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

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

Phase II Trials of Iniparib (BSI-201) in Combination with Gemcitabine and Carboplatin in Patients with Recurrent Ovarian Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Iniparib (BSI-201), a novel anticancer agent thought to have poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitory activity and synergy with both gemcitabine and carboplatin (GC) was evaluated in 2 cohorts with GC. METHODS: Parallel multicenter, single-arm, phase II studies using a Simon two-stage design. Eligible patients had a histological diagnosis of epithelial ovarian carcinoma, fallopian tube cancer, or primary peritoneal carcinoma and demonstration of platinum-sensitive (≥6 months [mo]) or -resistant disease (relapse 2-6 mo post-platinum). Carboplatin (AUC 4 IV day 1), gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 IV days 1 and 8), and iniparib (5.6 mg/kg IV days 1, 4, 8, and 11) were given on a 21-day cycle. RESULTS: The overall response rate (ORR RECIST 1.0) in platinum sensitive disease was 66% (95% CI, 49-80) with a higher response rate in the 15 pts with germline BRCA mutations (gBRCAmut) (73%). Median PFS was 9.9 (95% CI, 8.2-11.3) months. In the platinum resistant population the ORR was 26% (95% CI, 14-42), however in the 11 pts for whom BRCA mutation was present, the best overall response was PR in 5 (46%). Median PFS was 6.8 months (range, 5.7-7.7 months). Notably, among the 17 CA-125-response-evaluable patients who did not achieve tumor response, 7 (41.2%) patients had a CA125 response, and 93% has clinical benefit (CR + PR + SD). The GCI combination was generally well tolerated despite a high incidence of thrombocytopenia and neutropenia, with no new toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: Given the subsequent lack of efficacy demonstrated for iniparib in breast cancer, these are studies of GC and demonstrate a higher than traditionally appreciated activity in patients with platinum-sensitive and -resistant recurrent ovarian cancer, especially in patients that harbor a BRCA mutation, resetting the benchmark for efficacy in phase II trials. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT01033292 & NCT01033123).

Final survival analysis of topotecan and paclitaxel for first-line treatment of advanced cervical cancer: An NRG oncology randomized study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a non­platinum chemotherapy doublet improves overall survival (OS) among patients with recurrent/metastatic cervical carcinoma. METHODS: Gynecologic Oncology Group protocol 240 is a phase 3, randomized, open-label, clinical trial that studied the efficacy of paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 plus topotecan 0.75 mg/m2 days 1-3 (n = 223) vs cisplatin 50 mg/m2 plus paclitaxel 135 or 175 mg/m2 (n = 229), in 452 patients with recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer. Each chemotherapy doublet was also studied with and without bevacizumab (15 mg/kg). Cycles were repeated every 21 days until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or complete response. The primary endpoints were OS and the frequency and severity of adverse effects. We report the final analysis of OS. RESULTS: At the protocol-specified final analysis, median OS was 16.3 (cisplatin-paclitaxel backbone) and 13.8 months (topotecan-paclitaxel backbone) (HR 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38; p = 0.28). Median OS for cisplatin-paclitaxel and topotecan-paclitaxel was 15 vs 12 months, respectively (HR 1.10; 95% CI,0.82-1.48; p = 0.52), and for cisplatin-paclitaxel-bevacizumab and topotecan-paclitaxel-bevacizumab was 17.5 vs 16.2 months, respectively (HR 1.16; 95% CI, 0.86-1.56; p = 0.34). Among the 75% of patients in the study population previously exposed to platinum, median OS was 14.6 (cisplatin-paclitaxel backbone) vs 12.9 months (topotecan-paclitaxel backbone), respectively (HR 1.09; 95% CI, 0.86-1.38;p = 0.48). Post-progression survival was 7.9 (cisplatin-paclitaxel backbone) vs 8.1 months (topotecan-paclitaxel backbone) (HR 0.95; 95% CI, 0.75-1.19). Grade 4 hematologic toxicity was similar between chemotherapy backbones. CONCLUSIONS: Topotecan plus paclitaxel does not confer a survival benefit to women with recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer, even among platinum-exposed patients. Topotecan-paclitaxel should not be routinely recommended in this population. NCT00803062.

