Association between endocrine adjuvant therapy intake timing and disease-free survival in patients with high-risk early breast cancer: results of a sub-study of the UCBG- UNIRAD trial.

BACKGROUND: Circadian rhythms regulate cellular physiology and could influence the efficacy of endocrine therapy (ET) in breast cancer (BC). We prospectively tested this hypothesis within the UNIRAD adjuvant phase III trial (NCT01805271). METHODS: 1278 patients with high-risk hormonal receptor positive (HR+)/HER2 negative (HER2-) primary BC were randomly assigned to adjuvant ET with placebo or everolimus. Patients prospectively reported in a diary the daily timing of ET intake among four 6-h slots (06:00-11:59 (morning), 12:00-17:59 (afternoon), 18:00-23:59 (evening), or 24:00-05:59 (nighttime). The association between ET timing and disease-free survival (DFS) was a prespecified secondary endpoint of the trial and the results of this observational study are reported here. FINDINGS: ET timing was recorded by 855 patients (67.2%). Patients declaring morning (n = 465, 54.4%) or afternoon (n = 45, 5.4%) ET intake were older than those declaring evening (n = 339, 39.6%) or nighttime (n = 5, 0.6%) intake. With a median follow-up of 46.7 months, 118 patients had a local (n = 30) or metastasis relapse (n = 84), and 41 patients died. ET intake timing was not associated with DFS in the whole population (HR = 0.77, 95% CI [0.53-1.12]). The association between ET intake timing and DFS according to the stratification factors revealed interactions with ET agent (tamoxifen versus Aromatase inhibitors (AI) with an increased DFS in the group of evening/nighttime versus morning/afternoon tamoxifen intake (HR = 0.43, 95% CI [0.22-0.85]), while no association was found for AI intake (HR = 1.07, 95% CI [0.68-1.69]). The interaction between ET intake timing and ET agent remained in multivariable analysis (HR = 0.38 [0.16-0.91]). INTERPRETATION: Tamoxifen intake in the evening/nighttime could be recommended in patients with high-risk HR+/HER2- BC while awaiting for results from further ET timing studies. FUNDING: UNIRAD was Supported by a grant from the French Ministry of Health PHRC 2012 and received funding from La Ligue contre le Cancer, Cancer Research-UK, Myriad Genetics, and Novartis.

Updated progression-free survival and final overall survival with maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab according to clinical risk in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer in the phase III PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trial.

OBJECTIVE: In the PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trial (NCT02477644), adding maintenance olaparib to bevacizumab provided a substantial progression-free survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-positive tumors, irrespective of clinical risk. Subsequently, a clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival was reported with olaparib plus bevacizumab in the HRD-positive subgroup. We report updated progression-free survival and overall survival by clinical risk and HRD status. METHODS: Patients in clinical response after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab received maintenance olaparib (up to 24 months) plus bevacizumab (up to 15 months in total) or placebo plus bevacizumab. This post hoc analysis evaluated 5-year progression-free survival and mature overall survival in patients classified by clinical risk and HRD status. RESULTS: Of 806 randomized patients, 74% were higher-risk and 26% were lower-risk. In higher-risk HRD-positive patients, the hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival was 0.46 (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.34 to 0.61), with 5-year progression-free survival of 35% with olaparib plus bevacizumab versus 15% with bevacizumab alone; and the HR for overall survival was 0.70 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.00), with 5-year overall survival of 55% versus 42%, respectively. In lower-risk HRD-positive patients, the HR for progression-free survival was 0.26 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.45), with 5-year progression-free survival of 72% with olaparib plus bevacizumab versus 28% with bevacizumab alone; and the HR for overall survival was 0.31 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.66), with 5-year overall survival of 88% versus 61%, respectively. No benefit was seen in HRD-negative patients regardless of clinical risk. CONCLUSION: This post hoc analysis indicates that in patients with newly diagnosed advanced HRD-positive ovarian cancer, maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab should not be limited to those considered at higher risk of disease progression. Five-year progression-free survival rates support long-term remission and suggest an increased potential for cure with particular benefit suggested in lower-risk HRD-positive patients.

