MITO END-3: Efficacy of Avelumab immunotherapy according to molecular profiling in first-line endometrial cancer therapy.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy significantly improves progression-free survival compared to first-line chemotherapy alone in advanced endometrial cancer, with a much larger effect size in microsatellite-instability high (MSI-H) cases. New biomarkers might help to select patients that may have benefit among those with a microsatellite-stable (MSS) tumor. METHODS: In a pre-planned translational analysis of the MITO END-3 trial, we assessed the significance of genomic abnormalities in patients randomized to standard carboplatin/paclitaxel without or with avelumab. RESULTS: Out of 125 randomized patients, 109 had samples eligible for next-generation sequencing (NGS) analysis, and 102 had MSI tested. According to The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), there were 29 cases MSI-H, 26 MSS TP53 wild-type (wt), 47 MSS TP53 mutated (mut), and one case with POLE mutation. Four mutated genes were present in more than 30% of cases: TP53, PIK3CA, ARID1A, and PTEN. Eleven patients (10%) had a BRCA1/2 mutation (five in MSI-H and six in MSS). High TMB (≥10 Muts/Mb) was observed in all MSI-H patients, in four out of 47 MSS/TP53 mut, and no case in the MSS/TP53 wt category. The effect of avelumab on progression-free survival significantly varied according to TCGA categories, being favorable in MSI-H and worst in MSS/TP53 mut (P interaction=0.003); a similar non-significant trend was seen in survival analysis. ARID1A and PTEN also showed a statistically significant interaction with treatment effect, which was better in the presence of the mutation (ARID1A P interaction=0.01; PTEN P interaction=0.002). CONCLUSION: The MITO END-3 trial results suggest that TP53 mutation is associated with a poor effect of avelumab, while mutations of PTEN and ARID1A are related to a positive effect of the drug in patients with advanced endometrial cancer.

Under-reporting of subjective symptoms and its prognostic value: a pooled analysis of 12 cancer clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Oncologists tend to under-report subjective symptoms during cancer treatment. This study describes the under-reporting rate of selected symptoms and explores its association with overall survival (OS). A secondary aim is to test the association of patient-reported symptoms with OS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis on data pooled from 12 randomized trials, promoted by the National Cancer Institute of Naples (Italy), enrolling patients between 2002 and 2019, with published primary analyses. Occurrence and grade of six side-effects (anorexia, nausea, vomiting, constipation, diarrhea and fatigue) reported by physicians were compared with corresponding symptoms reported by patients in quality-of-life (QoL) questionnaires. Under-reporting was defined as the rate of cases reported grade 0 by the physician while grade ≥1 by the patient. Prognostic value was tested in a multivariable model stratified by trial, including age, sex and performance status as confounders. A landmark threshold was defined for OS analyses. RESULTS: 3792 patients with advanced lung, ovarian, pancreatic, breast or colorectal cancer were pooled; 2603 (68.6%) were eligible having at least one toxicity assessment and one QoL questionnaire, before the first planned disease restaging. Concordance between physicians' and patients' reporting was low with Cohen's k coefficients ranging from 0.03 (fatigue) to 0.33 (vomiting). Under-reporting ranged from 52.7% (nausea) to 80.5% (anorexia), and was not associated with OS. Patient-reported anorexia, vomiting and fatigue ('a little' or more) were significantly associated with shorter OS. CONCLUSIONS: Under-reporting of treatment side-effects is frequent, but it does not affect OS. Patients' reported symptoms should be used for prognostic evaluation.

ESGO-ESMO-ESP consensus conference recommendations on ovarian cancer: pathology and molecular biology and early, advanced and recurrent disease.

