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.

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.

Maintenance therapy of patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian carcinoma with the anti-tumor-associated-mucin-1 antibody gatipotuzumab: results from a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, phase II study.

BACKGROUND: Gatipotuzumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody recognizing the carbohydrate-induced epitope of the tumor-associated mucin-1 (TA-MUC1). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of switch maintenance therapy with gatipotuzumab in patients with TA-MUC1-positive recurrent ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary high-grade serous peritoneal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase II trial, patients with at least stable disease (SD) following chemotherapy were randomized 2:1 to receive intravenous gatipotuzumab (500 mg followed by 1700 mg 1 week later) or placebo every 3 weeks until tumor progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred. Stratification factors were the number of prior chemotherapy lines (2 versus 3-5), response versus SD after the most recent chemotherapy, and progression-free survival (PFS) <6 versus 6-12 months following the prior therapy. Primary endpoint was PFS according to modified immune-related RECIST 1.1 response criteria. Secondary endpoints were PFS at 6 months, safety, overall response rate, CA-125 progression, overall survival, quality of life, and pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: Overall, 216 patients were randomized to gatipotuzumab (n  = 151) or placebo (n  = 65). Median PFS with gatipotuzumab was 3.5 months as compared with 3.5 months with placebo (hazard ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.69-1.33, P  = 0.80). No advantage for gatipotuzumab over placebo was seen in the secondary efficacy endpoints or in any stratified subgroups. Gatipotuzumab was well tolerated, with mild to moderate infusion-related reactions being the most common adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Gatipotuzumab switch maintenance therapy does not improve outcome in TA-MUC1-positive ovarian cancer patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT01899599; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01899599.

The systemic treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer revisited.

Treatment approaches for relapsed ovarian cancer have evolved over the past decade from a calendar-based decision tree to a patient-oriented biologically driven algorithm. Nowadays, platinum-based chemotherapy should be offered to all patients with a reasonable chance of responding to this therapy. The treatment-free interval for platinum is only one of many factors affecting patients' eligibility for platinum re-treatment. Bevacizumab increases the response to chemotherapy irrespective of the cytotoxic regimen and can be valuable in patients with an urgent need for symptom relief (e.g. pleural effusion, ascites). For patients with recurrent high-grade ovarian cancer, which responds to platinum-based treatment, maintenance therapy with a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor can be offered, regardless of the BRCA mutation status. Here we review contemporary decision-making processes in the systemic treatment of relapsed ovarian cancer.

Cediranib in addition to chemotherapy for women with relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer (ICON6): overall survival results of a phase III randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Cediranib, an oral anti-angiogenic VEGFR 1-3 inhibitor, was studied at a daily dose of 20 mg in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy and as maintenance in a randomised trial in patients with first relapse of 'platinum-sensitive' ovarian cancer and has been shown to improve progression-free survival (PFS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: ICON6 (NCT00532194) was an international three-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial. Between December 2007 and December 2011, 456 women were randomised, using stratification, to receive either chemotherapy with placebo throughout (arm A, reference); chemotherapy with concurrent cediranib, followed by maintenance placebo (arm B, concurrent); or chemotherapy with concurrent cediranib, followed by maintenance cediranib (arm C, maintenance). Due to an enforced redesign of the trial in September 2011, the primary endpoint became PFS between arms A and C which we have previously published, and the overall survival (OS) was defined as a secondary endpoint, which is reported here. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 25.6 months, strong evidence of an effect of concurrent plus maintenance cediranib on PFS was observed [hazard ratio (HR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44-0.72, P < 0.0001]. In this final update of the survival analysis, 90% of patients have died. There was a 7.4-month difference in median survival and an HR of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.67-1.11, P = 0.24) in favour of arm C. There was strong evidence of a departure from the assumption of non-proportionality using the Grambsch-Therneau test (P = 0.0031), making the HR difficult to interpret. Consequently, the restricted mean survival time (RMST) was used and the estimated difference over 6 years by the RMST was 4.8 months (95% CI: -0.09 to 9.74 months). CONCLUSIONS: Although a statistically significant difference in time to progression was seen, the enforced curtailment in recruitment meant that the secondary analysis of OS was underpowered. The relative reduction in the risk of death of 14% risk of death was not conventionally statistically significant, but this improvement and the increase in the mean survival time in this analysis suggest that cediranib may have worthwhile activity in the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer and that further research should be undertaken.

