Long-term follow-up of efficacy and safety of selinexor maintenance treatment in patients with TP53wt advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer: A subgroup analysis of the ENGOT-EN5/GOG-3055/SIENDO study.

OBJECTIVE: To report long-term efficacy and safety of selinexor maintenance therapy in adults with TP53 wild-type (TP53wt) stage IV or recurrent endometrial cancer (EC) who achieved partial remission (PR) or complete remission (CR) following chemotherapy. METHODS: Analysis of the prespecified, exploratory subgroup of patients with TP53wt EC from the phase 3 SIENDO study was performed. Progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in patients with TP53wt EC and across other patient subgroups were exploratory endpoints. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. RESULTS: Of the 263 patients enrolled in the SIENDO trial, 113 patients had TP53wt EC; 70/113 (61.9%) had TP53wt/proficient mismatch repair (pMMR) EC, and 29/113 (25.7%) had TP53wt/deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) EC. As of April 1, 2024, the median PFS (mPFS) for TP53wt patients who received selinexor compared with placebo was 28.4 versus 5.2 months (36.8-month follow-up, HR 0.44; 95% CI 0.27-0.73). A benefit in mPFS was seen with selinexor versus placebo regardless of MMR status (patients with TP53wt/pMMR EC: 39.5 vs 4.9 months, HR 0.36; 95% CI 0.19-0.71; patients with TP53wt/dMMR EC: 13.1 vs 3.7 months, HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.18-1.34). Selinexor treatment was generally manageable, with no new safety signals identified. CONCLUSION: In the phase 3 SIENDO study, selinexor maintenance therapy showed a promising efficacy signal and a manageable safety profile in the prespecified subgroup of patients with TP53wt EC who achieved a PR or CR following chemotherapy. These results are being further evaluated in an ongoing randomized phase 3 trial (NCT05611931).

Mirvetuximab Soravtansine in FRα-Positive, Platinum-Resistant Ovarian Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Mirvetuximab soravtansine-gynx (MIRV), a first-in-class antibody-drug conjugate targeting folate receptor α (FRα), is approved for the treatment of platinum-resistant ovarian cancer in the United States. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, global, confirmatory, open-label, randomized, controlled trial to compare the efficacy and safety of MIRV with the investigator's choice of chemotherapy in the treatment of platinum-resistant, high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Participants who had previously received one to three lines of therapy and had high FRα tumor expression (≥75% of cells with ≥2+ staining intensity) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive MIRV (6 mg per kilogram of adjusted ideal body weight every 3 weeks) or chemotherapy (paclitaxel, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, or topotecan). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival; key secondary analytic end points included objective response, overall survival, and participant-reported outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 453 participants underwent randomization; 227 were assigned to the MIRV group and 226 to the chemotherapy group. The median progression-free survival was 5.62 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.34 to 5.95) with MIRV and 3.98 months (95% CI, 2.86 to 4.47) with chemotherapy (P<0.001). An objective response occurred in 42.3% of the participants in the MIRV group and in 15.9% of those in the chemotherapy group (odds ratio, 3.81; 95% CI, 2.44 to 5.94; P<0.001). Overall survival was significantly longer with MIRV than with chemotherapy (median, 16.46 months vs. 12.75 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.89; P = 0.005). During the treatment period, fewer adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred with MIRV than with chemotherapy (41.7% vs. 54.1%), as did serious adverse events of any grade (23.9% vs. 32.9%) and events leading to discontinuation (9.2% vs. 15.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Among participants with platinum-resistant, FRα-positive ovarian cancer, treatment with MIRV showed a significant benefit over chemotherapy with respect to progression-free and overall survival and objective response. (Funded by ImmunoGen; MIRASOL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04209855.).

