Pembrolizumab plus Chemotherapy in Advanced Endometrial Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Standard first-line chemotherapy for endometrial cancer is paclitaxel plus carboplatin. The benefit of adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy remains unclear. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, phase 3 trial, we assigned 816 patients with measurable disease (stage III or IVA) or stage IVB or recurrent endometrial cancer in a 1:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab or placebo along with combination therapy with paclitaxel plus carboplatin. The administration of pembrolizumab or placebo was planned in 6 cycles every 3 weeks, followed by up to 14 maintenance cycles every 6 weeks. The patients were stratified into two cohorts according to whether they had mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) or mismatch repair-proficient (pMMR) disease. Previous adjuvant chemotherapy was permitted if the treatment-free interval was at least 12 months. The primary outcome was progression-free survival in the two cohorts. Interim analyses were scheduled to be triggered after the occurrence of at least 84 events of death or progression in the dMMR cohort and at least 196 events in the pMMR cohort. RESULTS: In the 12-month analysis, Kaplan-Meier estimates of progression-free survival in the dMMR cohort were 74% in the pembrolizumab group and 38% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19 to 0.48; P<0.001), a 70% difference in relative risk. In the pMMR cohort, median progression-free survival was 13.1 months with pembrolizumab and 8.7 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.71; P<0.001). Adverse events were as expected for pembrolizumab and combination chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer, the addition of pembrolizumab to standard chemotherapy resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than with chemotherapy alone. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; NRG-GY018 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03914612.).

Final survival analysis of topotecan and paclitaxel for first-line treatment of advanced cervical cancer: An NRG oncology randomized study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a non­platinum chemotherapy doublet improves overall survival (OS) among patients with recurrent/metastatic cervical carcinoma. METHODS: Gynecologic Oncology Group protocol 240 is a phase 3, randomized, open-label, clinical trial that studied the efficacy of paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 plus topotecan 0.75 mg/m2 days 1-3 (n = 223) vs cisplatin 50 mg/m2 plus paclitaxel 135 or 175 mg/m2 (n = 229), in 452 patients with recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer. Each chemotherapy doublet was also studied with and without bevacizumab (15 mg/kg). Cycles were repeated every 21 days until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or complete response. The primary endpoints were OS and the frequency and severity of adverse effects. We report the final analysis of OS. RESULTS: At the protocol-specified final analysis, median OS was 16.3 (cisplatin-paclitaxel backbone) and 13.8 months (topotecan-paclitaxel backbone) (HR 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38; p = 0.28). Median OS for cisplatin-paclitaxel and topotecan-paclitaxel was 15 vs 12 months, respectively (HR 1.10; 95% CI,0.82-1.48; p = 0.52), and for cisplatin-paclitaxel-bevacizumab and topotecan-paclitaxel-bevacizumab was 17.5 vs 16.2 months, respectively (HR 1.16; 95% CI, 0.86-1.56; p = 0.34). Among the 75% of patients in the study population previously exposed to platinum, median OS was 14.6 (cisplatin-paclitaxel backbone) vs 12.9 months (topotecan-paclitaxel backbone), respectively (HR 1.09; 95% CI, 0.86-1.38;p = 0.48). Post-progression survival was 7.9 (cisplatin-paclitaxel backbone) vs 8.1 months (topotecan-paclitaxel backbone) (HR 0.95; 95% CI, 0.75-1.19). Grade 4 hematologic toxicity was similar between chemotherapy backbones. CONCLUSIONS: Topotecan plus paclitaxel does not confer a survival benefit to women with recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer, even among platinum-exposed patients. Topotecan-paclitaxel should not be routinely recommended in this population. NCT00803062.

Circulating Tumor Cells In Advanced Cervical Cancer: NRG Oncology-Gynecologic Oncology Group Study 240 (NCT 00803062).

To isolate circulating tumor cells (CTC) from women with advanced cervical cancer and estimate the impact of CTCs and treatment on overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS). A total of 7.5 mL of whole blood was drawn pre-cycle 1 and 36 days post-cycle 1 from patients enrolled on Gynecologic Oncology Group 0240, the phase III randomized trial that led directly to regulatory approval of the antiangiogenesis drug, bevacizumab, in women with recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer. CTCs (defined as anti-cytokeratin+/anti-CD45- cells) were isolated from the buffy coat layer using an anti-EpCAM antibody-conjugated ferrofluid and rare earth magnet, and counted using a semiautomated fluorescence microscope. The median pre-cycle 1 CTC count was 7 CTCs/7.5 mL whole blood (range, 0-18) and, at 36 days posttreatment, was 4 (range, 0-17). The greater the declination in CTCs between time points studied, the lower the risk of death [HR, 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.79-0.95)]. Among patients with high (≥ median) pretreatment CTCs, bevacizumab treatment was associated with a reduction in the hazard of death (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.32-1.03) and PFS (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.36-0.96). This effect was not observed with low (< median) CTCs. CTCs can be isolated from women with advanced cervical cancer and may have prognostic significance. A survival benefit conferred by bevacizumab among patients with high pretreatment CTCs may reflect increased tumor neovascularization and concomitant vulnerability to VEGF inhibition. These data support studying CTC capture as a potential predictive biomarker.

