Phase I and Randomized Phase II Study of Ruxolitinib With Frontline Neoadjuvant Therapy in Advanced Ovarian Cancer: An NRG Oncology Group Study.

PURPOSE: The interleukin-6/Janus kinase (JAK)/signal transducers and activators of transcription 3 axis is a reported driver of chemotherapy resistance. We hypothesized that adding the JAK1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib to standard chemotherapy would be tolerable and improve progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with ovarian cancer in the upfront setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with ovarian/fallopian tube/primary peritoneal carcinoma recommended for neoadjuvant chemotherapy were eligible. In phase I, treatment was initiated with dose-dense paclitaxel (P) 70 mg/m2 once daily on days 1, 8, and 15; carboplatin AUC 5 intravenously day 1; and ruxolitinib 15 mg orally (PO) twice a day, every 21 days (dose level 1). Interval debulking surgery (IDS) was required after cycle 3. Patients then received three additional cycles of chemotherapy/ruxolitinib, followed by maintenance ruxolitinib. In the randomized phase II, patients were randomly assigned to paclitaxel/carboplatin with or without ruxolitinib at 15 mg PO twice a day for three cycles, IDS, followed by another three cycles of chemotherapy/ruxolitinib, without further maintenance ruxolitinib. The primary phase II end point was PFS. RESULTS: Seventeen patients were enrolled in phase I. The maximum tolerated dose and recommended phase II dose were established to be dose level 1. One hundred thirty patients were enrolled in phase II with a median follow-up of 24 months. The regimen was well tolerated, with a trend toward higher grade 3 to 4 anemia (64% v 27%), grade 3 to 4 neutropenia (53% v 37%), and thromboembolic events (12.6% v 2.4%) in the experimental arm. In the randomized phase II, the median PFS in the reference arm was 11.6 versus 14.6 in the experimental, hazard ratio (HR) for PFS was 0.702 (log-rank P = .059). The overall survival HR was 0.785 (P = .24). CONCLUSION: Ruxolitinib 15 mg PO twice a day was well tolerated with acceptable toxicity in combination with paclitaxel/carboplatin chemotherapy. The primary end point of prolongation of PFS was achieved in the experimental arm, warranting further investigation.

Phase II trial of pembrolizumab and epacadostat in recurrent clear cell carcinoma of the ovary: An NRG oncology study GY016.

INTRODUCTION: Early reports of PD-1 inhibition in ovarian clear cell carcinomas (OCCC) demonstrate promising response. We evaluated the combination of pembrolizumab and IDO-1 inhibitor epacadostat in patients with recurrent OCCC. METHODS: This single arm, two-stage, phase 2 trial included those with measurable disease and 1-3 prior regimens. Patients received intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks and oral epacadostat 100 mg twice a day. Primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR), secondary endpoints were toxicity, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The study was powered to detect an absolute 25% increase in response (15% to 40%). RESULTS: Between September 28, 2018 and April 10, 2019, 14 patients enrolled at first stage. Rate of accrual was 2.3 patients per month. Median age was 65 years (44-89), 10 (71.4%) had ≥2 prior regimens. ORR was 21% (95% CI 5-51%) within 7 months of study entry with 3 partial responses, and 4 had stable disease (disease control rate 50%). Median PFS was 4.8 months (95% CI: 1.9-9.6), OS 18.9 months (95% CI: 1.9-NR). Most common grade ≥ 3 adverse events were electrolyte abnormalities and gastrointestinal pain, nausea, vomiting, bowel obstruction. In July 2019, the study reached the pre-specified criteria to re-open to second stage; however, the study closed prematurely in February 2021 due to insufficient drug supply. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab and epacadostat demonstrated an ORR of 21% in this small cohort of recurrent OCCC. The rapid rate of accrual highlights the enthusiasm and need for therapeutic studies in patients with OCCC.