ARTISTRY-7: phase III trial of nemvaleukin alfa plus pembrolizumab vs chemotherapy for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

Standard single-agent nonplatinum chemotherapy provides only modest benefit in a small proportion of patients with platinum-resistant/-refractory ovarian cancer, with objective response rates of 6-20% and progression-free survival of ≈3-4 months. Nemvaleukin alfa (nemvaleukin, ALKS 4230) is a novel cytokine designed to capture and expand the therapeutic potential of high-dose interleukin-2 (IL-2) while mitigating its associated toxicity issues. Nemvaleukin preferentially activates cytotoxic CD8+ T cells and natural killer cells with minimal, non-dose-dependent effects on CD4+ regulatory T cells. The global, randomized, open-label, phase III ARTISTRY-7 trial will compare efficacy and safety of nemvaleukin plus pembrolizumab with chemotherapy in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. The primary end point is investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Clinical Trial Registration: GOG-3063; ENGOT-OV68; NCT05092360 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

In many patients with ovarian cancer who are treated with platinum-based chemotherapy, the tumor comes back after a few months and fails to respond to repeated treatment. This type of disease is called platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC). Researchers are searching for new medicines to help more patients with PROC. One treatment approach that has shown promise in different cancers is called immunotherapy. These medicines work by helping the body's immune system attack cancer cells. One of the immunotherapies being studied is called nemvaleukin. It is designed to trigger specific immune responses that may result in the immune system attacking cancer cells while potentially avoiding other immune responses that can block the attack or cause certain unwanted side effects. Nemvaleukin is being studied in a variety of cancer types. In a worldwide clinical trial called ARTISTRY-7, researchers are investigating how nemvaleukin works in patients with PROC when given with another immunotherapy called pembrolizumab. Patients who participate in this trial will be randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups: the combination of nemvaleukin and pembrolizumab, nemvaleukin by itself, pembrolizumab by itself, or a type of chemotherapy selected by the treating physician. The main purpose of ARTISTRY-7 is to understand whether the combination of nemvaleukin and pembrolizumab helps patients with PROC live longer without their cancer getting worse. At the time of this writing, ARTISTRY-7 is open for new patients to join.

Dostarlimab for Primary Advanced or Recurrent Endometrial Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Dostarlimab is an immune-checkpoint inhibitor that targets the programmed cell death 1 receptor. The combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy may have synergistic effects in the treatment of endometrial cancer. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, global, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Eligible patients with primary advanced stage III or IV or first recurrent endometrial cancer were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either dostarlimab (500 mg) or placebo, plus carboplatin (area under the concentration-time curve, 5 mg per milliliter per minute) and paclitaxel (175 mg per square meter of body-surface area), every 3 weeks (six cycles), followed by dostarlimab (1000 mg) or placebo every 6 weeks for up to 3 years. The primary end points were progression-free survival as assessed by the investigator according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.1, and overall survival. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: Of the 494 patients who underwent randomization, 118 (23.9%) had mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR), microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) tumors. In the dMMR-MSI-H population, estimated progression-free survival at 24 months was 61.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 46.3 to 73.4) in the dostarlimab group and 15.7% (95% CI, 7.2 to 27.0) in the placebo group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.50; P<0.001). In the overall population, progression-free survival at 24 months was 36.1% (95% CI, 29.3 to 42.9) in the dostarlimab group and 18.1% (95% CI, 13.0 to 23.9) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.80; P<0.001). Overall survival at 24 months was 71.3% (95% CI, 64.5 to 77.1) with dostarlimab and 56.0% (95% CI, 48.9 to 62.5) with placebo (hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.87). The most common adverse events that occurred or worsened during treatment were nausea (53.9% of the patients in the dostarlimab group and 45.9% of those in the placebo group), alopecia (53.5% and 50.0%), and fatigue (51.9% and 54.5%). Severe and serious adverse events were more frequent in the dostarlimab group than in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Dostarlimab plus carboplatin-paclitaxel significantly increased progression-free survival among patients with primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer, with a substantial benefit in the dMMR-MSI-H population. (Funded by GSK; RUBY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03981796.).