Overall survival and patient-reported outcome results from the placebo-controlled randomized phase III IMagyn050/GOG 3015/ENGOT-OV39 trial of atezolizumab for newly diagnosed stage III/IV ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact on overall survival (OS) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of combining atezolizumab with standard therapy for newly diagnosed stage III/IV ovarian cancer. METHODS: The placebo-controlled double-blind randomized phase III IMagyn050/GOG 3015/ENGOT-OV39 trial (NCT03038100) assigned eligible patients to 3-weekly atezolizumab 1200 mg or placebo for 22 cycles with platinum-based chemotherapy and bevacizumab. Coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival (already reported) and OS in the PD-L1-positive and intent-to-treat (ITT) populations, tested hierarchically. Prespecified PRO analyses focused on disease-related abdominal pain and bloating symptoms (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-OV28), functioning, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (QLQ-C30). RESULTS: After 38 months' median follow-up, the OS hazard ratio in the PD-L1-positive population was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.66-1.06; p = 0.13); median OS was not estimable with atezolizumab versus 49.2 months with placebo. The hazard ratio for OS in the ITT population was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.78-1.09; median 50.5 versus 46.6 months, respectively). At week 9, similar proportions of patients in both arms of the neoadjuvant cohort showed ≥10-point improvement from baseline in abdominal pain and bloating, functioning, and HRQoL. In the primary surgery cohort, similar proportions of patients in each arm had improved, stable, or worsened physical and role function and HRQoL from baseline over time. Neither cohort showed differences between arms in treatment-related symptoms or overall side-effect bother. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporation of atezolizumab into standard therapy for newly diagnosed ovarian cancer does not significantly improve efficacy or impose additional treatment burden for patients. CLINICALTRIALS: gov registration: NCT03038100.

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

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

Olaparib tablets as maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation (SOLO2/ENGOT-Ov21): a final analysis of a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Olaparib, a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, has previously been shown to extend progression-free survival versus placebo when given to patients with relapsed high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer who were platinum sensitive and who had a BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation, as part of the SOLO2/ENGOT-Ov21 trial. The aim of this final analysis is to investigate the effect of olaparib on overall survival. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial was done across 123 medical centres in 16 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at baseline of 0-1, had histologically confirmed, relapsed, high-grade serous or high-grade endometrioid ovarian cancer, including primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer, and had received two or more previous platinum regimens. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive olaparib tablets (300 mg in two 150 mg tablets twice daily) or matching placebo tablets using an interactive web or voice-response system. Stratification was by response to previous chemotherapy and length of platinum-free interval. Treatment assignment was masked to patients, treatment providers, and data assessors. The primary endpoint of progression-free survival has been reported previously. Overall survival was a key secondary endpoint and was analysed in all patients as randomly allocated. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one treatment dose. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01874353, and is no longer recruiting patients. FINDINGS: Between Sept 3, 2013 and Nov 21, 2014, 295 patients were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either olaparib (n=196 [66%]) or placebo (n=99 [34%]). One patient, randomised in error, did not receive olaparib. Median follow-up was 65·7 months (IQR 63·6-69·3) with olaparib and 64·5 months (63·4-68·7) with placebo. Median overall survival was 51·7 months (95% CI 41·5-59·1) with olaparib and 38·8 months (31·4-48·6) with placebo (hazard ratio 0·74 [95% CI 0·54-1·00]; p=0·054), unadjusted for the 38% of patients in the placebo group who received subsequent PARP inhibitor therapy. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse event was anaemia (which occurred in 41 [21%] of 195 patients in the olaparib group and two [2%] of 99 patients in the placebo group). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 50 (26%) of 195 patients receiving olaparib and eight (8%) of 99 patients receiving placebo. Treatment-emergent adverse events with a fatal outcome occurred in eight (4%) of the 195 patients receiving olaparib, six of which were judged to be treatment-related (attributed to myelodysplastic syndrome [n=3] and acute myeloid leukaemia [n=3]). INTERPRETATION: Olaparib provided a median overall survival benefit of 12·9 months compared with placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation. Although statistical significance was not reached, these findings are arguably clinically meaningful and support the use of maintenance olaparib in these patients. FUNDING: AstraZeneca and Merck.