Health-related quality of life in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer treated with niraparib vs placebo: Results from the phase 3 randomized PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with ovarian cancer (OC) who received niraparib as first-line maintenance therapy. METHODS: PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 (NCT02655016) enrolled patients with newly diagnosed advanced OC who responded to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomized (2:1) to niraparib or placebo once daily in 28-day cycles until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or death. HRQoL was assessed as a prespecified secondary end point using patient-reported responses to the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QOL Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), the EORTC QLQ Ovarian Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-OV28), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovarian Symptom Index (FOSI), and EQ-5D-5L questionnaires. Assessments were collected at baseline and every 8 weeks (±7 days) for 56 weeks, beginning on cycle 1/day 1, then every 12 weeks (±7 days) thereafter while the patient received study treatment. RESULTS: Among trial participants (niraparib, n = 487; placebo, n = 246), PRO adherence exceeded 80% for all instruments across all cycles. Patients reported no decline over time in HRQoL measured via EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/QoL and FOSI overall scores. Scores for abdominal/gastrointestinal symptoms (EORTC QLQ-OV28) and nausea and vomiting, appetite loss, and constipation (EORTC QLQ-C30) were higher (worse symptoms) in niraparib-treated patients than placebo-treated patients; except for constipation, these differences resolved over time. Patients did not self-report any worsening from baseline of fatigue, headache, insomnia, or abdominal pain on questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some early, largely transient increases in gastrointestinal symptoms, patients with OC treated with niraparib first-line maintenance therapy reported no worsening in overall HRQoL.

Lifestyle intervention in ovarian cancer enhanced survival (LIVES) study (NRG/GOG0225): Recruitment, retention and baseline characteristics of a randomized trial of diet and physical activity in ovarian cancer survivors.

OBJECTIVE: The Lifestyle Intervention for oVarian cancer Enhanced Survival (LIVES) is a national study of a combined diet and physical activity intervention for stage II-IV ovarian cancer survival, an under-represented cancer in lifestyle behavioral intervention research. Here, we present the data on recruitment, retention, and baseline demographic, clinical and lifestyle behavior characteristics of the LIVES study participants. METHODS: The LIVES study (NRG Oncology/GOG 0225) is a Phase III diet plus physical activity intervention trial testing the hypothesis that ovarian cancer survivors in the lifestyle intervention will demonstrate better progression-free survival than those in the control condition. Study interventions were delivered via centralized telephone-based health coaching. Baseline descriptive statistics were computed for demographic, clinical, and lifestyle behavior characteristics. RESULTS: The LIVES study exceeded its recruitment goals, enrolling 1205 ovarian cancer survivors from 195 NRG/NCORP-affiliated oncology practices across 49 states from 2012 to 2018. The mean age of enrollees was 59.6 years; the majority (69.4%) with stage III disease; 89% White, 5.5% Hispanic; 64% overweight/obese. Baseline self-reported diet showed a mean daily intake of 6.6 servings of fruit and vegetables, 62.7 fat grams, and 21.7 g of fiber. Physical activity averaged 13.0 MET-hours/week of moderate to vigorous physical activity; 50.9 h/week of sedentary time. Retention rates exceeded 88%. CONCLUSION: The LIVES study demonstrates efficiency in recruiting and retaining ovarian cancer survivors in a 24-month study of diet and physical activity intervention with a primary endpoint of progression free survival that will be reported. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT00719303.

Overall Survival With Maintenance Olaparib at a 7-Year Follow-Up in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Advanced Ovarian Cancer and a BRCA Mutation: The SOLO1/GOG 3004 Trial.

PURPOSE: In SOLO1/GOG 3004 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01844986), maintenance therapy with the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib provided a sustained progression-free survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 (BRCA) mutation. We report overall survival (OS) after a 7-year follow-up, a clinically relevant time point and the longest follow-up for any poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor in the first-line setting. METHODS: This double-blind phase III trial randomly assigned patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation in clinical response to platinum-based chemotherapy to maintenance olaparib (n = 260) or placebo (n = 131) for up to 2 years. A prespecified descriptive analysis of OS, a secondary end point, was conducted after a 7-year follow-up. RESULTS: The median duration of treatment was 24.6 months with olaparib and 13.9 months with placebo, and the median follow-up was 88.9 and 87.4 months, respectively. The hazard ratio for OS was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.40 to 0.76; P = .0004 [P < .0001 required to declare statistical significance]). At 7 years, 67.0% of olaparib patients versus 46.5% of placebo patients were alive, and 45.3% versus 20.6%, respectively, were alive and had not received a first subsequent treatment (Kaplan-Meier estimates). The incidence of myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukemia remained low, and new primary malignancies remained balanced between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Results indicate a clinically meaningful, albeit not statistically significant according to prespecified criteria, improvement in OS with maintenance olaparib in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation and support the use of maintenance olaparib to achieve long-term remission in this setting; the potential for cure may also be enhanced. No new safety signals were observed during long-term follow-up.