Bevacizumab plus fosbretabulin in recurrent ovarian cancer: Overall survival and exploratory analyses of a randomized phase II NRG oncology/gynecologic oncology group study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the relationship between tumor size and response to combined anti-vascular targeted therapy using the anti-angiogenesis inhibitor, bevacizumab, and the tubulin-binding vascular disrupting agent, fosbretabulin. METHODS: An exploratory, post-hoc analysis of the randomized phase II trial, Gynecologic Oncology Group-0186I, was performed. One hundred and seven patients with recurrent ovarian carcinoma, treated with up to 3 prior regimens, were randomized to bevacizumab 15 mg/kg body weight with or without intravenous fosbretabulin 60 mg/m2 body surface area every 21 days until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary analysis favored the combination (HR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.47-1.00; p = .049) [Monk BJ, et al. J Clin Oncol 2016;34:2279-86]. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the treatment effect in various subpopulations. RESULTS: With extended follow-up, the median PFS for bevacizumab plus fosbretabulin was 7.6  months as compared to 4.8  months with bevacizumab alone (HR 0.74; 90% CI, 0.54-1.02). Overall survival was similar in the experimental and control arms (25.2 vs 24.4 mos, respectively, HR 0.85; 90% CI, 0.59-1.22; p = .461). Eighty-one patients had measurable disease and median tumor size was 5.7  cm. In the ≤5.7  cm subgroup, the HR for progression or death was 0.77 (90% CI 0.45-1.31). Patients with tumors >5.7  cm (n = 40) had a HR for progression or death of 0.55; 90% CI, 0.32-0.96; p = .075). CONCLUSIONS: Although no significant survival benefit was observed, the trend showing a reduced HR for progression or death with increasing tumor size when fosbretabulin is added to bevacizumab compared to bevacizumab alone warrants further study.

Randomized Phase II Trial of Nivolumab Versus Nivolumab and Ipilimumab for Recurrent or Persistent Ovarian Cancer: An NRG Oncology Study.

PURPOSE: Single-agent PD-1 blockade exhibits limited efficacy in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). We evaluated ipilimumab plus nivolumab compared with nivolumab alone in women with persistent or recurrent EOC. METHODS: Eligibility criteria included measurable disease, 1-3 prior regimens, and platinum-free interval (PFI) < 12 months. Participants were randomly allocated to intravenous nivolumab (every 2 weeks) or induction with nivolumab plus ipilimumab for 4 doses (every 3 weeks), followed by every-2-week maintenance nivolumab for a maximum of 42 doses. The primary null hypothesis was equal probability of objective response within 6 months of random allocation in each arm. RESULTS: One hundred patients were allocated to receive either nivolumab (n = 49), or nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n = 51), with PFI of < 6 months in 62%. Six (12.2%) responses occurred within 6 months in the nivolumab group and 16 (31.4%) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group (odds ratio, 3.28; 85% CI, 1.54 to infinity; P = .034). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2 and 3.9 months in the nivolumab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab groups, respectively, with a PFI-stratified hazard ratio of 0.53 (95% CI, 0.34 to 0.82); the respective hazard ratio for death was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.44 to 1.42). Grade ≥ 3 related adverse events occurred in 33% of patients in the nivolumab group and 49% in the combination group, with no treatment-related deaths. PD-L1 expression was not significantly associated with response in either treatment group. CONCLUSION: Compared with nivolumab alone, the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab in EOC resulted in superior response rate and longer, albeit limited, PFS, with toxicity of the combination regimen comparable to prior reports. Additional combination studies to enhance durability of the dual regimen are warranted.

Patient-reported outcomes at discontinuation of anti-angiogenesis therapy in the randomized trial of chemotherapy with bevacizumab for advanced cervical cancer: an NRG Oncology Group study.