The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the European Society of Pathology held a consensus conference (CC) on ovarian cancer on 15-16 June 2022 in Valencia, Spain. The CC panel included 44 experts in the management of ovarian cancer and pathology, an ESMO scientific advisor and a methodologist. The aim was to discuss new or contentious topics and develop recommendations to improve and harmonise the management of patients with ovarian cancer. Eighteen questions were identified for discussion under four main topics: (i) pathology and molecular biology, (ii) early-stage disease and pelvic mass in pregnancy, (iii) advanced stage (including older/frail patients) and (iv) recurrent disease. The panel was divided into four working groups (WGs) to each address questions relating to one of the four topics outlined above, based on their expertise. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the WGs and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment before voting. This manuscript focuses on the recommendation statements that reached a consensus, their voting results and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation.

Randomized phase II BGOG/ENGOT-cx1 study of paclitaxel-carboplatin with or without nintedanib in first-line recurrent or advanced cervical cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Nintedanib is an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting, among others, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor. The aim was to establish the role of nintedanib in addition to paclitaxel and carboplatin in first-line recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer. METHODS: Double-blind phase II randomized study in patients with first-line recurrent or primary advanced (FIGO stage IVB) cervical cancer. Patients received carboplatin-paclitaxel with oral nintedanib 200 mg BID/placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) at 1.5 years and α = 0.15, ß = 80%, one sided. RESULTS: 120 patients (62 N, 58C) were randomized. Median follow-up was 35 months. Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups (total population: squamous cell carcinoma 62%, prior radiotherapy 64%, primary advanced 25%, recurrent 75%). The primary endpoint was met with a PFS at 1.5 years of 15.1% versus 12.8% in favor of the nintedanib arm (p = 0.057). Median overall survival (OS) was 21.7 and 16.4 months for N and C, respectively. Confirmed RECIST response rate was 48% for N and 39% for C. No new adverse events were noted for N. However, N was associated with numerically more serious adverse events for anemia and febrile neutropenia. Global health status during and at the end of the study was similar in both arms. CONCLUSION: The study met its primary endpoint with a prolonged PFS in the N arm. No new safety signals were observed.

Olaparib plus bevacizumab first-line maintenance in ovarian cancer: final overall survival results from the PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 primary analysis, maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab demonstrated a significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer patients in clinical response after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, irrespective of surgical status. Prespecified, exploratory analyses by molecular biomarker status showed substantial benefit in patients with a BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation (BRCAm) or homologous recombination deficiency (HRD; BRCAm and/or genomic instability). We report the prespecified final overall survival (OS) analysis, including analyses by HRD status. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 2 : 1 to olaparib (300 mg twice daily; up to 24 months) plus bevacizumab (15 mg/kg every 3 weeks; 15 months total) or placebo plus bevacizumab. Analysis of OS, a key secondary endpoint in hierarchical testing, was planned for ∼60% maturity or 3 years after the primary analysis. RESULTS: After median follow-up of 61.7 and 61.9 months in the olaparib and placebo arms, respectively, median OS was 56.5 versus 51.6 months in the intention-to-treat population [hazard ratio (HR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76-1.12; P = 0.4118]. Subsequent poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor therapy was received by 105 (19.6%) olaparib patients versus 123 (45.7%) placebo patients. In the HRD-positive population, OS was longer with olaparib plus bevacizumab (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45-0.85; 5-year OS rate, 65.5% versus 48.4%); at 5 years, updated PFS also showed a higher proportion of olaparib plus bevacizumab patients without relapse (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.32-0.54; 5-year PFS rate, 46.1% versus 19.2%). Myelodysplastic syndrome, acute myeloid leukemia, aplastic anemia, and new primary malignancy incidence remained low and balanced between arms. CONCLUSIONS: Olaparib plus bevacizumab provided clinically meaningful OS improvement for first-line patients with HRD-positive ovarian cancer. These prespecified exploratory analyses demonstrated improvement despite a high proportion of patients in the placebo arm receiving poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors after progression, confirming the combination as one of the standards of care in this setting with the potential to enhance cure.

