Maintenance olaparib rechallenge in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer previously treated with a PARP inhibitor (OReO/ENGOT-ov38): a phase IIIb trial.

BACKGROUND: Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor maintenance therapy is the standard of care for some patients with advanced ovarian cancer. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of PARP inhibitor rechallenge. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial (NCT03106987) enrolled patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer who had received one prior PARP inhibitor therapy for ≥18 and ≥12 months in the BRCA-mutated and non-BRCA-mutated cohorts, respectively, following first-line chemotherapy or for ≥12 and ≥6 months, respectively, following a second or subsequent line of chemotherapy. Patients were in response following their last platinum-based chemotherapy regimen and were randomized 2 : 1 to maintenance olaparib tablets 300 mg twice daily or placebo. Investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint. RESULTS: Seventy four patients in the BRCA-mutated cohort were randomized to olaparib and 38 to placebo, and 72 patients in the non-BRCA-mutated cohort were randomized to olaparib and 36 to placebo; >85% of patients in both cohorts had received ≥3 prior lines of chemotherapy. In the BRCA-mutated cohort, the median PFS was 4.3 months with olaparib versus 2.8 months with placebo [hazard ratio (HR) 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37-0.87; P = 0.022]; 1-year PFS rates were 19% versus 0% (Kaplan-Meier estimates). In the non-BRCA-mutated cohort, median PFS was 5.3 months for olaparib versus 2.8 months for placebo (HR 0.43; 95% CI 0.26-0.71; P = 0.0023); 1-year PFS rates were 14% versus 0% (Kaplan-Meier estimates). No new safety signals were identified with olaparib rechallenge. CONCLUSIONS: In ovarian cancer patients previously treated with one prior PARP inhibitor and at least two lines of platinum-based chemotherapy, maintenance olaparib rechallenge provided a statistically significant, albeit modest, PFS improvement over placebo in both the BRCA-mutated and non-BRCA-mutated cohorts, with a proportion of patients in the maintenance olaparib rechallenge arm of both cohorts remaining progression free at 1 year.

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.

Association of location of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations with benefit from olaparib and bevacizumab maintenance in high-grade ovarian cancer: phase III PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trial subgroup exploratory analysis.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III PAOLA-1 study, the addition of maintenance olaparib to bevacizumab in patients with newly diagnosed high-grade ovarian cancer (HGOC) resulted in prolonged progression-free survival (PFS), particularly for homologous recombination deficiency-positive tumors, including those with a BRCA mutation (BRCAm). The magnitude of benefit from olaparib and bevacizumab according to the location of mutation in BRCA1/BRCA2 remains to be explored. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced-stage HGOC responding after platinum-based chemotherapy + bevacizumab received maintenance therapy bevacizumab (15 mg/kg q3w for 15 months) + either olaparib (300 mg b.i.d. for 24 months) or placebo. PFS was analyzed in the subgroup of patients with BRCA1m/BRCA2m according to mutation location in the functional domains of BRCA1 [Really Interesting Gene (RING), DNA-binding domain (DBD), or C-terminal domain of BRCA1 (BRCT)] and BRCA2 [RAD51-binding domain (RAD51-BD); DBD]. RESULTS: From 806 randomized patients, 159 harbored BRCA1m (19.7%) and 74 BRCA2m (9.2%). BRCA1m in RING, DBD, and BRCT domains was detected in 18, 40, and 33 patients, and BRCA2m in RAD51-BD and DBD in 36 and 13 patients, respectively. After a median follow-up of 25.5 months, benefit from maintenance olaparib + bevacizumab was observed irrespective of location of BRCAm. The benefit was particularly high for those with BRCA1m located in the DBD, with 24-month PFS estimated to be 89% and 15% [olaparib + bevacizumab versus placebo + bevacizumab hazard ratio = 0.08 (95% confidence interval 0.02-0.28); interaction P = 0.03]. In BRCA2m patients, 24-month PFS rates for those with mutations located in the DBD were 90% and 100% (olaparib + bevacizumab versus placebo + bevacizumab), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced-stage BRCA-mutated HGOC patients reported PFS benefit from maintenance olaparib and bevacizumab regardless of mutation location. The benefit is particularly high for patients with mutations located in the DBD of BRCA1. Mutations located in the DBD of BRCA2 are also associated with excellent outcome.

