April 2022. METHODS: The Myriad myChoice companion diagnostic was used to test DNA extracted from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor tissue in women with newly diagnosed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III/IV high-grade epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer. Tumors with homologous recombination deficiency were those with a BRCA1/2 mutation and/or a Genomic Instability Score (GIS) ≥42. Testing was coordinated by the NHS Genomic Laboratory Hub network. RESULTS: The myChoice assay was performed on 2829 tumors. Of these, 2474 (87%) and 2178 (77%) successfully underwent BRCA1/2 and GIS testing, respectively. All complete and partial assay failures occurred due to low tumor cellularity and/or low tumor DNA yield. 385 tumors (16%) contained a BRCA1/2 mutation and 814 (37%) had a GIS ≥42. Tumors with a GIS ≥42 were more likely to be BRCA1/2 wild-type (n=510) than BRCA1/2 mutant (n=304). The distribution of GIS was bimodal, with BRCA1/2 mutant tumors having a higher mean score than BRCA1/2 wild-type tumors (61 vs 33, respectively, χ2 test p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: This is the largest real-world evaluation of homologous recombination deficiency testing in newly diagnosed FIGO stage III/IV high-grade epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer. It is important to select tumor tissue with adequate tumor content and quality to reduce the risk of assay failure. The rapid uptake of testing across England, Wales, and Northern Ireland demonstrates the power of centralized NHS funding, center specialization, and the NHS Genomic Laboratory Hub network.

Weekly dose-dense chemotherapy in first-line epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer treatment (ICON8): overall survival results from an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Standard-of-care first-line chemotherapy for epithelial ovarian cancer is carboplatin and paclitaxel administered once every 3 weeks. The JGOG 3016 trial reported significant improvement in progression-free and overall survival with dose-dense weekly paclitaxel and 3-weekly (ie, once every 3 weeks) carboplatin. However, this benefit was not observed in the previously reported progression-free survival results of ICON8. Here, we present the final coprimary outcomes of overall survival and updated progression-free survival analyses of ICON8. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial (ICON8), women aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed stage IC-IV epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma (here collectively termed ovarian cancer, as defined by International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics [FIGO] 1988 criteria) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were recruited from 117 hospitals with oncology departments in the UK, Australia and New Zealand, Mexico, South Korea, and Ireland. Patients could enter the trial after immediate primary surgery (IPS) or with planned delayed primary surgery (DPS) during chemotherapy, or could have no planned surgery. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1), using the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London randomisation line with stratification by Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup group, FIGO disease stage, and outcome and timing of surgery, to either 3-weekly carboplatin area under the curve (AUC)5 or AUC6 and 3-weekly paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 (control; group 1), 3-weekly carboplatin AUC5 or AUC6 and weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 (group 2), or weekly carboplatin AUC2 and weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 (group 3), all administered via intravenous infusion for a total of six 21-day cycles. Coprimary outcomes were progression-free survival and overall survival, with comparisons done between group 2 and group 1, and group 3 and group 1, in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who started at least one chemotherapy cycle. The trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01654146, and ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN10356387, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between June 6, 2011, and Nov 28, 2014, 1566 patients were randomly assigned to group 1 (n=522), group 2 (n=523), or group 3 (n=521). The median age was 62 years (IQR 54-68), 1073 (69%) of 1566 patients had high-grade serous carcinoma, 1119 (71%) had stage IIIC-IV disease, and 745 (48%) had IPS. As of data cutoff (March 31, 2020), with a median follow-up of 69 months (IQR 61-75), no significant difference in overall survival was observed in either comparison: median overall survival of 47·4 months (95% CI 43·1-54·8) in group 1, 54·8 months (46·6-61·6) in group 2, and 53·4 months (49·2-59·6) in group 3 (group 2 vs group 1: hazard ratio 0·87 [97·5% CI 0·73-1·05]; group 3 vs group 1: 0·91 [0·76-1·09]). No significant difference was observed for progression-free survival in either comparison and evidence of non-proportional hazards was seen (p=0·037), with restricted mean survival time of 23·9 months (97·5% CI 22·1-25·6) in group 1, 25·3 months (23·6-27·1) in group 2, and 24·8 months (23·0-26·5) in group 3. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were reduced neutrophil count (78 [15%] of 511 patients in group 1, 183 [36%] of 514 in group 2, and 154 [30%] of 513 in group 3), reduced white blood cell count (22 [4%] in group 1, 80 [16%] in group 2, and 71 [14%] in group 3), and anaemia (26 [5%] in group 1, 66 [13%] in group 2, and 24 [5%] in group 3). No new serious adverse events were reported. Seven treatment-related deaths were reported (two in group 1, four in group 2, and one in group 3). INTERPRETATION: In our cohort of predominantly European women with epithelial ovarian cancer, we found that first-line weekly dose-dense chemotherapy did not improve overall or progression-free survival compared with standard 3-weekly chemotherapy and should not be used as part of standard multimodality front-line therapy in this patient group. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Health Research Board in Ireland, Irish Cancer Society, and Cancer Australia.

