Fertility outcomes following surgery and multiagent chemotherapy in malignant ovarian germ cell tumor survivors: a survey study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess fertility outcomes in long-term survivors of malignant ovarian germ cell tumors treated with fertility-sparing surgery with or without additional chemotherapy. METHODS: Women diagnosed and treated for malignant ovarian germ cell tumors at Charing Cross Hospital or Mount Vernon Cancer Centre between 1977 and 2015 were included. Questionnaires assessing fertility issues were sent to patients treated with fertility-sparing surgery. Fertility outcomes were evaluated according to the treatment received. The effect of the mean total dose of cyclophosphamide and cisplatin was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 146 patients were sent the questionnaire; 77 (56.5%) patients were included in the analysis. A total of 49 (64%) patients received platinum-based chemotherapy after surgery, 39 (79.6%) of these with cisplatin, vincristine, methotrexate, bleomycin, actinomycin D, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide, while 10 (20.4%) with bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin. After any treatment, 39/46 patients (85%) became pregnant: the conception rate was not different between those receiving surgery only and those receiving also chemotherapy (85.7% vs 84.4%, p=1.0). Live birth rate was 80.4% (37/46), with no statistically significant difference between the treatment groups (p=0.42). Median age of women achieving conception was 29 years (IQR 26-33). The probability of live birth at 5 years was 48% and 40% for patients in the surgery only and chemotherapy group, respectively (p=0.55). Infertility and miscarriage rates did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups (p=0.30 and p=0.32). The mean doses of cisplatin and cyclophosphamide received by patients failing and achieving conception were not different (p=0.10, p=0.47). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that fertility may not be hampered in patients with malignant ovarian germ cell tumor treated with fertility-sparing surgery or receiving additional chemotherapy.

Pazopanib and Fosbretabulin in recurrent ovarian cancer (PAZOFOS): A multi-centre, phase 1b and open-label, randomised phase 2 trial.

OBJECTIVE: Vascular co-option is a resistance mechanism to anti-angiogenic agents, but combinations of anti-vascular agents may overcome this resistance. We report a phase 1b and randomised phase 2 trial to determine the safety and efficacy of pazopanib with fosbretabulin. METHODS: Eligible patients had recurrent, epithelial ovarian cancer with a platinum-free interval (PFI) of 3 to 12 months. Patients were stratified according to PFI (>6 versus ≤6 months) and prior bevacizumab use. RESULTS: Twelve patients were treated in the phase 1b. Commonest grade ≥ 2 adverse events (AEs) were hypertension (100%), neutropenia (50%), fatigue (50%), vomiting (50%). There was one DLT (grade 3 fatigue). The recommended phase 2 dose level was fosbretabulin 54 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15 and pazopanib 600 mg once daily (od), every 28 days, which was then compared to pazopanib 800 mg od in a randomised phase 2 trial. Twenty-one patients were randomised (1:1) in the phase 2 trial. In phase 1b and phase 2, four patients treated with pazopanib and fosbretabulin developed reversible, treatment-related cardiac AEs, leading to premature discontinuation of the study. In the phase 2 trial, the median PFS was 7.6 months (95% CI 4.1-not estimated) versus 3.7 months (95% CI 1.0-8.1) in favour of the experimental arm (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.09-1.03, P = .06). CONCLUSIONS: It remains unclear whether pazopanib with with fosbretabulin is an efficacious regimen to treat epithelial ovarian cancer. Effective cardiac risk mitigation is needed to increase the tolerability and maximize patient safety in future trials.

Maximal-Effort Cytoreductive Surgery for Ovarian Cancer Patients with a High Tumor Burden: Variations in Practice and Impact on Outcome.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the outcomes of two distinct patient populations treated within two neighboring UK cancer centers (A and B) for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all new stages 3 and 4 EOC patients treated between January 2013 and December 2014 was performed. The Mayo Clinic surgical complexity score (SCS) was applied. Cox regression analysis identified the impact of treatment methods on survival. RESULTS: The study identified 249 patients (127 at center A and 122 in centre B) without significant differences in International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage (FIGO 4, 29.7% at centers A and B), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (ECOG < 2, 89.9% at centers A and B), or histology (serous type in 84.1% at centers A and B). The patients at center A were more likely to undergo surgery (87% vs 59.8%; p < 0.001). The types of chemotherapy and the patients receiving palliative treatment alone were equivalent between the two centers (3.6%). The median SCS was significantly higher at center A (9 vs 2; p < 0.001) with greater tumor burden (9 vs 6 abdominal fields involved; p < 0.001), longer median operation times (285 vs 155 min; p < 0.001), and longer hospital stays (9 vs 6 days; p < 0.001), but surgical morbidity and mortality were equivalent. The independent predictors of reduced overall survival (OS) were non-serous histology (hazard ratio [HR], 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-2.61), ECOG higher than 2 (HR, 1.9; 95% CI 1.15-3.13), and palliation alone (HR, 3.43; 95% CI 1.51-7.81). Cytoreduction, of any timing, had an independent protective impact on OS compared with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.31 for interval surgery and 0.39 for primary surgery), even after adjustment for other prognostic factors. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating surgery into the initial EOC management, even for those patients with a greater tumor burden and more disseminated disease, may require more complex procedures and more resources in terms of theater time and hospital stay, but seems to be associated with a significant prolongation of the patients overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone.