Recommandations pour la pratique clinique Nice/Saint-Paul-de-Vence 2022­2023 : prise en charge du cancer de l'endomètre localisé.

Recommendations for clinical practice, Nice/Saint-Paul-de-Vence 2022-2023: Management of localized endometrial cancer Endometrial cancer is the most frequent gynecological cancers in industrialized countries and its incidence increases. The newmolecularclassification allows determination of the risk of recurrence and helps orienting therapeutic management. Surgery remains the cornerstone of treatment. Minimally invasive approach must be preferred for stages I and II. Surgery includes hysterectomy with bilateral adnexectomy, sentinel lymph node biopsy even in high risk diseases and omentectomy for non-endometrioid tumors (except in case of clear cells tumors). Fertility preservation can be proposed in low grade, stage I tumors without myometrial involvement. In stage III/IV disease, lymph node debulking without totallymphadenectomy is indicated. In case of peritoneal carcinomatosis, first-line cytoreductive surgery is recommended if complete resection can be achieved. Adjuvant therapy is not recommended in low risk tumors. In intermediate risk tumors, curietherapy is indicated. In tumors with high-intermediate risk, curietherapy and external radiotherapy are indicated according to prognostic factors (stage II, lymphovascular invasion); adjuvant chemotherapy can be considered on a case-by-case basis. In high risk tumors, chemotherapy and external radiotherapy are recommended using a concomitant or sequential approach.

Rucaparib for the Treatment of Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Associated with a DNA Damage Repair Gene Alteration: Final Results from the Phase 2 TRITON2 Study.

BACKGROUND: Initial TRITON2 (NCT02952534) results demonstrated the efficacy of rucaparib 600 mg BID in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) associated with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA) or other DNA damage repair (DDR) gene alteration. OBJECTIVE: To present the final data from TRITON2. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: TRITON2 enrolled patients with mCRPC who had progressed on one or two lines of next-generation androgen receptor-directed therapy and one taxane-based chemotherapy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR; as per the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor Version 1.1/Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 criteria in patients with measurable disease by independent radiology review [IRR]); prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate (≥50% decrease from baseline [PSA50]) was a key secondary endpoint. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: As of July 27, 2021 (study closure), TRITON2 had enrolled 277 patients, grouped by mutated gene: BRCA (n = 172), ATM (n = 59), CDK12 (n = 15), CHEK2 (n = 7), PALB2 (n = 11), or other DDR gene (Other; n = 13). ORR by IRR was 46% (37/81) in the BRCA subgroup (95% confidence interval [CI], 35-57%), 100% (4/4) in the PALB2 subgroup (95% CI, 40-100%), and 25% (3/12) in the Other subgroup (95% CI, 5.5-57%). No patients within the ATM, CDK12, or CHEK2 subgroups had an objective response by IRR. PSA50 response rates (95% CI) in the BRCA, PALB2, ATM, CDK12, CHEK2, and Other subgroups were 53% (46-61%), 55% (23-83%), 3.4% (0.4-12), 6.7% (0.2-32%), 14% (0.4-58%), and 23% (5.0-54%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The final TRITON2 results confirm the clinical benefit and manageable safety profile of rucaparib in patients with mCRPC, including those with an alteration in BRCA or select non-BRCA DDR gene. PATIENT SUMMARY: Almost half of TRITON2 patients with BRCA-mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer had a complete or partial tumor size reduction with rucaparib; clinical benefits were also observed with other DNA damage repair gene alterations.

Evaluation of Scores to Reflect Toxicity Impact on Quality of Life of Patients With Platinum-Resistant Ovarian Cancer: AURELIA Substudy.