Adjuvant Therapy in Node-Positive Endometrial Cancer: A Focus on Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In advanced-stage and high-risk endometrial cancer, adjuvant treatment is the standard of care and typically includes chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy. Debate continues over the optimal use of these two treatment modalities together or separately. This review covers the historical literature leading to the current recommendation for adjuvant chemotherapy, in addition to looking forward to the relatively new field of targeted molecular treatment. RECENT FINDINGS: The review covers recent phase III trials comparing chemotherapy to radiotherapy in high-risk endometrial cancer. Additionally, the era of genomic medicine has a new foothold in endometrial cancer, and the review covers new discoveries on molecular classification and prognostic implications. Fortunately, the majority of endometrial cancer has a good prognosis. For advanced-stage and high-risk histologies, the prognosis can be guarded, with adjuvant treatment improving outcomes. Gynecologic oncologists continue to debate the optimal treatment modality/modalities, a debate which will likely become more robust as the field of molecular treatment in endometrial cancer evolves.

Randomized Phase III Trial of Paclitaxel and Carboplatin Versus Paclitaxel and Ifosfamide in Patients With Carcinosarcoma of the Uterus or Ovary: An NRG Oncology Trial.

PURPOSE: This phase III randomized trial (NCT00954174) tested the null hypothesis that paclitaxel and carboplatin (PC) is inferior to paclitaxel and ifosfamide (PI) for treating uterine carcinosarcoma (UCS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adults with chemotherapy-naïve UCS or ovarian carcinosarcoma (OCS) were randomly assigned to PC or PI with 3-week cycles for 6-10 cycles. With 264 events in patients with UCS, the power for an overall survival (OS) hybrid noninferiority design was 80% for a null hazard ratio (HR) of 1.2 against a 13% greater death rate on PI with a type I error of 5% for a one-tailed test. RESULTS: The study enrolled 536 patients with UCS and 101 patients with OCS, with 449 and 90 eligible, respectively. Primary analysis was on patients with UCS, distributed as follows: 40% stage I, 6% stage II, 31% stage III, 15% stage IV, and 8% recurrent. Among eligible patients with UCS, PC was assigned to 228 and PI to 221. PC was not inferior to PI. The median OS was 37 versus 29 months (HR = 0.87; 90% CI, 0.70 to 1.075; P < .01 for noninferiority, P > .1 for superiority). The median progression-free survival was 16 versus 12 months (HR = 0.73; P = < 0.01 for noninferiority, P < .01 for superiority). Toxicities were similar, except that more patients in the PC arm had hematologic toxicity and more patients in the PI arm had confusion and genitourinary hemorrhage. Among 90 eligible patients with OCS, those in the PC arm had longer OS (30 v 25 months) and progression-free survival (15 v 10 months) than those in the PI arm, but with limited precision, these differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: PC was not inferior to the active regimen PI and should be standard treatment for UCS.

Patient reported outcomes for cisplatin and radiation followed by carboplatin/paclitaxel versus carboplatin/paclitaxel for locally advanced endometrial carcinoma: An NRG oncology study.

INTRODUCTION: Chemotherapy plus radiation (Cis-RT + CP) did not demonstrate superiority in prolonging relapse-free survival compared to chemotherapy alone in patients with stage III or IVA endometrial carcinoma. The impact of treatment on quality of life (QOL), neurotoxicity (NTX) and psychometric properties of the gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms subscale during treatment and up to 1 year are described herein. METHODS: QOL assessments were scheduled at baseline, 6 weeks (post completion of RT (Cis-RT + CP) or prior to cycle 3 (CP)), then 18 weeks (end of treatment) and 70 weeks (1 year after the end of treatment) after starting treatment. QOL instruments included the FACT-En TOI, FACT/GOG-neurotoxicity (Ntx) subscale (short), and the gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms subscale. RESULTS: At the end of treatment, patients receiving Cis-RT + CP reported a statistically significant decreased QOL when compared to CP. The decline in QOL was reflected in physical well-being, functional well-being, and endometrial cancer specific concerns, but the minimally important differences (MID) were not considered clinically meaningful. Patients in both groups reported increased chemotherapy-induced Ntx symptoms with the CP group having worse scores and reaching peak symptoms at the time of chemotherapy completion. Patients on Cis-RT + CP reported statistically significantly worse GI symptoms after radiation therapy compared to patients on CP, this occurred across assessment intervals, though the MID was not meaningful. Psychometric evaluations indicated that the GI symptom scale is reliable, valid, and responsive to change. CONCLUSIONS: PROs indicate that the chemoradiotherapy group experienced worse HRQoL and GI toxicity compared to patients randomized to chemotherapy alone for locally advanced endometrial cancer though based on the MID, these were not clinically meaningful differences. The GI symptom subscale was a reliable and valid scale that has value for future trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00942357.

