Physician-reported patient involvement and treatment decisions in first-line ovarian cancer in the USA and Europe.

OBJECTIVES: Real-world data evaluating how approvals of novel treatment regimens for ovarian cancer have impacted the treatment paradigm, including first-line maintenance, are lacking. This analysis aimed to describe treatment patterns for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer in Europe and the USA in the first-line maintenance setting. Patient characteristics, biomarker testing rates, and drivers of treatment choice were also evaluated. METHODS: A retrospective chart review study of electronic medical records in Europe and the USA was conducted for patients diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer (June 1, 2017-May 31, 2020), in line with Healthcare Market Research guidelines. Eligible physicians extracted data from electronic medical records by completing standardized patient record forms, including questions on patient involvement in treatment decisions. Patients with advanced (stage III/IV) disease were stratified by country and diagnosis date to provide information on treatment patterns. RESULTS: Patient record forms for 7072 patients with epithelial ovarian cancer were completed by 416 physicians; 5386 patients had stage III/IV ovarian cancer. Over time, the percentage of patients who were tested for BRCA mutations or homologous recombination deficiency increased. Patient preference was documented as a reason for treatment selection in approximately one-sixth of cases in the first-line adjuvant and first-line maintenance settings. The use of first-line maintenance poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor monotherapy increased over time, while the use of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor monotherapy decreased. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study showed that treatment patterns for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer varied by country. Rates of physician-reported patient involvement in treatment decisions in the first-line adjuvant and maintenance treatment settings for ovarian cancer were low, highlighting an unmet need for initiatives to improve patient involvement in shared decision-making regarding maintenance therapy selection.

Gemogenovatucel-T (Vigil): bi-shRNA plasmid-based targeted immunotherapy.

We describe in this review the historical evidence leading up to the concept and design of Vigil and subsequent clinical applications including safety and efficacy in a randomized, controlled Phase IIB trial. Vigil (gemogenovatucel-T) is a unique triple function targeted immunotherapy that demonstrates preclinical and clinical systemic anticancer activity. Construction of Vigil involves harvest of autologous malignant tissue for neoantigen targeting (ideally containing clonal neoantigens) followed by a two-day process involving transfection with a plasmid to provide a permissive 'training environment' for the patient's immune system. Transfected plasmid components contain an expressive human GMCSF DNA segment to enhance anticancer immune functional response and a second component expressing bi-shRNAfurin which reduces TGFß isomers (TGFß1 and TGFß2) thereby reducing cancer inhibition of the targeted immune response. Results generated to date justify advancement to confirmatory clinical trials supporting product regulatory approval.

Vigil is an anticancer treatment that employs three methods of enhancing the body's immune system to identify and kill cancer cells. The construction of Vigil involves cancer cells from the same person being treated (personalized therapy) in combination with added anticancer genetic signals to enhance the number and function anti-anticancer immune cells and to guide the immune cells to the cancer and not to normal organs of the body. In this manner, an army of immune cells are created that can move to attacking the cancer using blood vessels to get to the cancer anywhere it tries to grow in the body. One study (Phase I) performed with this product to determine safety and dose range demonstrated an optimal dose and schedule. Another study (Phase IIA) showed initial clinical benefit. A third more complex study (Phase IIB) in patients treated with Vigil compared with standard of care without Vigil demonstrated the ability to prolong the patients life and time without their cancer getting worse without any significant side effects associated with the treatment in a unique subset of ovarian cancer patients, those with the ability to repair their DNA. Based on the composite of these results, Vigil is an attractive targeted immunotherapy justified for late-stage clinical testing.

Tolerability of the niraparib individualized starting dose in the PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial of niraparib first-line maintenance therapy.