An international, phase III randomized trial in patients with mucinous epithelial ovarian cancer (mEOC/GOG 0241) with long-term follow-up: and experience of conducting a clinical trial in a rare gynecological tumor.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated four different treatment regimens for advanced-stage mucinous epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter randomized factorial trial (UK and US). Patients were diagnosed with primary mEOC: FIGO stage II-IV or recurrence after stage I disease. Treatment arms were paclitaxel-carboplatin, oxaliplatin-capecitabine, paclitaxel-carboplatin-bevacizumab, or oxaliplatin-capecitabine-bevacizumab. Chemotherapy was given 3-weekly for 6 cycles, and bevacizumab (3-weekly) was continued as maintenance (for 12 cycles). Endpoints included overall-survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: The trial stopped after 50 patients were recruited due to slow accrual. Median follow-up was 59 months. OS hazard ratios (HR) for the two main comparisons were: 0.78 (p = 0.48) for Oxal-Cape vs. Pac-Carbo (each with/without bevacizumab), and 1.04 (p = 0.92) for bevacizumab vs. no bevacizumab. Corresponding PFS HRs were: 0.84 and 0.80. Retrospective central pathology review revealed only 45% (18/40) cases with available material had confirmed primary mEOC. Among these, OS HR for Oxal-Cape vs. Pac-Carbo was 0.36 (p = 0.14); PFS HR = 0.62 (p = 0.40). Grade 3-4 toxicity was seen in 61% Pac-Carbo, 61% Oxal-Cape, 54% Pac-Carbo-Bev, and 85% Oxal-Cape-Bev. QoL was similar between the four arms. CONCLUSION: mEOC/GOG0241 represents an example of a randomized rare tumor trial. Logistical challenges led to early termination, including difficulties in local histopathological diagnosis and accessing drugs outside their labelled indication. There was misalignment between central funders who support clinical trials in rare cancers and the deprioritisation of such work by those managing and funding research at a local level. Rare cancer trials should include centralised pathology review before treatment. Clinical trial registry number: ISRCTN83438782.

Impact of retrospective data verification to prepare the ICON6 trial for use in a marketing authorization application.

BACKGROUND: The ICON6 trial (ISRCTN68510403) is a phase III academic-led, international, randomized, three-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the addition of cediranib to chemotherapy in recurrent ovarian cancer. It investigated the use of placebo during chemotherapy and maintenance (arm A), cediranib alongside chemotherapy followed by placebo maintenance (arm B) and cediranib throughout both periods (arm C). Results of the primary comparison showed a meaningful gain in progression-free survival (time to progression or death from any cause) when comparing arm A (placebo) with arm C (cediranib). As a consequence of the positive results, AstraZeneca was engaged with the Medical Research Council trials unit to discuss regulatory submission using ICON6 as the single pivotal trial. METHODS: A relatively limited level of on-site monitoring, single data entry and investigator's local evaluation of progression were used on trial. In order to submit a license application, it was decided that (a) extensive retrospective source data verification of medical records against case report forms should be performed, (b) further quality control checks for accuracy of data entry should be performed and (c) blinded independent central review of images used to define progression should be undertaken. To assess the value of these extra activities, we summarize the impact on both efficacy and safety outcomes. RESULTS: Data point changes were minimal; those key to the primary results had a 0.47% error rate (36/7686), and supporting data points had a 0.18% error rate (109/59,261). The impact of the source data verification and quality control processes were analyzed jointly. The conclusion drawn for the primary outcome measure of progression-free survival between arm A and arm C was unchanged. The log-rank test p-value changed only at the sixth decimal place, the hazard ratio does not change from 0.57 with the exception of a marginal change in its upper bound (0.74-0.73) and the median progression-free survival benefit from arm C remained at 2.4 months. Separately, the blinded independent central review of progression scans was performed as a sensitivity analysis. Estimates and p values varied slightly but overall demonstrated a difference in arms, which is consistent with the initial result. Some increases in toxicity were observed, though these were generally minor, with the exception of hypertension. However, none of these increases were systematically biased toward one arm. CONCLUSION: The conduct of this pragmatic, academic-sponsored trial was sufficient given the robustness of the results, shown by the results remaining largely unchanged following retrospective verification despite not being designed for use in a marketing authorization. The burden of such comprehensive retrospective effort required to ensure the results of ICON6 were acceptable to regulators is difficult to justify.

