AGO-OVAR 28/ENGOT-ov57. Niraparib alone versus niraparib in combination with bevacizumab in patients with carboplatin-taxane-based chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer: a multicenter randomized phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: Phase III trial data have shown a significant benefit by the addition of a maintenance treatment with niraparib, irrespective of BRCA or HRD status, in patients with advanced high-grade ovarian cancers; and, a significant benefit of the combination of olaparib and bevacizumab compared with bevacizumab monotherapy in HRD positive patients. However, it is unclear whether a PARP inhibitor monotherapy is sufficient, or if the addition of bevacizumab is needed. PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: This trial will investigate if the treatment strategy of carboplatin/paclitaxel/bevacizumab/niraparib is superior to the treatment of carboplatin/paclitaxel/niraparib in an all-comer population. STUDY HYPOTHESIS: Adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy followed by niraparib maintenance improves progression-free survival in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. TRIAL DESIGN: AGO-OVAR 28/ENGOT-ov57 is an international, multicenter, randomized, prospective phase III trial within the the European Network for Gynecological Oncological Trial (ENGOT), led by the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie (AGO) study group. All patients should have completed the first cycle of chemotherapy (carboplatin and paclitaxel) as part of the Study Run-In-Period. Prior to day 1 of cycle 2, patients with a valid central tumor BRCA (tBRCA) test result were randomized in a 1:1 ratio into either: Arm 1, to receive five additional cycles of carboplatin and paclitaxel q21d, followed by niraparib for up to 3 years; or Arm 2, to receive five additional cycles of carboplatin and paclitaxel plus bevacizumab q21d, followed by bevacizumab q21d (for up to 1 year), and niraparib for up to 3 years. MAJOR INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA: The trial population is composed of adult patients with newly diagnosed, advanced high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer, primary peritoneal cancer, or fallopian tube cancer FIGO III/IV (except FIGO IIIA2 without nodal involvement). Patients who are scheduled for neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval debulking surgery are also eligible for the trial. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: The primary endpoint is progression-free survival. SAMPLE SIZE: The study plans to recruit 970 patients (485 patients in each arm). ESTIMATED DATES FOR COMPLETING ACCRUAL AND PRESENTING RESULTS: The Last-Patient-In is expected to be enrolled in September 2024, with presentation of the primary endpoint in 2028. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05009082; EudraCT Number: 2021-001271-16.

Assessment of the change of antiemetic prophylaxis from double to triple combination in patients with high dose carboplatin chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the adverse events that most affects oncologic patients' quality of life. Carboplatin AUC ≥ 4 belongs to agents with high emetic risk (moderate risk in ASCO guidelines). We aimed to compare the effectiveness of netupitant/palonosetron and dexamethasone triple combination (TC) therapy versus ondansetron and dexamethasone double combination (DC) therapy as antiemetic prophylaxis in patients with carboplatin AUC ≥ 4. As a secondary endpoint, in TC group we evaluated the effectiveness of changing NEPA administration timing from 1 h to 15 min before chemotherapy. METHODS: Open-label prospective study conducted in a tertiary-care hospital in patients receiving carboplatin AUC ≥ 4. CINV was evaluated using MASCC antiemetic tool, in acute (<24 h) and delayed phase (24-120 h). Results were analyzed using χ2 test. RESULTS: Two-hundred four completed questionnaires (CQ) were analyzed (76 in DC and 128 in TC). The proportion of patients who remained emesis-free was superior for TC-treated group compared to DC, either in acute (99.2% vs 92.1%, p = 0.0115) and delayed phase (97.6% vs 90.7%, p = 0.043). Likewise, a higher proportion of TC-treated patients compared to DC remained nausea-free for the first 24 h after treatment (90.6% vs 71%, p = 0.0004) and between 24 and 120 h (82.3% vs 62.7%, p = 0.0025). The change of NEPA administration time showed similar effectiveness in terms of CINV control (81.6% vs 74.5%, p = 0.70). CONCLUSIONS: TC showed superiority in early and delayed CINV control in carboplatin AUC ≥ 4 regimens, with no significant differences among cancer types. Change in NEPA administration timing has beneficial implications; it allows NEPA to be administered at hospitals before chemotherapy session.

Efficacy and safety results from GEICO 1205, a randomized phase II trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab is an approved treatment after primary debulking surgery for ovarian cancer. However, there is limited information on bevacizumab added to neoadjuvant chemotherapy before interval debulking surgery. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate neoadjuvant bevacizumab in a randomized phase II trial. METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed stage III/IV high-grade serous/endometrioid ovarian cancer were randomized to receive four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without ≥3 cycles of bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks. After interval debulking surgery, all patients received post-operative chemotherapy (three cycles) and bevacizumab for 15 months. The primary end point was complete macroscopic response rate at interval debulking surgery. RESULTS: Of 68 patients randomized, 64 completed four neoadjuvant cycles; 22 of 33 (67%) in the chemotherapy-alone arm and 31 of 35 (89%) in the bevacizumab arm (p=0.029) underwent surgery. The complete macroscopic response rate did not differ between treatment arms in either the intention-to-treat population of 68 patients (6.1% vs 5.7%, respectively; p=0.25) or the 55 patients who underwent surgery (8.3% vs 6.5%; p=1.00). There was no difference in complete cytoreduction rate or progression-free survival between the treatment arms. During neoadjuvant therapy, grade ≥3 adverse events were more common with chemotherapy alone than with bevacizumab (61% vs 29%, respectively; p=0.008). Intestinal (sub)occlusion, fatigue/asthenia, abdominal infection, and thrombocytopenia were less frequent with bevacizumab. The incidence of grade ≥3 adverse events was 9% in the control arm versus 16% in the experimental arm in the month after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Adding three to four pre-operative cycles of bevacizumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for unresectable disease did not improve the complete macroscopic response rate or surgical outcome, but improved surgical operability without increasing toxicity. These results support the early integration of bevacizumab in carefully selected high-risk patients requiring neoadjuvant chemotherapy for initially unresectable ovarian cancer.