BACKGROUND: Current standards for toxicity reporting do not fully capture the impact of adverse events (AEs) on patients' quality of life (QoL). This study aimed to evaluate the association between toxicity and QoL by using toxicity scores that take into account CTCAE grade grouping and AE duration and cumulation. METHODS: Analyses were performed on the AURELIA trial dataset, including 361 patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer treated with chemotherapy alone or with bevacizumab. Global and physical functioning QoL were issued from the EORTC QoL Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30), collected at baseline and 8/9 and 16/18 weeks after treatment initiation. Four toxicity scores were computed: the total number of AEs, multiplied by their grade and not, and the cumulative duration of AEs, weighted by their grade and not. Each score included all AEs or only grade 3/4 nonlaboratory or treatment-related AEs. The relationship between toxicity scores and QoL was assessed through linear mixed regression. RESULTS: We found that 171 (47.5%) and 43 (11.9%) patients experienced at least one grade 3 or 4 AE, respectively, whereas 113 (31.4%) experienced grade 2 AEs only. Physical QoL was negatively associated with all toxicity scores when computed with all grades of AEs (all P<.01), with a weaker association when treatment-related AEs were considered. Global QoL was negatively associated with toxicity scores computed with nonlaboratory all-grade AEs only (ß, -3.42 to -3.13; all P<.01). Degrees of association were lower when considering the AE duration. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer, toxicity scores based on the cumulative number of AEs, modulated or not by grade, were more effective at predicting QoL changes than those based on AE duration. Toxicity impact on QoL was better reflected when grade 2 AEs were taken into account together with grade 3/4 AEs, whatever their treatment imputability, and when laboratory AEs were excluded.

An exceptional case of degenerative endometriosis of the uterine torus.

There are less than ten cases of deep endometriosis degeneration in the literature. The duration of endometriosis, the ovarian stimulation, the perimenopause and the obesity exposes the woman to an increased risk of endometriosis degeneration.

CHEOPS trial: a GINECO group randomized phase II assessing addition of a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor to oral vinorelbine in pre-treated metastatic breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the CHEOPS trial was to assess the benefit of adding aromatase inhibitor (AI) to metronomic chemotherapy, oral vinorelbine, 50 mg, three times a week for pre-treated, HR + /HER2- metastatic breast cancer patients. METHODS: In this multicentric phase II study, patients had to have progressed on AI and one or two lines of chemotherapy. They were randomized between oral vinorelbine (Arm A) and oral vinorelbine with non-steroidal AI (Arm B). RESULTS: 121 patients were included, 61 patients in Arm A and 60 patients in Arm B. The median age was 68 years. 109 patients had visceral metastases. They all had previously received an AI. The study had been prematurely stopped following the third death due to febrile neutropenia. Median PFS trend was found to be different with 2.3 months and 3.7 months in Arm A and Arm B, respectively (HR 0.73, 95%CI 0.50-1.06, p value = 0.0929). No statistical difference was shown in OS and better tumor response. 56 serious adverse events corresponding to 25 patients (21%) were reported (respectively, 12 (20%) versus 13 (22%) for arms A and B) (NS). CONCLUSION: The addition of AI to oral vinorelbine over oral vinorelbine alone in aromatase inhibitor-resistant metastatic breast cancer was associated with a non-significant improvement of PFS. Several unexpected serious adverse events were reported. Metronomic oral vinorelbine schedule, at 50 mg three times a week, requires close biological monitoring. The question of hormonal treatment and chemotherapy combination remains open.