Utilizing an interim futility analysis of the OVAL study (VB-111-701/GOG 3018) for potential reduction of risk: A phase III, double blind, randomized controlled trial of ofranergene obadenovec (VB-111) and weekly paclitaxel in patients with platinum resistant ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Report the results from a preplanned interim analysis of a phase III, double blind, randomized controlled study of ofranergene obadenovec (VB-111), a targeted anti-cancer gene therapy, in combination with paclitaxel in patients with platinum resistant ovarian cancer (PROC). METHODS: The OVAL (NCT03398655) study is an on-going study where patients are randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 with VB-111 or placebo. The protocol specifies a pre-planned unblinded futility interim analysis of CA-125 response per GCIG criteria in the first 60 evaluable patients. The futility rule determined for this analysis was that the response rate of VB-111 must be greater than the response rate of placebo by at least 10% in order to continue the study. Coincident with the interim analysis, the blinded CA-125 response rate was estimated as a proportion of the first 60 evaluable patients with CA-125 response per GCIG criteria. Post-treatment fever is provided as a possible surrogate marker of VB-111 therapy activity. RESULTS: The median age of the evaluable patients was 62 years (range 41-82); 97% had high-grade serous cancer; 58% had been treated with 3 or more previous lines of therapy, 70% received prior anti-angiogenic treatment, 43% received prior PARP inhibitors. CA-125 response in the VB-111 and weekly paclitaxel treated arm met the pre-specified interim criterion of an absolute advantage of 10% or higher compared to the control. Blinded results show a 53% CA-125 response rate (32/60) with 15% complete response (n=9). Assuming balanced randomization and an absolute advantage of 10% or higher to the VB-111 arm, it may be deducted that the response in the VB-111 treatment arm is 58% or higher. Among patients with post-treatment fever, the CA-125 response rate was 69%. CONCLUSIONS: At the time of the interim analysis, response rate findings are comparable to the responses seen in a similar patient population in the phase I/II study. The independent data and safety monitoring committee (iDSMC) recommended continuing the OVAL trial as planned. No new safety signals were identified.

Sequential Phase II clinical trials evaluating CRLX101 as monotherapy and in combination with bevacizumab in recurrent ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Topoisomerase-1 inhibitors are an important class of cytotoxics associated with toxicity that limits their use. CRLX101 is a novel cyclodextrin-containing polymer conjugate of camptothecin (CPT) that self-assembles into nanoparticles to deliver sustained levels of active CPT into cancer cells while substantially reducing systemic exposure. METHODS: We conducted sequential phase II, open label, single arm clinical trials to evaluate CRLX101 as a single agent (n = 29) and with bevacizumab (Bev) (n = 34). Patients (pts) had measurable recurrent epithelial ovarian, tubal or primary peritoneal cancer, that could be platinum refractory, resistant or sensitive. Cohort A (Single agent CRLX101) allowed up to 3 prior chemotherapy regimens, but no prior topo-1 inhibitors. Pts received CRLX101 15 mg/m2 IV every 14 days Q28 with response evaluation every 2 cycles. Cohort B also received Bev 10 mg/kg D1,15 Q28, and included only platinum resistant disease with up to 2 prior lines, and more rigorous eligibility criteria. RESULTS: CRLX101 was well tolerated other than nausea, fatigue and anemia. 29 pts. received a median of 3 (1-16) cycles with a clinical benefit rate (CBR) of 68% and overall response rate (ORR) of 11%. With the addition of Bev in Cohort B (n = 34), the CBR was increased to 95% and the ORR to 18%. PFS was 4.5 months (0.9 to 15.9 months) in Cohort A and 6.5 months (2.8 to 14.4 months) in Cohort B. Bev increased the incidence of hypertension and qualitatively increased bladder toxicities, but without SAEs. CONCLUSIONS: CRLX101 meets the clinical need for an effective and tolerable topoisomerase I inhibitor and can be safely combined with bevacizumab.