PURPOSE: To explore safety and tolerability parameters for the niraparib individualized starting dose (ISD) in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer that responded to platinum-based chemotherapy who participated in the phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial (NCT02655016). METHODS: The PRIMA protocol was amended so newly enrolled patients received an ISD based on baseline body weight/platelet count. In this ad hoc analysis, the timing, duration, and resolution of the first occurrence of common any-grade hematologic (thrombocytopenia, anemia, neutropenia) and nonhematologic (nausea, asthenia/fatigue, constipation, insomnia, hypertension) treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were evaluated by treatment arm in the ISD safety population (data cutoff, November 17, 2021; median follow-up, 3.5 years). RESULTS: Of 733 randomized patients, 255 were enrolled after the ISD protocol amendment and received ≥ 1 dose of study treatment (niraparib, 169; placebo, 86). In the niraparib arm, median times to first events were 22.0-35.0 days for hematologic TEAEs and 7.0-56.0 days for nonhematologic TEAEs. First events resolved in ≥ 89.8% of patients for hematologic TEAEs; for nonhematologic TEAEs, resolution rates ranged from 55.3% (insomnia) to 86.0% (nausea). Median durations of first hematologic TEAEs were ≤ 16.0 days, but for first nonhematologic TEAEs ranged from 18.0 days (nausea) to 134.0 days (insomnia). CONCLUSION: The niraparib ISD was generally well tolerated and TEAEs were manageable. Common hematologic and nonhematologic TEAEs occurred early and first events of hematologic TEAEs had a short duration (≈ 2 weeks) and a high resolution rate. These findings support close monitoring immediately following niraparib initiation and may help inform patient expectations for niraparib safety.

Clinical Trial Protocol for ROSELLA: a phase 3 study of relacorilant in combination with nab-paclitaxel versus nab-paclitaxel monotherapy in advanced platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer has the highest mortality among gynecologic cancers, primarily because it typically is diagnosed at a late stage and because of the development of chemoresistance in recurrent disease. Improving outcomes in women with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer is a substantial unmet need. Activation of the glucocorticoid receptor (GR) by cortisol has been shown to suppress the apoptotic pathways used by cytotoxic agents, limiting their efficacy. Selective GR modulation may be able to counteract cortisol's antiapoptotic effects, enhancing chemotherapy's efficacy. A previous phase 2 study has shown that adding intermittently dosed relacorilant, a selective GR modulator, to nab-paclitaxel improved outcomes, including progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), with minimal added toxicity, in women with recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. The ROSELLA study aims to confirm and expand on these findings in a larger population. METHODS: ROSELLA is a phase 3, randomized, 2-arm, open-label, global multicenter study in women with recurrent, platinum-resistant, high-grade serous epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer. Eligible participants have received 1 to 3 lines of prior systemic anticancer therapy, including ≥1 prior line of platinum therapy and prior treatment with bevacizumab, with documented progressive disease or intolerance to the most recent therapy. There is no biomarker-based requirement for participant selection. Participants are randomized 1:1 to receive intermittently dosed relacorilant in combination with nab-paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel monotherapy. The study's primary efficacy endpoint is PFS as assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary efficacy endpoints include OS, investigator-assessed PFS, objective response rate, best overall response, duration of response, clinical benefit rate at 24 weeks, and cancer antigen 125 response. The study is also evaluating safety and patient-reported outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05257408; European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database Identifier: 2022-000662-18.

Niraparib Population Pharmacokinetics and Exposure-Response Relationships in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Advanced Ovarian Cancer.