INTRODUCTION: To describe patient-reported outcomes and toxicities at time of treatment discontinuation secondary to progression or toxicities in advanced/recurrent cervical cancer patients receiving chemotherapy with bevacizumab. METHODS: Summarize toxicity, grade, and health-related quality of life within 1 month of treatment discontinuation for women receiving chemotherapy with bevacizumab in GOG240. RESULTS: Of the 227 patients who received chemotherapy with bevacizumab, 148 discontinued study protocol treatment (90 for disease progression and 58 for toxicity). The median survival time from treatment discontinuation to death was 7.9 months (95% CI 5.0 to 9.0) for those who progressed versus 12.1 months (95% CI 8.9 to 23.2) for those who discontinued therapy due to toxicities. The most common grade 3 or higher toxicities included hematologic, gastrointestinal, and pain. Some 57% (84/148) of patients completed quality of life assessment within 1 month of treatment discontinuation. Those patients who discontinued treatment due to progression had a mean decline in the FACT-Cx TOI of 3.2 points versus 2.2 in patients who discontinued therapy due to toxicity. This was a 9.9 point greater decline in the FACT-Cx TOI scores than those who discontinued treatment due to progression (95% CI 2.8 to 17.0, p=0.007). The decline in quality of life was due to worsening physical and functional well-being. Those who discontinued treatment due to toxicities had worse neurotoxicity and pain. DISCUSSION: Patients who discontinued chemotherapy with bevacizumab for toxicity experienced longer post-protocol survival but significantly greater declination in quality of life than those with progression. Future trial design should include supportive care interventions that optimize physiologic function and performance status for salvage therapies.

Safety lead-in of the MEK inhibitor trametinib in combination with GSK2141795, an AKT inhibitor, in patients with recurrent endometrial cancer: An NRG Oncology/GOG study.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine safety and efficacy of the AKT inhibitor, GSK2141795, combined with the MEK inhibitor, trametinib, in endometrial cancer. METHODS: Patients with measurable recurrent endometrial cancer were eligible. One to two prior cytotoxic regimens were allowed; prior use of a MEK or PI3K pathway inhibitor was excluded. Initial trial design consisted of a KRAS mutation stratified randomized phase II with a safety lead-in evaluating the combination. For the safety lead in, the previously recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D; trametinib 1.5 mg, GSK2141795 50 mg) was chosen for Dose Level 1 (DL1). RESULTS: Of 26 enrolled patients, 14 were treated on DL1 and 12 were treated on DL-1 (trametinib 1.5 mg, GSK2141795 25 mg). Most common histologies were endometrioid (58%) and serous (27%). Four of 25 (16%) patients were KRAS mutant. Dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) were assessed during cycle 1. DL1 had 8 DLTs (hypertension (n = 2), mucositis (2), rash (2), dehydration, stroke/acute kidney injury). DL1 was deemed non-tolerable so DL-1 was explored. DL-1 had no DLTs. Sixty-five percent of patients had ≥ grade 3 toxicity. There were no responses in DL1 (0%, 90%CI 0-15%) and 1 response in DL-1 (8.3%, 90%CI 0.4-33.9%). Proportion PFS at 6 months for DL1 is 14%, and 25% for DL-1. CONCLUSION: The combination of trametinib and GSK2141795 had high levels of toxicity in endometrial cancer at the previously RP2D but was tolerable at a reduced dose. Due to insufficient preliminary efficacy at a tolerable dose, the Phase II study was not initiated.

A randomized phase II study of cabozantinib versus weekly paclitaxel in the treatment of persistent or recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer: An NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group study.

INTRODUCTION: Cabozantinib is a receptor tyrosine kinases inhibitor that targets MET (c-MET), VEGF receptor 2 (VEGFR2), RET, AXL, KIT, FLT-3, and TIE-2 and previously showed promising single agent activity in recurrent ovarian cancer. METHODS: This was an open label, 1:1 randomized study of cabozantinib 60 mg orally (PO) daily versus weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 given 3 out of 4 weeks (NCT01716715); 111 patients were enrolled. Eligibility included persistent or recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma and at least one but no >3 prior chemotherapy regimens. RESULTS: Median PFS was similar for both treatment groups and was 5.3 months for cabozantinib and 5.5 months for weekly paclitaxel (HR 1.11 (90% CI 0.77-1.61, p = 0.64)). Secondary analyses of overall survival (OS) and event free survival (EFS) showed that cabozantinib did not perform as well as weekly paclitaxel. Median OS for cabozantinib was 19.4 months and was not reached for weekly paclitaxel (HR 2.27 (90% CI 1.17-4.41, p = 0.04). EFS was also worse in the cabozantinib arm, 3.5 months, compared to weekly paclitaxel at 5.0 months (HR 1.81 (90% CI 1.24-2.63, p = 0.01). Overall response rate (ORR) was less for cabozantinib compared to weekly paclitaxel (7% versus 24.1%). Gastrointestinal toxicities, specifically nausea, diarrhea, and abdominal pain were worse in the cabozantinib arm. CONCLUSIONS: Median PFS was similar for cabozantinib and weekly paclitaxel. However, OS, EFS, and ORR were worse for cabozantinib compared to weekly paclitaxel. Cabozantinib given at this dose and schedule cannot be recommended as a treatment for recurrent ovarian cancer.