Long-term efficacy, tolerability and overall survival in patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent high-grade serous ovarian cancer treated with maintenance olaparib capsules following response to chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: In Study 19, maintenance monotherapy with olaparib significantly prolonged progression-free survival vs placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent high-grade serous ovarian cancer. METHODS: Study 19 was a randomised, placebo-controlled, Phase II trial enrolling 265 patients who had received at least two platinum-based chemotherapy regimens and were in complete or partial response to their most recent regimen. Patients were randomised to olaparib (capsules; 400 mg bid) or placebo. We present long-term safety and final mature overall survival (OS; 79% maturity) data, from the last data cut-off (9 May 2016). RESULTS: Thirty-two patients (24%) received maintenance olaparib for over 2 years; 15 (11%) did so for over 6 years. No new tolerability signals were identified with long-term treatment and adverse events were generally low grade. The incidence of discontinuations due to adverse events was low (6%). An apparent OS advantage was observed with olaparib vs placebo (hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.55‒0.95, P = 0.02138) irrespective of BRCA1/2 mutation status, although the predefined threshold for statistical significance was not met. CONCLUSIONS: Study 19 showed a favourable final OS result irrespective of BRCA1/2 mutation status and unprecedented long-term benefit with maintenance olaparib for a subset of platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer patients.

Cediranib in patients with relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer (ICON6): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Angiogenesis is a validated clinical target in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Cediranib is an oral antiangiogenic vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1-3 inhibitor that has shown antitumour activity in recurrent ovarian cancer. We assessed efficacy and safety of cediranib in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy and as continued maintenance treatment in patients with first relapse of platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. METHODS: In this randomised, three-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients aged 18 years or older with relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer at 63 centres in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Spain, and the UK. Participants received up to six cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy (once every 3 weeks) then entered a maintenance phase. Participants were randomly allocated (2:3:3), with five stratification factors and in alternating blocks, to receive placebo alongside chemotherapy and then placebo only maintenance (arm A; reference), cediranib 20 mg once-daily alongside chemotherapy then placebo only maintenance (arm B; concurrent), or cediranib 20 mg once-daily alongside chemotherapy then cediranib 20 mg once-daily maintenance (arm C; maintenance). Patients continued treatment to progression or excessive toxic effects. The primary efficacy endpoint was progression-free survival between arms A and C. Efficacy analysis was by intention to treat. Safety was assessed in all patients who received the allocated study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00532194; the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN68510403; and ANZ Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN1261000016003. FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 486 [corrected] women between Nov 13, 2007, and Dec 23, 2011; results presented are for 456 patients randomly assigned subsequent to the 30mg safety phase. During a median of 19·5 months (IQR 14-26) follow-up, 113 (96%) of 118 women assigned to arm A and 141 (86%) of 164 assigned to arm C had disease progression. Median progression-free survival was 11·0 months (95% CI 10·4-11·7) in arm C and 8·7 months (7·7-9·4) in arm A (hazard ratio 0·56, 0·44-0·72, p<0·0001). 156 (90%) of 174 patients in arm B had disease progression, and median progression-free survival was 9·9 months (95% CI 9·4-10·5). Diarrhoea, neutropenia, hypertension, and voice changes were significantly more common, during chemotherapy with cediranib, and diarrhoea, hypothyroidism and voice changes were more common during maintenance. Poor compliance with cediranib was noted during maintenance treatment with toxic effects being the most common cause for discontinuation. INTERPRETATION: Cediranib, when given orally with chemotherapy and continued as maintenance, yielded a meaningful improvement [corrected] in progression-free survival in women with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer, albeit with added toxic effects. The positive results in ICON6 could provide women with a new therapeutic option for recurrent ovarian cancer. Assessment of the secondary endpoint of overall survival will need longer follow-up. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, Cancer Australia, National Gynecological Cancer Centre, and AstraZeneca.

Audit of CA125 Follow-Up After First-Line Therapy for Ovarian Cancer.

AIMS: The Medical Research Council OVO5/EORTC 55955 trial showed that patients in remission after first-line therapy for ovarian cancer did not benefit from routine measurement of CA125 during follow-up. Since the presentation of these results, we have counseled patients about the options for follow-up and provided them with an information leaflet about the trial results and the symptoms that should prompt an early appointment and CA125 measurement. We present an audit of practice after the presentation of those results. METHODS: The medical records of 143 consecutive patients completing first-line therapy for epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer in our unit between July 2009 and December 2013 were analyzed. RESULTS: An agreed plan of CA125 follow-up was recorded in 69 (79%) of 87 eligible patients on completion of first-line therapy. No routine CA125 follow-up was selected by 55 (80%) patients, and routine CA125 follow-up was selected by 14 (20%), of whom 3 wished not to be informed of the results. CA125 levels were checked in 28 (51%) patients in the no routine CA125 follow-up group, in 26 cases because of the development of symptoms. Relapse was confirmed in 22. Median follow-up was 360 days (range, 100-836). CA125 levels were checked in all 14 patients who had requested routine CA125 follow-up. Relapse has been confirmed in 2 patients. Median follow-up was 560 days (range, 500-620). CONCLUSIONS: If patients are given sufficient information about the role of routine CA125 measurements during follow-up, the majority decide against CA125 monitoring and hence, avoid these blood tests.