Switch to fulvestrant and palbociclib versus no switch in advanced breast cancer with rising ESR1 mutation during aromatase inhibitor and palbociclib therapy (PADA-1): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In advanced oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, acquired resistance to aromatase inhibitors frequently stems from ESR1-mutated subclones, which might be sensitive to fulvestrant. The PADA-1 trial aimed to show the efficacy of an early change in therapy on the basis of a rising ESR1 mutation in blood (bESR1mut), while assessing the global safety of combination fulvestrant and palbociclib. METHODS: We did a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial in 83 hospitals in France. Women aged at least 18 years with oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were recruited and monitored for rising bESR1mut during first-line aromatase inhibitor (2·5 mg letrozole, 1 mg anastrozole, or 25 mg exemestane, orally once per day, taken continuously) and palbociclib (125 mg orally once per day on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle) therapy. Patients with newly present or increased bESR1mut in circulating tumour DNA and no synchronous disease progression were randomly assigned (1:1) to continue with the same therapy or to switch to fulvestrant (500 mg intramuscularly on day 1 of each 28-day cycle and on day 15 of cycle 1) and palbociclib (dosing unchanged). The randomisation sequence was generated within an interactive web response system using a minimisation method (with an 80% random factor); patients were stratified according to visceral involvement (present or absent) and the time from inclusion to bESR1mut detection (<12 months or ≥12 months). The co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival from random assignment, analysed in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all randomly assigned patients), and grade 3 or worse haematological adverse events in all patients. The trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03079011), and is now complete. FINDINGS: From March 22, 2017, to Jan 31, 2019, 1017 patients were included, of whom 279 (27%) developed a rising bESR1mut and 172 (17%) were randomly assigned to treatment: 88 to switching to fulvestrant and palbociclib and 84 patients to continuing aromatase inhibitor and palbociclib. At database lock on July 31, 2021, randomly assigned patients had a median follow-up of 35·3 months (IQR 29·2-41·4) from inclusion and 26·0 months (13·8-34·3) from random assignment. Median progression-free survival from random assignment was 11·9 months (95% CI 9·1-13·6) in the fulvestrant and palbociclib group versus 5·7 months (3·9-7·5) in the aromatase inhibitor and palbociclib group (stratified HR 0·61, 0·43-0·86; p=0·0040). The most frequent grade 3 or worse haematological adverse events were neutropenia (715 [70·3%] of 1017 patients), lymphopenia (66 [6·5%]), and thrombocytopenia (20 [2·0%]). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in step 2 were neutropenia (35 [41·7%] of 84 patients in the aromatase inhibitor and palbociclib group vs 39 [44·3%] of 88 patients in the fulvestrant and palbociclib group) and lymphopenia (three [3·6%] vs four [4·5%]). 31 (3·1%) patients had grade 3 or worse serious adverse events related to treatment in the overall population. Three (1·7%) of 172 patients randomly assigned had one serious adverse event in step 2: one (1·2%) grade 4 neutropenia and one (1·2%) grade 3 fatigue among 84 patients in the aromatase inhibitor and palbociclib group, and one (1·1%) grade 4 neutropenia among 88 patients in the fulvestrant and palbociclib group. One death by pulmonary embolism in step 1 was declared as being treatment related. INTERPRETATION: PADA-1 is the first prospective randomised trial showing that the early therapeutic targeting of bESR1mut results in significant clinical benefit. Additionally, the original design explored in PADA-1 might help with tackling acquired resistance with new drugs in future trials. FUNDING: Pfizer.

Paclitaxel with or without pazopanib for ovarian cancer relapsing during bevacizumab maintenance therapy: The GINECO randomized phase II TAPAZ study.

BACKGROUND: Anti-angiogenic rechallenge with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy is effective in recurrent ovarian cancer (rOC); however, data are limited on tyrosine kinase inhibitors after progression on maintenance bevacizumab. METHODS: In the randomized phase II TAPAZ trial, patients with rOC during the first year of bevacizumab maintenance therapy were assigned 2:1 to either weekly paclitaxel 65 mg/m2 plus pazopanib 600-800 mg daily or standard weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m2. The primary endpoint was 4-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate. RESULTS: Overall, 116 patients were randomized and treated: 79 with combination therapy and 37 with single-agent paclitaxel. Median follow-up was 13.1 months. There was no difference between treatment arms in 4-month PFS rate (61% [95% CI, 51-73%] with the combination versus 68% [95% CI, 54-85%] with paclitaxel alone), median PFS (4.9 [95% CI, 4.1-6.1] versus 5.8 [95% CI, 4.8-7.4] months, respectively) or median overall survival (13.6 versus 12.9 months, respectively). The combination was associated with more grade 3/4 toxicities (87% versus 70%, respectively) and toxicity-related paclitaxel discontinuations (22% versus 11%). Pazopanib was discontinued for toxicity in 44% of patients, most commonly for gastrointestinal and vascular events. There were two treatment-related deaths, both in the combination arm (pulmonary embolism and gastrointestinal perforation). At month 4, patient-reported outcomes deteriorated from baseline in the combination arm, particularly for abdominal/gastrointestinal symptoms, which showed a clinically important difference versus paclitaxel alone. CONCLUSIONS: In rOC progressing during maintenance bevacizumab, adding pazopanib to paclitaxel did not improve efficacy, increased toxicity, and compromised chemotherapy delivery. CLINICALTRIALS: govregistration:NCT02383251.

Everolimus Added to Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy in Patients With High-Risk Hormone Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Primary Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Everolimus, an oral inhibitor of the mammalian target of rapamycin, improves progression-free survival in combination with endocrine therapy (ET) in postmenopausal women with aromatase inhibitor-resistant metastatic breast cancer. However, the benefit of adding everolimus to ET in the adjuvant setting in early breast cancer is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this randomized double-blind phase III study, women with high-risk, hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative primary breast cancer were randomly assigned to everolimus or placebo for 2 years combined with standard ET. Stratification factors included ET agent, receipt of neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy, progesterone receptor status, duration of ET before random assignment, and lymph node involvement. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT01805271). RESULTS: Between June 2013 and March 2020, 1,278 patients were randomly allocated to receive everolimus or placebo. At the first interim analysis, the trial was stopped for futility and a full analysis undertaken once data snapshot complete. One hundred forty-seven patients have had a DFS event reported and at 3 years, DFS did not differ between patients who received ET plus everolimus (88% [95% CI, 85 to 91]) or ET plus placebo (89% [95% CI, 86 to 91; hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.32; P = .77]). Grade ≥ 3 adverse events were reported in 22.9% of patients (29.9% with everolimus v 15.9% with placebo, P < .001). 53.4% everolimus-treated patients permanently discontinued experimental treatment early compared with placebo-treated 22.3%. CONCLUSION: Among high-risk patients, everolimus added to adjuvant ET did not improve DFS. Tolerability was a concern, with more than half of patients stopping everolimus before study completion. Everolimus cannot be recommended in the adjuvant setting.

Real-Time Detection of ESR1 Mutation in Blood by Droplet Digital PCR in the PADA-1 Trial: Feasibility and Cross-Validation with NGS.

The clinical actionability of circulating tumor DNA requires sensitive detection methods with a short turnaround time. In the PADA-1 phase 3 trial (NCT03079011), metastatic breast cancer patients treated with an aromatase inhibitor and palbociclib were screened every 2 months for activating ESR1 mutations in blood (bESR1mut). We report the feasibility of the droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) and cross-validation with next-generation sequencing (NGS). bESR1mut testing was centralized in two platforms using the same ddPCR assay. Results were reported as copies/mL of plasma and mutant allele frequency (MAF). We analyzed 200 positive ddPCR samples with an NGS assay (0.5-1% sensitivity). Overall, 12,552 blood samples were collected from 1017 patients from 83 centers. Among the 12,525 available samples with ddPCR results, 11,533 (92%) were bESR1mut-negative. A total of 267 patients newly displayed bESR1mut (26% patients/2% samples) with a median copy number of 14/mL (range: 4-1225) and a median MAF of 0.83% (0.11-35), 648 samples (20% patients/5% samples) displayed persistent bESR1mut, and 77 (<1%) samples encountered a technical failure. The median turnaround time from blood drawing to result notification was 13 days (Q1:9; Q3:21 days). Among 200 ddPCR-positive samples tested, NGS detected bESR1mut in 168 (84%); 25 of the 32 cases missed by NGS had low MAF and/or low coverage. In these 200 samples, bESR1mut MAF by both techniques had an excellent intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC = 0.93; 95% CI [0.85; 0.97]). These results from a large-scale trial support the feasibility and accuracy of real-time bESR1mut tracking by ddPCR, opening new opportunities for therapeutic interventions.

Randomised, open-label, multicentric phase III trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of palbociclib in combination with endocrine therapy, guided by ESR1 mutation monitoring in oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer patients: study design of PADA-1.

INTRODUCTION: The combination of a CDK4/6 inhibitor with an aromatase inhibitor (AI) has recently become the gold standard for AI-sensitive first line treatment of oestrogen receptor-positive (ER+) HER2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer. However, most patients receiving this combination will ultimately progress and require further therapies.Several studies have demonstrated that the onset of a ESR1 gene mutation lead to AIs resistance in the advanced setting. ESR1 mutations can be detected in circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) using a digital PCR assay. Our study aims to prove the clinical efficacy of periodic monitoring for emerging or rise of ESR1 mutations in ctDNA to trigger an early change from AI plus palbociclib to fulvestrant plus palbociclib treatment while assessing global safety. METHODS: PADA-1 is a randomised, open-label, multicentric, phase III trial conducted in patients receiving AI and palbociclib as first line therapy for metastatic ER +HER2- breast cancer. 1000 patients will be included and treated with palbociclib in combination with an AI. Patients will be screened for circulating blood ESR1 mutation detection at regular intervals. Patients for whom a rising circulating ESR1 mutation is detected without tumour progression (up to N=200) will be randomised (1:1) between (1) Arm A: no modification of therapy; and (2) Arm B: palbociclib in combination with fulvestrant, a selective ER down-regulator. At tumour progression, an optional crossover will be offered to patients randomised in arm A. The coprimary endpoints are (1) Grade ≥3 haematological toxicities and their associations with baseline characteristics and (2) progression-free survival in randomised patients. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the French medicines agency (ANSM) and by an ethics committee (ref 01/17_1 CPP Ouest-IV Nantes) in January 2017. The trial results will be published in academic conference presentations and international peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: EudraCT: 2016-004360-18; NCT03079011.

Regorafenib or Tamoxifen for platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer with rising CA125 and no evidence of clinical or RECIST progression: A GINECO randomized phase II trial (REGOVAR).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of regorafenib versus tamoxifen in platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer biological recurrence, defined by CA-125 increase without radiological (RECIST criteria) or symptomatic evidence of progression. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 116 patients with platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer presenting an isolated increase of CA-125 were planned to be randomized. Regorafenib was administered orally at 160 or 120 mg daily, 3 weeks on/1 week off or tamoxifen at 40 mg daily, until disease progression or development of unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was Progression-Free Survival, assessed by progression according to RECIST 1.1 or death (by any cause). Secondary endpoints included Overall Survival, Best Response and CA-125 response rate. RESULTS: 68 patients were randomized. Median age was 67 years (range: 30-87). Primary site of cancer was ovarian for most patients (92.6%). Tumors were predominantly serous / (89.7%), high grade (83.6%) and initial FIGO staging was III for 69.6% of the patients. Most (79.4%) patients were included after the first line of platinum-based treatment. After a median follow-up of 32 months, there was no difference of progression-free survival (PFS) between regorafenib and tamoxifen groups (p = 0.72), with median PFS of 5.6 months (CI 90%: 3.84-7.52) for the tamoxifen arm and 4.6 months (CI 90%: 3.65-7.33) for the regorafenib arm. There was also no difference in term of overall survival, best response or CA-125 response, delay to next therapy. Regorafenib presented a less favorable safety profile than tamoxifen, with grade 3/4 events occurring for 90.9% of the patients compared to 54.3% for tamoxifen. The most frequent were cutaneous, digestive, and biological events. Notably, hand-foot syndrome occurred in 36.4% of these patients. CONCLUSION: Regorafenib presented an unfavorable toxicity profile compared to tamoxifen, with no superior efficacy in this population of patients.

Efficacy of maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab according to clinical risk in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer in the phase III PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trial.

OBJECTIVES: Adding maintenance olaparib to bevacizumab provided a significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer in the randomized, double-blind PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trial (NCT02477644). We analyzed PFS by clinical risk and biomarker status. METHODS: Patients received olaparib 300 mg twice daily for up to 24 months plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks for up to 15 months in total, or placebo plus bevacizumab. This post hoc exploratory analysis evaluated PFS in patients classified as higher risk (stage III with upfront surgery and residual disease or neoadjuvant chemotherapy; stage IV) or lower risk (stage III with upfront surgery and no residual disease), and by biomarker status. RESULTS: Of 806 randomized patients, 74% were higher risk and 26% were lower risk. After a median 22.9 months of follow-up, PFS favored olaparib plus bevacizumab versus placebo plus bevacizumab in higher-risk patients (hazard ratio [HR] 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.74) and lower-risk patients (0.46; 0.30-0.72). Olaparib plus bevacizumab provided a substantial PFS benefit versus bevacizumab alone in the homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-positive subgroup (higher risk: HR 0.39; 95% CI 0.28-0.54 and lower risk: 0.15; 0.07-0.30), with 24-month PFS rates in lower-risk patients of 90% versus 43%, respectively (Kaplan-Meier estimates). CONCLUSIONS: In PAOLA-1, maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab provided a substantial PFS benefit in HRD-positive patients with a reduction of risk of progression or death of 61% in the higher-risk group and of 85% in the lower-risk group compared with bevacizumab alone.