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.

The impact of olaparib dose reduction and treatment interruption on treatment outcome in the SOLO2/ENGOT-ov21 platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Maintenance treatment with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor is now the standard of care in patients with BRCA-mutated platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer following response to chemotherapy. In the SOLO2 trial, adverse event (AE)-associated olaparib interruption, dose reduction, and discontinuation occurred in 50%, 28%, and 17% of patients, respectively. We used data from the SOLO2 trial to evaluate the impact of dose alterations on survival outcomes and identified baseline characteristics associated with dose alteration. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We computed relative dose intensity (RDI) defined as the received dose as a percentage of the standard dose (300 mg twice a day) during the first 12 weeks on treatment. Patients were categorized into RDI >98%, RDI 90%-98%, and RDI <90%. The association between RDI categories with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were examined using a 12-week landmark Cox regression analysis. Logistic regression analysis was used to correlate baseline factors with RDI at 12 weeks. RESULTS: In patients on olaparib included in the landmark analysis (n = 185), the mean 12-week RDI was 91.4%. There was no significant difference across 12-week RDI >98% (n = 110), 90%-98% (n = 29), and <90% (n = 45) categories for PFS (median, 14.2 versus 19.3 versus 34.4 months; P = 0.37) and OS (median, 49.7 versus 49.5 versus 54.1 months; P = 0.84). Risk of RDI ≤90% increased with baseline performance status 1 [odds ratio (OR): 2.54; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11-5.82] any nausea (OR: 3.17; 95% CI: 0.9-11.23), and with body weight ≤70 kg (OR: 1.86; 95% CI: 0.92-3.76). CONCLUSIONS: Dose reduction and interruption for the management of olaparib-associated AEs during the first 12 weeks did not impact on PFS and OS. When counselling patients requiring dose reductions or interruptions due to AEs, the results of this study will help assure patients that their outcomes will not be adversely affected.

Should We Abandon Systematic Pelvic and Paraaortic Lymphadenectomy in Low-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer?

BACKGROUND: Low-grade serous ovarian carcinoma (LGSOC) is a rare disease that accounts for 5% of all ovarian cancers and requires surgical complete debulking. To date, the prognostic value of pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy remains unclear in this population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort of patients with a diagnosis of LGSOC was registered in the Tumeurs Malignes Rares Gynécologiques national network, between January 2000 and July 2017, at 25 centers. All LGSOC were confirmed after pathological review and operated by primary debulking surgery (PDS) or interval debulking surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT-IDS). Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: A total of 126 patients were included, 86.1% were stage III/IV, and 74.6% underwent lymph node dissection (LND). According to the Completeness of Cancer Resection (CCR) score, 83.7% had complete resection. Median OS was 130 months, and median PFS was 41 months. Pelvic and paraaortic LND had no significant impact on OS (p = 0.78) or DFS (p = 0.93), and this was confirmed in subgroups (advanced stages FIGO III/IV, CCR score 0/1 or 2/3, and timing of surgery PDS or NACT-IDS). Histological positive paraaortic lymph nodes had a significant negative impact on PFS in the whole population (HR 2.21, 1.18-4.39, p = 0.02) and in the CC0/CC1 population (HR, 2.28, 1.13-4.59, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Systematic pelvic and paraaortic LND in patients with LGSOC improved neither overall nor PFS. A prospective trial would be necessary to validate these results but would be difficult to conduct due to the rarity of this disease.

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.

New treatments in ovarian cancer.