The role of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors in the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer.

Advanced epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal cancers (EOC) are a leading cause of gynaecological cancer-associated mortality and angiogenesis plays a key role in their growth. Vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (VEGFi) disrupt angiogenesis and improve the response rate, progression-free survival and in some cases, overall survival, when administered with and following cytotoxic chemotherapy, irrespective of the platinum sensitivity of EOC. Recent data have identified new indications for VEGFi in EOC: repeated exposure to VEGFi in the first- and then second-line treatment has sustained clinical efficacy; combinations of VEGFi with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) have proven effective as first-line or second-line maintenance regimens. However, recent trial data have not shown improved outcomes with combinations of VEGFi and immune checkpoint inhibitors. There remains a critical need to optimise patient selection for these effective yet somewhat toxic and expensive treatments. The search continues for validated biomarkers to optimise the use of VEGFi, of which the most promising at present is plasma Tie2. Based upon these studies, we propose a model of care incorporating VEGFi into the treatment of EOC, highlighting the need to change from the prescription of single courses of VEGFi, to allow use and re-use as clinically indicated.

A first-in-human Phase I dose-escalation trial of the novel therapeutic peptide, ALM201, demonstrates a favourable safety profile in unselected patients with ovarian cancer and other advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of a novel anti-angiogenic peptide. METHODS: We used an open-label, multicentre, dose-escalation Phase I trial design in patients with solid tumours. ALM201 was administered subcutaneously once daily for 5 days every week in unselected patients with solid tumours. RESULTS: Twenty (8 male, 12 female) patients with various solid tumours were treated (18 evaluable for toxicity) over eight planned dose levels (10-300 mg). ALM201 was well-tolerated at all dose levels without CTCAE grade 4 toxicities. Adverse events were predominantly grades 1-2, most commonly, localised injection-site reactions (44.4%), vomiting (11%), fatigue (16.7%), arthralgia (5.6%) and headache (11%). Thrombosis occurred in two patients at the 100 mg and 10 mg dose levels. The MTD was not reached, and a recommended Phase II dose (RP2D) based on feasibility was declared. Plasma exposure increased with dose (less than dose-proportional at the two highest dose levels). No peptide accumulation was evident. The median treatment duration was 11.1 (range 3-18) weeks. Four of 18 evaluable patients (22%) had stable disease. CONCLUSIONS: Doses up to 300 mg of ALM201 subcutaneously are feasible and well-tolerated. Further investigation of this agent in selected tumour types/settings would benefit from patient-selection biomarkers.

BRCA1/2 in non-mucinous epithelial ovarian cancer: tumour with or without germline testing?