Alternative academic approaches for testing homologous recombination deficiency in ovarian cancer in the MITO16A/MaNGO-OV2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The detection of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) can identify patients who are more responsive to platinum and poly ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPi). MyChoice CDx (Myriad) is the most used HRD test in ovarian cancer (OC). However, some limitations of commercial tests exist, because of the high rate of inconclusive results, costs, and the impossibility of evaluating functional resistance mechanisms. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two academic genomic tests and a functional assay, the RAD51 foci, were evaluated to detect HRD. One hundred patients with high-grade OC enrolled in the MITO16A/MaNGO-OV2 trial and treated with first-line therapy with carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab were analyzed. RESULTS: The failure rate of the two genomic assays was 2%. The sensitivity in detecting HRD when compared with Myriad was 98.1% and 90.6%, respectively. The agreement rate with Myriad was 0.92 and 0.87, with a Cohen's κ coefficient corresponding to 0.84 and 0.74, respectively. For the RAD51 foci assay, the failure rate was 30%. When the test was successful, discordant results for deficient and proficient tumors were observed, and additional HRD patients were identified compared to Myriad; sensitivity was 82.9%, agreement rate was 0.65, and Cohen's κ coefficient was 0.18. The HRD detected by genomic assays and residual tumor at primary surgery and stage was correlated with progression-free survival at multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest the feasibility of academic tests for assessing HRD status that show robust concordance with Myriad and correlation with clinical outcome. The contribution of the functional information related to the RAD51 foci test to the genomic data needs further investigation.

Efficacy of subsequent chemotherapy for patients with BRCA1/2-mutated recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer progressing on olaparib versus placebo maintenance: post-hoc analyses of the SOLO2/ENGOT Ov-21 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the SOLO2 trial (ENGOT Ov-21; NCT01874353), maintenance olaparib in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSROC) and BRCA mutation significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and prolonged overall survival (OS). Following disease progression on olaparib, efficacy of subsequent chemotherapy remains unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a post-hoc hypothesis-generating analysis of SOLO2 data to determine the efficacy of different chemotherapy regimens following RECIST disease progression in patients who received olaparib or placebo. We evaluated time to second progression (TTSP) calculated from the date of RECIST progression to the next progression/death. RESULTS: The study population comprised 147 patients who received chemotherapy as their first subsequent treatment after RECIST progression. Of these, 69 (47%) and 78 (53%) were originally randomized to placebo and olaparib arms, respectively. In the placebo-treated cohort, 27/69 and 42/69 received non-platinum and platinum-based chemotherapy, respectively, compared with 24/78 and 54/78, respectively, in the olaparib-treated cohort. Among patients treated with chemotherapy (N = 147), TTSP was significantly longer in the placebo than in the olaparib arm: 12.1 versus 6.9 months [hazard ratio (HR) 2.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.47-3.19]. Similar result was obtained on multivariable analysis adjusting for prognostic factors at RECIST progression (HR 2.13, 95% CI 1.41-3.22). Among patients treated with platinum-based chemotherapy (n = 96), TTSP was significantly longer in the placebo arm: 14.3 versus 7.0 months (HR 2.89, 95% CI 1.73-4.82). Conversely, among patients treated with non-platinum-based chemotherapy (n = 51), the TTSP was comparable in the placebo and olaparib arms: 8.3 versus 6.0 months (HR 1.58, 95% CI 0.86-2.90). CONCLUSIONS: Following progression from maintenance olaparib in the recurrent setting, the efficacy of platinum-based subsequent chemotherapy seems to be reduced in BRCA1/2-mutated patients with PSROC compared to patients not previously receiving poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi). The optimal strategy for patients who relapse after PARPi is an area of ongoing research.

Emerging molecular alterations leading to histology-specific targeted therapies in ovarian cancer beyond PARP inhibitors.

After more than 30 years of a one-size-fits-all approach in the management of advanced ovarian cancer, in 2018 the SOLO1 trial results have introduced a new era of personalized medicine. A deeper knowledge of ovarian cancer biology and the development of new drugs targeting specific molecular pathways have led to biomarker-driven phase 3 trials with practice changing results. Thereafter, platinum-based combinations are no longer the only therapeutic options available in first line setting and poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors maintenance therapy has become the mainstay in patients with tumor harboring a homologous recombination defect. However, most of the recent therapeutic breakthroughs regard high grade serous carcinoma, the most frequent ovarian cancer subtype, and only few improvements have occurred in the management of less common histotypes. Moving towards the next challenges, we aimed to investigate and review new potential molecular targets in ovarian cancer, according to histotype, starting from promising molecular drivers and matched drugs that have been investigated in early and late-stage clinical trials or conceptualized in preclinical studies.