In targeting DNA repair pathways of the most genomic instable cancer, poly-(adenosine diphosphate [ADP])-ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) have been demonstrated as the most effective drug since platinum in high grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer. Immunotherapy is strongly pushing the door of ovarian cancer and has the ambition to change the fate of this deadly disease when combined with chemotherapy, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor or PARPi. The activity of PARPi could also be improved by modulators of the cell cycle, which are required to give time enough for DNA repair. Even more ambitious are drug targeting the driver p53 mutation or the pathway which inhibit tumor cell apoptosis. Some original approaches still give life to new chemotherapy compounds such as the marine derivative lurbinectedin or the immunoconjugate mirvetuximab soravtansine including a monoclonal antibody targeting the folate receptor.

Harmonising clinical trials within the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup: consensus and unmet needs from the Fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference.

The Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) Fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference (OCCC) was held in Tokyo, Japan from 7 to 9 November 2015. It provided international consensus on 15 important questions in 4 topic areas, which were generated in accordance with the mission statement to establish 'International Consensus for Designing Better Clinical Trials'. The methodology for obtaining consensus was previously established and followed during the Fifth OCCC. All 29 clinical trial groups of GCIG participated in program development and deliberations. Draft consensus statements were discussed in topic groups as well as in a plenary forum. The final statements were then presented to all 29 member groups for voting and documentation of the level of consensus. Full consensus was obtained for 11 of the 15 statements with 28/29 groups agreeing to 3 statements, and 27/29 groups agreeing to 1 statement. The high acceptance rate of the statements among trial groups reflects the fact that we share common questions, and recognise important unmet needs that will guide future research in ovarian cancer.

Quality of life predicts overall survival in women with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer: an AURELIA substudy.

BACKGROUND: Women with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer are a heterogeneous group whose median overall survival is 12 months. We hypothesized that their quality of life (QoL) scores would be prognostic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from AURELIA (n = 326), a randomized trial of chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab, were used to identify baseline QoL domains [EORTC (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer) QLQ-C30 and OV28] that were significantly associated with overall survival in multivariable Cox regression analyses. Patients were classified as having good, medium, or poor risk. Cutpoints were validated in an independent dataset, CARTAXHY (n = 136). Multivariable analyses of significant QoL domains on survival were adjusted for clinicopathological prognostic factors. The additional QoL information was assessed using C statistic. RESULTS: In AURELIA, all domains, except cognitive function, predicted overall survival in univariable analyses. Physical function (P < 0.001) and abdominal/gastrointestinal symptom (P < 0.001) scores remained significant in multivariable models. In high (score <67), medium (67-93), and low (>93) risk categories for physical function, median overall survival was 11.0, 14.7, and 19.3 months, respectively (P < 0.001). In CARTAXHY, median overall survival was 7.9, 16.2, and 23.9 months (P < 0.001), respectively. For high- (>44), medium- (13-44), and low- (<13) risk categories for abdominal/gastrointestinal symptoms, median overall survival was 11.9, 14.3, and 19.7 months in AURELIA (P < 0.001) and 10.5, 19.6, and 24.1 months in CARTAXHY (P = 0.02). Physical function (P = 0.02) and abdominal/gastrointestinal symptoms (P = 0.03) remained independent prognostic factors after adjustment for clinicopathological factors. The C statistic of the full model was 0.71. For QoL factors alone, patient factors alone and disease factors alone, the C statistics were 0.61, 0.61, and 0.67 respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Physical function and abdominal/gastrointestinal symptom scores improved predictions of overall survival over clinicopathological factors alone in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. This additional prognostic information could improve trial stratification, patient-doctor communication about prognosis, and clinical decision-making. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00976911.

Bevacizumab with or after chemotherapy for platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer: exploratory analyses of the AURELIA trial.