Radiation Therapy Expenditures Through the First 8 Performance Periods of the Oncology Care Model at a Statewide Multispecialty Health System.

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to use real world data to assess trends in radiation therapy (RT) treatment fractionation and cost under the Oncology Care Model (OCM) through the first 8 performance periods (PPs). METHODS: We identified 17,157 episodes of care from 9898 patients treated at a statewide multispecialty health system through the first 8 6-month PPs (PP1-8: July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2020) of the OCM. Spending was stratified by 10 expenditure domains (eg, Part B/D drugs, radiation oncology [RO], etc), and 21 disease sites were extracted from claims data, from which an analysis of RO expenditures was performed on 2219 episodes from 2033 patients treated with RT. Expenses are expressed in per-beneficiary, per-episode terms. RESULTS: RO expenditures comprised 3% ($14.7M) of total spending over the 8 periods. By primary cancer, the largest RO expenses were for breast ($2.9M; 20%), prostate ($2.9M; 19%), and lung cancer ($2.8M; 13%). For RO, total per-episode average spending remained roughly constant between PP1 ($6314) and PP8 ($6664; Ptrend > .05) and decreased ($6314-$6215) when indexed to the Consumer Price Index for July 2016. Average number of RT fractions per episode decreased from 19.2 in PP1 to 18.6 in PP8; this decrease was most notably seen for breast (-2.1), lung (-2.8), and female genitourinary (-3.5) cancers. Intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) charges accounted for $7.6M (51%) of RT spending and increased 5% from PP1 to 8, whereas conventional external beam RT made up $3.0M (21%) and decreased 8%. Expenses for image guidance ($2.5M; 17%; +2% from PP1-8) and stereotactic RT ($1.3M; 9%; +1%) increased. CONCLUSIONS: In inflation-adjusted terms, total RO expenditures have declined despite greater use of IMRT, stereotactic RT, and image guidance. Conversely, oncology costs have risen because of drug spending. Successful payment models must prioritize high-cost spending areas-including novel drug therapies-while accounting for high-value care and patient outcomes.

Niraparib Maintenance Treatment Improves Time Without Symptoms or Toxicity (TWiST) Versus Routine Surveillance in Recurrent Ovarian Cancer: A TWiST Analysis of the ENGOT-OV16/NOVA Trial.

PURPOSE: This study estimated time without symptoms or toxicity (TWiST) with niraparib compared with routine surveillance (RS) in the maintenance treatment of patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Mean progression-free survival (PFS) was estimated for niraparib and RS by fitting parametric survival distributions to Kaplan-Meier data for 553 patients with recurrent ovarian cancer who were enrolled in the phase III ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial. Patients were categorized according to the presence or absence of a germline BRCA mutation-gBRCAmut and non-gBRCAmut cohorts. Mean time with toxicity was estimated based on the area under the Kaplan-Meier curve for symptomatic grade 2 or greater fatigue, nausea, and vomiting adverse events (AEs). Time with toxicity was the number of days a patient experienced an AE post-random assignment and before disease progression. TWiST was estimated as the difference between mean PFS and time with toxicity. Uncertainty was explored using alternative PFS estimates and considering all symptomatic grade 2 or greater AEs. RESULTS: In the gBRCAmut and non-gBRCAmut cohorts, niraparib treatment resulted in a mean PFS benefit of 3.23 years and 1.44 years, respectively, and a mean time with toxicity of 0.28 years and 0.10 years, respectively, compared with RS. Hence, niraparib treatment resulted in a mean TWiST benefit of 2.95 years and 1.34 years, respectively, compared with RS, which is equivalent to more than four-fold and two-fold increases in mean TWiST between niraparib and RS in the gBRCAmut and non-gBRCAmut cohorts, respectively. This TWiST benefit was consistent across all sensitivity analyses, including modeling PFS over 5-, 10-, and 15-year time horizons. CONCLUSION: Patients who were treated with niraparib compared with RS experienced increased mean TWiST. Thus, patients who were treated with niraparib in the ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial experienced more time without symptoms or symptomatic toxicities compared with control.