PURPOSE: Niraparib is a poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase inhibitor approved for the maintenance treatment of advanced ovarian cancer (OC). Niraparib was originally approved in recurrent OC at a fixed starting dose (FSD) of 300 mg once daily (QD). This analysis characterized the population pharmacokinetics (PK) of niraparib and evaluated the relationships between exposure, efficacy, and safety to support clinical use of an individualized dosing strategy, in which the starting dose of niraparib was adjusted based on patient characteristics to improve the benefit-risk profile. METHODS: A population PK model was developed by pooling data from four niraparib clinical trials (PN001 [n = 104], QUADRA [n = 455], NOVA [n = 403], and PRIMA [n = 480]) in patients with solid tumors, including OC. Exposure-response analyses were conducted to explore the relationships of niraparib exposure with progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events in the PRIMA study. A multivariate logistic regression model was also developed to estimate the probability of grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia, using data from patients enrolled in PRIMA and NOVA. The impact of an individualized starting dose (ISD) regimen (200 mg QD in patients with body weight [BW] <77 kg or platelet count [PLT] <150,000/µL, or 300 mg QD in patients with BW ≥77 kg and PLT ≥150,000/µL) on systemic exposure, efficacy, and safety was assessed. FINDINGS: Niraparib disposition was best described by a 3-compartment model with linear elimination. Key covariates included baseline creatinine clearance, BW, albumin, and age, all of which had minor effects on niraparib exposure. Comparable model-predicted exposure up to the time of disease progression/death or censoring in the 300-mg FSD and 200-/300-mg ISD groups was consistent with the lower rate of dose reduction in the ISD groups. No consistent niraparib exposure-response relationship was observed for efficacy in all PRIMA patients (first-line OC), and no statistically significant difference was seen in PFS curves for patients receiving a niraparib dose of 200 mg versus 300 mg. In the multivariate regression model, performed using combined data from PRIMA and NOVA, higher niraparib exposure (area under the concentration-time curve at steady-state [AUCss]), lower BW, and lower PLT were associated with an increased risk of grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia. IMPLICATIONS: Population PK and exposure-response analyses support use of an ISD to improve the safety profile of niraparib, including reducing the rate of grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia, without compromising efficacy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01847274 (NOVA), NCT00749502 (PN001), NCT02655016 (PRIMA), NCT02354586 (QUADRA), www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

Patterns of initial ovarian cancer recurrence on niraparib maintenance monotherapy in patients with no baseline evidence of disease after first-line chemotherapy: An ad hoc subgroup analysis of PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012.

OBJECTIVES: Patterns of disease recurrence on poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor maintenance therapy are unclear and may affect subsequent treatment. This ad hoc subgroup analysis of the phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 study evaluated patterns of initial recurrence in patients with advanced ovarian cancer (AOC). METHODS: PRIMA included participants at high risk for disease progression. This ad hoc analysis only evaluated participants randomized to niraparib maintenance without evidence of disease at baseline. The number and site(s) of initial recurrent lesions at investigator-assessed progressive disease (PD) were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 314 niraparib-treated patients analyzed, 190 developed ≥1 new lesion (median number of new lesions, 1.0; interquartile range, 1-2). In total, 93.2% (177/190) of patients developed 1-3 lesions at first disease progression. The most common sites of recurrence were the peritoneum (30.0% [57/190]), lymph nodes (26.3% [50/190]), and liver (20.5% [39/190]). Similar results were observed when patients with PD were stratified by biomarker status, disease stage at diagnosis, and type of debulking surgery. Patients with homologous recombination-proficient tumors, stage III disease, or a history of primary debulking developed a median of 2.0 new lesions at first progression; patients with homologous recombination-deficient tumors, stage IV disease, or a history of interval debulking developed a median of 1.0 new lesion. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients with AOC without lesions at first-line maintenance treatment initiation develop oligometastatic disease at first recurrence. Prospective evaluation is required to determine whether these patients have improved outcomes when local therapies are combined with continuous, systemic, targeted maintenance therapy.