BACKGROUND: In the open-label randomized phase III AURELIA trial, adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC) significantly improved progression-free survival and response rate versus chemotherapy alone, but not overall survival (OS). We explored the effect of bevacizumab use after disease progression (PD) in patients randomized to chemotherapy alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In AURELIA, 361 women with PROC were randomized to chemotherapy alone or with bevacizumab. Patients initially randomized to chemotherapy were offered bevacizumab after PD. Post hoc analyses assessed efficacy and safety in three subgroups: chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy followed by bevacizumab after PD, and chemotherapy plus bevacizumab at randomization. RESULTS: Of the 182 patients randomized to chemotherapy alone, 72 (40%) received bevacizumab after PD and 110 (60%) never received bevacizumab. There were no significant differences in patient and disease characteristics between these subgroups at baseline or the time of PD. Compared with patients never receiving bevacizumab, the risk of death was significantly reduced in patients receiving bevacizumab either upfront with chemotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-0.90] or after PD (HR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.43-0.86). The tolerability of bevacizumab was similar with administration upfront or after PD. CONCLUSIONS: Post-PD bevacizumab use may have confounded OS results in AURELIA. In these exploratory analyses of non-randomized subgroups, bevacizumab use, either with chemotherapy or after PD on chemotherapy alone, improved OS compared with no bevacizumab. Combining bevacizumab with chemotherapy at first appearance of platinum resistance maximises the likelihood of patients receiving this active treatment for PROC. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00976911.

Fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference of the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup: recurrent disease.

This manuscript reports the consensus statements regarding recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC), reached at the fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference (OCCC), which was held in Tokyo, Japan, in November 2015. Three important questions were identified: (i) What are the subgroups for clinical trials in ROC? The historical definition of using platinum-free interval (PFI) to categorise patients as having platinum-sensitive/resistant disease was replaced by therapy-free interval (TFI). TFI can be broken down into TFIp (PFI), TFInp (non-PFI) and TFIb (biological agent-free interval). Additional criteria to consider include histology, BRCA mutation status, number/type of previous therapies, outcome of prior surgery and patient reported symptoms. (ii) What are the control arms for clinical trials in ROC? When platinum is considered the best option, the control arm should be a platinum-based therapy with or without an anti-angiogenic agent or a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor. If platinum is not considered the best option, the control arm could include a non-platinum drug, either as single agent or in combination. (iii) What are the endpoints for clinical trials in ROC? Overall survival (OS) is the preferred endpoint for patient cohorts with an expected median OS < or = 12 months. Progression-free survival (PFS) is an alternative, and it is the preferred endpoint when the expected median OS is > 12 months. However, PFS alone should not be the only endpoint and must be supported by additional endpoints including pre-defined patient reported outcomes (PROs), time to second subsequent therapy (TSST), or time until definitive deterioration of quality of life (TUDD).

Prognostic factors in young ovarian cancer patients: An analysis of four prospective phase III intergroup trials of the AGO Study Group, GINECO and NSGO.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated in a large study meta-database of prospectively randomised phase III trials the prognostic factors for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients < and >40 years of age with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: A total of 5055 patients of the AGO, GINECO, NSGO intergroup studies AGO-OVAR 3, 5, 7 and 9 were merged to identify 294 patients <40 years and 4761 patients ≥40 years. We conducted survival analyses and Cox proportional hazard regression models and additionally analysed a very homogeneous subcohort of 405 patients with serous epithelial ovarian cancer, excellent performance status, who had received complete macroscopic upfront cytoreduction and ≥5 chemotherapy cycles. RESULTS: For patients <40 years, the median PFS was 28.9 months and the median OS was 75.3 months, while the median PFS for patients ≥40 years was 18.1 months and the median OS was 45.7 months. Independent prognostic factors were similar in both age groups. In a multivariate analysis including prognostic factors potentially leading to confounding, young age appeared to improve PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.72-1.03) and OS (HR, 0.73; 95% CI: 0.59-0.91). The observed effect was even stronger in the subcohort of optimally treated patients with SEOC: PFS (HR, 0.34; 95% CI: 0.19-0.59) and OS (HR, 0.23; 95% CI: 0.09-0.56). DISCUSSION: Prognostic factors were similar in both age groups. Young age appeared a strong independent protective prognostic factor for PFS and OS in the subcohort.