Berzosertib plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone in platinum-resistant high-grade serous ovarian cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: High-grade serous ovarian cancers show increased replication stress, rendering cells vulnerable to ATR inhibition because of near universal loss of the G1/S checkpoint (through deleterious TP53 mutations), premature S phase entry (due to CCNE1 amplification, RB1 loss, or CDKN2A mRNA downregulation), alterations of homologous recombination repair genes, and expression of oncogenic drivers (through MYC amplification and other mechanisms). We hypothesised that the combination of the selective ATR inhibitor, berzosertib, and gemcitabine could show acceptable toxicity and superior efficacy to gemcitabine alone in high-grade serous ovarian cancer. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 study, 11 different centres in the US Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trials Network enrolled women (aged ≥18 years) with recurrent, platinum-resistant high-grade serous ovarian cancer (determined histologically) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, who had unlimited previous lines of cytotoxic therapy in the platinum-sensitive setting but no more than one line of cytotoxic therapy in the platinum-resistant setting. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) on day 1 and day 8, or gemcitabine plus intravenous berzosertib (210 mg/m2) on day 2 and day 9 of a 21-day cycle until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. Randomisation was done centrally using the Theradex Interactive Web Response System, stratified by platinum-free interval, and with a permuted block size of six. Following central randomisation, patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, and analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of the study drugs. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02595892, and is active but closed to enrolment. FINDINGS: Between Feb 14, 2017, and Sept 7, 2018, 88 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 70 were randomly assigned to treatment with gemcitabine alone (36 patients) or gemcitabine plus berzosertib (34 patients). At the data cutoff date (Feb 21, 2020), the median follow-up was 53·2 weeks (25·6-81·8) in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group and 43·0 weeks (IQR 23·2-69·1) in the gemcitabine alone group. Median progression-free survival was 22·9 weeks (17·9-72·0) for gemcitabine plus berzosertib and 14·7 weeks (90% CI 9·7-36·7) for gemcitabine alone (hazard ratio 0·57, 90% CI 0·33-0·98; one-sided log-rank test p=0·044). The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were decreased neutrophil count (14 [39%] of 36 patients in the gemcitabine alone group vs 16 [47%] of 34 patients in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group) and decreased platelet count (two [6%] vs eight [24%]). Serious adverse events were observed in ten (28%) patients in the gemcitabine alone group and nine (26%) patients in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group. There was one treatment-related death in the gemcitabine alone group due to sepsis and one treatment-related death in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group due to pneumonitis. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this is the first randomised study of an ATR inhibitor in any tumour type. This study shows a benefit of adding berzosertib to gemcitabine in platinum-resistant high-grade serous ovarian cancer. This combination warrants further investigation in this setting. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute.

Ofranergene obadenovec (VB-111) in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer; favorable response rates in a phase I/II study are associated with an immunotherapeutic effect.