Overall survival in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer receiving olaparib maintenance monotherapy: an updated analysis from a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer, maintenance monotherapy with the PARP inhibitor olaparib significantly improves progression-free survival versus placebo. We assessed the effect of maintenance olaparib on overall survival in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer, including those with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations (BRCAm). METHODS: In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial involving 82 sites across 16 countries, patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer who had received two or more courses of platinum-based chemotherapy and had responded to their latest regimen were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated sequence to receive oral maintenance olaparib (as capsules; 400 mg twice a day) or a matching placebo by an interactive voice response system. Patients were stratified by ancestry, time to progression on penultimate platinum, and response to most recent platinum. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment by the use of unique identifiers generated during randomisation. The primary endpoint of the trial was progression-free survival. In this updated analysis, we present data for overall survival, a secondary endpoint, from the third data analysis after more than 5 years' follow-up (intention-to-treat population). We did the updated overall survival analysis, described in this Article at 77% data maturity, using a two-sided α of 0·95%. As the study was not powered to assess overall survival, this analysis should be regarded as descriptive and the p values are nominal. We analysed randomly assigned patients for overall survival and all patients who received at least one dose of treatment for safety. This trial is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00753545. FINDINGS: Between Aug 28, 2008, and Feb 9, 2010, 265 patients were randomly assigned to olaparib (n=136) or placebo (n=129). 136 patients had deleterious BRCAm. The data cutoff for this analysis was Sept 30, 2015. An overall survival advantage was seen with maintenance olaparib versus placebo in all patients (hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·55-0·96]; nominal p=0·025, which did not meet the required threshold for statistical significance [p<0·0095]; median overall survival was 29·8 months [95% CI 26·9-35·7] for those treated with olaparib vs 27·8 months [24·9-33·7] for those treated with placebo), and in patients with BRCAm (HR 0·62 [95% CI 0·41-0·94] nominal p=0·025; 34·9 months [95% CI 29·2-54·6] vs 30·2 months [23·1-40·7]). The overall survival data in patients with BRCA wild-type were HR 0·83 (95% CI 0·55-1·24, nominal p=0·37; 24·5 months [19·8-35·0] for those treated with olaparib vs 26·6 months [23·1-32·5] for those treated with placebo). 11 (15%) of 74 patients with BRCAm received maintenance olaparib for 5 years or more. Overall, common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the olaparib and placebo groups were fatigue (11 [8%] of 136 patients vs four [3%] of 128) and anaemia (eight [6%] vs one [1%]). 30 (22%) of 136 patients in the olaparib group and 11 (9%) of 128 patients in the placebo group reported serious adverse events. In patients treated for 2 years or more, adverse events in the olaparib and placebo groups included low-grade nausea (24 [75%] of 32 patients vs two [40%] of five), fatigue (18 [56%] of 32 vs two [40%] of five), vomiting (12 [38%] of 32 vs zero), and anaemia (eight [25%] of 32 vs one [20%] of five); generally, events were initially reported during the first 2 years of treatment. INTERPRETATION: Despite not reaching statistical significance, patients with BRCA-mutated platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer receiving olaparib maintenance monotherapy after platinum-based chemotherapy appeared to have longer overall survival, supporting the reported progression-free survival benefit. Clinically useful long-term exposure to olaparib was seen with no new safety signals. Taken together, these data support both the long-term clinical benefit and tolerability of maintenance olaparib in patients with BRCA-mutated platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Olaparib maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed serous ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation: Overall survival adjusted for postprogression poly(adenosine diphosphate ribose) polymerase inhibitor therapy.