National guidelines recommend testing all cases of non-mucinous epithelial ovarian cancer (NMEOC) for germline (blood) and somatic (tumour) BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants (PVs). We performed paired germline and somatic BRCA1/2 testing in consecutive cases of NMEOC (n = 388) to validate guidelines. Thirty-four somatic BRCA1/2 (sBRCA) PVs (9.7%) were detected in 350 cases with germline BRCA1/2 (gBRCA) wild-type. All sBRCA PVs were detected in non-familial cases. By analysing our regional germline BRCA1/2 database there were 92/1114 (8.3%) gBRCA PVs detected in non-familial cases (only 3% ≥70 years old) and 245/641 (38.2%) in familial cases. Germline non-familial cases were dominated by BRCA2 in older women (8/271 ≥ 70 years old, all BRCA2). The ratio of sBRCA-to-gBRCA was ≤1.0 in women aged <70 years old, compared to 5.2 in women aged ≥70 years old (P = 0.005). The likelihood of missed germline BRCA1/2 PVs (copy-number variants missed on most somatic assays) by testing only tumour DNA was 0.4% in women aged ≥70 years old. We recommend reflex tumour BRCA1/2 testing in all NMEOC cases, and that gBRCA testing is not required for women aged ≥70 years old with no identifiable tumour BRCA1/2 PV and/or family history of breast, ovarian, prostate and/or pancreatic cancer.

c-MET/VEGFR-2 co-localisation impacts on survival following bevacizumab therapy in epithelial ovarian cancer: an exploratory biomarker study of the phase 3 ICON7 trial.

INTRODUCTION: Bevacizumab improves survival outcomes in women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Pre-clinical data showed that the c-MET/VEGFR-2 heterocomplex negates VEGF inhibition through activation of c-MET signalling, leading to a more invasive and metastatic phenotype. We evaluated the clinical significance of c-MET and VEGFR-2 co-localisation and its association with VEGF pathway-related single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in women participating in the phase 3 trial, ICON7 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00262847). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients had FIGO stage I-IIA grade 3/poorly differentiated or clear cell carcinoma or stage IIB-IV epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer. Immunofluorescence staining for co-localised c-MET and VEGFR-2 on tissue microarrays and genotyping of germline DNA from peripheral blood leukocytes for VEGFA and VEGFR-2 SNPs was performed. The significance of these biomarkers was assessed against survival. RESULTS: Tissue microarrays from 178 women underwent immunofluorescence staining. Multivariable analysis showed that greater c-MET/VEGFR-2 co-localisation predicted worse OS in patients treated with bevacizumab after adjusting for FIGO stage and debulking surgery outcome (hazard ratio [HR] 1.034, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 1.010-1.059). Women in the c-MET/VEGFR-2HIGH group treated with bevacizumab demonstrated significantly reduced OS (39.3 versus > 60 months; HR 2.00, 95%CI 1.08-3.72). Germline DNA from 449 women underwent genotyping. In the bevacizumab group, those women with the VEGFR-2 rs2305945 G/G variant had a trend towards shorter PFS compared with G/T or T/T variants (18.3 versus 23.0 months; HR 0.74, 95%CI 0.53-1.03). CONCLUSIONS: In bevacizumab-treated women diagnosed with EOC, high c-MET/VEGFR-2 co-localisation on tumour tissue and the VEGFR-2 rs2305945 G/G variant, which may be biologically related, were associated with worse survival outcomes.

Efficacy and safety of olaparib according to age in BRCA1/2-mutated patients with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer: Analysis of the phase III SOLO2/ENGOT-Ov21 study.

BACKGROUND: Olaparib has significantly improved outcome and patient-centered endpoints in BRCA1/2-mutated patients with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer (PSOC). Specific information on efficacy and safety of olaparib for older patients appears of special interest. METHODS: 295 patients from the SOLO2 trial randomly assigned to olaparib or placebo were categorized according to age-cutoff at 65 years. Efficacy, tolerability, and quality of life (QoL) of olaparib relative to placebo within in each age group was analyzed. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar in patients ≥65 years (N = 62;21.0%) compared to patients <65 years (N = 233;78.9%). No significant difference in the magnitude of progression-free survival (PFS) benefit from olaparib for older patients (N = 40, hazard ratio [HR]≥65 0.43, 95%-confidence interval [CI] 0.24-0.81) as compared with younger patients (N = 155, HR<65 0.31 (95%-CI 0.22-0.43) was seen (interaction P = 0.33). The overall survival (OS)benefit seen in younger patients in the olaparib arm was not observed in older patients. Older and younger patients had comparable safety profiles and QoL scores although higher discontinuation rates for toxicity, and higher frequency of AML/MDS were noted in the older subset. TWiST analysis revealed clinically meaningful duration of good QoL on olaparib for both age groups (≥65: 13.5 vs <65: 18.4 months, P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Results of this large phase III cohort of BRCA1/2-mutated PSOC patients treated with olaparib underline impressive efficacy of olaparib maintenance irrespective of age. Although toxicity and tolerability did not raise significant concerns, some caution, close monitoring, and follow-up needs to be exercised for older patients given higher discontinuation rates, frequency of AML/MDS, and no clear effects on OS.