OBJECTIVE: Report final results of a phase I/II study of VB-111, a targeted anti-cancer gene therapy with a dual mechanism: anti angiogenic/vascular disruption and induction of an anti-tumor directed immune response, in combination with paclitaxel in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. METHODS: Study NCT01711970 was a prospective, open label, dose escalation study assessing combination treatment of VB-111 and weekly paclitaxel. In the Phase I part of the study, patients were treated with escalating doses of intravenous VB-111 and paclitaxel. In Phase 2, patients were treated with therapeutic doses of VB-111 and paclitaxel 80 mg/m2. Assessments included safety, overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), and tumor response (CA-125 and RECIST). RESULTS: 21 patients with recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer were enrolled. 17/21 received the therapeutic dose. Patients had a median of 3 prior lines of therapy. Half of the subjects were platinum refractory, and half were previously treated with antiangiogenics. No DLTs were observed. VB-111 was well tolerated and associated with mild flu-like symptoms. In the therapeutic dose cohort, a 58% CA-125 GCIG response rate was seen in evaluable patients. The median OS was 16.6 months in patients treated with therapeutic dose compared to 5.8 months in sub-therapeutic dose (p = 0.028). Tumor specimens taken after treatment demonstrated tumor infiltrated with cytotoxic CD8 T-cells in regions of apoptotic cancer cells. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with VB-111 in combination with paclitaxel was safe and well tolerated. Favorable tumor responses and overall survival outcomes were associated with induction of an immunotherapeutic effect.

Combined pembrolizumab and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in platinum resistant ovarian cancer: A phase 2 clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) in vitro may have immunomodulatory abilities and preclinical evidence suggests it synergizes with immune checkpoint blockade. We hypothesized that combining PLD and pembrolizumab would be active in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC). METHODS: This was a single-arm, multi-center phase II trial. Eligible patients had PROC with ≤2 prior lines of cytotoxic therapy for recurrent or persistent disease. Twenty-six patients were enrolled and given pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously (IV) every 3 weeks and PLD 40 mg/m2 IV every 4 weeks. Patients were assessed radiographically every 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR), defined as complete response (CR) + partial response (PR) + stable disease (SD) ≥24 weeks. The study was powered to detect an improvement in CBR from 25% to 50%, with rejection of the null hypothesis if at least 10 patients achieved clinical benefit. T-cell inflamed gene expression profiles (GEP) and PD-L1 were assessed and correlated with clinical outcome. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients were evaluable for best overall response. The study satisfied its primary endpoint, with 12 patients achieving clinical benefit for a CBR of 52.2% (95% CI 30.6-73.2%). There were 5 PRs (21.7%) and 1 CR (4.3%), for an overall response rate (ORR) of 26.1%. Six patients had SD lasting at least 24 weeks. Combination therapy was well tolerated without unexpected toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of pembrolizumab and PLD was manageable, without unexpected toxicities, and showed preliminary evidence of clinical benefit in the treatment of platinum resistant ovarian cancer. ORR and median PFS of combination therapy in this study was higher than historical comparisons of PLD alone or anti-PD-1/PD-L1 agents alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02865811.

Phase Ib study of mirvetuximab soravtansine, a folate receptor alpha (FRα)-targeting antibody-drug conjugate (ADC), in combination with bevacizumab in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and clinical activity of mirvetuximab soravtansine, an antibody-drug conjugate comprising a humanized anti-folate receptor alpha (FRα) monoclonal antibody, cleavable linker, and the maytansinoid DM4, a potent tubulin-targeting agent, in combination with bevacizumab in patients with FRα-positive, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. METHODS: Patients with platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer were administered mirvetuximab soravtansine (6 mg/kg, adjusted ideal body weight) and bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) once every 3 weeks. Eligibility included FRα positivity by immunochemistry and prior bevacizumab exposure was permitted. Adverse events, tumor response, and progression-free survival (PFS) were determined. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients, with a median of 3 prior lines of therapy (range, 1-8), received the combination of mirvetuximab soravtansine and bevacizumab at full dosing during the escalation and expansion stages of the study. Adverse events were generally mild-to-moderate (≤grade 2) with diarrhea, blurred vision, nausea, and fatigue being the most common treatment-related toxicities. Six cases of pneumonitis (9%; all grade 1 or 2), an adverse event of special interest, were observed. The confirmed objective response rate (ORR) was 39%, including 5 complete responses and 21 partial responses, and the median PFS was 6.9 months. The combination was particularly active in the subset of patients (n = 16) who were bevacizumab-naïve, less heavily pretreated (1-2 prior lines), and whose tumors exhibited medium/high FRα expression (ORR, 56% with a median duration of response of 12 months; PFS, 9.9 months). CONCLUSION: The combination of mirvetuximab soravtansine with bevacizumab is well tolerated in patients with platinum-resistant, recurrent ovarian cancer. The encouraging efficacy measures compare favorably to reported outcomes for bevacizumab combined with standard chemotherapy in similar patient populations.