Poor concordance between CA-125 and RECIST at the time of disease progression in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer: analysis of the AURELIA trial.

BACKGROUND: Data on CA-125 as a predictor of disease progression (PD) in ovarian cancer come predominantly from patients with platinum-sensitive disease receiving chemotherapy alone. We assessed concordance between CA-125-defined and RECIST-defined PD using data from the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) randomized phase III AURELIA trial in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with PROC were randomized to receive single-agent chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. PD by CA-125 was defined according to GCIG criteria (except that confirmatory CA-125 measurement was not required). This exploratory analysis included patients with RECIST PD and a CA-125 reading ≤28 days before and ≤21 days after RECIST-defined PD. RESULTS: Of 218 eligible patients, only 94 (43%, 95% confidence interval 36% to 50%) had concordant RECIST and CA-125 PD status (42% in the chemotherapy-alone arm; 45% in the bevacizumab combination arm, P = 0.6). There was no evidence of CA-125-defined PD in the remaining 124 patients despite PD according to imaging. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between patients with PD defined by both RECIST and CA-125 and those with RECIST-only PD. CA-125 was even less sensitive in detecting PD in patients with early (<8 weeks after randomization) compared with later RECIST-defined PD (69% versus 53%, respectively, not meeting CA-125 criteria; P = 0.053). There was no significant difference in survival after PD in patients with concordant PD by RECIST and CA-125 versus those with PD only by RECIST. We validated our findings in an independent study population of PROC. CONCLUSIONS: In this platinum-resistant population, PD was typically detected earlier by imaging than by CA-125, irrespective of bevacizumab treatment. Disease status by CA-125 at the time of PD was not prognostic for overall survival. Regular radiologic assessment as well as symptom benefit assessment should be considered during PROC follow-up.

Prognostic and predictive effects of primary versus secondary platinum resistance for bevacizumab treatment for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer in the AURELIA trial.

BACKGROUND: Progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were significantly improved by adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC) in the phase III AURELIA trial. We explored treatment outcomes according to primary platinum resistance (PPR) versus secondary platinum resistance (SPR). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were categorized as PPR (disease progression <6 months after completing first-line platinum therapy) or SPR (progression ≥6 months after first platinum but <6 months after second). The exploratory Cox and logistic regression analyses correlated PFS, ORR, overall survival (OS), and PROs with the time to development of platinum resistance. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar in patients with PPR (n = 262; 73%) and SPR (n = 99; 27%), although ascites were more common in the PPR subgroup. In bevacizumab-treated patients (n = 179), SPR was associated with improved PFS (median 10.2 versus 5.6 months in PPR patients; P < 0.001) and OS (median 22.2 versus 13.7 months, respectively; P < 0.001) but not PROs (22% versus 22% with improved abdominal/gastrointestinal symptoms at week 8/9). In multivariate analyses, SPR remained an independent prognostic factor for better PFS [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25-0.67; P < 0.001] and OS (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30-0.80; P = 0.005) in bevacizumab-treated patients, but was not statistically significant for either end point in the chemotherapy-alone subgroup. The magnitude of PFS benefit from bevacizumab appeared greater in SPR than PPR patients (HR 0.30 versus 0.55, respectively; interaction P = 0.07) with a similar direction of effect for OS (interaction P = 0.18). CONCLUSIONS: In bevacizumab-treated patients, PFS and OS were more favorable in SPR than PPR patients with equally improved PROs. The PFS and OS benefit from combining bevacizumab with chemotherapy was more pronounced in SPR than PPR PROC. PPR versus SPR should be a stratification factor in future trials evaluating anti-angiogenic therapy for PROC.

