RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Recurrent cervical cancer is a life-threatening disease, with limited treatment options available when disease progression occurs after first-line combination therapy. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, multinational, open-label trial of tisotumab vedotin as second- or third-line therapy in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer. Patients were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive tisotumab vedotin monotherapy (2.0 mg per kilogram of body weight every 3 weeks) or the investigator's choice of chemotherapy (topotecan, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, irinotecan, or pemetrexed). The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 502 patients underwent randomization (253 were assigned to the tisotumab vedotin group and 249 to the chemotherapy group); the groups were similar with respect to demographic and disease characteristics. The median overall survival was significantly longer in the tisotumab vedotin group than in the chemotherapy group (11.5 months [95% confidence interval {CI}, 9.8 to 14.9] vs. 9.5 months [95% CI, 7.9 to 10.7]), results that represented a 30% lower risk of death with tisotumab vedotin than with chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.89; two-sided P = 0.004). The median progression-free survival was 4.2 months (95% CI, 4.0 to 4.4) with tisotumab vedotin and 2.9 months (95% CI, 2.6 to 3.1) with chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.82; two-sided P<0.001). The confirmed objective response rate was 17.8% in the tisotumab vedotin group and 5.2% in the chemotherapy group (odds ratio, 4.0; 95% CI, 2.1 to 7.6; two-sided P<0.001). A total of 98.4% of patients in the tisotumab vedotin group and 99.2% in the chemotherapy group had at least one adverse event that occurred during the treatment period (defined as the period from day 1 of dose 1 until 30 days after the last dose); grade 3 or greater events occurred in 52.0% and 62.3%, respectively. A total of 14.8% of patients stopped tisotumab vedotin treatment because of toxic effects. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with recurrent cervical cancer, second- or third-line treatment with tisotumab vedotin resulted in significantly greater efficacy than chemotherapy. (Funded by Genmab and Seagen [acquired by Pfizer]; innovaTV 301 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04697628.).
Asunto(s)
Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia , Neoplasias del Cuello Uterino , Humanos , Femenino , Neoplasias del Cuello Uterino/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias del Cuello Uterino/mortalidad , Persona de Mediana Edad , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/tratamiento farmacológico , Adulto , Anciano , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efectos adversos , Estimación de Kaplan-Meier , Anticuerpos Monoclonales/uso terapéutico , Anticuerpos Monoclonales/efectos adversos , Anticuerpos Monoclonales/administración & dosificación , Análisis de Supervivencia , Supervivencia sin Progresión , Anciano de 80 o más AñosRESUMEN
Endometrioid ovarian cancers (EOvC) are usually managed as serous tumors. In this study, we conducted a comprehensive molecular investigation to uncover the distinct biological characteristics of EOvC. This retrospective multicenter study involved patients from three European centers. We collected clinical data and formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) samples for analysis at the DNA level using panel-based next-generation sequencing and array-comparative genomic hybridization. Additionally, we examined mRNA expression using NanoString nCounter® and protein expression through tissue microarray. We compared EOvC with other ovarian subtypes and uterine endometrioid tumors. Furthermore, we assessed the impact of molecular alterations on patient outcomes, including progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Preliminary analysis of clinical data from 668 patients, including 86 (12.9%) EOvC, revealed more favorable prognosis for EOvC compared with serous ovarian carcinoma (5-year OS of 60% versus 45%; P = 0.001) driven by diagnosis at an earlier stage. Immunohistochemistry and copy number alteration (CNA) profiles of 43 cases with clinical data and FFPE samples available indicated that EOvC protein expression and CNA profiles were more similar to endometrioid endometrial tumors than to serous ovarian carcinomas. EOvC exhibited specific alterations, such as lower rates of PTEN loss, mutations in DNA repair genes, and P53 abnormalities. Survival analysis showed that patients with tumors harboring loss of PTEN expression had worse outcomes (median PFS 19.6 months vs. not reached; P = 0.034). Gene expression profile analysis confirmed that EOvC differed from serous tumors. However, comparison to other rare subtypes of ovarian cancer suggested that the EOvC transcriptomic profile was close to that of ovarian clear cell carcinoma. Downregulation of genes involved in the PI3K pathway and DNA methylation was observed in EOvC. In conclusion, EOvC represents a distinct biological entity and should be regarded as such in the development of specific clinical approaches.
RESUMEN
This open-label, non-comparative, 2:1 randomized, phase II trial (NCT03275506) in women with stage IIIC/IV high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) for whom upfront complete resection was unachievable assessed whether adding pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks) to standard-of-care carboplatin plus paclitaxel yielded a complete resection rate (CRR) of at least 50%. Postoperatively patients continued assigned treatment for a maximum of 2 years. Postoperative bevacizumab was optional. The primary endpoint was independently assessed CRR at interval debulking surgery. Secondary endpoints were Completeness of Cytoreduction Index (CCI) and peritoneal cancer index (PCI) scores, objective and best response rates, progression-free survival, overall survival, safety, postoperative morbidity, and pathological complete response. The CRR in 61 pembrolizumab-treated patients was 74% (one-sided 95% CI = 63%), exceeding the prespecified ≥50% threshold and meeting the primary objective. The CRR without pembrolizumab was 70% (one-sided 95% CI = 54%). In the remaining patients CCI scores were ≥3 in 27% of the standard-of-care group and 18% of the investigational group and CC1 in 3% of the investigational group. PCI score decreased by a mean of 9.6 in the standard-of-care group and 10.2 in the investigational group. Objective response rates were 60% and 72%, respectively, and best overall response rates were 83% and 90%, respectively. Progression-free survival was similar with the two regimens (median 20.8 versus 19.4 months in the standard-of-care versus investigational arms, respectively) but overall survival favored pembrolizumab-containing therapy (median 35.3 versus 49.8 months, respectively). The most common grade ≥3 adverse events with pembrolizumab-containing therapy were anemia during neoadjuvant therapy and infection/fever postoperatively. Pembrolizumab was discontinued prematurely because of adverse events in 23% of pembrolizumab-treated patients. Combining pembrolizumab with neoadjuvant chemotherapy is feasible for HGSC considered not completely resectable; observed activity in some subgroups justifies further evaluation to improve understanding of the role of immunotherapy in HGSC.