Alisertib in Combination With Weekly Paclitaxel in Patients With Advanced Breast Cancer or Recurrent Ovarian Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: There is an unmet medical need for the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer, and new approaches are needed to improve progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival. Objective: This phase 1/2 study evaluated the activity of alisertib in combination with weekly paclitaxel in patients with breast (phase 1) and ovarian cancer (phase 1 and phase 2). Design, Setting, and Participants: An open-label phase 1 and randomized phase 2 clinical trial conducted from April 16, 2010, for phase 1 and March 28, 2012, to August 12, 2013, for phase 2 was conducted at 33 sites (United States, France, and Poland). Data are reported from a cutoff date of August 12, 2014, with a median duration of follow-up of 7.2 months in the alisertib plus paclitaxel arm and 4.6 months in the paclitaxel arm. A total of 191 women with advanced breast (phase 1 only) or recurrent ovarian cancer were enrolled, including 142 patients randomized to alisertib plus paclitaxel (n = 73) or paclitaxel alone (n = 69) in the phase 2 study. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 stratified by platinum-free interval (refractory, 0-6 months, 6-12 months) and prior weekly taxane treatment (yes, no) to receive alisertib 40 mg twice per day orally and 3 days on and 4 days off for 3 weeks, plus paclitaxel (60 mg/m2 intravenously, days 1, 8, and 15), or weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 intravenously in 28-day cycles. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary endpoint was PFS; primary efficacy analysis and safety analysis used modified intention to treat (mITT) population (all randomized patients who received ≥1 dose of study drug). Results: The median age for the 191 patients enrolled in phase 1 was 59 (range, 29-75) years. The median age for the 142 patients enrolled in phase 2 was 63 (range, 30-81) years for patients receiving alisertib plus paclitaxel and 61 (range, 41-81) years for patients receiving paclitaxel. At data cutoff, 107 (75%) patients had a documented PFS event; 52 (71%) in the alisertib plus paclitaxel arm, and 55 (80%) in the paclitaxel arm. Median PFS was 6.7 months with alisertib plus paclitaxel vs 4.7 months with paclitaxel (HR, 0.75; 80% CI, 0.58-0.96; P = .14; 2-sided P value cutoff = .20 to be considered worthy of further investigation). Drug-related grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported in 63 (86%) vs 14 (20%) patients in the alisertib plus paclitaxel and paclitaxel arms, including 56 (77%) vs 7 (10%) neutropenia, 18 (25%) vs 0 stomatitis, and 10 (14%) vs 2 (3%) anemia; 54 (74%) vs 17 (25%) had adverse events leading to dose reductions. Two patients died during the study (1 in each arm); neither death was considered related to study drug. Conclusions and Relevance: The primary endpoint, PFS, significantly favored alisertib plus paclitaxel over paclitaxel alone. Further investigation is warranted. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01091428.