Clinical and molecular characteristics of ARIEL3 patients who derived exceptional benefit from rucaparib maintenance treatment for high-grade ovarian carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: ARIEL3 (NCT01968213) is a placebo-controlled randomized trial of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib as maintenance treatment in patients with recurrent high-grade ovarian carcinoma who responded to their latest line of platinum therapy. Rucaparib improved progression-free survival across all predefined subgroups. Here, we present an exploratory analysis of clinical and molecular characteristics associated with exceptional benefit from rucaparib. METHODS: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Molecular features (genomic alterations, BRCA1 promoter methylation) and baseline clinical characteristics were evaluated for association with exceptional benefit (progression-free survival ≥2 years) versus progression on first scan (short-term subgroup) and other efficacy outcomes. RESULTS: Rucaparib treatment was significantly associated with exceptional benefit compared with placebo: 79/375 (21.1%) vs 4/189 (2.1%), respectively (p < 0.0001). Exceptional benefit was more frequent among patients with favorable baseline clinical characteristics and with carcinomas harboring molecular evidence of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). A comparison between patients who derived exceptional benefit from rucaparib and those in the short-term subgroup revealed both clinical markers (no measurable disease at baseline, complete response to latest platinum, longer penultimate platinum-free interval) and molecular markers (BRCA1, BRCA2, RAD51C, and RAD51D alterations and genome-wide loss of heterozygosity) significantly associated with exceptional benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Exceptional benefit in ARIEL3 was more common in, but not exclusive to, patients with favorable clinical characteristics or molecular features associated with HRD. Our results suggest that rucaparib can deliver exceptional benefit to a diverse set of patients with recurrent high-grade ovarian carcinoma.

Weekly versus tri-weekly paclitaxel with carboplatin for first-line treatment in women with epithelial ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Epithelial ovarian cancer is the sixth most common cancer worldwide: 295,414 new cases were diagnosed in 2018, with 184,799 deaths. The lack of an effective screening strategy has led to the majority of women being diagnosed at an advanced stage. For these women, intravenous carboplatin combined with paclitaxel for six cycles is widely accepted as the standard first-line treatment for epithelial ovarian cancer, in combination with debulking surgery. However, there is conflicting evidence regarding the optimal dosing schedule of paclitaxel when combined with carboplatin in this setting. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of intravenous weekly paclitaxel with that of tri-weekly paclitaxel, in combination with intravenous carboplatin, as first-line treatment for epithelial ovarian cancer (defined as epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal and fallopian tube cancer). SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase databases for relevant studies up to 15 November 2021, using keywords and MeSH terms. We additionally handsearched conference libraries, online clinical trial databases and screened through lists of retrieved references. SELECTION CRITERIA: We Included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing weekly paclitaxel in combination with carboplatin versus tri-weekly paclitaxel in combination with carboplatin, for treatment of newly-diagnosed epithelial ovarian cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the hazard ratio (HR) to estimate the primary efficacy outcomes progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS). We used the risk ratio (RR) to estimate the primary toxicity outcome of severe neutropenia and secondary outcomes of quality of life (QoL) and treatment-related adverse events. Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias, using standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We included individual participant data (IPD) from one of the included studies, ICON-8, provided by the study team. We analysed data using a random-effects model in Review Manager 5.4 software. Additionally, we reconstructed IPD for PFS and OS data from published Kaplan-Meier curves from all studies and subsequently pooled these to analyse the two primary efficacy outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: From 2469 records, we identified four eligible RCTs with data for 3699 participants. All eligible studies were included in the main meta-analysis and reported on PFS and OS. There was likely a slight improvement in PFS when paclitaxel was dosed weekly compared to tri-weekly (HR 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 0.98; 4 studies, 3699 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We found little to no improvement in OS when paclitaxel was dosed weekly compared to tri-weekly (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.06; 4 studies, 3699 participants; high-certainty evidence). There was likely little to no difference in high-grade (grade 3 or 4) neutropenia when paclitaxel was dosed weekly compared to tri-weekly (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.43; 4 studies, 3639 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, weekly paclitaxel increased high-grade (grade 3 or 4) anaemia when compared to tri-weekly dosing (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.20; 4 studies, 3639 participants; high-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in high-grade neuropathy when paclitaxel was dosed weekly compared to tri-weekly (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.94; 4 studies, 3639 participants; low-certainty evidence). The overall risk of detection bias and performance bias was low for OS, but was unclear for other outcomes, as treatments were not blinded. The risk of bias in other domains was low or unclear. We note that OS data were immature for three of the included studies (GOG-0262, ICON-8 and MITO-7). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Weekly paclitaxel combined with carboplatin for first-line treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer likely improves PFS slightly (moderate-certainty evidence) but not OS (high-certainty evidence), compared to tri-weekly paclitaxel combined with carboplatin. However, this was associated with increased risk for high-grade anaemia, treatment discontinuation, dose delays and dose omissions (high- to low-certainty evidence). Our findings may not apply to women receiving bevacizumab in first-line therapy, those receiving treatment in the neo-adjuvant setting, or those with rare subtypes of clear cell or mucinous ovarian cancer.