A phase II randomised, placebo-controlled trial of low dose (metronomic) cyclophosphamide and nintedanib (BIBF1120) in advanced ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the safety and efficacy of a combination of the oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor, nintedanib (BIBF 1120) with oral cyclophosphamide in patients with relapsed ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with relapsed ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer received oral cyclophosphamide (100 mg o.d.) and were randomised (1,1) to also have either oral nintedanib or placebo. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included progression free survival (PFS), response rate, toxicity, and quality of life. RESULTS: 117 patients were randomised, 3 did not start trial treatment, median age 64 years. Forty-five (39%) had received ≥5 lines chemotherapy. 30% had received prior bevacizumab. The median OS was 6.8 (nintedanib) versus 6.4 (placebo) months (hazard ratio 1.08; 95% confidence interval 0.72-1.62; P = 0.72). The 6-month PFS rate was 29.6% versus 22.8% (P = 0.57). Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 64% (nintedanib) versus 54% (placebo) of patients (P = 0.28); the most frequent G3/4 toxicities were lymphopenia (18.6% nintedanib versus 16.4% placebo), diarrhoea (13.6% versus 0%), neutropenia (11.9% versus 0%), fatigue (10.2% versus 9.1%), and vomiting (10.2% versus 7.3%). Patients who had received prior bevacizumab treatment had 52 days less time on treatment (P < 0.01). 26 patients (23%) took oral cyclophosphamide for ≥6 months. There were no differences in quality of life between treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest reported cohort of patients with relapsed ovarian cancer treated with oral cyclophosphamide. Nintedanib did not improve outcomes when added to oral cyclophosphamide. Although not significant, more patients than expected remained on treatment for ≥6 months. This may reflect a higher proportion of patients with more indolent disease or the higher dose of cyclophosphamide used. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.govNCT01610869.

ESMO recommendations on predictive biomarker testing for homologous recombination deficiency and PARP inhibitor benefit in ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Homologous recombination repair deficiency (HRD) is a frequent feature of high-grade serous ovarian, fallopian tube and peritoneal carcinoma (HGSC) and is associated with sensitivity to PARP inhibitor (PARPi) therapy. HRD testing provides an opportunity to optimise PARPi use in HGSC but methodologies are diverse and clinical application remains controversial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To define best practice for HRD testing in HGSC the ESMO Translational Research and Precision Medicine Working Group launched a collaborative project that incorporated a systematic review approach. The main aims were to (i) define the term 'HRD test'; (ii) provide an overview of the biological rationale and the level of evidence supporting currently available HRD tests; (iii) provide recommendations on the clinical utility of HRD tests in clinical management of HGSC. RESULTS: A broad range of repair genes, genomic scars, mutational signatures and functional assays are associated with a history of HRD. Currently, the clinical validity of HRD tests in ovarian cancer is best assessed, not in terms of biological HRD status per se, but in terms of PARPi benefit. Clinical trials evidence supports the use of BRCA mutation testing and two commercially available assays that also incorporate genomic instability for identifying subgroups of HGSCs that derive different magnitudes of benefit from PARPi therapy, albeit with some variation by clinical scenario. These tests can be used to inform treatment selection and scheduling but their use is limited by a failure to consistently identify a subgroup of patients who derive no benefit from PARPis in most studies. Existing tests lack negative predictive value and inadequately address the complex and dynamic nature of the HRD phenotype. CONCLUSIONS: Currently available HRD tests are useful for predicting likely magnitude of benefit from PARPis but better biomarkers are urgently needed to better identify current homologous recombination proficiency status and stratify HGSC management.

Long-term safety in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer treated with niraparib versus placebo: Results from the phase III ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial.

OBJECTIVE: Niraparib is a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor approved for use in heavily pretreated patients and as maintenance treatment in patients with newly-diagnosed or recurrent ovarian cancer following a response to platinum-based chemotherapy. We present long-term safety data for niraparib from the ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial. METHODS: This multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of niraparib for the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive either once-daily niraparib 300 mg or placebo. Two independent cohorts were enrolled based on germline BRCA mutation status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, reported previously. Long-term safety data were from the most recent data cutoff (September 2017). RESULTS: Overall, 367 patients received niraparib 300 mg once daily. Dose reductions due to TEAEs were highest in month 1 (34%) and declined every month thereafter. Incidence of any-grade and grade ≥ 3 hematologic and symptomatic TEAEs was also highest in month 1 and subsequently declined. Incidence of grade ≥ 3 thrombocytopenia decreased from 28% (month 1) to 9% and 5% (months 2 and 3, respectively), with protocol-directed dose interruptions and/or reductions. Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) were reported in 2 and 6 niraparib-treated patients, respectively, and in 1 placebo patient each. Treatment discontinuations due to TEAEs were <5% in each month and time interval measured. CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate the importance of appropriate dose reduction according to toxicity criteria and support the safe long-term use of niraparib for maintenance treatment in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01847274.

ESMO recommendations on predictive biomarker testing for homologous recombination deficiency and PARP inhibitor benefit in ovarian cancer

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Translational Research and Precision Medicine Working Group identified that there is currently uncertainty within the oncology community surrounding the different methods for HRD testing in HGSC. To address this, a collaborative project was launched with a number of clinicians and scientists with expertise in the fields of PARPi clinical trials, cancer genomics and DNA repair. The group defined three main aims for the project: (i) Define the term 'HRD test' and recommend how an HRD test's clinical validity is currently best assessed in the context of HGSC, (ii) provide an overview of the biological rationale and the level of evidence supporting currently available HRD tests, and (iii) provide recommendations on the clinical utility of HRD tests in clinical management of HGSC.

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.

Combining conventional therapy with immunotherapy: A risky business?

