Assessment of Combined Nivolumab and Bevacizumab in Relapsed Ovarian Cancer: A Phase 2 Clinical Trial.

Importance: To date, single-agent programmed cell death 1 protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) immune checkpoint blockade has shown limited activity in recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer. Combination strategies of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition with antiangiogenic therapy have the potential for synergistic activity through modulation of the microenvironment and represent a potential therapeutic opportunity in this disease. Objective: To evaluate the activity of combined nivolumab and bevacizumab in women with relapsed ovarian cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: A single-arm, phase 2 study enrolled patients between February 8, 2017, and December 29, 2017, at 2 sites in the United States; the primary data analysis was completed July 27, 2018. Thirty-eight women with relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer were enrolled in this study. Participants had disease recurrence within 12 months of their last platinum-based therapy and had received between 1 and 3 lines of prior therapy. Interventions: Participants received intravenous nivolumab and intravenous bevacizumab once every 2 weeks. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) as measured by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1. Secondary end points included evaluation of the ORR by platinum sensitivity, assessment of progression-free survival, assessment of safety data, and investigation of the association of tumor PD-L1 with response to therapy. Results: Of the 38 women enrolled, 18 had platinum-resistant and 20 had platinum-sensitive disease; mean (SD) age was 63.0 (9.1) years. Eleven patients experienced a confirmed response to nivolumab with bevacizumab (ORR, 28.9%; 95% exact binomial CI, 15.4%-45.9%), with 1 additional unconfirmed response. The ORR was 40.0% (19.1%-64.0%) in platinum-sensitive and 16.7% (95% CI 3.6%-41.4%) in platinum-resistant participants. Thirty-four participants (89.5%) experienced at least 1 treatment-related adverse event; 9 participants (23.7%) experienced a grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse event. Median progression-free survival was 8.1 months (95% CI, 6.3-14.7 months). In 36 histologic samples for which PD-L1 testing could be performed, 22 samples (61.1%) had a PD-L1 tumoral percentage less than 1, and 14 samples (38.9%) had a PD-L1 tumoral percentage of 1 or greater. Ten responses occurred in patients with PD-L1 tumor percentage less than 1, and 2 in patients with PD-L1 tumor percentages of 1 or greater. Conclusions and Relevance: The nivolumab with bevacizumab combination appeared to show activity in patients with relapsed ovarian cancer, with greater activity in the platinum-sensitive setting. Alternative combinational strategies may be necessary in the platinum-resistant setting.

When Should Tumor Genomic Profiling Prompt Consideration of Germline Testing?

Somatic genomic testing is rapidly becoming an integral part of care for patients with metastatic cancer. Extrapolation of these results beyond personalized cancer therapy is a skill being demanded of practicing oncologists without prior specialty in genetics. Up to 12% of tumor genomic profiling reports will reveal a germline pathogenic variant. Recognition of these germline variants is essential not only for optimal care of the patient with cancer but also to initiate cascade genetic testing in at-risk family members who also may carry the familial mutation. This article provides a concise and methodical, evidence-based strategy to guide oncology providers about how to identify genes associated with an inherited predisposition for cancer, determine the pathogenicity of variants reported within those genes, and understand the likelihood that these variants are of germline origin in a particular patient with cancer. Case examples are provided to illustrate clinical scenarios and facilitate application of the proposed approach.

Phase II Study of Avelumab in Patients With Mismatch Repair Deficient and Mismatch Repair Proficient Recurrent/Persistent Endometrial Cancer.

PURPOSE: Despite the tissue-agnostic approval of pembrolizumab in mismatch repair deficient (MMRD) solid tumors, important unanswered questions remain about the role of immune checkpoint blockade in mismatch repair-proficient (MMRP) and -deficient endometrial cancer (EC). METHODS: This phase II study evaluated the PD-L1 inhibitor avelumab in two cohorts of patients with EC: (1) MMRD/POLE (polymerase ε) cohort, as defined by immunohistochemical (IHC) loss of expression of one or more mismatch repair (MMR) proteins and/or documented mutation in the exonuclease domain of POLE; and (2) MMRP cohort with normal IHC expression of all MMR proteins. Coprimary end points were objective response (OR) and progression-free survival at 6 months (PFS6). Avelumab 10 mg/kg intravenously was administered every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients were enrolled. No patient with POLE-mutated tumor was enrolled in the MMRD cohort, and all MMRP tumors were not POLE-mutated. The MMRP cohort was closed at the first stage because of futility: Only one of 16 patients exhibited both OR and PFS6 responses. The MMRD cohort met the predefined primary end point of four ORs after accrual of only 17 patients; of 15 patients who initiated avelumab, four exhibited OR (one complete response, three partial responses; OR rate, 26.7%; 95% CI, 7.8% to 55.1%) and six (including all four ORs) PFS6 responses (PFS6, 40.0%; 95% CI, 16.3% to 66.7%), four of which are ongoing as of data cutoff date. Responses were observed in the absence of PD-L1 expression. IHC captured all cases of MMRD subsequently determined by polymerase chain reaction or genomically via targeted sequencing. CONCLUSION: Avelumab exhibited promising activity in MMRD EC regardless of PD-L1 status. IHC for MMR assessment is a useful tool for patient selection. The activity of avelumab in MMRP/non-POLE-mutated ECs was low.

Advanced Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: Do More Options Mean Greater Benefits?

The Oncology Grand Rounds series is designed to place original reports published in the Journal into clinical context. A case presentation is followed by a description of diagnostic and management challenges, a review of the relevant literature, and a summary of the authors' suggested management approaches. The goal of this series is to help readers better understand how to apply the results of key studies, including those published in Journal of Clinical Oncology, to patients seen in their own clinical practice. A healthy 51-year-old woman presented with increasing abdominal and pelvic pain. Computed tomography imaging of the abdomen and pelvis showed an 11.6-cm pelvic mass, retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy, right hydronephrosis, and mesenteric tumor deposits ( Fig 1A ). A serum CA-125 was elevated at 1,149 U/mL. She underwent primary surgical cytoreduction including hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, appendectomy, resection of pelvic tumor, omentectomy, and low anterior resection with colorectal anastomosis. Intraoperatively, she was noted to have bilateral ovarian masses, pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenopathy, and a 4-cm omental tumor; in addition, both the uterus and rectosigmoid colon had adherent tumor deposits. All gross tumor was resected during the procedure. Final pathology confirmed high-grade serous carcinoma of ovarian origin ( Fig 1B ) that was determined to be stage IIIC as a result of upper abdominal involvement with greater than 2-cm tumor deposits, as well as retroperitoneal lymph node involvement. She underwent germline genetic testing, which did not identify a mutation in the BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, RAD51C, or RAD51D genes. She presented for adjuvant chemotherapy after an optimal (R0) resection.

Laparoscopic intraperitoneal port placement for optimally cytoreduced advanced ovarian cancer.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate complications of intraperitoneal ports placed laparoscopically as a separate procedure after initial debulking surgery for ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer. DESIGN: A retrospective case series (Canadian Task Force Classification III). SETTING: Inpatient, academic teaching institution. PATIENTS: Female patients of any age, at a single institution, undergoing laparoscopically-assisted intraperitoneal port placement after initial surgery for ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer from January 2001 through December 2009. INTERVENTIONS: Laparoscopically assisted intra-peritoneal port placement. MEASUREMENTS/MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-three ports were successfully placed, with no conversions to laparotomy. Only 2 patients were unable to receive intraperitoneal chemotherapy, and there was 1 major complication (enterotomy) related to port placement. There were 6 cases of port dysfunction (17%); however, in 3 cases the port was replaced and subsequently functioned well. There were 2 cases of port infection necessitating port removal. The majority (81.8%) of patients were able to complete all planned cycles of intraperitoneal chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Based on the data from our institution, laparoscopic placement of an intraperitoneal port may be safely performed as a second procedure after initial surgery for stage III ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer and provides access for post-operative therapy.