Objective responses to first-line neoadjuvant carboplatin-paclitaxel regimens for ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma (ICON8): post-hoc exploratory analysis of a randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by delayed primary surgery (DPS) is an established strategy for women with newly diagnosed, advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer. Although this therapeutic approach has been validated in randomised, phase 3 trials, evaluation of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST), and cancer antigen 125 (CA125) has not been reported. We describe RECIST and Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) CA125 responses in patients receiving platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by DPS in the ICON8 trial. METHODS: ICON8 was an international, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial done across 117 hospitals in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, South Korea, and Ireland. The trial included women aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, life expectancy of more than 12 weeks, and newly diagnosed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO; 1988) stage IC-IIA high-grade serous, clear cell, or any poorly differentiated or grade 3 histological subtype, or any FIGO (1988) stage IIB-IV epithelial cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneum. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive intravenous carboplatin (area under the curve [AUC]5 or AUC6) and intravenous paclitaxel (175 mg/m2 by body surface area) on day 1 of every 21-day cycle (control group; group 1); intravenous carboplatin (AUC5 or AUC6) on day 1 and intravenous dose-fractionated paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 by body surface area) on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 21-day cycle (group 2); or intravenous dose-fractionated carboplatin (AUC2) and intravenous dose-fractionated paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 by body surface area) on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 21-day cycle (group 3). The maximum number of cycles of chemotherapy permitted was six. Randomisation was done with a minimisation method, and patients were stratified according to GCIG group, disease stage, and timing and outcome of cytoreductive surgery. Patients and clinicians were not masked to group allocation. The scheduling of surgery and use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy were determined by local multidisciplinary case review. In this post-hoc exploratory analysis of ICON8, progression-free survival was analysed using the landmark method and defined as the time interval between the date of pre-surgical planning radiological tumour assessment to the date of investigator-assessed clinical or radiological progression or death, whichever occurred first. This definition is different from the intention-to-treat primary progression-free survival analysis of ICON8, which defined progression-free survival as the time from randomisation to the date of first clinical or radiological progression or death, whichever occurred first. We also compared the extent of surgical cytoreduction with RECIST and GCIG CA125 responses. This post-hoc exploratory analysis includes only women recruited to ICON8 who were planned for neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by DPS and had RECIST and/or GCIG CA125-evaluable disease. ICON8 is closed for enrolment and follow-up, and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01654146. FINDINGS: Between June 6, 2011, and Nov 28, 2014, 1566 women were enrolled in ICON8, of whom 779 (50%) were planned for neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by DPS. Median follow-up was 29·5 months (IQR 15·6-54·3) for the neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by DPS population. Of 564 women who had RECIST-evaluable disease at trial entry, 348 (62%) had a complete or partial response. Of 727 women who were evaluable by GCIG CA125 criteria at the time of diagnosis, 610 (84%) had a CA125 response. Median progression-free survival was 14·4 months (95% CI 9·2-28·0; 297 events) for patients with a RECIST complete or partial response and 13·3 months (8·1-20·1; 171 events) for those with RECIST stable disease. Median progression-free survival for women with a GCIG CA125 response was 13·8 months (95% CI 8·8-23·4; 544 events) and 9·7 months (5·8-14·5; 111 events) for those without a GCIG CA125 response. Complete cytoreduction (R0) was achieved in 187 (56%) of 335 women with a RECIST complete or partial response and 73 (42%) of 172 women with RECIST stable disease. Complete cytoreduction was achieved in 290 (50%) of 576 women with a GCIG CA125 response and 30 (30%) of 101 women without a GCIG CA125 response. INTERPRETATION: The RECIST-defined radiological response rate was lower than that frequently quoted to patients in the clinic. RECIST and GCIG CA125 responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for epithelial ovarian cancer should not be used as individual predictive markers to stratify patients who are likely to benefit from DPS, but instead used in conjunction with the patient's clinical capacity to undergo cytoreductive surgery. A patient should not be denied surgery based solely on the lack of a RECIST or GCIG CA125 response. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Health Research Board in Ireland, Irish Cancer Society, and Cancer Australia.