Randomized phase II trial of bevacizumab plus everolimus versus bevacizumab alone for recurrent or persistent ovarian, fallopian tube or peritoneal carcinoma: An NRG oncology/gynecologic oncology group study.

PURPOSE: Bevacizumab (BV) monotherapy leads to compensatory upregulation of multiple signaling pathways, resulting in mTOR activation. We evaluated combining BV and everolimus (EV), an mTOR kinase inhibitor, to circumvent BV-resistance in women with recurrent or persistent ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer (OC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible OC patients had measurable (RECIST1.1) or detectable disease, 1-3 prior regimens, performance status (PS) 0-2, and no prior m-TOR inhibitor. All patients received BV 10 mg/kg IV every 2wks. Patients were randomized (1:1) to oral EV (10 mg daily) or placebo stratified by platinum-free interval (PFI), measurable disease and prior BV. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included safety and response. RESULTS: 150 patients were randomized to BV with (n = 75) and without (n = 75) EV. Arms were well-balanced for age (median 63: range 28-92), PS (0: 73%, 1-2: 27%), prior regimens (1: 37%, 2: 47%, 3: 16%), prior BV (11%), PFI (<6mos: 65%) and measurable disease (81%). The BV + EV vs BV median PFS was 5.9 vs 4.5 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.95 (95% CI, 0.66-1.37, p = 0.39)). Median OS was 16.6 vs 17.3 months (HR 1.16 (95% CI, 0.72-1.87, p = 0.55). Objective measurable responses were higher with BV + EV (22% vs 12%). Study removal due to toxicity was higher with BV + EV (29% vs 12%). Toxicity (≥grade 3) from BV + EV were "other GI (mucositis)" (23 vs 1%) and "metabolic/nutrition" (19 vs. 7%); common ≥ grade 2 toxicities with BV + EV were cytopenia, nausea, fatigue and rash. CONCLUSION: The combination regimen (BV + EV) did not significantly reduce the hazard of progression or death relative to BV and was associated with higher rates of adverse events and study discontinuation when compared to BV alone.

Paclitaxel With and Without Pazopanib for Persistent or Recurrent Ovarian Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of gynecologic cancer deaths in the United States. Pazopanib is an oral, multitarget kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3; platelet-derived growth factor receptors α and ß; and proto-oncogene receptor tyrosine kinase (c-KIT). OBJECTIVE: To estimate the progression-free survival (PFS) hazard ratio (HR) of weekly paclitaxel and pazopanib compared with weekly paclitaxel and placebo in women with recurrent ovarian cancer. Secondary objectives included frequency and severity of adverse events, proportion responding, and overall survival (OS) in each arm. Translational research objectives included exploring the association between possible biomarkers and single-nucleotide polymorphisms in vascular endothelial growth factor A, interleukin 8, and hypoxia-inducible factor 1α; and PFS, OS, and proportion responding. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 2 study was conducted at 26 participating institutions. Patients were enrolled between December 12, 2011, and April 22, 2013. Data were frozen on August 11, 2014. Participants were patients with persistent or recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma with 1 to 3 prior regimens and performance status of 0 to 2. One hundred six patients enrolled; 100 were evaluable for toxic effects. INTERVENTIONS: All patients received paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days and were randomized 1:1 to pazopanib 800 mg orally daily or placebo. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was PFS. The study was designed to detect a 37.5% reduction in the hazard with 80% power (α = 10%). RESULTS: A total of 106 women (median age [range], 61 [35-87] years; 88 [83%] white) were enrolled. Study arms were well balanced for age, performance status, measurable disease, and prior bevacizumab. Proportion responding was 14 of 44 (31.8%) vs 10 of 44 (22.7%) for pazopanib plus paclitaxel vs paclitaxel alone. Median PFS was 7.5 vs 6.2 months for pazopanib plus paclitaxel vs paclitaxel alone, respectively (HR, 0.84; 90% CI, 0.57-1.22; P = .20). Median OS was 20.7 vs 23.3 months for pazopanib plus paclitaxel vs paclitaxel alone (HR, 1.04; 90% CI, 0.60-1.79; P = .90). Severe hypertension was more common on the pazopanib plus paclitaxel arm (relative risk, 12.0; 95% CI, 1.62-88.84). More patients discontinued treatment on the paclitaxel arm for disease progression (34 of 52 [65.4%] vs 17 of 54 [31.5%]), and more on the pazopanib plus paclitaxel arm for adverse events (20 of 54 [37%] vs 5 of 52 [9.6%]). No association was found between single-nucleotide polymorphisms (interleukin 8 and hypoxia-inducible factor 1α) and OS and proportion responding. Patients with VEGFA CC genotype may be more resistant to weekly paclitaxel than those with the AC or AA genotype, with 1 of 14 (7%), 3 of 15 (20%), and 4 of 8 (50%) responding, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The combination of pazopanib plus paclitaxel is not superior to paclitaxel in women with recurrent ovarian cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01468909.