Quality of life in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer treated with niraparib versus placebo (ENGOT-OV16/NOVA): results from a double-blind, phase 3, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Quality of life (QOL) has become an important complementary endpoint in cancer clinical studies alongside more traditional assessments (eg, tumour response, progression-free survival, overall survival). Niraparib maintenance treatment has been shown to significantly improve progression-free survival in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. We aimed to assess whether the benefits of extending progression-free survival are offset by treatment-associated toxic effects that affect QOL. METHODS: The ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial was a multicentre, double-blind, phase 3, randomised controlled trial done in 107 study sites in the USA, Canada, Europe, and Israel. Patients with recurrent ovarian cancer who were in response to their last platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either niraparib (300 mg once daily) as a maintenance treatment or placebo. Randomisation was stratified based on time to progression after the penultimate platinum-based regimen, previous use of bevacizumab, and best response (complete or partial) to the last platinum-based regimen with permuted-block randomisation (six in each block) using an interactive web response system. The trial enrolled two independent cohorts on the basis of germline BRCA (gBRCA) mutation status (determined by BRACAnalysis Testing, Myriad Genetics, Salt Lake City, UT, USA). The primary endpoint of the trial was progression-free survival, and has already been reported. In this study, we assessed patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the intention-to-treat population using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovarian Symptoms Index (FOSI) and European QOL five-dimension five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L). We collected PROs from trial entry every 8 weeks for the first 14 cycles and every 12 weeks thereafter. If a patient discontinued, we collected PROs at discontinuation and during a postprogression visit 8 weeks (plus or minus 2 weeks) later. We assessed the effect of haematological toxic effects on QOL with disutility analyses of the most common grade 3-4 adverse events (thrombocytopenia, anaemia, and neutropenia) using a mixed model with histology, region, previous treatment, age, planned treatment, and baseline score as covariates. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01847274. FINDINGS: Between Aug 28, 2013, and June 1, 2015, 553 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive niraparib (n=138 in the gBRCAmut cohort, n=234 in the non-gBRCAmut cohort) or placebo (n=65 in the gBRCAmut cohort, n=116 in the non-gBRCAmut cohort). The mean FOSI score at baseline was similar between the two groups (range between 25·0-25·6 in the two groups). Overall QOL scores remained stable during the treatment and preprogression period in the niraparib group; no significant differences were observed between the niraparib and placebo group, and preprogression EQ-5D-5L scores were similar between the two groups in both cohorts (0·838 [0·0097] in the niraparib group vs 0·834 [0·0173] in the placebo group in the gBRCAmut cohort; and 0·833 [0·0077] in the niraparib group vs 0·815 [0·0122] in the placebo group in the non-gBRCAmut cohort). The most common adverse events reported at screening (baseline) were lack of energy (425 [79%]; 97 [18%] reporting severe lack of energy), pain (236 [44%]), and nausea (118 [22%]). All symptoms, except nausea, either remained stable or improved over time in the niraparib group. The most common grade 3 or 4 toxicities observed in the niraparib group were haematological in nature: thrombocytopenia (124 [34%] of 367 patients), anaemia (93 [25%]), and neutropenia (72 [20%]); disutility analyses showed no significant QOL impairment associated with these toxic effects. INTERPRETATION: These PRO data suggest that women who receive niraparib as maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian cancer after responding to platinum treatment are able to maintain QOL during their treatment when compared with placebo. FUNDING: TESARO.

Malignant Female Adnexal Tumor of Probable Wolffian Origin: Case Report and Literature Review.

Although most female adnexal tumors of probable Wolffian origin have a benign biologic behavior, occasional cases have exhibited malignant potential. We encountered a 50-yr-old woman with an uncommon female adnexal tumors of probable Wolffian origin, which involved bilateral ovaries, invaded the ipsilateral fallopian tube, and extended to the uterine serosa. The initial histopathologic presentation caused significant confusion in pathologic diagnosis. Multiple differential diagnoses including ovarian endometrioid carcinoma, Sertoli cell tumor, and metastasis from nongynecologic organs were considered. After careful examination of the histologic findings and a thorough investigation with multiple immunohistochemical stains, the diagnosis was ultimately established. A literature review on female adnexal tumors of probable Wolffian origin including a malignant form is presented.