BACKGROUND: Maintenance treatment with the oral poly(adenosine diphosphate ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza) in Study 19 (study number, D0810C00019; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00753545) significantly improved progression-free survival in comparison with a placebo for patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed serous ovarian cancer with a BRCA1/2 mutation (BRCAm), but an interim analysis revealed no statistically significant overall survival (OS) benefit. However, 23% of the patients receiving the placebo switched to a PARP inhibitor after progression. To investigate whether this had a confounding effect on OS, this article reports an exploratory post hoc analysis that excluded all patients from sites where 1 or more placebo patients received postprogression PARP inhibitor treatment. METHODS: In Study 19, 136 of the 265 patients receiving olaparib or a placebo had a BRCAm. Sixteen patients treated at 11 of the 82 investigational sites received a PARP inhibitor after progression; these sites were excluded from this analysis, and 97 BRCAm patients at 50 sites were included. OS was assessed with a Cox proportional hazards model analogous to the primary study analysis. A supporting rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) model analysis was undertaken for all 136 BRCAm patients. RESULTS: The OS hazard ratio (HR) was 0.52 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.97) for the 97 BRCAm patients, whereas for the interim OS analysis with all 136 BRCAm patients, it was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.45-1.17). The supportive RPSFT analysis HR was approximately 0.66. CONCLUSIONS: The numerical improvement in the OS HR suggests that in Study 19, postprogression PARP inhibitor treatment had a confounding influence on the interim OS analysis for BRCAm patients. There is a degree of uncertainty due to the small sample size and the lack of data maturity. Cancer 2016;122:1844-52. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Quality of life during olaparib maintenance therapy in platinum-sensitive relapsed serous ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Maintenance monotherapy with the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib significantly prolongs progression-free survival over placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed serous ovarian cancer, with greatest benefit seen in patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation (BRCAm). Preservation of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is important during maintenance therapy; we evaluated the effect of olaparib on HRQoL in this Phase II trial (NCT00753545, Study 19). METHODS: Patients received olaparib 400 mg b.i.d. (capsules) or placebo until progression. Patient-reported HRQoL and disease-related symptoms were evaluated using the FACT-Ovarian (FACT-O) questionnaire (completed at baseline and every 28 days until progression), the FACT/NCCN Ovarian Symptom Index (FOSI) and the Trial Outcome Index (TOI). TOI of the FACT-O was the primary measure. RESULTS: Overall, 265 women were randomised to maintenance olaparib (n=136) or placebo (n=129). Compliance for HRQoL assessment was high (∼80% over time). Most patients in both arms reported a best response of 'no change' on TOI (81%) and other HRQoL measures. There were no statistically significant differences in time to worsening or improvement rates of TOI, FOSI and FACT-O scores in the overall, BRCAm and germline BRCAm populations. CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance treatment with olaparib was well tolerated and had no adverse impact on HRQoL in this study of patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed serous ovarian cancer who had responded to their most recent platinum-based therapy (partial or complete response). Interpretation of the HRQoL results in this population may differ from patients who have not responded to their most recent platinum-based therapy.

Patient Support Groups Identifying Clinical Equipoise in UK Gynaecological Oncology Surgeons as the Basis for Trials in Ultraradical Surgery for Advanced Ovarian Cancer.

"Clinical equipoise" is defined as the genuine uncertainty by the expert medical community of the most beneficial treatment. A survey performed in 2013 by a patient support group, Ovacome, of gynaecological oncologists in the UK on ultra-radical surgery in advanced ovarian cancer has shown that there is a wide variation in surgical practice across the country. In addition, there were mixed views on the quality of published evidence justifying it's performance, signifying a state of clinical equipoise. The survey also identified widespread insufficient infra-structural resources and lack of surgical training and skills. The majority of respondents would be prepared to undertake additional training to acquire the surgical skills and/or refer to other centres/surgeons already performing the surgery and/or recruit to surgical trials investigating ultra-radical surgery in advanced ovarian cancer.

Maximal effort cytoreductive surgery for disseminated ovarian cancer in a UK setting: challenges and possibilities.

OBJECTIVE: To assess surgical morbidity and mortality of maximal effort cytoreductive surgery for disseminated epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) in a UK tertiary center. METHODS/MATERIALS: A monocentric prospective analysis of surgical morbidity and mortality was performed for all consecutive EOC patients who underwent extensive cytoreductive surgery between 01/2013 and 12/2014. Surgical complexity was assessed by the Mayo clinic surgical complexity score (SCS). Only patients with high SCS ≥5 were included in the analysis. RESULTS: We evaluated 118 stage IIIC/IV patients, with a median age of 63 years (range 19-91); 47.5 % had ascites and 29 % a pleural effusion. Median duration of surgery was 247 min (range 100-540 min). Median surgical complexity score was 10 (range 5-15) consisting of bowel resection (71 %), stoma formation (13.6 %), diaphragmatic stripping/resection (67 %), liver/liver capsule resection (39 %), splenectomy (20 %), resection stomach/lesser sac (26.3 %), pleurectomy (17 %), coeliac trunk/subdiaphragmatic lymphadenectomy (8 %). Total macroscopic tumor clearance rate was 89 %. Major surgical complication rate was 18.6 % (n = 22), with a 28-day and 3-month mortality of 1.7 and 3.4 %, respectively. The anastomotic leak rate was 0.8 %; fistula/bowel perforation 3.4 %; thromboembolism 3.4 % and reoperation 4.2 %. Median intensive care unit and hospital stay were 1.7 (range 0-104) and 8 days (range 4-118), respectively. Four patients (3.3 %) failed to receive chemotherapy within the first 8 postoperative weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Maximal effort cytoreductive surgery for EOC is feasible within a UK setting with acceptable morbidity, low intestinal stoma rates and without clinically relevant delays to postoperative chemotherapy. Careful patient selection, and coordinated multidisciplinary effort appear to be the key for good outcome. Future evaluations should include quality of life analyses.