Factors determining ultra-short-term survival and the commencement of active treatment in high-grade serous ovarian cancer: a case comparison study.

BACKGROUND: Despite improvements in median survival some patients with advanced ovarian cancer die within 100 days of diagnosis; the reasons for which remain poorly understood. Here we investigate if ultra short-term survival can be explained by patient characteristics or treatment pathways. METHODS: A nested case comparison study was used to examine differences between patients with high grade serous ovarian/fallopian tube cancer who died within 100 days (n = 28) compared to a comparison group of patients matched for histology and including any survival greater than 100 days (n = 134). RESULTS: Cases and comparison patients had similar ages, BMI, ACE-27, deprivation indices, and distribution of disease on CT. There were no significant delays in time to diagnosis or treatment (p = 0.68) between the groups. However, cases had lower serum albumin, haemoglobin and higher platelet counts than matched comparison patients (p < 0.0001) and a worse performance score (P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Patients who die rapidly after a diagnosis of ovarian cancer are only slightly older and have similar pre treatment frailty compared to patients whose survival approaches the median. However they do appear to undergo greater physiological compromise as a result of their disease.

A phase 2 study of anastrozole in patients with oestrogen receptor and/progesterone receptor positive recurrent/metastatic granulosa cell tumours/sex-cord stromal tumours of the ovary: The PARAGON/ANZGOG 0903 trial.

BACKGROUND: Hormonal therapies are commonly prescribed to patients with metastatic granulosa cell tumours (GCT), based on high response rates in small retrospective studies. Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are reported to have high response rates and an accepted treatment option. We report the results of a phase 2 trial of an AI in recurrent/metastatic GCTs. METHODS: 41 patients with recurrent ER/PR + ve GCT received anastrozole 1 mg daily until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR) at 12 weeks, evaluated by RECIST1.1 criteria. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), CBR duration, quality of life and toxicity. RESULTS: The CBR at 12 weeks in 38 evaluable patients was 78.9%, which included one (2.6%; 95% CI: 0.5-13.5%) partial response and 76.3% stable disease. Two additional patients without measurable disease were stable, based on inhibin. Median PFS was 8.6 m (95% CI 5.5-13.5 m). There were delayed responses observed after 12 weeks with a total of 4 pts. (10.5%; 95% CI 4.2%-24.1%) with a RECIST partial response; 23 (59%) patients were progression-free at 6 months. The adverse effects were predominantly low grade. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first prospective trial of hormonal therapy in GCTs. Although there was a high CBR, the objective response rate to anastrozole was much lower than the pooled response rates of >70% to AIs reported in most retrospective series and case reports. PARAGON demonstrates the importance of prospective trials in rare cancers and the need to reconsider the role of AIs as single agents in GCTs.