Prise en charge médicale de la récidive du cancer épithélial de l'ovaire: Medical management of recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer.

The panel of therapeutic options available for medical treatment of relapsed ovarian cancer increased over the last years. In late, platinum-sensitive relapse, standard treatment remains platinum-based polychemotherapy. The choice between bevacizumab added to chemotherapy followed by maintenance and inhibitors of poly-(ADP-riboses) polymerases (PARPi) after response to platinum-based therapy should be discussed, taking into account prior treatment, contraindications, and disease characteristics (biology, symptoms…). The addition of bevacizumab at first platinum-sensitive relapse can be considered if it has not been administered in first line, and it is optional (rechallenge) if previously administered (but without Marketing Authorization in this setting). PARPi are indicated for maintenance therapy after response to platinum-based chemotherapy (whatever the treatment line), regardless of BRCA mutational status, in case of no prior administration. Early relapses are associated with poor prognosis and therapeutic options are more limited. They are treated by monochemotherapy without platinum agents, associated with bevacizumab if not administered previously. Beyond first early relapse, there is no standard and inclusion in a clinical trial should be proposed if possible. Several clinical studies assessing associations of immunotherapy and chemotherapy and/or antiangiogenic drugs and/or targeted therapies (such as PARPi) are ongoing in early or late relapse.

Phase II study of the safety and efficacy of the anti-PD-1 antibody balstilimab in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic cervical cancer.

OBJECTIVE: This phase II clinical trial evaluated the safety and antitumor activity of balstilimab, an anti-PD-1 antibody, in patients with previously-treated, recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer. METHODS: Eligible patients were 18 years or older with recurrent and/or metastatic cervical cancer and who had relapsed after a prior platinum-based treatment regimen for advanced disease. Balstilimab was administered intravenously at 3 mg/kg once every two weeks, for up to 24 months. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR, RECIST v1.1) as assessed by an independent review committee. RESULTS: At data cutoff, 161 women (median age, 53 years [range 25-81]) were enrolled and treated with balstilimab. Of these, 140 had measurable disease at baseline and one prior line of platinum-based therapy in the metastatic, persistent, or recurrent setting; these patients were included in the efficacy analyses. The ORR was 15% (95% CI, 10.0%-21.8%) and included 5 patients with a complete response and 16 with a partial response. The median duration of response was 15.4 months. In patients with PD-L1-positive tumors the ORR was 20%, however patients with PD-L1-negative tumors also responded to balstilimab (ORR, 7.9%). Responses were not restricted to tumors of squamous cell histology, and an ORR of 12.5% was seen in the subset of patients with cervical adenocarcinoma. The disease control rate was 49.3% (95% CI, 41.1%-57.5%). Immune-mediated enterocolitis (3.1%) and diarrhea (1.9%) were the most common grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events. CONCLUSION: Balstilimab demonstrated meaningful and durable clinical activity, with manageable safety, in patients with previously-treated, recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer.

[Vaccination against COVID-19 in patients with solid cancer: Review and point of view from a French oncology inter-group (CGO, TNCD, UNICANCER)]. / Vaccination contre la COVID-19 des patients atteints de cancer solide : revue et préconisations d'un inter-groupe oncologique français (CGO, TNCD, UNICANCER).

The COVID-19 pandemic has a major impact at all stages of cancer treatment. Risk of death from COVID-19 in patients treated for a cancer is high. COVID-19 vaccines represent a major issue to decrease the rate of severe forms of the COVID-19 cases and to maintain a normal cancer care. It is difficult to define the target population for vaccination due to the limited data available and the lack of vaccine doses available. It appears theoretically important to vaccinate patients with active cancer treatment or treated since less than three years, as well as their family circle. In France, patients actually defined at "high risk" for priority access to vaccination are those with a cancer treated by chemotherapy. A panel of experts recently defined another "very high-priority" population, which includes patients with curative or palliative first or second-line chemotherapy, as well as patients requiring surgery or radiotherapy involving a large lung volume, lymph nodes and/or of hematopoietic tissue. Ideally, it is best to vaccinate before cancer treatment. Despite the lack of published data, COVID-19 vaccines can also be performed during chemotherapy by avoiding periods of bone marrow aplasia and if possible, to do it in cancer care centers. It is necessary to implement cohorts with immunological and clinical monitoring of vaccinated cancer patients. To conclude, considering the current state of knowledge, the benefit-risk ratio strongly favours COVID-19 vaccination of all cancer patients.