Standard chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer (ICON7): overall survival results of a phase 3 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The ICON7 trial previously reported improved progression-free survival in women with ovarian cancer with the addition of bevacizumab to standard chemotherapy, with the greatest effect in patients at high risk of disease progression. We report the final overall survival results of the trial. METHODS: ICON7 was an international, phase 3, open-label, randomised trial undertaken at 263 centres in 11 countries across Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Eligible adult women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer that was either high-risk early-stage disease (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics [FIGO] stage I-IIa, grade 3 or clear cell histology) or more advanced disease (FIGO stage IIb-IV), with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, were enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to standard chemotherapy (six 3-weekly cycles of intravenous carboplatin [AUC 5 or 6] and paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) of body surface area) or the same chemotherapy regimen plus bevacizumab 7·5 mg per kg bodyweight intravenously every 3 weeks, given concurrently and continued with up to 12 further 3-weekly cycles of maintenance therapy. Randomisation was done by a minimisation algorithm stratified by FIGO stage, residual disease, interval between surgery and chemotherapy, and Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup group. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival; the study was also powered to detect a difference in overall survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN91273375. FINDINGS: Between Dec 18, 2006, and Feb 16, 2009, 1528 women were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy (n=764) or chemotherapy plus bevacizumab (n=764). Median follow-up at the end of the trial on March 31, 2013, was 48·9 months (IQR 26·6-56·2), at which point 714 patients had died (352 in the chemotherapy group and 362 in the bevacizumab group). Our results showed evidence of non-proportional hazards, so we used the difference in restricted mean survival time as the primary estimate of effect. No overall survival benefit of bevacizumab was recorded (restricted mean survival time 44·6 months [95% CI 43·2-45·9] in the standard chemotherapy group vs 45·5 months [44·2-46·7] in the bevacizumab group; log-rank p=0·85). In an exploratory analysis of a predefined subgroup of 502 patients with poor prognosis disease, 332 (66%) died (174 in the standard chemotherapy group and 158 in the bevacizumab group), and a significant difference in overall survival was noted between women who received bevacizumab plus chemotherapy and those who received chemotherapy alone (restricted mean survival time 34·5 months [95% CI 32·0-37·0] with standard chemotherapy vs 39·3 months [37·0-41·7] with bevacizumab; log-rank p=0·03). However, in non-high-risk patients, the restricted mean survival time did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups (49·7 months [95% CI 48·3-51·1]) in the standard chemotherapy group vs 48·4 months [47·0-49·9] in the bevacizumab group; p=0·20). An updated analysis of progression-free survival showed no difference between treatment groups. During extended follow-up, one further treatment-related grade 3 event (gastrointestinal fistula in a bevacizumab-treated patient), three grade 2 treatment-related events (cardiac failure, sarcoidosis, and foot fracture, all in bevacizumab-treated patients), and one grade 1 treatment-related event (vaginal haemorrhage, in a patient treated with standard chemotherapy) were reported. INTERPRETATION: Bevacizumab, added to platinum-based chemotherapy, did not increase overall survival in the study population as a whole. However, an overall survival benefit was recorded in poor-prognosis patients, which is concordant with the progression-free survival results from ICON7 and GOG-218, and provides further evidence towards the optimum use of bevacizumab in the treatment of ovarian cancer. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research through the UK National Cancer Research Network, the Medical Research Council, and Roche.

Phase I study of nintedanib incorporating dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in patients with advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: This open-label phase I dose-escalation study investigated the safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetics (PK), and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) effects of the oral angiokinase inhibitor nintedanib in patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: Nintedanib was administered once daily continuously, starting at 100 mg and later amended to allow evaluation of 250 mg b.i.d. The primary endpoint was maximum tolerated dose (MTD). DCE-MRI studies were performed at baseline and on days 2 and 28. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients received nintedanib 100-450 mg once daily (n = 40) or 250 mg b.i.d. (n = 11). Asymptomatic reversible liver enzyme elevations (grade 3) were dose limiting in 2 of 5 patients at 450 mg once daily. At 250 mg b.i.d., 2 of 11 patients experienced dose-limiting toxicity (grade 3 liver enzyme elevation and gastrointestinal symptoms). Common toxicities included fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain (mainly grade ≤2). Among 45 patients, 22 (49%) achieved stable disease; 7 remained on treatment for >6 months. DCE-MRI of target lesions revealed effects in some patients at 200 and ≥400 mg once daily. CONCLUSION: Nintedanib is well tolerated by patients with advanced solid malignancies, with MTD defined as 250 mg b.i.d., and can induce changes in DCE-MRI. Disease stabilization >6 months was observed in 7 of 51 patients.

Olaparib maintenance therapy in platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Olaparib (AZD2281) is an oral poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase inhibitor that has shown antitumor activity in patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer with or without BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutations. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study to evaluate maintenance treatment with olaparib in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed, high-grade serous ovarian cancer who had received two or more platinum-based regimens and had had a partial or complete response to their most recent platinum-based regimen. Patients were randomly assigned to receive olaparib, at a dose of 400 mg twice daily, or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors guidelines. RESULTS: Of 265 patients who underwent randomization, 136 were assigned to the olaparib group and 129 to the placebo group. Progression-free survival was significantly longer with olaparib than with placebo (median, 8.4 months vs. 4.8 months from randomization on completion of chemotherapy; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25 to 0.49; P<0.001). Subgroup analyses of progression-free survival showed that, regardless of subgroup, patients in the olaparib group had a lower risk of progression. Adverse events more commonly reported in the olaparib group than in the placebo group (by more than 10% of patients) were nausea (68% vs. 35%), fatigue (49% vs. 38%), vomiting (32% vs. 14%), and anemia (17% vs. 5%); the majority of adverse events were grade 1 or 2. An interim analysis of overall survival (38% maturity, meaning that 38% of the patients had died) showed no significant difference between groups (hazard ratio with olaparib, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.39; P=0.75). CONCLUSIONS: Olaparib as maintenance treatment significantly improved progression-free survival among patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed, high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Interim analysis showed no overall survival benefit. The toxicity profile of olaparib in this population was consistent with that in previous studies. (Funded by AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00753545.).

Olaparib maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed serous ovarian cancer: a preplanned retrospective analysis of outcomes by BRCA status in a randomised phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Maintenance monotherapy with the PARP inhibitor olaparib significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer. We aimed to explore the hypothesis that olaparib is most likely to benefit patients with a BRCA mutation. METHODS: We present data from the second interim analysis of overall survival and a retrospective, preplanned analysis of data by BRCA mutation status from our randomised, double-blind, phase 2 study that assessed maintenance treatment with olaparib 400 mg twice daily (capsules) versus placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer who had received two or more platinum-based regimens and who had a partial or complete response to their most recent platinum-based regimen. Randomisation was by an interactive voice response system, stratified by time to progression on penultimate platinum-based regimen, response to the most recent platinum-based regimen before randomisation, and ethnic descent. The primary endpoint was PFS, analysed for the overall population and by BRCA status. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00753545. FINDINGS: Between Aug 28, 2008, and Feb 9, 2010, 136 patients were assigned to olaparib and 129 to placebo. BRCA status was known for 131 (96%) patients in the olaparib group versus 123 (95%) in the placebo group, of whom 74 (56%) versus 62 (50%) had a deleterious or suspected deleterious germline or tumour BRCA mutation. Of patients with a BRCA mutation, median PFS was significantly longer in the olaparib group than in the placebo group (11·2 months [95% CI 8·3-not calculable] vs 4·3 months [3·0-5·4]; HR 0·18 [0·10-0·31]; p<0·0001); similar findings were noted for patients with wild-type BRCA, although the difference between groups was lower (7·4 months [5·5-10·3] vs 5·5 months [3·7-5·6]; HR 0·54 [0·34-0·85]; p=0·0075). At the second interim analysis of overall survival (58% maturity), overall survival did not significantly differ between the groups (HR 0·88 [95% CI 0·64-1·21]; p=0·44); similar findings were noted for patients with mutated BRCA (HR 0·73 [0·45-1·17]; p=0·19) and wild-type BRCA (HR 0·99 [0·63-1·55]; p=0·96). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the olaparib group were fatigue (in ten [7%] patients in the olaparib group vs four [3%] in the placebo group) and anaemia (seven [5%] vs one [<1%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 25 (18%) patients who received olaparib and 11 (9%) who received placebo. Tolerability was similar in patients with mutated BRCA and the overall population. INTERPRETATION: These results support the hypothesis that patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer with a BRCA mutation have the greatest likelihood of benefiting from olaparib treatment. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Using serum CA125 to assess the activity of potential cytostatic agents in ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: New strategies are required to rapidly identify novel cytostatic agents before embarking on large randomized trials. This study investigates whether a change in rate of rise (slope) of serum CA125 from before to after starting a novel agent could be used to identify cytostatic agents. Tamoxifen was used to validate this hypothesis. METHODS: Asymptomatic patients with relapsed ovarian cancer who had responded to chemotherapy were enrolled and had CA125 measurements taken every 4 weeks, then more frequently when rising. Once levels reached 4 times the upper limit of normal or nadir, they started continuous tamoxifen 20 mg daily, as well as fortnightly CA125 measurements until symptomatic progression. Because of the potentially nonlinear relationship of CA125 over time, it was felt that to enable normal approximations to be utilized a natural logarithmic standard transformation [ln(CA125)] was the most suitable to improve linearity above the common logarithmic transformation to base 10. RESULTS: From 235 recruited patients, 81 started tamoxifen and had at least 4 CA125 measurements taken before and 4 CA125 measurements taken after starting tamoxifen, respectively. The mean regression slopes from using at least 4 1n(CA125) measurements immediately before and after starting tamoxifen were 0·0149 and 0·0093 [ln(CA125)/d], respectively. This difference is statistically significant, P = 0·001. Therefore, in a future trial with a novel agent, at least as effective as tamoxifen, using this effect size, the number of evaluable patients needed, at significance level of 5% and power of 80%, is 56. CONCLUSIONS: Further validation of this methodology is required, but there is potential to use comparison of mean regression slopes of ln(CA125) as an interim analysis measure of efficacy for novel cytostatic agents in relapsed ovarian cancer.

Epithelial ovarian cancer: rationale for changing the one-fits-all standard treatment regimen to subtype-specific treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Epithelial ovarian cancers (EOCs) are, although still treated as a single disease entity, often classified into type I tumors (low-grade serous, mucinous, endometrioid, clear cell) and type II tumors (high-grade serous, undifferentiated cancers, carcinosarcomas). The aim of our study was to determine the incidence, clinical relevance, and prognostic and predictive impact of somatic mutations in both types I and II EOCs. METHODS: Two hundred sixty-two evaluable, primary, high-risk stage I (grade 3, or aneuploid grade 1 or 2, or clear cell) and stage II-IV EOCs, collected at the University Hospitals Leuven and within the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 55971 trial, were genotyped for hotspot mutations in KRAS (COSMIC [Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer] coverage >97%), BRAF (>94%), NRAS (>97%), PIK3CA (>79%), PTEN, FBXW7 (>57%), AKT2, AKT3, and FOXL2, using Sequenom MassARRAY. RESULTS: Of the 13% histopathologically classified type I tumors, 49% were KRAS or PIK3CA mutant versus only 2.9% in the type II tumors (87%). Mucinous subtypes harbored significantly more KRAS mutations than all nonmucinous tumors (50% vs 4%, P < 0.001). PIK3CA mutations were predominantly found in clear cell carcinomas (46.2%) and endometrioid carcinoma (20%) and were frequently associated with endometriosis. Moreover, low-grade serous tumors were more frequently KRAS or BRAF mutated (44%) than high-grade serous tumors (0.6%). KRAS or PIK3CA mutation did not correlate with progression-free survival or overall survival. Mutations in NRAS, PTEN, FBXW7, AKT2, AKT3, and FOXL2 were rare (<1%). CONCLUSIONS: Somatic mutations are rare in type II EOCs, whereas type I EOCs contain distinct diseases with different driver mutations. In general, these tumors respond worse to standard paclitaxel carboplatin therapy. Clinical trials with molecular targeted therapy in the different subtypes of type I tumors are urgently needed using this theragnostic information.

Current controversies in the management of germ cell ovarian tumours.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Fewer than 70 new cases of malignant ovarian germ cell tumours (MOGCTs) are seen each year in the UK. Because of their rarity, no randomized trials have been reported and many of the advances in management have arisen from adopting practices developed for managing male germ cell tumours (GCTs). Not surprisingly, there have been few important publications related to ovarian germ cell tumuors over the past 2 years. We have therefore included some relevant male germ cell publications. The area in which there is greatest variability in practice globally is in the proportion of patients with stage 1a disease who go on surveillance rather than receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. Although there is increasing agreement about the best management of ovarian GCTs amongst those who treat more than five per year, many patients are still treated by doctors who usually manage epithelial ovarian cancer but rarely see these patients. RECENT FINDINGS: Novel biomarkers including microRNA profiles and DICER1 mutations, identify potential diagnostic and therapeutic targets in this group of tumours. The role of KIT mutation and amplification in the development of ovarian dysgerminoma and the use of Sunitinib, a receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor with an effect on vascular endothelial growth factor, platelet-derived growth factor and KIT receptors in patients with platinum-resistant GCT, are novel promising approaches. SUMMARY: We will therefore highlight some key differences in management of epithelial and germ cell ovarian tumours.