Rucaparib maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian carcinoma: the effects of progression-free interval and prior therapies on efficacy and safety in the randomized phase III trial ARIEL3.

INTRODUCTION: In ARIEL3 (NCT01968213), the poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo regardless of biomarker status when used as maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian cancer. The aim of the current analyses was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rucaparib in subgroups based on progression-free interval following penultimate platinum, number of prior chemotherapies, and prior use of bevacizumab. METHODS: Patients were randomized 2:1 to rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Within subgroups, progression-free survival was assessed in prespecified, nested cohorts: BRCA-mutant, homologous recombination deficient (BRCA-mutant or wild-type BRCA/high genomic loss of heterozygosity), and the intent-to-treat population. RESULTS: In the intent-to-treat population, median investigator-assessed progression-free survival was 8.2 months with rucaparib versus 4.1 months with placebo (n=151 vs n=76; HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.46, p<0.0001) for patients with progression-free interval 6 to ≤12 months, and 13.6 versus 5.6 months (n=224 vs n=113; HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.52, p<0.0001) for those with progression-free interval >12 months. Median progression-free survival was 10.4 versus 5.4 months (n=231 vs n=124; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.54, p<0.0001) for patients who had received two prior chemotherapies, and 11.1 versus 5.3 months (n=144 vs n=65; HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.41, p<0.0001) for those who had received ≥3 prior chemotherapies. Median progression-free survival was 10.3 versus 5.4 months (n=83 vs n=43; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.68, p=0.0004) for patients who had received prior bevacizumab, and 10.9 versus 5.4 months (n=292 vs n=146; HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.45, p<0.0001) for those who had not. Across subgroups, median progression-free survival was also significantly longer with rucaparib versus placebo in the BRCA-mutant and homologous recombination deficient cohorts. Safety was consistent across subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Rucaparib maintenance treatment significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo irrespective of progression-free interval following penultimate platinum, number of lines of prior chemotherapy, and previous use of bevacizumab.

Weekly platinum-based chemotherapy versus 3-weekly platinum-based chemotherapy for newly diagnosed ovarian cancer (ICON8): quality-of-life results of a phase 3, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The ICON8 study reported no significant improvement in progression-free survival (a primary endpoint) with weekly chemotherapy compared with standard 3-weekly treatment among patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. All ICON8 patients were eligible to take part in the accompanying health-related quality-of-life study, which measured the effect of treatment on self-reported wellbeing, reported here. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3, three-arm, Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup (GCIG) trial done at 117 hospital sites in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, South Korea, and Republic of Ireland, women (aged at least 18 years) with newly diagnosed, histologically confirmed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IC-IV ovarian cancer and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were randomly assigned (1:1:1) centrally using minimisation to group 1 (intravenous carboplatin area under the curve [AUC]5 or AUC6 and 175 mg/m2 intravenous paclitaxel every 3 weeks), group 2 (carboplatin AUC5 or AUC6 every 3 weeks and 80 mg/m2 paclitaxel weekly), or group 3 (carboplatin AUC2 weekly and 80 mg/m2 paclitaxel weekly). Randomisation was stratified by GCIG group, disease stage, and outcome and timing of surgery. Patients and clinicians were not masked to treatment assignment. Patients underwent immediate or delayed primary surgery according to clinicians' choice. Patients were asked to complete European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OV28 questionnaires at enrolment, before each chemotherapy cycle, then 6-weekly up to 9 months, 3-monthly up to 2 years, and 6-monthly up to 5 years. Quality of life was a prespecified secondary outcome of the ICON8 study. Within the quality-of-life study, the co-primary endpoints were QLQ-C30 global health score at 9 months (cross-sectional analysis) and mean QLQ-C30 global health score from randomisation to 9 months (longitudinal analysis). Data analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01654146 and ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN10356387, and is currently in long-term follow up. FINDINGS: Between June 6, 2011, and Nov 28, 2014, 1566 patients were recruited into ICON8 (522 were included in group 1, 523 in group 2, and 521 in group 3). Baseline quality-of-life questionnaires were completed by 1438 (92%) of 1566 patients and 9-month questionnaires by 882 (69%) of 1280 patients. We observed no significant difference in global health score at 9 months (cross-sectional analysis) between study groups (group 2 vs group 1, difference in mean score 2·3, 95% CI -0·4 to 4·9, p=0·095; group 3 vs group 1, -0·8, -3·8 to 2·2, p=0·61). Using longitudinal analysis, we found lower global health scores for those receiving weekly paclitaxel than for those receiving 3-weekly chemotherapy (group 2 vs group 1, mean difference -1·8, 95% CI -3·6 to -0·1, p=0·043; group 3 vs group 1, -2·9, -4·7 to -1·1, p=0·0018). INTERPRETATION: We found no evidence of a difference in global quality of life between treatment groups at 9 months; however, patients receiving weekly treatment reported lower mean quality of life across the 9-month period after randomisation. Taken together with the lack of progression-free survival benefit, these findings do not support routine use of weekly paclitaxel-containing regimens in the management of newly diagnosed ovarian cancer. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Health Research Board Ireland, Irish Cancer Society, and Cancer Australia.