Maintenance Treatment of Newly Diagnosed Advanced Ovarian Cancer: Time for a Paradigm Shift?

Recent data have demonstrated substantial efficacy with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors as treatment and/or maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Here, we review efficacy and safety results from four recent Phase III trials in newly diagnosed EOC: SOLO1 (olaparib), PAOLA-1 (olaparib in combination with bevacizumab), PRIMA (niraparib), and VELIA (veliparib). The implications of these data for current clinical practice and areas for future research are discussed, including ongoing studies of targeted agents in the newly diagnosed setting. Data from SOLO1, PAOLA-1, PRIMA, and VELIA confirm the benefit of PARP inhibitors (olaparib, niraparib, veliparib) for women with newly diagnosed EOC. The greatest benefit was seen in patients with a BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutation or in the homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-test positive subgroup. These four well-conducted studies have generated practice-changing data. However, deciding how to apply these results in clinical practice is challenging, and substantial differences in trial design impede cross-trial comparisons. Recent PARP inhibitor approvals (olaparib, niraparib) in the newly diagnosed EOC setting have provided new maintenance treatment options for a broader patient population. The results of these studies call for personalized medicine based on biomarker profile and other factors, including tolerability, cost considerations, and physician and patient preference. Important areas for future research include appropriate use of both BRCA mutation and HRD testing to inform magnitude of PARP inhibitor benefit as well as exploring further options for patients who are HRD-test negative and for those who become PARP inhibitor resistant.

Population-adjusted indirect treatment comparison of the SOLO1 and PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trials evaluating maintenance olaparib or bevacizumab or the combination of both in newly diagnosed, advanced BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: In the absence of randomised head-to-head trials, we conducted a population-adjusted indirect treatment comparison (PA-ITC) of phase III trial data to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of maintenance olaparib and bevacizumab alone and in combination in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation (BRCAm). METHODS: An unanchored PA-ITC was performed on investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) data. Individual patient data from SOLO1 (olaparib versus placebo) and from BRCA-mutated patients in PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 (olaparib plus bevacizumab versus placebo plus bevacizumab) were pooled. Each arm of PAOLA-1 was weighted so that key baseline patient characteristics were similar to the SOLO1 cohort. Analyses were performed in patients with complete baseline data. Weighted Cox regression analysis was used to estimate the comparative efficacy of different maintenance therapy strategies, supplemented by weighted Kaplan-Meier analyses. RESULTS: Data from SOLO1 patients (olaparib, n = 254; placebo, n = 126) were compared with data from BRCA-mutated PAOLA-1 patients (olaparib plus bevacizumab, n = 151; placebo plus bevacizumab, n = 71). Adding bevacizumab to olaparib was associated with a numerical improvement in PFS compared with olaparib alone (hazard ratio [HR] 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-1.09). Statistically significant improvements in PFS were seen with olaparib alone versus placebo plus bevacizumab (HR 0.48; 95% CI 0.30-0.75), olaparib plus bevacizumab versus placebo (0.23; 0.14-0.34), and placebo plus bevacizumab versus placebo (0.65; 0.43-0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Results of this hypothesis-generating PA-ITC analysis support the use of maintenance olaparib alone or with bevacizumab in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCAm.