Second-line lenvatinib in patients with recurrent endometrial cancer.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the efficacy of lenvatinib, a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor, as second-line therapy in patients with unresectable endometrial cancer. The primary end point was the objective response rate (ORR) as assessed by independent radiologic review (IRR). Secondary end points included median progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and clinical benefit rate. Exploratory end points examined the association of baseline levels of plasma biomarkers (50 circulating cytokine and/or angiogenic factors measured by immunoassays) with efficacy outcomes. METHODS: An international, open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase 2 trial was conducted. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed unresectable endometrial cancer that relapsed after 1 prior systemic platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients received once-daily oral lenvatinib 24 mg in a 28-day dosing cycle. RESULTS: There were 133 patients in the study. By IRR, 19 patients had a confirmed objective response for an ORR of 14.3% (95% CI: 8.8-21.4). Durable stable disease (≥23 weeks) was observed in 31 patients (23.3%) and the clinical benefit rate was 37.6% (95% CI: 29.3-46.4). Median PFS was 5.6 months (95% CI: 3.7-6.3), and median OS was 10.6 months (95% CI: 8.9-14.9). The most common (any grade) treatment-related adverse events were fatigue/asthenia (48%), hypertension (49%), nausea/vomiting (32%), decreased appetite (32%), and diarrhea (31%). Lower baseline levels of angiopoietin-2 were associated with longer PFS, OS, and a higher ORR. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with recurrent endometrial cancer treated with second-line lenvatinib experienced modest antitumor activity and treatment was generally well tolerated, with a safety profile consistent with previous studies.

Clinical trial participation and aggressive care at the end of life in patients with ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVES: In non-gynecologic cancers, clinical trial participation has been associated with aggressive care at the end of life. The objective of this investigation was to examine how trial participation affects end of life outcomes in patients with ovarian cancer. METHODS: In a retrospective review of women diagnosed with ovarian cancer at our institution between January 2010 and December 2015, we collected variables identified by the National Quality Forum as measures of aggressive end of life care including chemotherapy in the last 14 days of life, intensive care unit (ICU) admission in the last 30 days of life, or death in the acute care setting. Trials investigating medications but not surgical interventions were included. The primary outcome of this study was the association between trial participation and the National Quality Forum measures of aggressive end of life care in ovarian cancer decedents. Data were analyzed with univariable and multivariable parametric and non-parametric testing, and time to event outcomes were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox's proportional hazard models. RESULTS: Among 391 women treated for ovarian cancer, 62 patients (16%) participated in a clinical trial. Patients enrolled in clinical trials were more likely to have chemotherapy administered within 14 days of death; however, no association was found with other metrics of aggressive care at the end of life including the initiation of a new chemotherapy regimen in the last 30 days of life, ICU admissions, and death in an acute care setting. Among patients with recurrent ovarian cancer, median overall survival for trial participants was 57 months compared with only 31 months in non-trial participants (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ovarian cancer, clinical trial enrollment is associated with chemotherapy administration within 14 days of death, but not other measures of aggressive care at the end of life. Given the importance of clinical trial participation in improving care for women with ovarian cancer, this study suggests that concerns regarding aggressive care prior to death should not limit clinical trial participation.

Patient-reported outcomes at discontinuation of anti-angiogenesis therapy in the randomized trial of chemotherapy with bevacizumab for advanced cervical cancer: an NRG Oncology Group study.