The forefront of ovarian cancer therapy: update on PARP inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: In recurrent ovarian cancer, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP)-inhibiting agents have transformed the treatment of platinum-sensitive disease. New data support use of PARP inhibitors earlier in the treatment algorithm. DESIGN: We review results from recent phase III trials evaluating PARP inhibitors as treatment and/or maintenance therapy for patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer. We discuss the efficacy and safety of these agents in the all-comer and biomarker-selected populations studied in clinical trials, and compare the strengths and limitations of the various trial designs. We also consider priorities for future research, with a particular focus on patient selection and future regimens for populations with high unmet need. RESULTS: Four phase III trials (SOLO-1, PAOLA-1/ENGOT-OV25, PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26 and VELIA/GOG-3005) demonstrated remarkable improvements in progression-free survival with PARP inhibitor therapy (olaparib, niraparib or veliparib) for newly diagnosed ovarian cancer. Differences in trial design (treatment and/or maintenance setting; single agent or combination; bevacizumab or no bevacizumab), patient selection (surgical outcome, biomarker eligibility, prognosis) and primary analysis population (intention-to-treat, BRCA mutated or homologous recombination deficiency positive) affect the conclusions that can be drawn from these trials. Overall survival data are pending and there is limited experience regarding long-term safety. CONCLUSIONS: PARP inhibitors play a pivotal role in the management of newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, which will affect subsequent treatment choices. Refinement of testing for patient selection and identification of regimens to treat populations that appear to benefit less from PARP inhibitors are a priority.

Carboplatin-paclitaxel compared to Carboplatin-Paclitaxel-Bevacizumab in advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer: MITO END-2 - A randomized phase II trial.

OBJECTIVE: Increased Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor (VEGF) expression in endometrial cancer (EC) is associated with a poor prognosis. Preliminary clinical data reported Bevacizumab effectiveness in EC both as single agent and in combination with chemotherapy. METHODS: In a phase II trial, patients with advanced (FIGO stage III-IV) or recurrent EC were randomized to receive Carboplatin-Paclitaxel standard dose for 6-8 cycles vs Carboplatin-Paclitaxel and Bevacizumab 15 mg/kg in combination with chemotherapy and maintenance until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). RESULTS: 108 patients were randomized; PFS (10.5 vs 13.7 months, HR 0.84 p = 0.43), overall response rate (ORR 53.1% vs 74.4%) and overall survival (OS) (29.7 vs 40.0 months, HR 0.71 p = 0.24) resulted in a non-significant increase in Bevacizumab treated patients. The PFS increase became significant when an exploratory analysis with the Breslow test was used. Moreover, patients treated with Bevacizumab experienced a significant increase in 6-month disease control rate (70.4% vs 90.7%). Cardiovascular events were more frequent in the experimental arm ("de novo" grade ≥2 hypertension 21% vs 0% and grade ≥2 thromboembolic events 11% vs 2% in the Bevacizumab vs standard treatment arm, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced/recurrent EC failed to demonstrate a significant increase in PFS in the MITO END-2 trial. Nevertheless, these preliminary data suggests some effectiveness of the antiangiogenic agent which merits further exploration in a larger population with a better molecular characterization.

Overall survival results of AGO-OVAR16: A phase 3 study of maintenance pazopanib versus placebo in women who have not progressed after first-line chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The AGO-OVAR16 study was designed to test the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of pazopanib maintenance after first-line chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer (AOC). METHODS: Nine hundred and forty patients with histologically confirmed AOC, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage II-IV, were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 800 mg pazopanib once daily or placebo for up to 24 months, unless there was disease progression, toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or death. The primary endpoint (investigator-assessed progression-free survival [PFS]) was met and previously reported. The results of final analyses of overall survival (OS) are reported here. RESULTS: A third OS interim analysis showed futility and led to study closure and a final OS analysis after last patient last visit. At the time of the final OS analysis, 494 (89.7% of the planned 551) events had occurred. No difference was observed in OS between pazopanib and placebo. The hazard ratio (HR) was 0.960 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.805-1.145), and the median OS from randomization was 59.1 months in pazopanib and 64.0 months in placebo arms. For the East Asian patients, similar to the first three interim OS analyses, a numerical negative trend was observed favoring placebo (HR, 1.332; 95% CI: 0.863-2.054). Exploratory analyses showed a trend for a longer time to first subsequent anti-cancer therapy or death with pazopanib over placebo (HR, 0.829; 95% CI: 0.713-0.965), with a median estimate of 19.0 and 14.5 months, respectively. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION: Although pazopanib prolonged PFS, this was not associated with improvement in median OS. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00866697.

Conservative surgery in stage I adult type granulosa cells tumors of the ovary: Results from the MITO-9 study.

OBJECTIVE: About 30% of Adult type granulosa cell tumors of the ovary (AGCTs) are diagnosed in fertile age. In stage I, conservative surgery (fertility-sparing surgery, FSS), either unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (USO) or cystectomy are possible options. The aim of this study is to compare oncological outcomes of FSS and radical surgery (RS) in apparently stage I AGCTs treated within the MITO group (Multicenter Italian Trials in Ovarian cancer). METHODS: Survival curves were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with log-rank test. The role of clinicopathological variables as prognostic factors for survival was assessed using Cox's regression. RESULTS: Two-hundred and twenty-nine patients were included; 32.6% received FSS, 67.4% RS. In the FSS group, 62.8% underwent USO, 16.7% cystectomy, 20.5% cystectomy followed by USO. After a median follow up of 84 months, median DFS was significantly worse in the FSS-group (10 yr DFS 50% vs 74%, in FSS and RS group, p = 0.006). No significant difference was detected between RS and USO (10 yr DFS 75% vs 70%, p = 0.5).Cystectomy-group showed a significantly worse DFS compared to USO (10 yr DFS 16% vs 70%, p < 0.001). Patients receiving cystectomy and subsequent USO showed a better prognosis, even though significantly worse compared to USO (10 yr DFS 41% vs 70%, p = 0.05). Between FSS and RS, no difference in OS was detected. At multivariate analysis, FIGO stage IC and cystectomy retained significant predictive value for worse survival. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the oncological safety of FSS in stage I AGCTs, provided that cystectomy is avoided; USO should be the preferred approach.

ESMO-ESGO consensus conference recommendations on ovarian cancer: pathology and molecular biology, early and advanced stages, borderline tumours and recurrent disease†.

The development of guidelines recommendations is one of the core activities of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and European Society of Gynaecologial Oncology (ESGO), as part of the mission of both societies to improve the quality of care for patients with cancer across Europe. ESMO and ESGO jointly developed clinically relevant and evidence-based recommendations in several selected areas in order to improve the quality of care for women with ovarian cancer. The ESMO-ESGO consensus conference on ovarian cancer was held on 12-14 April 2018 in Milan, Italy, and comprised a multidisciplinary panel of 40 leading experts in the management of ovarian cancer. Before the conference, the expert panel worked on five clinically relevant questions regarding ovarian cancer relating to each of the following four areas: pathology and molecular biology, early-stage and borderline tumours, advanced stage disease and recurrent disease. Relevant scientific literature, as identified using a systematic search, was reviewed in advance. During the consensus conference, the panel developed recommendations for each specific question and a consensus was reached. The recommendations presented here are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. This article presents the recommendations of this ESMO-ESGO consensus conference, together with a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation.

Antitumor activity and safety of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced recurrent ovarian cancer: results from the phase II KEYNOTE-100 study.

BACKGROUND: Advanced recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC) is the leading cause of gynecologic cancer-related death in developed countries and new treatments are needed. Previous studies of immune checkpoint blockade showed low objective response rates (ORR) in ROC with no identified predictive biomarker. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This phase II study of pembrolizumab (NCT02674061) examined two patient cohorts with ROC: cohort A received one to three prior lines of treatment with a platinum-free interval (PFI) or treatment-free interval (TFI) between 3 and 12 months and cohort B received four to six prior lines with a PFI/TFI of ≥3 months. Pembrolizumab 200 mg was administered intravenously every 3 weeks until cancer progression, toxicity, or completion of 2 years. Primary end points were ORR by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 per blinded independent central review by cohort and by PD-L1 expression measured as combined positive score (CPS). Secondary end points included duration of response (DOR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: Cohort A enrolled 285 patients; the first 100 served as the training set for PD-L1 biomarker analysis. Cohort B enrolled 91 patients. ORR was 7.4% for cohort A and 9.9% for cohort B. Median DOR was 8.2 months for cohort A and not reached for cohort B. DCR was 37.2% and 37.4%, respectively, in cohorts A and B. Based on the training set analysis, CPS 1 and 10 were selected for evaluation in the confirmation set. In the confirmation set, ORR was 4.1% for CPS <1, 5.7% CPS ≥1, and 10.0% for CPS ≥10. PFS was 2.1 months for both cohorts. Median OS was not reached for cohort A and was 17.6 months for cohort B. Toxicities were consistent with other single-agent pembrolizumab trials. CONCLUSIONS: Single-agent pembrolizumab showed modest activity in patients with ROC. Higher PD-L1 expression was correlated with higher response. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02674061.

ESMO-ESGO consensus conference recommendations on ovarian cancer: pathology and molecular biology, early and advanced stages, borderline tumours and recurrent disease.

The development of guidelines is one of the core activities of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and European Society of Gynaecologial Oncology (ESGO), as part of the mission of both societies to improve the quality of care for patients with cancer across Europe. ESMO and ESGO jointly developed clinically relevant and evidence-based recommendations in several selected areas in order to improve the quality of care for women with ovarian cancer. The ESMO-ESGO consensus conference on ovarian cancer was held on April 12-14, 2018 in Milan, Italy, and comprised a multidisciplinary panel of 40 leading experts in the management of ovarian cancer. Before the conference, the expert panel worked on five clinically relevant questions regarding ovarian cancer relating to each of the following four areas: pathology and molecular biology, early-stage and borderline tumours, advanced stage disease and recurrent disease. Relevant scientific literature, as identified using a systematic search, was reviewed in advance. During the consensus conference, the panel developed recommendations for each specific question and a consensus was reached. The recommendations presented here are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. This article presents the recommendations of this ESMO-ESGO consensus conference, together with a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation.

Rare ovarian tumours: Epidemiology, treatment challenges in and outside a network setting.

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: More than 50% of all gynaecological cancers can be classified as rare tumours (defined as an annual incidence of <6 per 100,000) and such tumours represent an important challenge for clinicians. RECENT FINDINGS: Rare cancers account for more than one fifth of all new cancer diagnoses, more than any of the single common cancers alone. Reviewing the RARECAREnet database, some of the tumours occur infrequently, whilst others because of their natural history have a high prevalence, and therefore appear to be more common, although their incidence is also rare. Harmonization of medical practice, guidelines and novel trials are needed to identify rare tumours and facilitate the development of new treatments. Ovarian tumours are the focus of this review, but we comment on other rare gynaecological tumours, as the diagnosis and treatment challenges faced are similar. FUTURE: This requires European collaboration, international partnerships, harmonization of treatment and collaboration to overcome the regulatory barriers to conduct international trials. Whilst randomized trials can be done in many tumour types, there are some for which conducting even single arm studies may be challenging. For these tumours alternative study designs, robust collection of data through national registries and audits could lead to improvements in the treatment of rare tumours. In addition, concentring the care of patients with rare tumours into a limited number of centres will help to build expertise, facilitate trials and improve outcomes.