Predictors of long-term progression-free survival in patients with ovarian cancer treated with niraparib in the PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify characteristics associated with long-term progression-free survival (≥2 years) in patients with advanced ovarian cancer treated with niraparib first-line maintenance therapy in the phase III PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 study. METHODS: In this post hoc analysis of PRIMA, patients randomized to niraparib were grouped based on investigator-assessed progression-free survival (progressive disease/censoring <2 years or ≥2 years after randomization). Variables assessed for predictive value were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage at diagnosis, clinical response to platinum-based chemotherapy, number of prior chemotherapy cycles, primary tumor location, body mass index, categorical age, debulking surgery type, number of baseline target lesions, number of baseline non-target lesions, BRCA/homologous recombination-deficiency status, residual disease status, and duration from end of chemotherapy to randomization. Logistic regression modeling using backward elimination (significance level=0.15) identified covariates associated with long-term progression-free survival (clinical cut-off date November 17, 2021). RESULTS: Of 487 patients randomized to niraparib, 152 (31%) had progressive disease/censoring ≥2 years after randomization. Multivariable logistic regression modeling using backward elimination identified BRCA1/2 mutation/homologous recombination deficiency status (p<0.0001), FIGO stage (p=0.041), primary tumor location (p=0.095), and number of baseline non-target lesions (p=0.0001) to be associated with long-term progression-free survival. Patients significantly more likely to achieve progression-free survival of ≥2 years in the final model were those with BRCA1- and BRCA2-mutated/homologous recombination-deficient tumors or BRCA wild-type/not determined/homologous recombination-deficient tumors (vs BRCA wild-type/homologous recombination-proficient/not determined tumors), FIGO stage III (vs IV), and 0 or 1 baseline non-target lesions (vs ≥2 baseline non-target lesions). CONCLUSIONS: The hypothesis-generating results of this analysis suggest that BRCA1/2 mutation/homologous recombination-deficiency status, FIGO stage, and number of baseline non-target lesions may predict progression-free survival of ≥2 years in patients with advanced ovarian cancer receiving niraparib first-line maintenance therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02655016.

A Plain Language Summary of "Dostarlimab for primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer".

What is this summary about? Dostarlimab, also known by the brand name JEMPERLI, is a medicine that uses a patient's own immune system to treat endometrial cancer. Dostarlimab is a type of medicine called an immunotherapy. Immunotherapies help the immune system find and attack cancer cells. Dostarlimab stops cancer cells from being able to hide from the immune system, which allows the patient to have a boosted immune response against their cancer.The RUBY study is a phase 3 clinical study of primary advanced (cancer that has spread outside the uterus) or recurrent (cancer that has come back) endometrial cancer. A phase 3 clinical study looks at how well a new treatment works compared to the standard, or usual, treatment in a large patient population. The RUBY study is testing how well dostarlimab given with chemotherapy, followed by dostarlimab alone, works at delaying primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer from getting worse and preventing patients from dying, compared to chemotherapy given alone (the current standard treatment for primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer).What were the results? When dostarlimab was given with chemotherapy, this combination was found to delay primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer from getting worse and to prevent patients from dying, compared with chemotherapy given alone (without dostarlimab). Patients in the study who received dostarlimab with chemotherapy had a 36% lower risk of dying or having their cancer get worse.What do the results mean? The results from this study contributed to the approval of dostarlimab with chemotherapy as a new treatment option for patients with mismatch repair deficient/microsatellite instability-high primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. As of the publication of this plain language summary of publication (PLSP), this combination of dostarlimab with chemotherapy has been approved in the United States of America, the United Kingdom, the European Union and Hong Kong.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03981796 (RUBY).