Randomized phase IIB evaluation of weekly paclitaxel versus weekly paclitaxel with oncolytic reovirus (Reolysin®) in recurrent ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer: An NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the addition of oncolytic reovirus (Reolysin®) to weekly paclitaxel prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) in the treatment of women with recurrent or persistent ovarian, tubal or primary peritoneal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with recurrent or persistent epithelial ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal carcinoma, measurable or detectable disease, and three or fewer prior regimens were randomly assigned to paclitaxel (80mg/m2 intravenously days 1, 8, and 15 every 4weeks) or the combination of paclitaxel (80mg/m2 intravenously days 1, 8, and 15) plus reovirus 3×1010TCID50/day intravenously on days 1-5, both every 4weeks until disease progression or toxicity. The primary end point was PFS. The study was designed with 80% power for a one-sided alternative at a 10% level of significance to detect a reduction in the hazard by 37.5%. RESULTS: The study accrued 108 patients, 100 of whom were evaluable for toxicity. Median PFS was 4.3months for paclitaxel and 4.4months for paclitaxel plus reovirus (hazard ratio, 1.11; 90% two-sided CI, 0.78 to 1.59; one-sided P=0.687). The proportion responding (overall response rate) to paclitaxel was 20% among 45 patients with measurable disease receiving paclitaxel alone, and 17.4% among the 46 patients treated with the combination. The asymptotic relative probability of responding was 0.87 (90% CI, 0.42 to 1.79). Severe adverse events were more common in the combination regimen than in paclitaxel arm for severe neutropenia (grade≥4, 12% versus 0%), and severe respiratory adverse events (grade≥3, 25% versus 2%). No deaths were considered treatment related. CONCLUSION: The addition of reovirus to weekly paclitaxel in the treatment of women with recurrent or persistent ovarian, tubal or peritoneal cancer did not sufficiently reduce the hazard of progression or death to warrant further investigation.

Bevacizumab for advanced cervical cancer: final overall survival and adverse event analysis of a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial (Gynecologic Oncology Group 240).

BACKGROUND: On Aug 14, 2014, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the antiangiogenesis drug bevacizumab for women with advanced cervical cancer on the basis of improved overall survival (OS) after the second interim analysis (in 2012) of 271 deaths in the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) 240 trial. In this study, we report the prespecified final analysis of the primary objectives, OS and adverse events. METHODS: In this randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients with metastatic, persistent, or recurrent cervical carcinoma from 81 centres in the USA, Canada, and Spain. Inclusion criteria included a GOG performance status score of 0 or 1; adequate renal, hepatic, and bone marrow function; adequately anticoagulated thromboembolism; a urine protein to creatinine ratio of less than 1; and measurable disease. Patients who had received chemotherapy for recurrence and those with non-healing wounds or active bleeding conditions were ineligible. We randomly allocated patients 1:1:1:1 (blocking used; block size of four) to intravenous chemotherapy of either cisplatin (50 mg/m2 on day 1 or 2) plus paclitaxel (135 mg/m2 or 175 mg/m2 on day 1) or topotecan (0·75 mg/m2 on days 1-3) plus paclitaxel (175 mg/m2 on day 1) with or without intravenous bevacizumab (15 mg/kg on day 1) in 21 day cycles until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, voluntary withdrawal by the patient, or complete response. We stratified randomisation by GOG performance status (0 vs 1), previous radiosensitising platinum-based chemotherapy, and disease status (recurrent or persistent vs metastatic). We gave treatment open label. Primary outcomes were OS (analysed in the intention-to-treat population) and adverse events (analysed in all patients who received treatment and submitted adverse event information), assessed at the second interim and final analysis by the masked Data and Safety Monitoring Board. The cutoff for final analysis was 450 patients with 346 deaths. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00803062. FINDINGS: Between April 6, 2009, and Jan 3, 2012, we enrolled 452 patients (225 [50%] in the two chemotherapy-alone groups and 227 [50%] in the two chemotherapy plus bevacizumab groups). By March 7, 2014, 348 deaths had occurred, meeting the prespecified cutoff for final analysis. The chemotherapy plus bevacizumab groups continued to show significant improvement in OS compared with the chemotherapy-alone groups: 16·8 months in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab groups versus 13·3 months in the chemotherapy-alone groups (hazard ratio 0·77 [95% CI 0·62-0·95]; p=0·007). Final OS among patients not receiving previous pelvic radiotherapy was 24·5 months versus 16·8 months (0·64 [0·37-1·10]; p=0·11). Postprogression OS was not significantly different between the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab groups (8·4 months) and chemotherapy-alone groups (7·1 months; 0·83 [0·66-1·05]; p=0·06). Fistula (any grade) occurred in 32 (15%) of 220 patients in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab groups (all previously irradiated) versus three (1%) of 220 in the chemotherapy-alone groups (all previously irradiated). Grade 3 fistula developed in 13 (6%) versus one (<1%). No fistulas resulted in surgical emergencies, sepsis, or death. INTERPRETATION: The benefit conferred by incorporation of bevacizumab is sustained with extended follow-up as evidenced by the overall survival curves remaining separated. After progression while receiving bevacizumab, we did not observe a negative rebound effect (ie, shorter survival after bevacizumab is stopped than after chemotherapy alone is stopped). These findings represent proof-of-concept of the efficacy and tolerability of antiangiogenesis therapy in advanced cervical cancer. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute.

A stratified randomized double-blind phase II trial of celecoxib for treating patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: The potential predictive value of VEGF serum levels: An NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group study.

PURPOSE: To examine the effect of celecoxib on cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 (CIN 3). This is a NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group study with translational biomarkers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with CIN 3 were randomized to celecoxib 400mg once daily (67 patients) or placebo (63 patients) for 14-18weeks. The primary outcome measure was histologic regression. A test of equal probabilities of success between two therapies was conducted, using Fisher's Exact Test at alpha=10% and 90% power when the treatment arm boosted the probability of success by 30%. Translational analysis included cervical tissue HPV genotyping, COX-2 expression in biopsies, and serum celecoxib and VEGF levels. RESULTS: In primary analysis, histologic regression was not significantly higher in the celecoxib group (40%) than in the placebo group (34.1%). However, exploratory analyses suggest patients with high serum VEGF levels exhibited greater regression in the celecoxib arm (47.3%) than in the placebo arm (14.3%). Regression rates were similar by treatment group in patients with low VEGF. VEGF levels increased over time in the placebo group, but remained the same in the treatment group. COX-2 expression in cervical biopsies declined from pre-treatment to the end of treatment with celecoxib; it did not change with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Celecoxib at 400mg once daily for 14-18weeks did not significantly decrease the severity of CIN 3 compared with placebo except, possibly, in subjects with high baseline VEGF. Therefore, serum VEGF levels might identify patients who may benefit from celecoxib or other therapies, personalizing future chemoprevention trials for CIN 3.

A phase 2 study of alisertib (MLN8237) in recurrent or persistent uterine leiomyosarcoma: An NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group study 0231D.

OBJECTIVE: This two-stage Phase II study assessed the activity of single agent alisertib in patients with recurrent/persistent uterine leiomyosarcoma (uLMS). METHODS: Eligibility criteria included histologically-confirmed, recurrent or persistent uLMS, age≥18, 1-2 prior cytotoxic regimens, and RECIST version 1.1 measurable disease. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of alisertib through the frequency of patients with objective tumor responses and the frequency who survived event-free for at least 6months (EFS6). The endpoints for EFS were RECIST progression, death, or beginning a subsequent therapy. The null hypothesis jointly specified the probability of a patient experiencing a tumor response to less than or equal to 5% and the probability of a patient surviving event-free for at least 6months to less than or equal to 20%. A two-stage design was used with a target accrual of 23 patients for stage 1 and 47 pts. cumulative for stage 2. Confidence intervals do not correct for multiplicity. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients were enrolled with two patients excluded on central histology review, yielding 21 eligible patients. Median age was 61years. Prior treatment was either 1 cytotoxic regimen (71.4%) or 2 (28.6%). The most common treatment related AEs (grade 3 or worse) were anemia Hensley et al. (2008a) , leukopenia Hensley et al. (2008b) , neutropenia Maki et al. (2007) , thrombocytopenia Huang et al. (2012) , mucositis Hensley et al. (2008a) , diarrhea Huang et al. (2012) , and palmer-planter syndrome Zivanovic et al. (2012) . There were no objective responses (0%; 90% CI: 0-10.4%). Best response was stable disease (38.1%); 12 patients had progressive disease (57.1%). EFS6 was 0% (90% CI: 0-10.4%). Median PFS and OS were 1.7 (90% CI: 1.4-3.2) and 14.5months (90% CI: 7.6 - NA), respectively. CONCLUSION: Alisertib did not demonstrate clinically meaningful single agent activity in previously treated uLMS.

Randomized Phase II Evaluation of Bevacizumab Versus Bevacizumab Plus Fosbretabulin in Recurrent Ovarian, Tubal, or Peritoneal Carcinoma: An NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group Study.

PURPOSE: The vascular disrupting agent fosbretabulin tromethamine selectively targets pre-existing tumor vasculature, which causes vascular shutdown and leads to cancer cell death and necrosis. Antiangiogenesis agents such as bevacizumab, a humanized antivascular endothelial growth factor monoclonal antibody, might prevent revascularization during and after treatment with a vascular disrupting agent. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with recurrent or persistent epithelial ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal carcinoma, measurable or detectable disease, and three or fewer prior regimens were randomly assigned to bevacizumab (15 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks) or the combination of bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) plus fosbretabulin (60 mg/m(2)) intravenously once every 3 weeks until disease progression or toxicity. Randomization was stratified by disease status (measurable v nonmeasurable), prior bevacizumab, and platinum-free interval. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). The study was designed with 80% power for a one-sided alternative at a 10% level of significance to detect a reduction in the hazard by 37.5%. RESULTS: The study enrolled 107 patients. Median PFS was 4.8 months for bevacizumab and 7.3 months for bevacizumab plus fosbretabulin (hazard ratio, 0.69; 90% two-sided CI, 0.47 to 1.00; one-sided P = .05). The proportion responding (overall response rate) to bevacizumab was 28.2% among 39 patients with measurable disease and 35.7% among 42 patients treated with the combination. The relative probability of responding was 1.27 (90% CI, 0.74 to 2.17; one-sided P = .24). Adverse events greater than grade 3 were more common in the combination regimen than in bevacizumab only for hypertension (35% v 20%). There was one grade 3 thromboembolic event in the combination arm and one intestinal fistula in the bevacizumab only arm. CONCLUSION: On the basis of the PFS, overall response rate, and tolerability of these two antivascular therapies, further evaluation is warranted for this chemotherapy-free regimen. Fosbretabulin in combination with bevacizumab increases the risk of hypertension.

Prospective Validation of Pooled Prognostic Factors in Women with Advanced Cervical Cancer Treated with Chemotherapy with/without Bevacizumab: NRG Oncology/GOG Study.

PURPOSE: In the randomized phase III trial, Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) protocol 240, the incorporation of bevacizumab with chemotherapy significantly increased overall survival (OS) in women with advanced cervical cancer. A major objective of GOG-240 was to prospectively analyze previously identified pooled clinical prognostic factors known as the Moore criteria. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Potential negative factors included black race, performance status 1, pelvic disease, prior cisplatin, and progression-free interval <365 days. Risk categories included low-risk (0-1 factor), mid-risk (2-3 factors), and high-risk (4-5 factors). Each test of association was conducted at the 5% level of significance. Logistic regression and survival analysis was used to determine whether factors were prognostic or could be used to guide therapy. RESULTS: For the entire population (n = 452), high-risk patients had significantly worse OS (P < 0.0001). The HRs of death for treating with topotecan in low-risk, mid-risk, and high-risk subsets are 1.18 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.63-2.24], 1.11 (95% CI, 0.82-1.5), and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.50-1.42), respectively. The HRs of death for treating with bevacizumab in low-risk, mid-risk, and high-risk subsets are 0.96 (95% CI, 0.51-1.83; P = 0.9087), 0.673 (95% CI, 0.5-0.91; P = 0.0094), and 0.536 (95% CI, 0.32-0.905; P = 0.0196), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first prospectively validated scoring system in cervical cancer. The Moore criteria have real-world clinical applicability. Toxicity concerns may justify omission of bevacizumab in some low-risk patients where survival benefit is small. The benefit to receiving bevacizumab appears to be greatest in the moderate- and high-risk subgroups (5.8-month increase in median OS). Clin Cancer Res; 21(24); 5480-7. ©2015 AACR.

A phase II evaluation of cediranib in the treatment of recurrent or persistent endometrial cancer: An NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group study.

PURPOSE: Cediranib is a multi-tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), and fibroblast growth factor (FGF) receptors. This phase II study was conducted to assess activity and tolerability of single-agent cediranib in recurrent/persistent endometrial cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had recurrent or persistent endometrial cancer after receiving one or two prior cytotoxic regimens, measurable disease, and Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) performance status of ≤2 (≤1 if two prior cytotoxic regimens given). Cediranib 30mg orally daily for a 28daycycle was administered until disease progression or prohibitive toxicity. Microvessel density (MVD) was measured in tumor tissue from initial hysterectomy specimens and correlated with clinical outcome. Primary endpoints were tumor response and surviving progression-free for six months without subsequent therapy (6-month event-free survival [EFS]). RESULTS: Of 53 patients enrolled, 48 were evaluable for cediranib efficacy and toxicity. Median age was 65.5 years, 52% of patients had received prior radiation, and 73% of patients received only one prior chemotherapy regimen. A partial response was observed in 12.5%. Fourteen patients (29%) had six-month EFS. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.65 months and median overall survival (OS) 12.5 months. No grade 4 or 5 toxicities were observed. A trend towards improved PFS was found in patients whose tumors expressed high MVD. CONCLUSION: Cediranib as a monotherapy treatment for recurrent or persistent endometrial cancer is well tolerated and met protocol set objectives for sufficient activity to warrant further investigation. MVD may be a useful biomarker for activity.

A phase II trial of trebananib (AMG 386; IND#111071), a selective angiopoietin 1/2 neutralizing peptibody, in patients with persistent/recurrent carcinoma of the endometrium: An NRG/Gynecologic Oncology Group trial.

OBJECTIVES: Ang1 & 2 (angiopoietin-1; -2) interact with Tie2 receptors on endothelial cells to mediate vascular remodeling in an angiogenesis signaling pathway distinct from the VEGF axis. Trebananib is a peptide Fc fusion protein that binds Ang1 and 2 and prevents interaction with Tie2. The efficacy of trebananib in recurrent/persistent endometrial cancer (EC) was studied. METHODS: The primary objective was to determine the frequency of patients with objective tumor responses (ORR) and event-free survival for ≥6months (6-month EFS) and determine toxicity of trebananib at a dose and schedule of 15mg/kg, IV QW. Recurrent/persistent EC, measurable disease, and ≤2 prior chemotherapy lines were required. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients were eligible and treated. The most common histologies were G1/2 endometrioid (31%), G3 endometrioid (28%) and serous (31.3%). 78% of patients had 1 prior regimen. Patients received 1-9+ cycles of trebananib; 24 patients (75%) received ≤2cycles. One patient had a partial response (3.1%); 8 patients had stable disease (25%) and 5 patients (15.6%) had 6 month EFS. Median progression-free survival and overall-survival were 1.97 months (90% CI 1.77-2.1) and 6.6 months (90% CI 4.01-14.75), respectively. Most common adverse events (AEs) were fatigue, anemia, and GI issues. Grade 3 and 4 AEs were: GI 31 and 0%; vascular 22 and 0%; metabolism/nutrition 19 and 3%; and general (including edema) 16 and 0%. CONCLUSIONS: Trebananib has insufficient single agent activity in recurrent EC to warrant further investigation at this dose/schedule.

A phase I study of IV doxorubicin plus intraperitoneal (IP) paclitaxel and IV or IP cisplatin in endometrial cancer patients at high risk for peritoneal failure (GOG 9920): an NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of a modified paclitaxel/doxorubicin/cisplatin (TAP) regimen which incorporated intraperitoneal (IP) paclitaxel or IP paclitaxel/cisplatin in advanced endometrial cancer. METHODS: Patients (pts) with FIGO (1998) Stage IIIA/IIIC with positive cytologic washings/ascites, adnexa, or serosa or Stage IV (intraperitoneal disease spread), histologically confirmed endometrial cancer were eligible. The study was designed as a phase I, 3+3 dose escalation study evaluating 5 dose levels (DL). All pts received cycles 1-2 with IV TAP, and cycles 3-6 with IV/IP therapy, on a 21day schedule. Adverse events were evaluated on cycles 3-4 for dose limiting toxicity (DLT) and dose escalation decisions. RESULTS: Twenty-one pts were enrolled, of which 17 were evaluable for DLT. Most pts had Stage IV disease (76%) and serous/clear cell histology (59%). The MTD was determined to be DL 3 (cycles 3-6 including paclitaxel 90mg/m(2) IP, doxorubicin 45mg/m(2) IV, cisplatin 50mg/m(2)). Three DLT events occurred and were related to grades 3-4 metabolic toxicities. There was one grade 2 sensory neuropathy event and myelosupression was tolerable without the use of G-CSF. 88% of evaluable pts completed 6cycles of therapy. With a median follow-up of 22months, 46% of patients remain progression-free at 2years. CONCLUSION: We described an IV/IP based modification of a standard TAP regimen in endometrial cancer. Based on the high rate of completing 6cycles of therapy, low rates of neuropathy, and promising PFS, further study of IP therapy in endometrial cancer is warranted.