Maintenance olaparib for patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation (SOLO1/GOG 3004): 5-year follow-up of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a high unmet need for treatment regimens that increase the chance of long-term remission and possibly cure for women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. In the primary analysis of SOLO1/GOG 3004, the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo in patients with a BRCA mutation; median progression-free survival was not reached. Here, we report an updated, post-hoc analysis of progression-free survival from SOLO1, after 5 years of follow-up. METHODS: SOLO1 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, done across 118 centres in 15 countries, that enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 and with BRCA-mutated, newly diagnosed, advanced, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer with a complete or partial clinical response after platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) via a web-based or interactive voice-response system to receive olaparib (300 mg twice daily) or placebo tablets orally as maintenance monotherapy for up to 2 years; randomisation was by blocks and was stratified according to clinical response after platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients, treatment providers, and data assessors were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Efficacy is reported in the intention-to-treat population and safety in patients who received at least one dose of treatment. The data cutoff for this updated, post-hoc analysis was March 5, 2020. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01844986) and is ongoing but closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between Sept 3, 2013, and March 6, 2015, 260 patients were randomly assigned to olaparib and 131 to placebo. The median treatment duration was 24·6 months (IQR 11·2-24·9) in the olaparib group and 13·9 months (8·0-24·8) in the placebo group; median follow-up was 4·8 years (2·8-5·3) in the olaparib group and 5·0 years (2·6-5·3) in the placebo group. In this post-hoc analysis, median progression-free survival was 56·0 months (95% CI 41·9-not reached) with olaparib versus 13·8 months (11·1-18·2) with placebo (hazard ratio 0·33 [95% CI 0·25-0·43]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were anaemia (57 [22%] of 260 patients receiving olaparib vs two [2%] of 130 receiving placebo) and neutropenia (22 [8%] vs six [5%]), and serious adverse events occurred in 55 (21%) of 260 patients in the olaparib group and 17 (13%) of 130 in the placebo group. No treatment-related adverse events that occurred during study treatment or up to 30 days after discontinuation were reported as leading to death. No additional cases of myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukaemia were reported since the primary data cutoff, including after the 30-day safety follow-up period. INTERPRETATION: For patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation, after, to our knowledge, the longest follow-up for any randomised controlled trial of a PARP inhibitor in this setting, the benefit derived from 2 years' maintenance therapy with olaparib was sustained beyond the end of treatment, extending median progression-free survival past 4·5 years. These results support the use of maintenance olaparib as a standard of care in this setting. FUNDING: AstraZeneca; Merck Sharpe & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

The similarities and differences between mesonephric carcinoma and mesonephric-like carcinoma: Two cases.

•Mesonephric carcinomas are rare cancers that arise from mesonephric remnants.•Mesonephric-like carcinomas are similar but with mesonephric differentiation.•These cases add to the limited literature of these separate but similar entities.

Tolerability of maintenance olaparib in newly diagnosed patients with advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation in the randomized phase III SOLO1 trial.

OBJECTIVES: In the phase III SOLO1 trial (NCT01844986), maintenance olaparib provided a substantial progression-free survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation who were in response after platinum-based chemotherapy. We analyzed the timing, duration and grade of the most common hematologic and non-hematologic adverse events in SOLO1. METHODS: Eligible patients were randomized to olaparib tablets 300 mg twice daily (N = 260) or placebo (N = 131), with a 2-year treatment cap in most patients. Safety outcomes were analyzed in detail in randomized patients who received at least one dose of study drug (olaparib, n = 260; placebo, n = 130). RESULTS: Median time to first onset of the most common hematologic (anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia) and non-hematologic (nausea, fatigue/asthenia, vomiting) adverse events was <3 months in olaparib-treated patients. The first event of anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, nausea and vomiting lasted a median of <2 months and the first event of fatigue/asthenia lasted a median of 3.48 months in the olaparib group. These adverse events were manageable with supportive treatment and/or olaparib dose modification in most patients, with few patients requiring discontinuation of olaparib. Of 162 patients still receiving olaparib at month 24, 64.2% were receiving the recommended starting dose of olaparib 300 mg twice daily. CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance olaparib had a predictable and manageable adverse event profile in the newly diagnosed setting with no new safety signals identified. Adverse events usually occurred early, were largely manageable and led to discontinuation in a minority of patients.

Radiotherapy Versus Inguinofemoral Lymphadenectomy as Treatment for Vulvar Cancer Patients With Micrometastases in the Sentinel Node: Results of GROINSS-V II.