Efficacy and safety of niraparib in patients aged 65 years and older with advanced ovarian cancer: Results from the PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of age on the efficacy and safety of niraparib first-line maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer with a complete/partial response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of the phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 study (NCT02655016). Patients in the intent-to-treat population were categorized according to age at baseline (<65 years vs ≥65 years), and progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) were evaluated for each age subgroup (clinical cutoff date, May 17, 2019). Safety findings were also evaluated according to a fixed starting dose (FSD) or an individualized starting dose (ISD). RESULTS: Of 733 randomized patients, 289 (39.4%) were ≥65 years (190 niraparib, 99 placebo) at baseline. Median PFS (niraparib vs placebo) and hazard ratios (95% CI) were similar in patients aged <65 years (13.9 vs 8.2 months; HR, 0.61 [0.47-0.81]) and ≥65 years (13.7 vs 8.1 months; HR, 0.53 [0.39-0.74]). The incidences of any-grade and grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were similar across age subgroups; in the niraparib arm, TEAEs leading to dose discontinuation occurred in 7.8% of patients <65 years and 18.4% of patients ≥65 years. ISD use lowered the incidence of grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia events in niraparib-treated patients compared with the FSD (<65 years: 42.8% vs 18.0%; ≥65 years 57.0% vs 26.1%). HRQOL was comparable across age subgroups. CONCLUSION: Niraparib efficacy, safety, and HRQOL were generally comparable across age subgroups, although patients ≥65 years had a higher rate of discontinuations due to TEAEs. ISD use reduced grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia events regardless of age.

A non-comparative, randomized, phase II trial of atezolizumab or atezolizumab plus tiragolumab for programmed death-ligand 1-positive recurrent cervical cancer (SKYSCRAPER-04).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate tiragolumab (anti-TIGIT) and atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) as second- or third-line therapy for PD-L1-positive persistent/recurrent cervical cancer. METHODS: In the open-label, non-comparative, randomized phase II SKYSCRAPER-04 trial (NCT04300647), patients with PD-L1-positive (SP263 tumor area positivity ≥5%) recurrent/persistent cervical cancer after 1-2 chemotherapy lines (≥1 platinum-based) were randomized 3:1 to atezolizumab 1200 mg with/without tiragolumab 600 mg every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Stratification factors were performance status, prior (chemo)radiotherapy, and disease status. The primary endpoint was independent review committee-assessed confirmed objective response rate per RECIST v1.1 in patients receiving tiragolumab plus atezolizumab. An objective response rate ≥21% (one-sample z-test p≤0.0245) was required for statistical significance versus a historical reference. RESULTS: Protocol-defined independent review committee-assessed objective response rates were 19.0% (95% CI 12.6 to 27.0) in 126 patients receiving tiragolumab plus atezolizumab (p=0.0787 vs historical reference) and 15.6% (95% CI 6.5 to 29.5) in 45 atezolizumab-treated patients. Response rates were higher in PD-L1high (tumor area positivity ≥10%) than PD-L1low (tumor area positivity 5%-9%) subgroups with both regimens. At 8.5 months' median follow-up, independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival was 2.8 months (95% CI 1.7 to 4.1) with tiragolumab plus atezolizumab and 1.9 months (95% CI 1.5 to 3.0) with atezolizumab. In post hoc analyses (10.4 months' median follow-up), median overall survival was 11.1 months (95% CI 9.6 to 14.5) with the combination and 10.6 months (95% CI 6.9 to 13.8) with atezolizumab (crossover permitted). In the combination group, 3% of patients had adverse events requiring treatment discontinuation and 8% had grade ≥3 adverse events of special interest; corresponding values in the single-agent arm were 4% and 11%. There were no treatment-related deaths or new safety findings. CONCLUSION: The objective response rate with the tiragolumab-plus-atezolizumab combination was numerically higher than the historical reference but did not reach statistical significance.

A systematic review of stage IVA cervical cancer treatment: Challenges in the management of an understudied group.