First-line bevacizumab and eribulin combination therapy for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: Efficacy and safety in the GINECO phase II ESMERALDA study.

PURPOSE: Combining bevacizumab with paclitaxel significantly improves progression-free survival (PFS) versus paclitaxel alone in HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Eribulin is active and tolerable in pretreated MBC. To assess whether eribulin may offer a more tolerable yet effective combination partner for bevacizumab, we evaluated a bevacizumab/eribulin combination regimen as first-line therapy for MBC. METHODS: In this single-arm phase II study, patients with histologically confirmed HER2-negative MBC and no prior chemotherapy for MBC received eribulin 1.23 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks for ≥6 cycles plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg on day 1 every 3 weeks until disease progression. The primary endpoint was non-progression rate at 1 year. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), PFS, and safety. RESULTS: The median age of the 61 treated female patients was 59 years, 16% had triple-negative MBC, 30% had ≥3 metastatic sites, and 71% had received prior (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients received a median of six eribulin and nine bevacizumab cycles. The non-progression rate at 1 year was 32% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 20-43%), ORR was 47% (95% CI: 34-60%), and median PFS was 8.3 months (95% CI: 7.0-9.6 months). The only grade ≥3 clinical adverse events in >5% of patients were hypertension (39%), neutropenia (26%), thrombosis (10%), and paresthesia/dysesthesia (7%). CONCLUSION: First-line eribulin/bevacizumab combination therapy showed interesting activity in MBC with an acceptable safety profile, including a particularly low incidence of high-grade neuropathy.

Risk factors for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) severity and mortality among solid cancer patients and impact of the disease on anticancer treatment: A French nationwide cohort study (GCO-002 CACOVID-19).

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients are thought to have an increased risk of developing severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and of dying from the disease. In this work, predictive factors for COVID-19 severity and mortality in cancer patients were investigated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this large nationwide retro-prospective cohort study, we collected data on patients with solid tumours and COVID-19 diagnosed between March 1 and 11th June 2020. The primary end-point was all-cause mortality and COVID-19 severity, defined as admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) and/or mechanical ventilation and/or death, was one of the secondary end-points. RESULTS: From April 4 to 11th June 2020, 1289 patients were analysed. The most frequent cancers were digestive and thoracic. Altogether, 424 (33%) patients had a severe form of COVID-19 and 370 (29%) patients died. In multivariate analysis, independent factors associated with death were male sex (odds ratio 1.73, 95%CI: 1.18-2.52), The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Scale (ECOG PS) ≥ 2 (OR 3.23, 95%CI: 2.27-4.61), updated Charlson comorbidity index (OR 1.08, 95%CI: 1.01-1.16) and admission to ICU (OR 3.62, 95%CI 2.14-6.11). The same factors, age along with corticosteroids before COVID-19 diagnosis, and thoracic primary tumour site were independently associated with COVID-19 severity. None of the anticancer treatments administered within the previous 3 months had any effect on mortality or COVID-19 severity, except for cytotoxic chemotherapy in the subgroup of patients with detectable severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), which was associated with a slight increase of the risk of death (OR 1.53; 95%CI: 1.00-2.34; p = 0.05). A total of 431 (39%) patients had their systemic anticancer treatment (such as chemotherapy, targeted or immune therapy) interrupted or stopped following diagnosis of COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality and COVID-19 severity in cancer patients are high and are associated with general characteristics of patients. We found no deleterious effects of recent anticancer treatments, except for cytotoxic chemotherapy in the RT-PCR-confirmed subgroup of patients. In almost 40% of patients, the systemic anticancer therapy was interrupted or stopped after COVID-19 diagnosis.