PURPOSE: The Groningen International Study on Sentinel nodes in Vulvar cancer (GROINSS-V)-II investigated whether inguinofemoral radiotherapy is a safe alternative to inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy (IFL) in vulvar cancer patients with a metastatic sentinel node (SN). METHODS: GROINSS-V-II was a prospective multicenter phase-II single-arm treatment trial, including patients with early-stage vulvar cancer (diameter < 4 cm) without signs of lymph node involvement at imaging, who had primary surgical treatment (local excision with SN biopsy). Where the SN was involved (metastasis of any size), inguinofemoral radiotherapy was given (50 Gy). The primary end point was isolated groin recurrence rate at 24 months. Stopping rules were defined for the occurrence of groin recurrences. RESULTS: From December 2005 until October 2016, 1,535 eligible patients were registered. The SN showed metastasis in 322 (21.0%) patients. In June 2010, with 91 SN-positive patients included, the stopping rule was activated because the isolated groin recurrence rate in this group went above our predefined threshold. Among 10 patients with an isolated groin recurrence, nine had SN metastases > 2 mm and/or extracapsular spread. The protocol was amended so that those with SN macrometastases (> 2 mm) underwent standard of care (IFL), whereas patients with SN micrometastases (≤ 2 mm) continued to receive inguinofemoral radiotherapy. Among 160 patients with SN micrometastases, 126 received inguinofemoral radiotherapy, with an ipsilateral isolated groin recurrence rate at 2 years of 1.6%. Among 162 patients with SN macrometastases, the isolated groin recurrence rate at 2 years was 22% in those who underwent radiotherapy, and 6.9% in those who underwent IFL (P = .011). Treatment-related morbidity after radiotherapy was less frequent compared with IFL. CONCLUSION: Inguinofemoral radiotherapy is a safe alternative for IFL in patients with SN micrometastases, with minimal morbidity. For patients with SN macrometastasis, radiotherapy with a total dose of 50 Gy resulted in more isolated groin recurrences compared with IFL.

Patient-centred outcomes and effect of disease progression on health status in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation receiving maintenance olaparib or placebo (SOLO1): a randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the phase 3 SOLO1 trial, maintenance olaparib provided a significant progression-free survival benefit versus placebo in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation in response after platinum-based chemotherapy. We analysed health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and patient-centred outcomes in SOLO1, and the effect of radiological disease progression on health status. METHODS: SOLO1 is a randomised, double-blind, international trial done in 118 centres and 15 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older; had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-1; had newly diagnosed, advanced, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer, primary peritoneal cancer, or fallopian tube cancer with a BRCA mutation; and were in clinical complete or partial response to platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to either 300 mg olaparib tablets or placebo twice per day using an interactive voice and web response system and were treated for up to 2 years. Treatment assignment was masked for patients and for clinicians giving the interventions, and those collecting and analysing the data. Randomisation was stratified by response to platinum-based chemotherapy (clinical complete or partial response). HRQOL was a secondary endpoint and the prespecified primary HRQOL endpoint was the change from baseline in the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovarian Cancer Trial Outcome Index (TOI) score for the first 24 months. TOI scores range from 0 to 100 (higher scores indicated better HRQOL), with a clinically meaningful difference defined as a difference of at least 10 points. Prespecified exploratory endpoints were quality-adjusted progression-free survival and time without significant symptoms of toxicity (TWiST). HRQOL endpoints were analysed in all randomly assigned patients. The trial is ongoing but closed to new participants. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01844986. FINDINGS: Between Sept 3, 2013, and March 6, 2015, 1084 patients were enrolled. 693 patients were ineligible, leaving 391 eligible patients who were randomly assigned to olaparib (n=260) or placebo (n=131; one placebo patient withdrew before receiving any study treatment), with a median duration of follow-up of 40·7 months (IQR 34·9-42·9) for olaparib and 41·2 months (32·2-41·6) for placebo. There was no clinically meaningful change in TOI score at 24 months within or between the olaparib and placebo groups (adjusted mean change in score from baseline over 24 months was 0·30 points [95% CI -0·72 to 1·32] in the olaparib group vs 3·30 points [1·84 to 4·76] in the placebo group; between-group difference of -3·00, 95% CI -4·78 to -1·22; p=0·0010). Mean quality-adjusted progression-free survival (olaparib 29·75 months [95% CI 28·20-31·63] vs placebo 17·58 [15·05-20·18]; difference 12·17 months [95% CI 9·07-15·11], p<0·0001) and the mean duration of TWiST (olaparib 33·15 months [95% CI 30·82-35·49] vs placebo 20·24 months [17·36-23·11]; difference 12·92 months [95% CI 9·30-16·54]; p<0·0001) were significantly longer with olaparib than with placebo. INTERPRETATION: The substantial progression-free survival benefit provided by maintenance olaparib in the newly diagnosed setting was achieved with no detrimental effect on patients' HRQOL and was supported by clinically meaningful quality-adjusted progression-free survival and TWiST benefits with maintenance olaparib versus placebo. FUNDING: AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Carboplatin and Paclitaxel for Advanced Endometrial Cancer: Final Overall Survival and Adverse Event Analysis of a Phase III Trial (NRG Oncology/GOG0209).