OBJECTIVE: Stage IVA patients comprise a small proportion of participants in cervical cancer trials, yet survival outcomes are disproportionately poor. We aim to perform a systematic review evaluating stage IVA cervical cancer. METHODS: This systematic review was completed via PRISMA 2020 guidelines using two databases. Inclusion criteria comprised Phase III trials (2004-2024) assessing stage IVA cervical cancer including patients by stage. Searches had MeSH terms: ((cervical cancer) AND (stage IVA) AND (locally advanced)). 761 were articles identified, including books, trials, reviews, and meta-analyses. Of the articles identified, 12 met inclusion criteria. RESULTS: A total of 133 (3.8% of study populations) stage IVA and 818 (40% of study populations) stage III-IVA cervical cancer patients were analyzed. Two studies (stage IVA n = 15; 3.1%) established cisplatin as chemoradiotherapy agent of choice, while one study (stage IVA n = 2; 1%) showed no benefit with cisplatin versus radiotherapy alone. Four studies (stage IVA n = 32; 3.6%; stages IIIB-IVA n = 220; 24%) found no benefit with adjuvant chemotherapy, with one analyzing stage IIIB-IVA patients (progression-free survival (PFS) hazard ratio (HR) = 0.84; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.57-1.23). Three studies (stage IVA n = 71; 5%) found no benefit adding immunomodulator (stage IVA overall survival HR = 3.48; 95% CI: 0.52-23.29), hypoxic cell sensitizer, or immunotherapy (stage III-IVA PFS HR = 0.71; 95% CI: 0.49-1.03) to chemoradiotherapy. One study (stages III-IVA n = 598; 56%) found benefit adding immunotherapy to chemoradiotherapy (stage III-IVA PFS HR = 0.58; 95% CI: 0.42-0.8). One study (stage IVA n = 13; 3.5%) showed benefit with induction chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Trials have not included substantial IVA patients to draw reasonable conclusions. Despite mixed results for immunotherapy, adjuvant chemotherapy, and induction chemotherapy, the exact benefit for stage IVA patients remains unknown. Future clinical trials should include a greater number of stage IVA cervical cancer patients and analyze them individually.

ENGOT-EN20/GOG-3083/XPORT-EC-042 - A phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter trial of selinexor in maintenance therapy after systemic therapy for patients with p53 wild-type, advanced, or recurrent endometrial carcinoma: rationale, methods, and trial design.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer have a poor prognosis and limited treatment options. Biomarkers such as tumor protein 53 (TP53) in endometrial cancer can integrate novel strategies for improved and individualized treatment that could impact patient outcomes. In an exploratory analysis of the phase III ENGOT-EN5/GOG-3055/SIENDO study of selinexor maintenance monotherapy 80 mg in advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer, a pre-specified subgroup of patients with TP53 wild type (wt) endometrial cancer showed preliminary activity at long-term follow-up with a generally manageable safety profile (median progression-free survival 27.4 months vs 5.2 months placebo, HR=0.41). PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of selinexor compared with placebo as maintenance therapy in patients with advanced or recurrent TP53wt endometrial cancer. STUDY HYPOTHESIS: Selinexor administered at 60 mg weekly as maintenance therapy will show manageable safety and maintain efficacy in patients with TP53wt advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer after systemic therapy versus placebo. TRIAL DESIGN: This is a prospective, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized phase III study designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of selinexor as a maintenance therapy in patients with advanced or recurrent TP53wt endometrial cancer. MAJOR INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Eligible patients must have histologically confirmed endometrial cancer, TP53wt confirmed by next-generation sequencing, completed at least 12 weeks of platinum-based therapy with or without immunotherapy, with confirmed partial response or complete response, and primary Stage IV disease or at first relapse. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: The primary endpoint is investigator-assessed progression-free survival per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1 in the intent-to-treat population. SAMPLE SIZE: A total of 220 patients will be enrolled. ESTIMATED DATES FOR COMPLETING ACCRUAL AND PRESENTING RESULTS: Accrual is expected to be completed in 2024 with presentation of results in 2025. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05611931.

Phase II Trial of Cisplatin, Gemcitabine, and Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy for Locally Advanced Vulvar Squamous Cell Carcinoma: NRG Oncology/GOG Study 279.