Recurrent ovarian cancer.

Recurrence still occurs in a majority of patients with advanced ovarian cancer. However, progress in the management has allowed a significant prolongation of survival for relapsing disease. These last years, the field of interest has moved from chemotherapy to targeted therapy which is dominated by anti-angiogenic and anti-PARP agents. It is assumed that platinum-free interval will not remain the main prognostic and predictive criterion in the future, and will be replaced by a multi-factorial approach. This trend for personalization of therapy has highlighted important neglected fields for clinical research such as multi-line (≥3) relapse, frail patients including elderly and symptomatic and supportive measures.

A phase III trial of exemestane plus bevacizumab maintenance therapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer after first-line taxane and bevacizumab: a GINECO group study.

BACKGROUND: Maintenance strategies beyond response or tumor stabilization with first-line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) have not been extensively studied. Endocrine therapy combined with continued bevacizumab may be a helpful option for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive MBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective, open-label, phase III study, patients with histologically confirmed ER-positive, HER2-negative MBC and non-progressive disease after 16-24 weeks of taxane plus bevacizumab (T + BEV) were randomized to continuation of T + BEV or maintenance bevacizumab plus exemestane (E + BEV). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) from randomization. To have 80% power to detect an improvement in the 6-month PFS rate (PFS6m) from 50% to 65%, 186 assessable patients were needed for a total of 141 PFS events. An interim analysis was planned after 40% of the required events. RESULTS: The interim analysis with 98 patients showed that the probability of reaching a statistically significant improvement in PFS by the end of the study was only 7%. This led the Independent Data and Monitoring Committee to recommend termination of patient enrollment. After a median of 21-month follow-up of all randomized patients (117 in total), PFS6m from randomization was 67.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 53.6-77.7] with T + BEV and 55.2% (95% CI 41.5-66.9) with E + BEV [hazard ratio (HR): 1.0, 95% CI 0.7-1.5, P = 0.998]. Median PFS from BEV initiation was 12.5 and 12.3 months in the T + BEV and E + BEV arms, respectively. In the T + BEV arm, taxane was prematurely stopped for the majority of patients (94.9%), mainly due to toxicity (49.2%). Updated data after 35 months' median follow-up showed death rates of 44% and 55% in T + BEV and E + BEV arms, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this trial, maintenance therapy with E + BEV in ER-positive, HER2-negative MBC patients with no evidence of progression after first-line T + BEV did not achieve longer PFS compared with continuation of T + BEV. CLINICALTRIALSGOV: NCT01303679.

Germline BRCA1/2 testing practices in ovarian cancer: Current state and opportunities for new directions.

PURPOSE: Given the implications for clinical care and prevention in identifying a BRCA1/2 mutation, the objective of this study was to determine current BRCA1/2 testing practices in ovarian cancer and to identify future directions. METHODS: Two parallel complementary web-based surveys were sent by email to representatives of Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) and to referral centers in countries with and without GCIG membership. Questions posed addressed indications of BRCA1/2 testing for ovarian cancer; the implication of genetic counseling; and prevention strategies employed. RESULTS: Among the GCIG, 22 collaborative groups from 19 countries answered the survey. For the complementary survey, 22 referral centers replied. Findings show criteria to offer germline BRCA1/2 testing are mixed; 55% of GCIG members based testing decisions on histology and, among all respondents the main testing criterion remains family history. Typically, genetic counseling is scheduled prior to the genetic testing; however, if negative, results may not be communicated by the genetic counselor. Time between testing and communicating results varies widely between the groups. Lastly, recommendations to relatives regarding risk reduction surgery are inconsistent. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights the need for collaborative efforts to devise international guidelines around BRCA1/2 testing in ovarian cancer to ensure consistent BRCA1/2 screening practices are adopted. Clinical practice is evolving rapidly and as BRCA1/2 testing is expected to become more widespread, new approaches are required. Coordinating BRCA1/2 testing practices is crucial in terms of care for the patient diagnosed with ovarian cancer but also towards cancer prevention for affected family members.