Rucaparib for patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian carcinoma (ARIEL3): post-progression outcomes and updated safety results from a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In ARIEL3, rucaparib maintenance treatment significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo. Here, we report prespecified, investigator-assessed, exploratory post-progression endpoints and updated safety data. METHODS: In this ongoing (enrolment complete) randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, patients aged 18 years or older who had platinum-sensitive, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 who had received at least two previous platinum-based chemotherapy regimens and responded to their last platinum-based regimen were randomly assigned (2:1) to oral rucaparib (600 mg twice daily) or placebo in 28-day cycles using a computer-generated sequence (block size of six with stratification based on homologous recombination repair gene mutation status, progression-free interval following penultimate platinum-based regimen, and best response to most recent platinum-based regimen). Patients, investigators, site staff, assessors, and the funder were masked to assignments. The primary endpoint of investigator-assessed progression-free survival has been previously reported. Prespecified, exploratory outcomes of chemotherapy-free interval (CFI), time to start of first subsequent therapy (TFST), time to disease progression on subsequent therapy or death (PFS2), and time to start of second subsequent therapy (TSST) and updated safety were analysed (visit cutoff Dec 31, 2017). Efficacy analyses were done in all patients randomised to three nested cohorts: patients with BRCA mutations, patients with homologous recombination deficiencies, and the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01968213. FINDINGS: Between April 7, 2014, and July 19, 2016, 564 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to rucaparib (n=375) or placebo (n=189). Median follow-up was 28·1 months (IQR 22·0-33·6). In the intention-to-treat population, median CFI was 14·3 months (95% CI 13·0-17·4) in the rucaparib group versus 8·8 months (8·0-10·3) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·43 [95% CI 0·35-0·53]; p<0·0001), median TFST was 12·4 months (11·1-15·2) versus 7·2 months (6·4-8·6; HR 0·43 [0·35-0·52]; p<0·0001), median PFS2 was 21·0 months (18·9-23·6) versus 16·5 months (15·2-18·4; HR 0·66 [0·53-0·82]; p=0·0002), and median TSST was 22·4 months (19·1-24·5) versus 17·3 months (14·9-19·4; HR 0·68 [0·54-0·85]; p=0·0007). CFI, TFST, PFS2, and TSST were also significantly longer with rucaparib than placebo in the BRCA-mutant and homologous recombination-deficient cohorts. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse event of grade 3 or higher was anaemia or decreased haemoglobin (80 [22%] patients in the rucaparib group vs one [1%] patient in the placebo group). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 83 (22%) patients in the rucaparib group and 20 (11%) patients in the placebo group. Two treatment-related deaths have been previously reported in this trial; there were no new treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: In these exploratory analyses over a median follow-up of more than 2 years, rucaparib maintenance treatment led to a clinically meaningful delay in starting subsequent therapy and provided lasting clinical benefits versus placebo in all three analysis cohorts. Updated safety data were consistent with previous reports. FUNDING: Clovis Oncology.