A phase 2 trial exploring the significance of homologous recombination status in patients with platinum sensitive or platinum resistant relapsed ovarian cancer receiving combination cediranib and olaparib.

OBJECTIVE: Combination cediranib/olaparib has reported activity in relapsed ovarian cancer. This phase 2 trial investigated the activity of cediranib/olaparib in relapsed ovarian cancer and its association with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). METHODS: Seventy patients were enrolled to cohorts of either platinum-sensitive or platinum-resistant ovarian cancer and received olaparib tablets 200 mg twice daily and cediranib tablets 30 mg once daily under a continuous dosing schedule. HRD testing was performed on pre-treatment, on-treatment and archival biopsies by sequencing key homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes and by genomic LOH analysis. The primary objective for the platinum-sensitive cohort was the association of HRD, defined as presence of HRR gene mutation, with progression-free survival (PFS). The primary objective for the platinum-resistant cohort was objective response rate (ORR), with a key secondary endpoint evaluating the association of HRD status with activity. RESULTS: In platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer (N = 35), ORR was 77.1% (95% CI 59.9-89.6%) and median PFS was 16.4 months (95% CI 13.2-18.6). Median PFS in platinum-sensitive HRR-HRD cancers (N = 22) was 16.8 months (95% CI 11.3-18.6), and 16.4 months (95% CI 9.4-NA) in HRR-HR proficient cancers (N = 13; p = 0.57). In platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (N = 35), ORR was 22.9% (95% CI 10.4-40.1%) with median PFS 6.8 months (95% CI 4.2-9.1). Median PFS in platinum-resistant HRR-HRD cancers (N = 7) was 10.5 months (95% CI 3.6-NA) and 5.6 months (95% CI 3.6-7.6) in HRR-HR proficient cancers (N = 18; p = 0.23). CONCLUSIONS: Cediranib/olaparib had clinical activity in both platinum-sensitive and -resistant ovarian cancer. Presence of HRR gene mutations was not associated with cediranib/olaparib activity in either setting.

Uterine MEIS1::NCOA2 Fusion Sarcoma With Lung Metastasis: A Case Report and Review of the Literature.

MEIS1::NCOA1/2 fusion sarcomas are a recently described novel entity arising in a variety of locations with a predilection for the genitourinary tract and gynecologic organs. Despite multiple locoregional recurrences, these tumors are thought to behave in a low-grade malignant manner. Here we report a uterine MEIS1::NCOA2 fusion sarcoma with lung metastasis. The patient was a 47-yr-old woman with a history of abnormal uterine bleeding who was found to have a myometrial mass confirmed by pathology to be uterine sarcoma. The tumor was predominantly composed of monotonous spindle cells with scant cytoplasm, crowded nuclei, and brisk mitotic activity, growing in a fascicular and streaming pattern. The morphologic and immunophenotypic features were nonspecific and a diagnosis of high-grade uterine sarcoma with a differential of leiomyosarcoma versus high-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma was rendered. At the 27-mo follow-up, the patient was found to have a lung metastasis consisting of a monotonous round cell sarcoma. A retrospective RNA-based and DNA-based next-generation sequencing of the primary uterine sarcoma revealed a MEIS1::NCOA2 gene fusion, a c.94G>C/p.D32H mutation in exon 3 of CTNNB1 gene, HMGA2 , and CDK4 gene amplification, and an intermediate/marginal level of MDM2 gene amplification. Polymerase chain reaction-based molecular analysis further demonstrated that the MEIS1::NCOA2 gene fusion and CTNNB1 somatic mutation were also present in the lung metastasis. This case represents the first case of such gynecologic sarcoma with distant (lung) metastasis, and the second metastatic case among all reported MEIS1::NCOA1/2 fusion sarcomas, highlighting the malignant metastatic potential of this emerging entity. Our case also indicates that HMGA2/CDK4/MDM2 region amplification and CTNNB1 somatic mutation might be recurrent genetic events in this rare sarcoma subtype.

Randomized phase II trial of farletuzumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy in low CA-125 platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The primary purpose of this study was to determine if farletuzumab, an antifolate receptor-α monoclonal antibody, improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo when added to standard chemotherapy regimens in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (OC) in first relapse (platinum-free interval: 6-36 months) with low cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) levels. METHODS: Eligibility included CA-125 ≤ 3 x upper limit of normal (ULN, 105 U/mL), high-grade serous, platinum-sensitive recurrent OC, previous treatment with debulking surgery, and first-line platinum-based chemotherapy with 1st recurrence between 6 and 36 months since frontline platinum-based treatment. Patients received investigator's choice of either carboplatin (CARBO)/paclitaxel (PTX) every 3 weeks or CARBO/pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) every 4 weeks x6 cycles in combination with either farletuzumab [5 mg/kg weekly] or placebo randomized in a 2:1 ratio. Maintenance treatment with farletuzumab (5 mg/kg weekly) or placebo was given until disease progression or intolerance. RESULTS: 214 patients were randomly assigned to farletuzumab+chemotherapy (142 patients) versus placebo+chemotherapy (72 patients). The primary efficacy endpoint, PFS, was not significantly different between treatment groups (1-sided α = 0.10; p-value = 0.25; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.89, 80% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71, 1.11), a median of 11.7 months (95% CI: 10.2, 13.6) versus 10.8 months (95% CI: 9.5, 13.2) for farletuzumab+chemotherapy and placebo+chemotherapy, respectively. No new safety concerns were identified with the combination of farletuzumab+chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Adding farletuzumab to standard chemotherapy does not improve PFS in patients with OC who were platinum-sensitive in first relapse with low CA-125 levels. Folate receptor-α expression was not measured in this study. (Clinical Trial Registry NCT02289950).

Secondary Surgical Cytoreduction for Recurrent Ovarian Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Secondary surgical cytoreduction in women with platinum-sensitive, recurrent epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian-tube ("ovarian") cancer is widely practiced but has not been evaluated in phase 3 investigation. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with recurrent ovarian cancer who had received one previous therapy, had an interval during which no platinum-based chemotherapy was used (platinum-free interval) of 6 months or more, and had investigator-determined resectable disease (to no macroscopic residual disease) to undergo secondary surgical cytoreduction and then receive platinum-based chemotherapy or to receive platinum-based chemotherapy alone. Adjuvant chemotherapy (paclitaxel-carboplatin or gemcitabine-carboplatin) and use of bevacizumab were at the discretion of the investigator. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 485 patients underwent randomization, 240 to secondary cytoreduction before chemotherapy and 245 to chemotherapy alone. The median follow-up was 48.1 months. Complete gross resection was achieved in 67% of the patients assigned to surgery who underwent the procedure. Platinum-based chemotherapy with bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab maintenance was administered to 84% of the patients overall and was equally distributed between the two groups. The hazard ratio for death (surgery vs. no surgery) was 1.29 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 1.72; P = 0.08), which corresponded to a median overall survival of 50.6 months and 64.7 months, respectively. Adjustment for platinum-free interval and chemotherapy choice did not alter the effect. The hazard ratio for disease progression or death (surgery vs. no surgery) was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.66 to 1.01; median progression-free survival, 18.9 months and 16.2 months, respectively). Surgical morbidity at 30 days was 9%; 1 patient (0.4%) died from postoperative complications. Patient-reported quality of life decreased significantly after surgery but did not differ significantly between the two groups after recovery. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer, secondary surgical cytoreduction followed by chemotherapy did not result in longer overall survival than chemotherapy alone. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; GOG-0213 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00565851.).

What proportion of patients with stage 3 ovarian cancer are potentially cured following intraperitoneal chemotherapy? Analysis of the long term (≥10 years) survivors in NRG/GOG randomized clinical trials of intraperitoneal and intravenous chemotherapy in stage III ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) alive without progression at a landmark time-point of 10 years from diagnosis are likely cured. We report the proportion of patients with Stage III EOC who were long-term disease-free survivors (LTDFS≥10 years) following either intraperitoneal (IP) or intravenous (IV) chemotherapy as well as the predictors of LTDFS. METHODS: Data from 3 mature NRG/GOG trials (104, 114, 172) were analyzed and included demographics, clinicopathologic details, route of administration, and survival outcomes of patients living ≥10 years assessed according to the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox regression survival analysis was performed to evaluate independent prognostic predictors of LTDFS. RESULTS: Of 1174 patients randomized, 10-year overall survival (OS) was 26% (95% CI, 23-28%) and LTDFS ≥10 years was 18% (95% CI, 16-20%). Patients with LTDFS ≥10 years had a median age of 54.6 years (p < 0.001). Younger age (p < 0.001) was the only independent prognostic factor for LTDFS≥10 years on multivariate Cox analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 18% of patients were LTDFS ≥10 years. They form the tail end of the survival curve and are likely cured. Our results provide a comparative benchmark to evaluate the impact of PARP inhibitors in 1st line maintenance trials on survival outcomes.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Ovarian Cancer, Version 3.2022.

Epithelial ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death from gynecologic cancer in the United States, with less than half of patients living >5 years following diagnosis. The NCCN Guidelines for Ovarian Cancer provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up for patients with ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancers. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel discussion behind recent important updates to the guidelines, including revised guidance on alternative chemotherapy regimens for patients with advanced age and/or comorbidities, a new algorithm for recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma based on developing research and novel therapeutic agents, and updated language regarding tumor molecular analysis applications in ovarian cancer.

Post hoc analyses of GOG 9923: Does BRCA status affect toxicities?: An NRG oncology study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how women with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), dichotomized by BRCA status, tolerate intravenous (IV) or intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy given with veliparib and bevacizumab (bev) on a GOG phase I study (GOG 9923, NCT00989651). METHODS: This is an unplanned, post hoc analysis of an IRB approved, multi-institutional, prospective study (GOG 9923). Clinical characteristics and toxicity data based on BRCA status were evaluated and descriptive statistics were used to summarize baseline patient characteristics and toxicities. The Kaplan Meier method was used to generate survival estimates. RESULTS: Four hundred twenty-four patients were evaluable. Patients were treated with IV carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bev every 21 days (regimen 1), weekly IV paclitaxel with carboplatin and bev (regimen 2) or IV paclitaxel and bev with IP cisplatin (regimen 3). Bev was continued as maintenance in all arms. Within each of these regimens, veliparib was given either twice daily for the entirety of each cycle (continuous) or on days -2 to 5 (intermittent). Ten percent of patients treated on regimen 1, 12% on regimen 2, and 19.8% on regimen 3 had BRCA-associated tumors. Patients with BRCA-associated tumors, when compared to wild type, experienced similar rates of anemia, febrile neutropenia (, abdominal pain, colonic perforation, nausea, vomiting, and peripheral sensory neuropathy. Median progression free survival (PFS) was not significantly different between BRCA-associated and wild type cancers (HR 0.96, CI 0.65-1.42), though this study's primary aim was not to evaluate outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Germline BRCA mutations positively affect chemosensitivity in EOC, but whether differences in toxicities among BRCA-associated and BRCA wild type tumors existed was previously not reported. In this population with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer no differences in reported toxicity between the two groups was observed.

Ovarian Cancer, Version 2.2020, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Epithelial ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death from gynecologic cancer in the United States and is the country's fifth most common cause of cancer mortality in women. A major challenge in treating ovarian cancer is that most patients have advanced disease at initial diagnosis. These NCCN Guidelines discuss cancers originating in the ovary, fallopian tube, or peritoneum, as these are all managed in a similar manner. Most of the recommendations are based on data from patients with the most common subtypes─high-grade serous and grade 2/3 endometrioid. The NCCN Guidelines also include recommendations specifically for patients with less common ovarian cancers, which in the guidelines include the following: carcinosarcoma, clear cell carcinoma, mucinous carcinoma, low-grade serous, grade 1 endometrioid, borderline epithelial, malignant sex cord-stromal, and malignant germ cell tumors. This manuscript focuses on certain aspects of primary treatment, including primary surgery, adjuvant therapy, and maintenance therapy options (including PARP inhibitors) after completion of first-line chemotherapy.

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.

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.

Anti-cancer therapy and clinical trial considerations for gynecologic oncology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has consumed considerable resources and has impacted the delivery of cancer care. Patients with cancer may have factors which place them at high risk for COVID 19 morbidity or mortality. Highly immunosuppressive chemotherapy regimens and possible exposure to COVID-19 during treatment may put patients at additional risk. The Society of Gynecologic Oncology convened an expert panel to address recommendations for best practices during this crisis to minimize risk to patients from deviations in cancer care and from COVID-19 morbidity. METHODS: An expert panel convened to develop initial consensus guidelines regarding anti-neoplastic therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic with respect to gynecologic cancer care and clinical trials. RESULTS: COVID-19 poses special risks to patients who are older, have medical co-morbidities, and cancer. In addition, this pandemic will likely strain resources, making delivery of cancer care or conduct of clinical trials unpredictable. Recommendations are to limit visits and contact with health care facilities by using telemedicine when appropriate, and choosing regimens which require less frequent visits and which are less immunosuppressive. Deviations will occur in clinical trials as a result of limited resources, and it is important to understand regulatory obligations to trial sponsors as well as to the IRB to ensure that clinical trial and patient safety oversight are maintained. CONCLUSIONS: The ongoing crisis will strain resources needed to deliver cancer care. When alterations to the delivery of care are mandated, efforts should be taken to minimize risks and maximize safety while approximating standard practice.

A phase I study of intravenous or intraperitoneal platinum based chemotherapy in combination with veliparib and bevacizumab in newly diagnosed ovarian, primary peritoneal and fallopian tube cancer.

BACKGROUND: Improvements in disease free survival for epithelial ovarian, peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer (EOC) will only come with improved primary therapy. Incorporation of poly-ADP-ribose inhibitors (PARPi) in the frontline setting may represent one strategy. This study sought to determine the maximum tolerated and feasible doses of the PARPi veliparib in combination with chemotherapy for EOC. METHODS: A phase I, 3 + 3 dose escalation evaluated dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) in cycles 1-2. Once <2/6 patients experienced a DLT, that dose level expanded to evaluate feasibility over 4 cycles. This study opened 10/2009 and closed 8/2016. Eligible patients had untreated, stage II-IV EOC. Veliparib was added either continuous (day 1-21) or intermittent (day - 2 to 5) during 6 cycles of chemotherapy. Three chemotherapy backbones were evaluated (2 intravenous (q3week and weekly) and 1 intraperitoneal (IP)) all inclusive of bevacizumab with and as maintenance to 22 cycles. FINDINGS: Dose evaluations for 424 treated patients were available. Regimen 1 (q3 week), continuous (Reg1c) the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was 250 mg veliparib BID and feasible dose was 150 mg BID. For regimen 1, intermittent (Reg1i) the MTD and feasible dose were 400 and 250 mg BID. For Reg2c (weekly paclitaxel) the MTD and feasible dose were 150 mg BID. For Reg2i the MTD and feasible dose were 250 and 150 mg BID. For Reg3c (IP) the MTD and feasible dose were 150 mg BID and for Reg3i (IP), the MTD and feasible dose were 400 mg and 300 mg BID. INTERPRETATION: The feasible dose for Reg1c, 2c, 2i and 3c was 150 mg po BID. For Reg1i and 3i the dose was pushed to 250 and 300 mg po BID respectively. There is no apparent difference in efficacy between continuous and intermittent dosing indicating that the higher doses achieved in intermittent dosing may not be needed. (NCT00989651). FUNDING: National Cancer Institute.

The effect of age on efficacy, safety and patient-centered outcomes with rucaparib: A post hoc exploratory analysis of ARIEL3, a phase 3, randomized, maintenance study in patients with recurrent ovarian carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In the phase 3 trial ARIEL3, maintenance treatment with the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor rucaparib provided clinical benefit versus placebo for patients with recurrent, platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Here, we evaluate the impact of age on the clinical utility of rucaparib in ARIEL3. METHODS: Patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian carcinoma with ≥2 prior platinum-based chemotherapies who responded to their last platinum-based therapy were enrolled in ARIEL3 and randomized 2:1 to rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Exploratory, post hoc analyses of progression-free survival (PFS), patient-centered outcomes (quality-adjusted PFS [QA-PFS] and quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity [Q-TWiST]), and safety were conducted in three age subgroups (<65 years, 65-74 years, and ≥75 years). RESULTS: Investigator-assessed PFS was significantly longer with rucaparib than placebo in patients aged <65 years (rucaparib n = 237 vs placebo n = 117; median, 11.1 vs 5.4 months; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.33 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.25-0.43]; P < 0.0001) and 65-74 years (n = 113 vs n = 64; median, 8.3 vs 5.3 months; HR 0.43 [95% CI 0.29-0.63]; P < 0.0001) and numerically longer in patients aged ≥75 years (n = 25 vs n = 8; median, 9.2 vs 5.5 months; HR 0.47 [95% CI 0.16-1.35]; P = 0.1593). QA-PFS and Q-TWiST were significantly longer with rucaparib than placebo across all age subgroups. Safety of rucaparib was generally similar across the age subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy, patient-centered outcomes, and safety of rucaparib were similar between age subgroups, indicating that all eligible women with recurrent ovarian cancer should be offered this therapeutic option, irrespective of age. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01968213.

The estrogen receptor-alpha S118P variant does not affect breast cancer incidence or response to endocrine therapies.

PURPOSE: Estrogen receptor-alpha (ER) is a therapeutic target of ER-positive (ER+) breast cancers. Although ER signaling is complex, many mediators of this pathway have been identified. Specifically, phosphorylation of ER at serine 118 affects responses to estrogen and therapeutic ligands and has been correlated with clinical outcomes in ER+ breast cancer patients. We hypothesized that a newly described germline variant (S118P) at this residue would drive cellular changes consistent with breast cancer development and/or hormone resistance. METHODS: Isogenic human breast epithelial cell line models harboring ER S118P were developed via genome editing and characterized to determine the functional effects of this variant. We also examined the frequency of ER S118P in a case-control study (N = 536) of women with and without breast cancer with a familial risk. RESULTS: In heterozygous knock-in models, the S118P variant demonstrated no significant change in proliferation, migration, MAP Kinase pathway signaling, or response to the endocrine therapies tamoxifen and fulvestrant. Further, there was no difference in the prevalence of S118P between women with and without cancer relative to population registry databases. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the ER S118P variant does not affect risk for breast cancer or hormone therapy resistance. Germline screening and modification of treatments for patients harboring this variant are likely not warranted.

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.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Ovarian Cancer, Version 1.2019.

Epithelial ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death from gynecologic cancer in the United States, with less than half of patients living >5 years from diagnosis. A major challenge in treating ovarian cancer is that most patients have advanced disease at initial diagnosis. The best outcomes are observed in patients whose primary treatment includes complete resection of all visible disease plus combination platinum-based chemotherapy. Research efforts are focused on primary neoadjuvant treatments that may improve resectability, as well as systemic therapies providing improved long-term survival. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to neoadjuvant chemotherapy recommendations, including the addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, and the role of PARP inhibitors and bevacizumab as maintenance therapy options in select patients who have completed primary chemotherapy.

Evaluation of osteopenia and osteoporosis in younger breast cancer survivors compared with cancer-free women: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis, an indicator of significant bone loss, has been consistently reported among older breast cancer survivors. Data are limited on the incidence of osteopenia, an earlier indicator of bone loss, and osteoporosis in younger breast cancer survivors compared with cancer-free women. METHODS: We prospectively examined bone loss in 211 breast cancer survivors (mean age at breast cancer diagnosis = 47 years) compared with 567 cancer-free women in the same cohort with familial risk for breast cancer. Multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate HRs and 95% CIs of osteopenia and/or osteoporosis incidence based on physician diagnosis. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 5.8 years, 66% of breast cancer survivors and 53% of cancer-free women reported having a bone density examination, and 112 incident cases of osteopenia and/or osteoporosis were identified. Breast cancer survivors had a 68% higher risk of osteopenia and osteoporosis compared to cancer-free women (HR = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.12-2.50). The association was stronger among recent survivors after only 2 years of follow-up (HR = 2.74, 95% CI = 1.37-5.47). A higher risk of osteopenia and osteoporosis was also observed among survivors aged ≤ 50 years, estrogen receptor-positive tumors, and those treated with aromatase inhibitors alone or chemotherapy plus any hormone therapy relative to cancer-free women. CONCLUSIONS: Younger breast cancer survivors are at higher risk for osteopenia and osteoporosis compared to cancer-free women. Studies are needed to determine effective approaches to minimize bone loss in this population.

Rucaparib maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian carcinoma after response to platinum therapy (ARIEL3): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Rucaparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, has anticancer activity in recurrent ovarian carcinoma harbouring a BRCA mutation or high percentage of genome-wide loss of heterozygosity. In this trial we assessed rucaparib versus placebo after response to second-line or later platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with high-grade, recurrent, platinum-sensitive ovarian carcinoma. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients from 87 hospitals and cancer centres across 11 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had a platinum-sensitive, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma, had received at least two previous platinum-based chemotherapy regimens, had achieved complete or partial response to their last platinum-based regimen, had a cancer antigen 125 concentration of less than the upper limit of normal, had a performance status of 0-1, and had adequate organ function. Patients were ineligible if they had symptomatic or untreated central nervous system metastases, had received anticancer therapy 14 days or fewer before starting the study, or had received previous treatment with a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor. We randomly allocated patients 2:1 to receive oral rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo in 28 day cycles using a computer-generated sequence (block size of six, stratified by homologous recombination repair gene mutation status, progression-free interval after the penultimate platinum-based regimen, and best response to the most recent platinum-based regimen). Patients, investigators, site staff, assessors, and the funder were masked to assignments. The primary outcome was investigator-assessed progression-free survival evaluated with use of an ordered step-down procedure for three nested cohorts: patients with BRCA mutations (carcinoma associated with deleterious germline or somatic BRCA mutations), patients with homologous recombination deficiencies (BRCA mutant or BRCA wild-type and high loss of heterozygosity), and the intention-to-treat population, assessed at screening and every 12 weeks thereafter. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01968213; enrolment is complete. FINDINGS: Between April 7, 2014, and July 19, 2016, we randomly allocated 564 patients: 375 (66%) to rucaparib and 189 (34%) to placebo. Median progression-free survival in patients with a BRCA-mutant carcinoma was 16·6 months (95% CI 13·4-22·9; 130 [35%] patients) in the rucaparib group versus 5·4 months (3·4-6·7; 66 [35%] patients) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·23 [95% CI 0·16-0·34]; p<0·0001). In patients with a homologous recombination deficient carcinoma (236 [63%] vs 118 [62%]), it was 13·6 months (10·9-16·2) versus 5·4 months (5·1-5·6; 0·32 [0·24-0·42]; p<0·0001). In the intention-to-treat population, it was 10·8 months (8·3-11·4) versus 5·4 months (5·3-5·5; 0·36 [0·30-0·45]; p<0·0001). Treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher in the safety population (372 [99%] patients in the rucaparib group vs 189 [100%] in the placebo group) were reported in 209 (56%) patients in the rucaparib group versus 28 (15%) in the placebo group, the most common of which were anaemia or decreased haemoglobin concentration (70 [19%] vs one [1%]) and increased alanine or aspartate aminotransferase concentration (39 [10%] vs none). INTERPRETATION: Across all primary analysis groups, rucaparib significantly improved progression-free survival in patients with platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer who had achieved a response to platinum-based chemotherapy. ARIEL3 provides further evidence that use of a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor in the maintenance treatment setting versus placebo could be considered a new standard of care for women with platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer following a complete or partial response to second-line or later platinum-based chemotherapy. FUNDING: Clovis Oncology.

New Therapies for Ovarian Cancer.

In the latest NCCN Guidelines for Ovarian Cancer, the histologic subtypes of ovarian cancer are described in more depth as they vary by frequency, typical age and disease stage at presentation, treatment recommendations, and survival probabilities. The less common subtypes are also discussed. The update with the greatest impact on the treatment of ovarian cancer, however, is probably the use of maintenance therapy with poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, and 3 PARP inhibitors are now included in the guidelines. These drugs have made a large difference in outcome, both for patients with BRCA mutations and in unselected patients.