Because of the failure of immunotherapy as single agent in a number of cancers, current clinical trials are focusing on combining immunotherapy with other therapies. The most frequently chosen combination for immunotherapy is chemotherapy. However, almost no preclinical data on this combination is available. Some studies even showed a dismal effect of combining chemotherapy with immunotherapy. Taken into account that each of the therapies chosen in a combination will influence the cancer cells but also immune effector cells as well as immunosuppressive cells, and that these three partners will also interact with each other, launching a combination to the patient without proper immune monitoring and preclinical evidence might be devastating.

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.

Latest clinical evidence and further development of PARP inhibitors in ovarian cancer.

For several decades, the systemic treatment of ovarian cancer has involved chemotherapy, with the relatively recent addition of antiangiogenic strategies given with chemotherapy and in the maintenance setting. In the past decade, numerous poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP)-inhibiting agents have been assessed. We review key trials that have led to the approval of three PARP inhibitors-olaparib, niraparib and rucaparib-as maintenance therapy for platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer. We discuss the efficacy and safety of these agents in the populations studied in clinical trials. We then provide an overview of the numerous avenues of ongoing research for PARP inhibitors in different treatment settings: as treatment rather than maintenance strategies and in combination with other anticancer approaches, including antiangiogenic and immunotherapeutic agents. Three phase III trials (NOVA, SOLO2 and ARIEL3) demonstrated remarkable improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with PARP inhibitors given as maintenance therapy in patients with complete or partial response after platinum-based therapy for platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Differences in trial design and patient populations influence the conclusions that can be drawn from these trials. Overall survival data are pending and there is a limited experience regarding long-term safety. PARP inhibitors have transformed the management of ovarian cancer and have changed the course of disease for many patients. Although recent approvals are irrespective of BRCA mutation or homologous repair deficiency status, genetic profiles, as well as dosing schedules, tolerability and affordability, may influence patient selection and the setting in which PARP inhibitors are used. The development and evolution of PARP inhibitors continue, with new agents, strategies, combinations and indications under intensive evaluation.

OV21/PETROC: a randomized Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup phase II study of intraperitoneal versus intravenous chemotherapy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy and optimal debulking surgery in epithelial ovarian cancer.

Background: The purpose of this multistage, adaptively, designed randomized phase II study was to evaluate the role of intraperitoneal (i.p.) chemotherapy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and optimal debulking surgery in women with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Patients and methods: We carried out a multicenter, two-stage, phase II trial. Eligible patients with stage IIB-IVA EOC treated with platinum-based intravenous (i.v.) NACT followed by optimal (<1 cm) debulking surgery were randomized to one of the three treatment arms: (i) i.v. carboplatin/paclitaxel, (ii) i.p. cisplatin plus i.v./i.p. paclitaxel, or (iii) i.p. carboplatin plus i.v./i.p. paclitaxel. The primary end point was 9-month progressive disease rate (PD9). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), toxicity, and quality of life (QOL). Results: Between 2009 and 2015, 275 patients were randomized; i.p. cisplatin containing arm did not progress beyond the first stage of the study after failing to meet the pre-set superiority rule. The final analysis compared i.v. carboplatin/paclitaxel (n = 101) with i.p. carboplatin, i.v./i.p. paclitaxel (n = 102). The intention to treat PD9 was lower in the i.p. carboplatin arm compared with the i.v. carboplatin arm: 24.5% (95% CI 16.2% to 32.9%) versus 38.6% (95% CI 29.1% to 48.1%) P = 0.065. The study was underpowered to detect differences in PFS: HR PFS 0.82 (95% CI 0.57-1.17); P = 0.27 and OS HR 0.80 (95% CI 0.47-1.35) P = 0.40. The i.p. carboplatin-based regimen was well tolerated with no reduction in QOL or increase in toxicity compared with i.v. administration alone. Conclusion: In women with stage IIIC or IVA EOC treated with NACT and optimal debulking surgery, i.p. carboplatin-based chemotherapy is well tolerated and associated with an improved PD9 compared with i.v. carboplatin-based chemotherapy. Clinical trial number: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01622543.

Front-line therapy of advanced ovarian cancer: new approaches.

BACKGROUND: The 5-year survival of ovarian cancer has slowly increased but to date much of this has been due to the use of more lines of treatment rather than better first-line therapy. In this setting, there has been little improvement over the past 15 years. The introduction of new treatments to extend time to first progression and overall survival remains a key objective of clinical research. DESIGN: The focus of research in the previous decade has been on the incorporation of anti-angiogenic therapy or dose-dense scheduling of paclitaxel (Taxol) to improve outcome. The new trials being conducted build on the knowledge gained and are focussing on two new areas of research, the use of PARP (poly-ADP ribose polymerase) inhibitors and immunotherapy. RESULTS: Ongoing randomised trials using PARP inhibitors or immune checkpoint inhibits are reviewed and the potential benefits and challenges of using these agents are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in outcome from some of the many open trials may present challenges; interpretation of the outcome data needs to be taken in the context of clinical benefit and a health-economic assessment. The latter is becoming ever-more important as the cost of trials with combinations of targeted therapy is very great.