ESGO-ESMO-ESP consensus conference recommendations on ovarian cancer: pathology and molecular biology and early, advanced and recurrent disease.

The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the European Society of Pathology held a consensus conference (CC) on ovarian cancer on 15-16 June 2022 in Valencia, Spain. The CC panel included 44 experts in the management of ovarian cancer and pathology, an ESMO scientific advisor and a methodologist. The aim was to discuss new or contentious topics and develop recommendations to improve and harmonise the management of patients with ovarian cancer. Eighteen questions were identified for discussion under four main topics: (i) pathology and molecular biology, (ii) early-stage disease and pelvic mass in pregnancy, (iii) advanced stage (including older/frail patients) and (iv) recurrent disease. The panel was divided into four working groups (WGs) to each address questions relating to one of the four topics outlined above, based on their expertise. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the WGs and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment before voting. This manuscript focuses on the recommendation statements that reached a consensus, their voting results and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation.

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.

Isatuximab plus atezolizumab in patients with advanced solid tumors: results from a phase I/II, open-label, multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: The anti-CD38 antibody isatuximab is approved for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, but there are no data on its efficacy in solid tumors. This phase I/II study (NCT03637764) assessed the safety and activity of isatuximab plus atezolizumab (Isa + Atezo), an anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody, in patients with immunotherapy-naive solid tumors: epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), glioblastoma (GBM), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Phase I assessed safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of isatuximab 10 mg/kg intravenously (i.v.) every week for 3 weeks followed by once every 3 weeks + atezolizumab 1200 mg i.v. every 3 weeks. Phase II used a Simon's two-stage design to assess the overall response rate or progression-free survival rate at 6 months (GBM cohort). Interim analysis was carried out at 6 months following first dose of the last enrolled patient in each cohort. Pharmacodynamic biomarkers were tested for CD38, PD-L1, tumor-infiltrating immune cells, and FOXP3+ regulatory T cells (Tregs) in the tumor microenvironment (TME). RESULTS: Overall, 107 patients were treated (EOC, n = 18; GBM, n = 33; HCC, n = 27; SCCHN, n = 29). In phase I, Isa + Atezo showed an acceptable safety profile, no dose-limiting toxicities were observed, and RP2D was confirmed. Most patients experienced ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), with ≤48.5% being grade ≥3. The most frequent TEAE was infusion reactions. The study did not continue to stage 2 based on prespecified targets. Tumor-infiltrating CD38+ immune cells were reduced and almost cleared after treatment. Isa + Atezo did not significantly modulate Tregs or PD-L1 expression in the TME. CONCLUSIONS: Isa + Atezo had acceptable safety and tolerability. Clinical pharmacodynamic evaluation revealed efficient target engagement of isatuximab via treatment-mediated reduction of CD38+ immune cells in the TME. Based on clinical data, CD38 inhibition does not improve responsiveness to PD-L1 blockade in these patients.

Proficiency of 38 HID-INDELS in kinship analysis and forensic parameters in a Mexican population / Eficiencia de 38 HID-INDELS en análisis de parentesco y parámetros forenses en una población mexicana

Introduction: Insertion–deletions for human identification (HID-INDELs) allow solving peculiar forensic situations when autosomal STRs are insufficient. Although limitations were predicted since the forensic implementation of biallelic markers, formal evaluation of these restrictions is scarce. Particularly, to define the informativity provided by HID-INDELs in kinship analysis is useful to avoid wasting work, resources, and –finally– disappointments.Material and methods: For this reason, we analyzed the 38-plex HID-INDEL system in 25 Mexican families including father, daughter, and mother, whose kinship was previously established with 22 autosomal STRs.Results and discussion: From genotypes of unrelated individuals, we updated allele frequencies and forensic parameters of the Jalisco state (West, Mexico), by increasing the population sample size from 62 to 112. Among the forensic a priori parameters, the Typical paternity index (PI) of the 38plex HID-INDEL system showed important differences regarding the PI and probability of paternity (W) estimated herein from real paternity cases, generally undervaluing the observed informativity of these 38-plex HID-INDEL system. Conversely, the studied HID-INDEL loci offered confident kinship conclusions based on the paternity index (PI ≥10,000) and probability of paternity (W ≥ 99.99%) in 68% of the standard trio cases (18/25), and only 12% of duo paternity cases (6/50) (motherless and fatherless). In fact, 14% of duo paternity cases (7/50) did not reach minimum requirements to stablish paternity (IP < 100; W < 99%).Conclusions: We updated a Mexican population database for 38 HID-INDEL loci, and we described their proficiency from real paternity cases, detailing some limitations non-previously specified. (AU)

Introducción: Las inserciones-deleciones para identificación humana (HID-INDEL), permiten resolver situaciones forenses peculiares cuando los STR autosómicos son insuficientes. Aunque se predijeron sus limitaciones desde la implementación forense de marcadores bialélicos, la evaluación formal de estas restricciones es escasa. Particularmente es útil definir su informatividad en el análisis de parentesco, para evitar desperdiciar trabajo, recursos y –finalmente– decepciones.Material y Métodos: Por este motivo, analizamos el sistema de 38plex HID-INDELs en 25 familias mexicanas entre padre, hija y madre, cuyo parentesco se estableció previamente con 22 STR autosómicos. A partir de los individuos no emparentados, actualizamos las frecuencias alélicas y los parámetros forenses del estado de Jalisco (Oeste, México), aumentando el tamaño de la muestra poblacional de 62 a 112.Resultados y discusión: Entre los parámetros forenses a priori, el índice de paternidad típico (IPT) del sistema 38plex HID-INDEL mostró diferencias importantes con respecto al IP y la probabilidad de paternidad (W) derivados de casos reales de paternidad, generalmente subestimando la informatividad observada de ese sistema. Sin embargo, los 38 HID-INDELs ofrecieron conclusiones de parentesco confiables basadas en el índice de paternidad (IP ≥ 10,000) y la probabilidad de paternidad (W ≥ 99,99%) sólo en el 68% de los casos tríos estándar (18/25), y el 12% de casos de paternidad dúo (6/50) (sin madre y sin padre). De hecho, el 14% de los casos de paternidad dúo (7/50) no alcanzó los requisitos mínimos para establecer la paternidad (IP <100; W < 99%).Conclusiones: En este trabajo actualizamos una base de datos de población mexicana para 38 HID-INDELs y describimos su eficiencia en casos reales de paternidad, detallando algunas limitaciones no especificadas previamente. (AU)

Olaparib maintenance monotherapy in platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer patients without a germline BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation: OPINION primary analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The phase IIIb OPINION trial (NCT03402841) investigated olaparib maintenance monotherapy in patients without a deleterious or suspected deleterious germline BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation (gBRCAm) who had platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSROC) and had received ≥2 previous lines of platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS: In this single-arm, open-label, international study, patients who had responded to platinum-based chemotherapy received maintenance olaparib tablets (300 mg twice daily) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) (modified RECIST version 1.1). A key secondary endpoint was PFS by homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) and somatic BRCAm (sBRCAm) status. The primary analysis of PFS was planned for 18 months after the last patient received their first dose. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy-nine patients were enrolled and received olaparib. At data cutoff (October 2, 2020), 210 PFS events had occurred (75.3% maturity) and median PFS was 9.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.6-10.9) in the overall population. At 12 and 18 months, 38.5% and 24.3% of patients were progression-free, respectively. In the predefined biomarker subgroups, median PFS was 16.4, 11.1, 9.7, and 7.3 months in sBRCAm, HRD-positive including sBRCAm, HRD-positive excluding sBRCAm, and HRD-negative patients, respectively. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were nausea (48.4%) and fatigue/asthenia (44.1%). TEAEs led to dose interruption, dose reduction, and treatment discontinuation in 47.0%, 22.6%, and 7.5% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Maintenance olaparib demonstrated clinical benefit in patients without a gBRCAm, and across all subgroups, compared with historical placebo controls. There were no new safety signals.

European experts consensus: BRCA/homologous recombination deficiency testing in first-line ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Homologous recombination repair (HRR) enables fault-free repair of double-stranded DNA breaks. HRR deficiency is predicted to occur in around half of high-grade serous ovarian carcinomas. Ovarian cancers harbouring HRR deficiency typically exhibit sensitivity to poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPi). Current guidelines recommend a range of approaches for genetic testing to identify predictors of sensitivity to PARPi in ovarian cancer and to identify genetic predisposition. DESIGN: To establish a European-wide consensus for genetic testing (including the genetic care pathway), decision making and clinical management of patients with recently diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer, and the validity of biomarkers to predict the effectiveness of PARPi in the first-line setting. The collaborative European experts' consensus group consisted of a steering committee (n = 14) and contributors (n = 84). A (modified) Delphi process was used to establish consensus statements based on a systematic literature search, conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. RESULTS: A consensus was reached on 34 statements amongst 98 caregivers (including oncologists, pathologists, clinical geneticists, genetic researchers, and patient advocates). The statements concentrated on (i) the value of testing for BRCA1/2 mutations and HRR deficiency testing, including when and whom to test; (ii) the importance of developing new and better HRR deficiency tests; (iii) the importance of germline non-BRCA HRR and mismatch repair gene mutations for predicting familial risk, but not for predicting sensitivity to PARPi, in the first-line setting; (iv) who should be able to inform patients about genetic testing, and what training and education should these caregivers receive. CONCLUSION: These consensus recommendations, from a multidisciplinary panel of experts from across Europe, provide clear guidance on the use of BRCA and HRR deficiency testing for recently diagnosed patients with advanced ovarian cancer.

Olaparib in combination with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer regardless of BRCA status: a GEICO phase II trial (ROLANDO study).

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence for the benefit of olaparib in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC) patients with BRCA wild-type tumors. This study investigated whether this combination of a DNA-damaging chemotherapy plus olaparib is effective in PROC regardless BRCA status. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian carcinoma and one previous PROC recurrence were enrolled regardless of BRCA status. Patients with ≤4 previous lines (up to 5 in BRCA-mut) with at least one previous platinum-sensitive relapse were included; primary PROC was allowed only in case of BRCA-mut. Patients initially received six cycles of olaparib 300 mg b.i.d. (biduum) + intravenous pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) 40 mg/m2 (PLD40) every 28 days, followed by maintenance with olaparib 300 mg b.i.d. until progression or toxicity. The PLD dose was reduced to 30 mg/m2 (PLD30) due to toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) at 6 months (6m-PFS) by RECIST version 1.1. A proportion of 40% 6m-PFS or more was considered of clinical interest. RESULTS: From 2017 to 2020, 31 PROC patients were included. BRCA mutations were present in 16%. The median of previous lines was 2 (range 1-5). The overall disease control rate was 77% (partial response rate of 29% and stable disease rate of 48%). After a median follow-up of 10 months, the 6m-PFS and median PFS were 47% and 5.8 months, respectively. Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 74% of patients, with neutropenia/anemia being the most frequent. With PLD30 serious AEs were less frequent than with PLD40 (21% versus 47%, respectively); moreover, PLD30 was associated with less PLD delays (32% versus 38%) and reductions (16% versus 22%). CONCLUSIONS: The PLD-olaparib combination has shown significant activity in PROC regardless of BRCA status. PLD at 30 mg/m2 is better tolerated in the combination.

SEOM clinical guideline in ovarian cancer (2020)

Despite remarkable advances in the knowledge of molecular biology and treatment, ovarian cancer remains the leading cause of death from gynecologic cancer. In the last decade, there have been important advances both in systemic and surgical treatment. However, there is no doubt that the incorporation of PARP inhibitors as maintenance after the response to platinum-based chemotherapy, first in recurrent disease and recently also in first line, will change the natural history of the disease. The objective of this guide is to summarize the current evidence for the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of ovarian cancer, and to provide evidence-based recommendations for clinical practice (AU)

The systemic treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer revisited.

Treatment approaches for relapsed ovarian cancer have evolved over the past decade from a calendar-based decision tree to a patient-oriented biologically driven algorithm. Nowadays, platinum-based chemotherapy should be offered to all patients with a reasonable chance of responding to this therapy. The treatment-free interval for platinum is only one of many factors affecting patients' eligibility for platinum re-treatment. Bevacizumab increases the response to chemotherapy irrespective of the cytotoxic regimen and can be valuable in patients with an urgent need for symptom relief (e.g. pleural effusion, ascites). For patients with recurrent high-grade ovarian cancer, which responds to platinum-based treatment, maintenance therapy with a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor can be offered, regardless of the BRCA mutation status. Here we review contemporary decision-making processes in the systemic treatment of relapsed ovarian cancer.

Cediranib in addition to chemotherapy for women with relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer (ICON6): overall survival results of a phase III randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Cediranib, an oral anti-angiogenic VEGFR 1-3 inhibitor, was studied at a daily dose of 20 mg in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy and as maintenance in a randomised trial in patients with first relapse of 'platinum-sensitive' ovarian cancer and has been shown to improve progression-free survival (PFS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: ICON6 (NCT00532194) was an international three-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial. Between December 2007 and December 2011, 456 women were randomised, using stratification, to receive either chemotherapy with placebo throughout (arm A, reference); chemotherapy with concurrent cediranib, followed by maintenance placebo (arm B, concurrent); or chemotherapy with concurrent cediranib, followed by maintenance cediranib (arm C, maintenance). Due to an enforced redesign of the trial in September 2011, the primary endpoint became PFS between arms A and C which we have previously published, and the overall survival (OS) was defined as a secondary endpoint, which is reported here. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 25.6 months, strong evidence of an effect of concurrent plus maintenance cediranib on PFS was observed [hazard ratio (HR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44-0.72, P < 0.0001]. In this final update of the survival analysis, 90% of patients have died. There was a 7.4-month difference in median survival and an HR of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.67-1.11, P = 0.24) in favour of arm C. There was strong evidence of a departure from the assumption of non-proportionality using the Grambsch-Therneau test (P = 0.0031), making the HR difficult to interpret. Consequently, the restricted mean survival time (RMST) was used and the estimated difference over 6 years by the RMST was 4.8 months (95% CI: -0.09 to 9.74 months). CONCLUSIONS: Although a statistically significant difference in time to progression was seen, the enforced curtailment in recruitment meant that the secondary analysis of OS was underpowered. The relative reduction in the risk of death of 14% risk of death was not conventionally statistically significant, but this improvement and the increase in the mean survival time in this analysis suggest that cediranib may have worthwhile activity in the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer and that further research should be undertaken.

SEOM clinical guideline in ovarian cancer (2020).

Despite remarkable advances in the knowledge of molecular biology and treatment, ovarian cancer remains the leading cause of death from gynecologic cancer. In the last decade, there have been important advances both in systemic and surgical treatment. However, there is no doubt that the incorporation of PARP inhibitors as maintenance after the response to platinum-based chemotherapy, first in recurrent disease and recently also in first line, will change the natural history of the disease.The objective of this guide is to summarize the current evidence for the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of ovarian cancer, and to provide evidence-based recommendations for clinical practice.

The forefront of ovarian cancer therapy: update on PARP inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: In recurrent ovarian cancer, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP)-inhibiting agents have transformed the treatment of platinum-sensitive disease. New data support use of PARP inhibitors earlier in the treatment algorithm. DESIGN: We review results from recent phase III trials evaluating PARP inhibitors as treatment and/or maintenance therapy for patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer. We discuss the efficacy and safety of these agents in the all-comer and biomarker-selected populations studied in clinical trials, and compare the strengths and limitations of the various trial designs. We also consider priorities for future research, with a particular focus on patient selection and future regimens for populations with high unmet need. RESULTS: Four phase III trials (SOLO-1, PAOLA-1/ENGOT-OV25, PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26 and VELIA/GOG-3005) demonstrated remarkable improvements in progression-free survival with PARP inhibitor therapy (olaparib, niraparib or veliparib) for newly diagnosed ovarian cancer. