Epithelial ovarian cancer: Evolution of management in the era of precision medicine.

Ovarian cancer is the second most common cause of gynecologic cancer death in women around the world. The outcomes are complicated, because the disease is often diagnosed late and composed of several subtypes with distinct biological and molecular properties (even within the same histological subtype), and there is inconsistency in availability of and access to treatment. Upfront treatment largely relies on debulking surgery to no residual disease and platinum-based chemotherapy, with the addition of antiangiogenic agents in patients who have suboptimally debulked and stage IV disease. Major improvement in maintenance therapy has been seen by incorporating inhibitors against poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) molecules involved in the DNA damage-repair process, which have been approved in a recurrent setting and recently in a first-line setting among women with BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations. In recognizing the challenges facing the treatment of ovarian cancer, current investigations are enlaced with deep molecular and cellular profiling. To improve survival in this aggressive disease, access to appropriate evidence-based care is requisite. In concert, realizing individualized precision medicine will require prioritizing clinical trials of innovative treatments and refining predictive biomarkers that will enable selection of patients who would benefit from chemotherapy, targeted agents, or immunotherapy. Together, a coordinated and structured approach will accelerate significant clinical and academic advancements in ovarian cancer and meaningfully change the paradigm of care.

Disparities in clinical trial enrollment at a Canadian comprehensive cancer center: A 15-year retrospective study.

INTRODUCTION: Disparities in clinical trials (CTs) enrollment perpetuate inequities in treatment access and outcomes, but there is a paucity of Canadian data. The objective of this study was to examine disparities in cancer CT enrollment at a large Canadian comprehensive cancer center. METHODS: Retrospective study of CT enrollment among new patient consultations from 2006 to 2019, with follow-up to 2021 (N = 154,880), with the primary outcome of enrollment as a binary variable. Factors associated with CT enrollment were evaluated using multivariable Bayesian hierarchical logistic regression with random effects for most responsible physician (MRP) and geography, adjusted for patient characteristics (sex, age, language, geography, and primary care provider [PCP]), area-level marginalization (residential instability, material deprivation, dependency, and ethnic concentration), disease (cancer site and stage), and MRP (department, sex, language, and training). A sensitivity analysis of the cumulative incidence of enrollment was conducted to account for differences in disease type and follow-up length. RESULTS: CT enrollment was 11.2% overall, with a 15-year cumulative incidence of 18%. Lower odds of enrollment were observed in patients who were female (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-0.86), ≥65 years (AOR vs. <40, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.56-0.66), non-English speakers (0.72; 95% CI, 0.67-0.77), living ≥250 km away (AOR vs. <15 km, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.62-0.80), and without a PCP. Disease characteristics accounted for the largest proportion of observed variation (20.8%), with significantly greater odds of enrollment in patients with genitourinary cancers and late-stage disease. CONCLUSION: Significant sociodemographic disparities were observed, suggesting the need for targeted strategies to increase diversity in access to cancer CTs in Canada.

High grade adverse event reporting and enrolment in gynecologic oncology clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective is to assess factors associated with treatment related high grade (CTCAE grade ≥ 3) adverse event (AE) reporting among participants in gynecologic oncology clinical trials. METHODS: All AEs recorded in the Princess Margaret Clinical Trial adverse event database between 01/2016 and 12/2018 were evaluated. Gynecologic oncology clinical trials assessing systemic therapy were included. Inferential statistics on risk factors of related grade ≥ 3 adverse event reporting and GEE logistic models with Odds Ratios (OR) were performed. Multivariable analysis adjusting for age, clinical trial phase, sponsor, and therapy type. RESULTS: The gynecology cancer clinical trials accrued 317 unique patients (359 nested on trials) in 42 systemic therapy trials. In the period, 17,175 related AEs were reported in the gynecological cancer trials, 7.4% were grade ≥ 3. On multivariable analysis, no odds differences of grade ≥ 3 related AEs were detected according to study phase. Patients in immunotherapy clinical trials had lower odds of related grade ≥ 3 AEs than patients on targeted or other therapy (adjusted OR [aOR] 0.43; 95% CI 0.24-0.75). There was greater odds of related grade ≥ 3 AEs in clinical trials assessing combination vs single therapeutics (aOR 2.26, 95% CI 1.34-3.80). Patients aged ≥65 (aOR 1.77; 95% CI 1.08-2.89) had greater odds of related grade ≥ 3 AEs than patients aged 50 to 65 years. When compared to other disease sites, the odds of having a grade  ≥ 3 related AE reported in gynecology clinical trials was no different. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, factors influencing the odds of related grade ≥ 3 AE reporting in gynecologic trials included type of therapy and age. The study phase did not correlate with odds of high-grade AE reporting.

Long-term follow-up of efficacy and safety of selinexor maintenance treatment in patients with TP53wt advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer: A subgroup analysis of the ENGOT-EN5/GOG-3055/SIENDO study.

OBJECTIVE: To report long-term efficacy and safety of selinexor maintenance therapy in adults with TP53 wild-type (TP53wt) stage IV or recurrent endometrial cancer (EC) who achieved partial remission (PR) or complete remission (CR) following chemotherapy. METHODS: Analysis of the prespecified, exploratory subgroup of patients with TP53wt EC from the phase 3 SIENDO study was performed. Progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in patients with TP53wt EC and across other patient subgroups were exploratory endpoints. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. RESULTS: Of the 263 patients enrolled in the SIENDO trial, 113 patients had TP53wt EC; 70/113 (61.9%) had TP53wt/proficient mismatch repair (pMMR) EC, and 29/113 (25.7%) had TP53wt/deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) EC. As of April 1, 2024, the median PFS (mPFS) for TP53wt patients who received selinexor compared with placebo was 28.4 versus 5.2 months (36.8-month follow-up, HR 0.44; 95% CI 0.27-0.73). A benefit in mPFS was seen with selinexor versus placebo regardless of MMR status (patients with TP53wt/pMMR EC: 39.5 vs 4.9 months, HR 0.36; 95% CI 0.19-0.71; patients with TP53wt/dMMR EC: 13.1 vs 3.7 months, HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.18-1.34). Selinexor treatment was generally manageable, with no new safety signals identified. CONCLUSION: In the phase 3 SIENDO study, selinexor maintenance therapy showed a promising efficacy signal and a manageable safety profile in the prespecified subgroup of patients with TP53wt EC who achieved a PR or CR following chemotherapy. These results are being further evaluated in an ongoing randomized phase 3 trial (NCT05611931).

Electronic malignant bowel obstruction symptom monitoring smartphone application for patients with gynecologic cancers.

OBJECTIVES: Implementation of an interprofessional program at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, including nurse-led proactive calls to support patients with gynecologic cancers with malignant bowel obstruction, demonstrated improved outcomes compared with historical controls. The aim of the study was to convert the proactive calls into an electronic monitoring program to assess it's feasibility and scalability in patients with gynecologic cancers with or at risk of malignant bowel obstruction. METHODS: 'My Bowels on Track' smartphone application included weekly/biweekly electronic patient-reported outcomes (PROs), educational materials, and a secure messaging system. Based on PRO answers, an alerting system flagged patients with symptoms or uncompleted PROs. Nurses tracked and called patients on receiving clinical or compliance alerts. The primary objective was to assess adherence (≥70% PRO completion per patient considered an adherent patient) in the first 2 months on the program. A secondary objective was to assess the positive predictive value (PPV) of the alerts to trigger recommendations. RESULTS: Forty patients were enrolled between August 2021 and September 2022. Median age was 64.5 years (range 29-79 years). Primary diagnosis was ovarian (75%), endometrial (17.5%), or cervical (7.5%) cancer, and 92.5% of patients were receiving systemic therapy. Median duration on the program was 55 days (range 8-121 days). The 2-month adherence was 65% (95% CI 50% to 80%) and the overall adherence was 60% (95% CI 43% to 75%). Sixty-five symptom-related alerts (75% severe, 25% moderate) were reported in 60% (24/40) of patients. There were 59 recommendations triggered by the alerts. The PPV of the alerts to trigger actions was 72% (95% CI 58% to 82%). CONCLUSIONS: This pilot electronic malignant bowel obstruction monitoring program with real-time PRO assessment was feasible, and 65% of participants were adherent during the first 2 months on the program. The PRO response-based alerting system flagged concerning symptoms in 60% of participants, with a PPV of 72% to trigger nurse-led actions and/or management recommendations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03260647.

Efficacy and safety of rucaparib treatment in patients with BRCA-mutated, relapsed ovarian cancer: final results from Study 10.

BACKGROUND: Study 10, a four-part Phase 1/2 study, evaluated oral rucaparib monotherapy in patients with advanced solid tumours. Here we report the final efficacy and safety results in heavily pretreated patients with ovarian cancer who received rucaparib in Study 10 Parts 2A and 2B. METHODS: Parts 2A and 2B (Phase 2 portions) enrolled patients with relapsed, high-grade, platinum-sensitive or platinum-resistant, BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer who had received 2-4 (Part 2A) or 3-4 (Part 2B) prior chemotherapies. Patients received oral rucaparib 600 mg twice daily (starting dose). The primary endpoint was the investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST v1.1. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were enrolled: 42 in Part 2A (all had platinum-sensitive disease) and 12 in Part 2B (4 with platinum-sensitive disease; 8 with platinum-resistant disease). ORR was 59.3% (95% CI 45.0-72.4%). The median time to onset of the most common nonhaematological treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was typically early (<56 days) and was later for haematological TEAEs (53-84 days). The median duration of grade ≥3 TEAEs was ≤13 days. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with relapsed, platinum-sensitive or platinum-resistant germline BRCA-mutant high-grade ovarian cancer who had received ≥2 prior chemotherapies, rucaparib had robust antitumour activity with a safety profile consistent with prior reports. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01482715.

Emerging peptide therapeutics for the treatment of ovarian cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The discovery of therapeutic proteomic targets has resulted in remarkable advances in oncology. Identification of functional and hallmark peptides in ovarian cancer can be leveraged for diagnostic and therapeutic targeting. These targets are expressed in different tumor cell locations, making them excellent candidates for theranostic imaging, precision therapeutics, and immunotherapy. The ideal target is homogeneously overexpressed in malignant cells with no expression in healthy cells, thereby avoiding off-tumor bystander toxicity. Several peptides are currently undergoing extensive evaluation for the development of vaccines, antibody-drug conjugates, monoclonal antibodies, radioimmunoconjugates, and cell therapy. AREAS COVERED: This review focuses on the significance of peptides as promising targets in ovarian cancer. English peer-reviewed articles and abstracts were searched in MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and major conference databases. EXPERT OPINION: Peptides and proteins expressed in tumor cells are an exciting area of research with great potential and may significantly influence precision therapeutics and immunotherapeutic strategies. Accurate utilization of peptide expression as a predictive biomarker has the potential to greatly enhance treatment precision. The ability to measure receptor expression paves the way for its use as a predictive biomarker for therapeutic targeting and requires critical validation of sensitivity and specificity for each indication to guide therapy.

Symptom screening with Targeted Early Palliative care (STEP) versus usual care for patients with advanced cancer: a mixed methods study.

PURPOSE: Although early palliative care is recommended, resource limitations prevent its routine implementation. We report on the preliminary findings of a mixed methods study involving a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of Symptom screening with Targeted Early Palliative care (STEP) and qualitative interviews. METHODS: Adults with advanced solid tumors and an oncologist-estimated prognosis of 6-36 months were randomized to STEP or symptom screening alone. STEP involved symptom screening at each outpatient oncology visit; moderate to severe scores triggered an email to a palliative care nurse, who offered referral to in-person outpatient palliative care. Patient-reported outcomes of quality of life (FACT-G7; primary outcome), depression (PHQ-9), symptom control (ESAS-r-CS), and satisfaction with care (FAMCARE P-16) were measured at baseline and 2, 4, and 6 months. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a subset of participants. RESULTS: From Aug/2019 to Mar/2020 (trial halted due to COVID-19 pandemic), 69 participants were randomized to STEP (n = 33) or usual care (n = 36). At 6 months, 45% of STEP arm patients and 17% of screening alone participants had received palliative care (p = 0.009). Nonsignificant differences for all outcomes favored STEP: difference in change scores for FACT-G7 = 1.67 (95% CI: -1.43, 4.77); ESAS-r-CS = -5.51 (-14.29, 3.27); FAMCARE P-16 = 4.10 (-0.31, 8.51); PHQ-9 = -2.41 (-5.02, 0.20). Sixteen patients completed qualitative interviews, describing symptom screening as helpful to initiate communication; triggered referral as initially jarring but ultimately beneficial; and referral to palliative care as timely. CONCLUSION: Despite lack of power for this halted trial, preliminary results favored STEP and qualitative results demonstrated acceptability. Findings will inform an RCT of combined in-person and virtual STEP.

A phase I study of the Wee1 kinase inhibitor adavosertib (AZD1775) in combination with chemoradiation in cervical, upper vaginal, and uterine cancers.

OBJECTIVE: Wee1 kinase is a crucial regulator of the G2/M checkpoint which prevents entry of damaged DNA into mitosis. Adavosertib (AZD1775), a selective inhibitor of Wee1, induces G2 escape and increases cytotoxicity when combined with DNA damaging agents. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of adavosertib in combination with definitive pelvic radiotherapy and concurrent cisplatin in patients with gynecological cancers. METHODS: A multi-institutional, open-label phase I trial was designed to assess dose escalation (3+3 design) of adavosertib in combination with standard chemoradiation. Eligible patients with locally advanced cervical, endometrial or vaginal tumors were treated with a 5-week course of pelvic external beam radiation 45-50 Gy in 1.8-2 Gy daily fractions plus concurrent weekly cisplatin 40 mg/m2 and adavosertib 100 mg/m2 on days 1, 3 and 5 of each week during chemoradiation. The primary endpoint was to determine the recommended phase II dose of adavosertib. Secondary endpoints included toxicity profile and preliminary efficacy. RESULTS: Ten patients were enrolled (nine locally advanced cervical and one endometrial cancer). Two patients experienced a dose-limiting toxicity at dose level 1 (adavosertib 100 mg by mouth daily on days 1, 3 and 5), including one patient with grade 4 thrombocytopenia, and one with treatment hold >1 week due to grade 1 creatinine elevation and grade 1 thrombocytopenia. At dose level -1 (adavosertib 100 mg by mouth daily on days 3 and 5), one out of five patients enrolled had a dose-limiting toxicity in the form of persistent grade 3 diarrhea. The overall response rate at 4 months was 71.4%, including four complete responses. At 2 years follow-up, 86% of patients were alive and progression-free. CONCLUSION: The recommended phase II dose could not be determined due to clinical toxicity and early trial closure. Preliminary efficacy appears promising, yet selecting the adequate dose/schedule in combination chemoradiation warrants further investigation to limit overlapping toxicities.

Management of Malignant Bowel Obstruction: An Innovative Proactive Outpatient Nurse-Led Model of Care for Patients With Advanced Gynecologic Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) in patients with advanced gynecologic cancer (GyCa) can negatively impact clinical outcomes and quality of life. Oncology nurses can support these patients with adequate tools/processes. PROBLEM: Patients with GyCa with/at risk of MBO endure frequent emergency or hospital admissions, impacting patient care. APPROACH: Optimizing oncology nurses' role to improve care for patients with GyCa with/at risk of MBO, the gynecology oncology interprofessional team collaborated to develop a proactive outpatient nurse-led MBO model of care (MOC). OUTCOMES: The MBO MOC involves a risk-based algorithm engaging interdisciplinary care, utilizing standardized tools, risk-based assessment, management, and education for patients and nurses. The MOC has improved patient-reported confidence level of bowel self-management and decreased hospitalization. Following education, nurses demonstrated increased knowledge in MBO management. CONCLUSIONS: An outpatient nurse-led MBO MOC can improve patient care and may be extended to other cancer centers, fostering collaboration and best practice.

Rucaparib versus standard-of-care chemotherapy in patients with relapsed ovarian cancer and a deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation (ARIEL4): an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Few prospective studies have compared poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors to chemotherapy for the treatment of BRCA1-mutated or BRCA2-mutated ovarian carcinoma. We aimed to assess rucaparib versus platinum-based and non-platinum-based chemotherapy in this setting. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study (ARIEL4), conducted in 64 hospitals and cancer centres across 12 countries (Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Poland, Russia, Spain, Ukraine, the UK, and the USA), we recruited patients aged 18 years and older with BRCA1-mutated or BRCA2-mutated ovarian carcinoma, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and who had received two or more previous chemotherapy regimens. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (2:1), using an interactive response technology and block randomisation (block size of six) and stratified by progression-free interval after the most recent platinum-containing therapy, to oral rucaparib (600 mg twice daily) or chemotherapy (administered per institutional guidelines). Patients assigned to the chemotherapy group with platinum-resistant or partially platinum-sensitive disease were given paclitaxel (starting dose 60-80 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15); those with fully platinum-sensitive disease received platinum-based chemotherapy (single-agent cisplatin or carboplatin, or platinum-doublet chemotherapy). Patients were treated in 21-day or 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, assessed in the efficacy population (all randomly assigned patients with deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations without reversion mutations), and then in the intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned patients). Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of assigned study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02855944; enrolment is complete, and the study is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2017, and Sept 24, 2020, 930 patients were screened, of whom 349 eligible patients were randomly assigned to rucaparib (n=233) or chemotherapy (n=116). Median age was 58 years (IQR 52-64) and 332 (95%) patients were White. As of data cutoff (Sept 30, 2020), median follow-up was 25·0 months (IQR 13·8-32·5). In the efficacy population (220 patients in the rucaparib group; 105 in the chemotherapy group), median progression-free survival was 7·4 months (95% CI 7·3-9·1) in the rucaparib group versus 5·7 months (5·5-7·3) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·64 [95% CI 0·49-0·84]; p=0·0010). In the intention-to-treat population (233 in the rucaparib group; 116 in the chemotherapy group), median progression-free survival was 7·4 months (95% CI 6·7-7·9) in the rucaparib group versus 5·7 months (5·5-6·7) in the chemotherapy group (HR 0·67 [95% CI 0·52-0·86]; p=0·0017). Most treatment-emergent adverse events were grade 1 or 2. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse event was anaemia or decreased haemoglobin (in 52 [22%] of 232 patients in the rucaparib group vs six [5%] of 113 in the chemotherapy group). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 62 (27%) patients in the rucaparib group versus 13 (12%) in the chemotherapy group; serious adverse events considered related to treatment by the investigator occurred in 32 (14%) patients in the rucaparib group and six (5%) in the chemotherapy group. Three deaths were considered to be potentially related to rucaparib (one due to cardiac disorder, one due to myelodysplastic syndrome, and one with an unconfirmed cause). INTERPRETATION: Results from the ARIEL4 study support rucaparib as an alternative treatment option to chemotherapy for patients with relapsed, BRCA1-mutated or BRCA2-mutated ovarian carcinoma. FUNDING: Clovis Oncology.

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.

Adavosertib plus gemcitabine for platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory recurrent ovarian cancer: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The Wee1 (WEE1hu) inhibitor adavosertib and gemcitabine have shown preclinical synergy and promising activity in early phase clinical trials. We aimed to determine the efficacy of this combination in patients with ovarian cancer. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial, women with measurable recurrent platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory high-grade serous ovarian cancer were recruited from 11 academic centres in the USA and Canada. Women were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, a life expectancy of more than 3 months, and normal organ and marrow function. Women with ovarian cancer of non-high-grade serous histology were eligible for enrolment in a non-randomised exploratory cohort. Eligible participants with high-grade serous ovarian cancer were randomly assigned (2:1), using block randomisation (block size of three and six) and no stratification, to receive intravenous gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15) with either oral adavosertib (175 mg) or identical placebo once daily on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16, in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients and the team caring for each patient were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. The safety and efficacy analysis population comprised all patients who received at least one dose of treatment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02151292, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Sept 22, 2014, and May 30, 2018, 124 women were enrolled, of whom 99 had high-grade serous ovarian cancer and were randomly assigned to adavosertib plus gemcitabine (65 [66%]) or placebo plus gemcitabine (34 [34%]). 25 women with non-high-grade serous ovarian cancer were enrolled in the exploratory cohort. After randomisation, five patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer were found to be ineligible (four in the experimental group and one in the control group) and did not receive treatment. Median age for all treated patients (n=119) was 62 years (IQR 54-67). Progression-free survival was longer with adavosertib plus gemcitabine (median 4·6 months [95% CI 3·6-6·4] with adavosertib plus gemcitabine vs 3·0 months [1·8-3·8] with placebo plus gemcitabine; hazard ratio 0·55 [95% CI 0·35-0·90]; log-rank p=0·015). The most frequent grade 3 or worse adverse events were haematological (neutropenia in 38 [62%] of 61 participants in the adavosertib plus gemcitabine group vs ten [30%] of 33 in the placebo plus gemcitabine group; thrombocytopenia in 19 [31%] of 61 in the adavosertib plus gemcitabine group vs two [6%] of 33 in the placebo plus gemcitabine group). There were no treatment-related deaths; two patients (one in each group in the high-grade serous ovarian cancer cohort) died while on study medication (from sepsis in the experimental group and from disease progression in the control group). INTERPRETATION: The observed clinical efficacy of a Wee1 inhibitor combined with gemcitabine supports ongoing assessment of DNA damage response drugs in high-grade serous ovarian cancer, a TP53-mutated tumour type with high replication stress. This therapeutic approach might be applicable to other tumour types with high replication stress; larger confirmatory studies are required. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, US Department of Defense, Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation, and AstraZeneca.

Patient self-reporting of tolerability using PRO-CTCAE in a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial comparing gemcitabine in combination with adavosertib or placebo in patients with platinum resistant or refractory epithelial ovarian carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial assessed gemcitabine in combination with the wee1 inhibitor adavosertib or placebo in platinum resistant or refractory high grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC), demonstrating improved progression free and overall survival favouring the adavosertib/gemcitabine arm. An exploratory objective of the study included the PRO-CTCAE assessment, to capture self-reporting of frequency, severity and/or interference of symptomatic adverse events (syAEs). METHODS: PRO-CTCAE items at baseline, days 1 and 15 of each cycle and off treatment, were completed in two centres, with the objective of characterizing syAEs in the first three months of therapy. The maximum post-baseline score proportion for each syAE was tabulated per patient. The 12-week area under the curve (AUC12w) as a measure of syAE over-time and incremental AUC12w (iAUC12w) for adjustment to baseline syAEs. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients were approached for PRO-CTCAE surveys and 55 were evaluable. Among patients with HGSOC, 28 received gemcitabine/adavosertib (arm A) and 19 gemcitabine/placebo (arm B). Survey completion rates were high. The proportion of participants with positive (≥1) PRO-CTCAE scores was higher for difficulty swallowing with gemcitabine/adavosertib (arm A 35.7% vs arm B 5.3%, p = 0.02). The high score (≥3) syAEs showed more frequent diarrhea with gemcitabine/adavosertib (arm A 25% vs arm B 0%, p = 0.03). The proportions of worsening syAEs over time were higher in patients receiving gemcitabine/adavosertib for difficulty swallowing (arm A 35.7% vs arm B 5.3%; p = 0.03) and fatigue severity (arm A 71.43% vs arm B 42.1%; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The longitudinal assessment of patient self-reported tolerability showed greater difficulty swallowing and fatigue severity in patients receiving gemcitabine/adavosertib, compared to gemcitabine/placebo. PRO-CTCAE provides complementary and objective assessment of drug tolerability from a patient's perspective.

Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment concerns (MOST) indexes and their associations with health-related quality of life in recurrent ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: The Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment (MOST) concerns is a validated patient-reported symptom assessment tool for assessing symptom benefit and adverse effects of palliative chemotherapy in women with recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC). We aimed to examine (i) how symptoms within MOST symptom indexes track together (i.e. co-occur) and (ii) the association between MOST symptom indexes and key aspects of health-related quality of life (HRQL). METHOD: A prospective cohort of women with ROC completed the MOST-T35, EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-OV28 at baseline and before each cycle of chemotherapy. Analyses were conducted on baseline and end-of-treatment data. Exploratory factor analysis and hierarchical cluster analysis identified groups of co-occurring symptoms. Path models examined associations between MOST symptom indexes and HRQL. RESULTS: Data from 762 women at baseline and 681 at treatment-end who completed all 22 symptom-specific MOST items and at least one HRQL measure were analysed. Four symptom clusters emerged at baseline and treatment-end: abdominal symptoms, symptoms associated with peripheral neuropathy, nausea and vomiting, and psychological symptoms. Psychological symptoms (MOST-Psych) and symptoms due to disease (ovarian cancer) or treatment (MOST-DorT) were associated with poorer scores on QLQ-C30 and OV28 functioning domains and worse overall health at both time points. CONCLUSION: Four MOST symptom clusters were consistent across statistical methods and time points. These findings suggest that routine standardized assessment of psychological and physical symptoms in clinical practice with MOST plus appropriate symptom management referral pathways is an intervention for improving HRQL that warrants further research.

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.

ADAGIO: a phase IIb international study of the Wee1 inhibitor adavosertib in women with recurrent or persistent uterine serous carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Uterine serous carcinoma is a distinct histologic subtype of endometrial cancer with an aggressive phenotype, poor prognosis, and limited therapeutic options. A previous proof-of-concept phase II trial of the Wee1 inhibitor adavosertib in uterine serous carcinoma demonstrated evidence of durable clinical activity. PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of adavosertib in women with recurrent or persistent uterine serous carcinoma. STUDY HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesize that adavosertib will demonstrate significant clinical activity, as measured by objective response rate, in women with recurrent or persistent uterine serous carcinoma. TRIAL DESIGN: Eligible participants will receive adavosertib monotherapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, starting at the recommended phase II dosing of adavosertib 300 mg daily days 1 through 5 and 8 through 12 of a 21-day cycle. Participants will have restaging studies every 6 weeks for the first 48 weeks and then every 9 weeks thereafter. MAJOR INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Patients with histologically confirmed recurrent or persistent uterine serous carcinoma, including endometrial carcinoma of mixed histology where the serous component comprises at least 10% of the tumor, and who have received at least one prior platinum-based chemotherapy regimen for the management of uterine serous carcinoma, are eligible for inclusion in the trial. Participants must have measurable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 criteria. Participants with carcinosarcoma are not eligible. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: The primary endpoint is the objective response rate by RECIST 1.1 criteria, as determined by blinded independent central review. SAMPLE SIZE: Approximately 120 patients will be enrolled in this trial. ESTIMATED DATES FOR COMPLETING AND PRESENTING RESULTS: Study completion and presentation of results are projected to be at the end of 2022. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04590248.

Brief family history questionnaire to screen for Lynch syndrome in women with newly diagnosed non-serous, non-mucinous ovarian cancers.

OBJECTIVES: While ovarian cancer is the third most common Lynch syndrome-associated cancer in women, there is no established screening strategy to identify Lynch syndrome in this population. The objective of this study was to assess whether the 4-item brief Family History Questionnaire can be used as a screening tool to identify women with ovarian cancer at risk of Lynch syndrome. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, participants with newly diagnosed non-serous, non-mucinous ovarian cancer completed the brief Family History Questionnaire, extended Family History Questionnaire, and had tumors assessed with immunohistochemistry for mismatch repair proteins, MLH1 methylation, and microsatellite instability testing. All underwent universal germline testing for Lynch syndrome. Performance characteristics were compared between the brief Family History Questionnaire, extended Family History Questionnaire, immunohistochemistry±MLH1 methylation, and microsatellite instability testing. RESULTS: Of 215 participants, 169 (79%) were evaluable with both the brief Family History Questionnaire and germline mutation status; 12 of these 169 were confirmed to have Lynch syndrome (7%). 10 of 12 patients (83%) with Lynch syndrome were correctly identified by the brief Family History Questionnaire, compared with 6 of 11 (55%) by the extended Family History Questionnaire, 11 of 13 (85%) by immunohistochemistry±MLH1 methylation, and 9 of 11 (82%) by microsatellite instability testing. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values of the brief Family History Questionnaire were 83%, 65%, 15%, and 98%, respectively. A combined approach with immunohistochemistry and the brief Family History Questionnaire correctly identified all 12 patients with Lynch syndrome. The brief Family History Questionnaire was more sensitive than the extended Family History Questionnaire and took <10 min for each patient to complete. CONCLUSIONS: The brief Family History Questionnaire alone or combined with immunohistochemistry may serve as an adequate screening strategy, especially in centers without access to universal tumor testing.

Interobserver and intraobserver variability of RECIST assessment in ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Measurement of Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) relies on reproducible unidimensional tumor measurements. This study assessed intraobserver and interobserver variability of target lesion selection and measurement, according to RECIST version 1.1 in patients with ovarian cancer. METHODS: Eight international radiologists independently viewed 47 images demonstrating malignant lesions in patients with ovarian cancer and selected and measured lesions according to RECIST V.1.1 criteria. Thirteen images were viewed twice. Interobserver variability of selection and measurement were calculated for all images. Intraobserver variability of selection and measurement were calculated for images viewed twice. Lesions were classified according to their anatomical site as pulmonary, hepatic, pelvic mass, peritoneal, lymph nodal, or other. Lesion selection variability was assessed by calculating the reproducibility rate. Lesion measurement variability was assessed with the intra-class correlation coefficient. RESULTS: From 47 images, 82 distinct lesions were identified. For lesion selection, the interobserver and intraobserver reproducibility rates were high, at 0.91 and 0.93, respectively. Interobserver selection reproducibility was highest (reproducibility rate 1) for pelvic mass and other lesions. Intraobserver selection reproducibility was highest (reproducibility rate 1) for pelvic mass, hepatic, nodal, and other lesions. Selection reproducibility was lowest for peritoneal lesions (interobserver reproducibility rate 0.76 and intraobserver reproducibility rate 0.69). For lesion measurement, the overall interobserver and intraobserver intraclass correlation coefficients showed very good concordance of 0.84 and 0.94, respectively. Interobserver intraclass correlation coefficient showed very good concordance for hepatic, pulmonary, peritoneal, and other lesions, and ranged from 0.84 to 0.97, but only moderate concordance for lymph node lesions (0.58). Intraobserver intraclass correlation coefficient showed very good concordance for all lesions, ranging from 0.82 to 0.99. In total, 85% of total measurement variability resulted from interobserver measurement difference. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that while selection and measurement concordance were high, there was significant interobserver and intraobserver variability. Most resulted from interobserver variability. Compared with other lesions, peritoneal lesions had the lowest selection reproducibility, and lymph node lesions had the lowest measurement concordance. These factors need consideration to improve response assessment, especially as progression free survival remains the most common endpoint in phase III trials.

Symptom burden and quality of life with chemotherapy for recurrent ovarian cancer: the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup-Symptom Benefit Study.

OBJECTIVE: The Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG)-Symptom Benefit Study was designed to evaluate the effects of chemotherapy on symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQL) in women having chemotherapy for platinum resistant/refractory recurrent ovarian cancer (PRR-ROC) and potentially platinum sensitive with ≥3 lines of chemotherapy (PPS-ROC ≥3). METHODS: Participants completed the Measure of Ovarian Cancer Symptoms and Treatment (MOST) and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire QLQ-C30 questionnaires at baseline and every 3-4 weeks until progression. Participants were classified symptomatic if they rated ≥4 of 10 in at least one-third of symptoms in the MOST index. Improvement in MOST was defined as two consecutive scores of ≤3 in at least half of the symptomatic items at baseline. Improvement in HRQL was defined as two consecutive scores ≥10 points above baseline in the QLQ-C30 summary score scale (range 0-100). RESULTS: Of 948 participants enrolled, 910 (96%) completed baseline questionnaires: 546 with PRR-ROC and 364 with PPS-ROC ≥3. The proportions of participants symptomatic at baseline as per MOST indexes were: abdominal 54%, psychological 53%, and disease- or treatment-related 35%. Improvement was reported in MOST indexes: abdominal 40%, psychological 35%, and disease- or treatment-related 38%. Median time to improvement in abdominal symptoms occurred earlier for PRR-ROC than for PPS-ROC ≥3 (4 vs 6 weeks, p=0.044); median duration of improvement was also similar (9.0 vs 11.7 weeks, p=0.65). Progression-free survival was longer among those with improvement in abdominal symptoms than in those without (median 7.2 vs 2.5 months, p<0.0001). Improvements in HRQL were reported by 77/448 (17%) with PRR-ROC and 61/301 (20%) with PPS-ROC ≥3 (p=0.29), and 102/481 (21%) of those with abdominal symptoms at baseline. CONCLUSION: Over 50% of participants reported abdominal and psychological symptoms at baseline. Of those, 40% reported an improvement within 2 months of starting chemotherapy. Approximately one in six participants reported an improvement in HRQL. Symptom monitoring and supportive care is important as chemotherapy palliated less than half of symptomatic participants.