Niraparib Maintenance Therapy in Platinum-Sensitive, Recurrent Ovarian Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Niraparib is an oral poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase (PARP) 1/2 inhibitor that has shown clinical activity in patients with ovarian cancer. We sought to evaluate the efficacy of niraparib versus placebo as maintenance treatment for patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial, patients were categorized according to the presence or absence of a germline BRCA mutation (gBRCA cohort and non-gBRCA cohort) and the type of non-gBRCA mutation and were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive niraparib (300 mg) or placebo once daily. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: Of 553 enrolled patients, 203 were in the gBRCA cohort (with 138 assigned to niraparib and 65 to placebo), and 350 patients were in the non-gBRCA cohort (with 234 assigned to niraparib and 116 to placebo). Patients in the niraparib group had a significantly longer median duration of progression-free survival than did those in the placebo group, including 21.0 vs. 5.5 months in the gBRCA cohort (hazard ratio, 0.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17 to 0.41), as compared with 12.9 months vs. 3.8 months in the non-gBRCA cohort for patients who had tumors with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.59) and 9.3 months vs. 3.9 months in the overall non-gBRCA cohort (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.61; P<0.001 for all three comparisons). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events that were reported in the niraparib group were thrombocytopenia (in 33.8%), anemia (in 25.3%), and neutropenia (in 19.6%), which were managed with dose modifications. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer, the median duration of progression-free survival was significantly longer among those receiving niraparib than among those receiving placebo, regardless of the presence or absence of gBRCA mutations or HRD status, with moderate bone marrow toxicity. (Funded by Tesaro; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01847274 .).

Pilot study of the prospective identification of changes in cognitive function during chemotherapy treatment for advanced ovarian cancer.

Change in cognitive function is increasingly being recognized as an adverse outcome related to chemotherapy treatment. These changes need not be severe to impact patient functional ability and quality of life. The primary goal of this study was to determine if there is evidence of changes in the cognitive function domains of attention, processing speed, and response time among women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer who receive chemotherapy. Eligible patients were women diagnosed with stage III-IV epithelial ovarian or primary peritoneal cancer who had not yet received chemotherapy but who were prescribed a minimum of six cycles (courses) of chemotherapy treatment. Cognitive function was assessed by a computerized, Web-based assessment (attention, processing speed, and reaction time) and by patient self-report. Cognitive function was assessed at three time points: prior to the first course (baseline), course three, and course six. Medical records were reviewed to abstract information on chemotherapy treatment, concomitant medications, and blood test results (e.g., hemoglobin, CA-125). Of the 27 eligible participants, 92% and 86% demonstrated cognitive impairments from baseline to course three and from baseline to course six of chemotherapy, respectively. Impairment was detected in two or more cognitive domains among 48% (12 of 25) and 41% (9 of 22) of participants at course three and course six of chemotherapy, respectively. This study shows evidence of decline in cognitive function among women being treated for ovarian cancer. There is a need for additional, prospective research to better understand the impact of chemotherapy on cognitive function among ovarian cancer patients so that effective preventive and treatment strategies can be developed.

A case report of recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer metastatic to the sternum, diaphragm, costae, and bowel managed by aggressive secondary cytoreductive surgery without postoperative chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian epithelial cancer typically presents in advanced stage and has been traditionally managed by a combination of cytoreductive surgery followed by adjuvant systematic chemotherapy. The management of recurrent ovarian cancer has been individualized: surgical resection of intraabdominal and/or pelvic disease has been performed when technically feasible and usually followed with chemotherapy. CASE: This case describes aggressive surgical management of recurrent ovarian cancer metastatic to the lower ribs, sternum, and diaphragm. A clear cell, Stage IIIA ovarian cancer was successfully resected in a 73-year-old female. The patient had total abdominal hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and omentectomy followed by six cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy, consisting of cyclophospamide and carboplatinum. A period of 8 years elapsed before recurrent disease was detected; there were two separate metastatic sites. A secondary cytoreductive surgery without further chemotherapy has been the mainstay of treatment. A combination of exploratory laparotomy and en bloc resection revealed the metastatic deposits, a 5-cm mass involving the diaphragm, the lower aspect of the manubrium sternum, and four right lower ribs. The second deposit was identified in the left paracolic gutter invading the sigmoid colon. CONCLUSION: At 47 months of follow-up, the patient is alive and without any evidence of measurable disease by exam and confirmed by CT scans of chest, abdomen, and pelvis. To our knowledge, this is one of the few reported cases managed successfully by surgical approach and is recommended in selected patients with metastatic ovarian cancer.