Translational studies within the TAMRAD randomized GINECO trial: evidence for mTORC1 activation marker as a predictive factor for everolimus efficacy in advanced breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Everolimus is an agent frequently associated with specific toxicities. Predictive markers of efficacy are needed to help define which patients could benefit from it. The goal of this exploratory study was to identify potential predictive biomarkers in the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) complex 1 (mTORC1) activation pathway using primary tumor samples collected during the phase II tamoxifen plus everolimus (TAMRAD) trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Tumor tissues were collected retrospectively from the TAMRAD trial. Immunohistochemistry was carried out using specific antibodies directed toward proteins that result in mTORC1 activation [canonical phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)/protein kinase B (Akt)/mTOR or alternative pathways]. DNA was extracted from the tumor tissue; mutation screening in the PIK3CA gene (exons 9 and 20) and the KRAS gene (exons 2 and 3) was first carried out using Sanger direct sequencing, and then completed by next-generation sequencing for PIK3CA. An exploratory analysis of everolimus efficacy in terms of a time-to-progression (TTP) increase was carried out in each biomarker subgroup (high versus low expression referring to the median percentage of marked cells). RESULTS: A total of 55 primary tumor samples from the TAMRAD trial­25 from the tamoxifen-alone group and 30 from the tamoxifen/everolimus group­were evaluated for biomarkers. The subgroups most likely to have an improvement in TTP with tamoxifen/everolimus therapy, compared with tamoxifen alone, were patients with high p4EBP1, low 4EBP1, low liver kinase B1, low pAkt, and low PI3K. Among the 45 samples screened for mutation status, nine samples (20%; 95% CI 9.6-34.6) had a PIK3CA mutation. KRAS mutation was observed in one patient. CONCLUSIONS: A positive correlation between late effectors of mTORC1 activation, a positive correlation between Akt-independent mTORC1 activation, and an inverse correlation between canonical PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway and everolimus efficacy were observed in this exploratory analysis. However, these correlations need to be validated in larger studies before applying the findings to routine clinical practice.

A phase II study of lenalidomide in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Lenalidomide has dual antiangiogenic and immunomodulatory properties and confirmed antitumor activity in hematologic malignancies. A phase II study investigating the safety and efficacy of continuous lenalidomide in recurrent ovarian cancer patients was initiated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with histologically confirmed epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal carcinoma, with asymptomatic recurrence 6 months after prior therapy were treated with continuous oral lenalidomide (20 mg/day). The primary end point was to evaluate efficacy according to the rate of disease control at 4 months. Secondary objectives were progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. RESULTS: Most of the 45 patients enrolled and treated had serous histology (78%) and a single line of prior chemotherapy (73%). Median platinum-free interval (PFI) was 11.3 months (range 6.9-56.8). Clinical benefit at 4 months was 38% [95% confidence interval (CI) 23% to 53%]. A 59% disease control rate was reported in patients with a PFI >12 months versus 24% with PFI of 6-12 months (P = 0.023). Four patients had RECIST partial responses and 21 had stable disease. CA125 responses were reported in eight patients, including one complete response. Median PFS was 3.4 months (95% CI 2.4-4.4). Most frequent toxicity was hematologic, notably grade 3-4 neutropenia in 29% of patients, along with fatigue (69%), gastrointestinal toxicity (constipation 53%, abdominal pain 49%, diarrhea 38%, nausea/vomiting 36%) and thrombosis (11%). Eight patients withdrew due to related toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Lenalidomide shows interesting efficacy in late recurrent ovarian cancer patients. Toxicity was mainly hematologic, gastrointestinal and venous thrombosis. Future studies will evaluate combination of lenalidomide with chemotherapy agents. CLINICALTRIALSGOV: NCT01111903.