INTRODUCTION: To describe patient-reported outcomes and toxicities at time of treatment discontinuation secondary to progression or toxicities in advanced/recurrent cervical cancer patients receiving chemotherapy with bevacizumab. METHODS: Summarize toxicity, grade, and health-related quality of life within 1 month of treatment discontinuation for women receiving chemotherapy with bevacizumab in GOG240. RESULTS: Of the 227 patients who received chemotherapy with bevacizumab, 148 discontinued study protocol treatment (90 for disease progression and 58 for toxicity). The median survival time from treatment discontinuation to death was 7.9 months (95% CI 5.0 to 9.0) for those who progressed versus 12.1 months (95% CI 8.9 to 23.2) for those who discontinued therapy due to toxicities. The most common grade 3 or higher toxicities included hematologic, gastrointestinal, and pain. Some 57% (84/148) of patients completed quality of life assessment within 1 month of treatment discontinuation. Those patients who discontinued treatment due to progression had a mean decline in the FACT-Cx TOI of 3.2 points versus 2.2 in patients who discontinued therapy due to toxicity. This was a 9.9 point greater decline in the FACT-Cx TOI scores than those who discontinued treatment due to progression (95% CI 2.8 to 17.0, p=0.007). The decline in quality of life was due to worsening physical and functional well-being. Those who discontinued treatment due to toxicities had worse neurotoxicity and pain. DISCUSSION: Patients who discontinued chemotherapy with bevacizumab for toxicity experienced longer post-protocol survival but significantly greater declination in quality of life than those with progression. Future trial design should include supportive care interventions that optimize physiologic function and performance status for salvage therapies.

Weekly vs. Every-3-Week Paclitaxel and Carboplatin for Ovarian Cancer.

BACKGROUND: A dose-dense weekly schedule of paclitaxel (resulting in a greater frequency of drug delivery) plus carboplatin every 3 weeks or the addition of bevacizumab to paclitaxel and carboplatin administered every 3 weeks has shown efficacy in ovarian cancer. We proposed to determine whether dose-dense weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin would prolong progression-free survival as compared with paclitaxel and carboplatin administered every 3 weeks among patients receiving and those not receiving bevacizumab. METHODS: We prospectively stratified patients according to whether they elected to receive bevacizumab and then randomly assigned them to receive either paclitaxel, administered intravenously at a dose of 175 mg per square meter of body-surface area every 3 weeks, plus carboplatin (dose equivalent to an area under the curve [AUC] of 6) for six cycles or paclitaxel, administered weekly at a dose of 80 mg per square meter, plus carboplatin (AUC, 6) for six cycles. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: A total of 692 patients were enrolled, 84% of whom opted to receive bevacizumab. In the intention-to-treat analysis, weekly paclitaxel was not associated with longer progression-free survival than paclitaxel administered every 3 weeks (14.7 months and 14.0 months, respectively; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 1.06; P=0.18). Among patients who did not receive bevacizumab, weekly paclitaxel was associated with progression-free survival that was 3.9 months longer than that observed with paclitaxel administered every 3 weeks (14.2 vs. 10.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.95; P=0.03). However, among patients who received bevacizumab, weekly paclitaxel did not significantly prolong progression-free survival, as compared with paclitaxel administered every 3 weeks (14.9 months and 14.7 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.20; P=0.60). A test for interaction that assessed homogeneity of the treatment effect showed a significant difference between treatment with bevacizumab and without bevacizumab (P=0.047). Patients who received weekly paclitaxel had a higher rate of grade 3 or 4 anemia than did those who received paclitaxel every 3 weeks (36% vs. 16%), as well as a higher rate of grade 2 to 4 sensory neuropathy (26% vs. 18%); however, they had a lower rate of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (72% vs. 83%). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, weekly paclitaxel, as compared with paclitaxel administered every 3 weeks, did not prolong progression-free survival among patients with ovarian cancer. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and Genentech; GOG-0262 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01167712.).

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.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Ovarian Cancer, Version 1.2019.

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

Health-related quality of life and patient-centred outcomes with olaparib maintenance after chemotherapy in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation (SOLO2/ENGOT Ov-21): a placebo-controlled, phase 3 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: In the phase 3 SOLO2 trial (ENGOT Ov-21), maintenance therapy with olaparib tablets significantly prolonged progression-free survival (primary endpoint) compared with placebo in patients with a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation and platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer who had received two or more lines of previous chemotherapy. The most common subjective adverse effects included fatigue, nausea, and vomiting, which were typically low grade and self-limiting. Our a-priori hypothesis was that maintenance olaparib would not negatively affect health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and additionally that the prolongation of progression-free survival with olaparib would be underpinned by additional patient-centred benefits. METHODS: In SOLO2, 196 patients were randomly assigned to olaparib tablets (300 mg twice daily) and 99 to placebo. Randomisation was stratified by response to previous chemotherapy (complete vs partial) and length of platinum-free interval (>6-12 vs >12 months). The prespecified primary HRQOL analysis evaluated the change from baseline in the Trial Outcome Index (TOI) score during the first 12 months of the study. To be assessable, patients had to have an evaluable score at baseline and at least one evaluable follow-up form. Secondary planned quality-of-life (QOL) analyses included the duration of good quality of life (defined as time without significant symptoms of toxicity [TWiST] and quality-adjusted progression-free survival [QAPFS]). Efficacy and QOL outcomes were analysed in all randomly assigned patients (the full analysis set), and safety outcomes were analysed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01874353, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: The adjusted average mean change from baseline over the first 12 months in TOI was -2·90 (95% CI -4·13 to -1·67) with olaparib and -2·87 (-4·64 to -1·10) with placebo (estimated difference -0·03; 95% CI -2·19 to 2·13; p=0·98). Mean QAPFS (13·96 [SD 10·96] vs 7·28 [5·22] months; difference 6·68, 95% CI 4·98-8·54) and mean duration of TWiST (15·03 [SD 12·79] vs 7·70 [6·42] months; difference 7·33, 95% CI 4·70-8·96) were significantly longer with olaparib than with placebo. INTERPRETATION: Olaparib maintenance therapy did not have a significant detrimental effect on HRQOL compared with placebo. There were clinically meaningful patient-centred benefits in both TWiST and QAPFS despite the adverse effects associated with olaparib. These patient-centred endpoints support the improvement in progression-free survival, the primary endpoint in SOLO2, and should be included in future trials of maintenance therapies. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Impact of tumour histology on survival in advanced cervical carcinoma: an NRG Oncology/Gynaecologic Oncology Group Study.

BACKGROUND: Based primarily on studies concerning early-stage tumours (treated surgically), and locally advanced disease (treated with chemoradiation), the prognosis for women with adenocarcinoma (AC) or adenosquamous (AS) carcinoma has been reported to be poorer than those with squamous cell carcinoma (SCCA) of the cervix. It is unclear whether differences in prognosis also persist in the setting of recurrent or metastatic disease treated using chemotherapy doublets with or without bevacizumab. METHODS: Cases were pooled from three Gynaecologic Oncology Group randomised phase III trials of chemotherapy doublets. Pearson's test was used to evaluate response rate (RR) of AC/AS vs SCCA, Kaplan-Meier method to estimate progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and Cox proportional hazards model to estimate the impact of histology on PFS and OS. RESULTS: Of 781 evaluable patients, 77% (N=599) had SCCA and 23% (N=182) AC/AS. There were no significant differences in RRs between histologic subgroups. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for death for SCCA vs AC/AS was 1.13 (95% CI 0.93, 1.38 P=0.23). When comparing SC/AS (N=661, 85%) to AC alone (N=120, 15%), the adjusted HR for death was 1.23 (95% CI 0.97, 1.57, P=0.09). CONCLUSIONS: AC/AS and SCCA have similar survival in recurrent or metastatic cervical carcinoma when treated with chemotherapy doublets.