PURPOSE: To assess efficacy and toxicity of cisplatin (C) and gemcitabine (G) with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in patients with locally advanced vulvar cancer not amenable to surgery. METHODS: Patients enrolled in a single-arm phase II study. Pretreatment inguinal-femoral nodal assessment was performed. Sixty-four Gy IMRT was prescribed to the vulva, with 50-64 Gy delivered to the groins/low pelvis. Radiation therapy (RT) plans were quality-reviewed pretreatment. C 40 mg/m2 and G 50 mg/m2 were administered once per week throughout IMRT. Complete pathologic response (CPR) was the primary end point. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and adverse events were assessed with Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v 4.0. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients enrolled, of which 52 were evaluable. The median age was 58 years (range, 25-58), and 94% were White. Forty (77%) had stage II or III disease, and all had squamous histology. A median of six chemotherapy cycles (range, 1-8) were received. Eighty-five percent of RT plans were quality-reviewed with 100% compliance to protocol. Seven patients came off trial because of toxicity or patient withdrawal. Of 52 patients available for pathologic assessment, 38 (73% [90% CI, 61 to 83]) achieved CPR. No pelvic exenterations were performed. With a median follow-up of 51 months, the 12-month PFS was 74% (90% CI, 62.2 to 82.7) and the 24-month OS was 70% (90% CI, 57 to 79). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were hematologic toxicity and radiation dermatitis. There was one grade 5 event unlikely related to treatment. CONCLUSION: Weekly C and G concurrent with IMRT sufficiently improved CPR in women with locally advanced vulvar squamous cell carcinoma not amenable to surgical resection.

Progression-free survival and safety at 3.5 years of follow-up: results from the randomized phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial of niraparib maintenance treatment in patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer - a plain language summary.

What is this summary about? This PLSP provides a short summary of an original scientific article that presented results from the PRIMA study after 3.5 years of follow-up time. The original article was published in the European Journal of Cancer in 2023.The PRIMA study included adult patients with newly diagnosed advanced high-risk ovarian cancer whose tumors shrunk or became undetectable after treatment with chemotherapy with or without surgery. The PRIMA study evaluated how well the drug niraparib, also known as Zejula, worked at delaying or preventing ovarian cancer from coming back (recurring) or getting worse (progressing) compared with placebo (a substance with no effects that a doctor gives to a patient instead of a drug). The first results from the PRIMA study were published in 2019, when patients had participated in the PRIMA study for about 1.2 years.The article this PLSP is based on reports longer-term data from the PRIMA study, when patients had participated in the PRIMA study for about 3.5 years. Patients were monitored (or followed) for a longer time to understand how well niraparib continued to work and to evaluate whether the safety of niraparib changed with additional time being monitored.What were the results? Patients who took niraparib had more time before their cancer came back or got worse than patients who took placebo. In terms of safety, no new types of side effects with niraparib treatment were observed with additional time being monitored as part of the PRIMA study.What do the results mean? These results support that niraparib remains an important treatment option to help delay the cancer from coming back or getting worse in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer that responded to initial treatment.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02655016 (PRIMA study) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Paclitaxel therapeutic drug monitoring - International association of therapeutic drug monitoring and clinical toxicology recommendations.

Paclitaxel, one of the most frequently used anticancer drugs, is dosed by body surface area, which leads to substantial inter-individual variability in systemic drug exposure. We evaluated clinical evidence regarding the scientific rationale and clinical benefit of individualized paclitaxel dosing based on measured systemic concentrations, known as therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). In retrospective studies, higher systemic exposure is associated with greater toxicity and efficacy of paclitaxel treatment across several disease types and dosing regimens. In prospective trials, TDM reduces variability in systemic exposure, and has been demonstrated to reduce toxicity while retaining treatment efficacy for 3-weekly dosing in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Despite the demonstrated benefits of paclitaxel TDM, clinical adoption has been limited due to the challenges with sample collection and analysis. Based on our review, we strongly recommend TDM for patients receiving every 3-week paclitaxel in combination with a platinum agent for advanced NSCLC, due to the prospectively demonstrated clinical benefits, and find moderate evidence to recommend TDM for paclitaxel 3-hour infusions for other tumor types and preliminary evidence suggesting potential usefulness for paclitaxel administered by 1-hour infusions.