PURPOSE: Limitations of the paclitaxel-doxorubicin-cisplatin (TAP) regimen in the treatment of endometrial cancer include tolerability and cumbersome scheduling. The Gynecologic Oncology Group studied carboplatin plus paclitaxel (TC) as a noninferior alternative to TAP. METHODS: GOG0209 was a phase III, randomized, noninferiority, open-label trial. Inclusion criteria were stage III, stage IV, and recurrent endometrial cancers; performance status 0-2; and adequate renal, hepatic, and marrow function. Prior radiotherapy and/or hormonal therapy were permitted, but chemotherapy, including radiosensitization, was not. Patients were treated with doxorubicin 45 mg/m2 and cisplatin 50 mg/m2 (day 1), followed by paclitaxel 160 mg/m2 (day 2) with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor or paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 and carboplatin area under the curve 6 (day 1) every 21 days for seven cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS; modified intention to treat). Progression-free survival (PFS), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and toxicity were secondary endpoints. RESULTS: From 2003 to 2009, 1,381 women were enrolled. Noninferiority of TC to TAP was concluded for OS (median, 37 v 41 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 1.002; 90% CI, 0.9 to 1.12), and PFS (median, 13 v 14 months; HR, 1.032; 90% CI, 0.93 to 1.15). Neutropenic fever was reported in 7% of patients receiving TAP and 6% of those receiving TC. Grade > 2 sensory neuropathy was recorded in 26% of patients receiving TAP and 20% receiving TC (P = .40). More grade ≥ 3 thrombocytopenia (23% v 12%), vomiting (7% v 4%), diarrhea (6% v 2%), and metabolic (14% v 8%) toxicities were reported with TAP. Neutropenia (52% v 80%) was more common with TC. Small HRQoL differences favored TC. CONCLUSION: With demonstrated noninferiority to TAP, TC is the global first-line standard for advanced endometrial cancer.

Circulating Tumor Cells In Advanced Cervical Cancer: NRG Oncology-Gynecologic Oncology Group Study 240 (NCT 00803062).

To isolate circulating tumor cells (CTC) from women with advanced cervical cancer and estimate the impact of CTCs and treatment on overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS). A total of 7.5 mL of whole blood was drawn pre-cycle 1 and 36 days post-cycle 1 from patients enrolled on Gynecologic Oncology Group 0240, the phase III randomized trial that led directly to regulatory approval of the antiangiogenesis drug, bevacizumab, in women with recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer. CTCs (defined as anti-cytokeratin+/anti-CD45- cells) were isolated from the buffy coat layer using an anti-EpCAM antibody-conjugated ferrofluid and rare earth magnet, and counted using a semiautomated fluorescence microscope. The median pre-cycle 1 CTC count was 7 CTCs/7.5 mL whole blood (range, 0-18) and, at 36 days posttreatment, was 4 (range, 0-17). The greater the declination in CTCs between time points studied, the lower the risk of death [HR, 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.79-0.95)]. Among patients with high (≥ median) pretreatment CTCs, bevacizumab treatment was associated with a reduction in the hazard of death (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.32-1.03) and PFS (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.36-0.96). This effect was not observed with low (< median) CTCs. CTCs can be isolated from women with advanced cervical cancer and may have prognostic significance. A survival benefit conferred by bevacizumab among patients with high pretreatment CTCs may reflect increased tumor neovascularization and concomitant vulnerability to VEGF inhibition. These data support studying CTC capture as a potential predictive biomarker.

The Perfect Combination: Enhancing Patient Response to PD-1-Based Therapies in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer.

Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is the most lethal gynecologic malignancy, with an overall 5-year survival of only 47%. As the development of novel targeted therapies is drastically necessary in order to improve patient survival, current EOC clinical trials have heavily focused on immunotherapeutic approaches, centered upon programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) inhibitors. While PD-1 monotherapies have only exhibited modest responses for patients, it has been theorized that in order to enhance EOC patient response to immunotherapy, combinatorial regimens must be investigated. In this review, unique challenges to EOC PD-1 response will be discussed, along with a comprehensive description of both preclinical and clinical studies evaluating PD-1-based combinatorial therapies. Promising aspects of PD-1-based combinatorial approaches are highlighted, while also discussing specific preclinical and clinical areas of research that need to be addressed, in order to optimize EOC patient immunotherapy response.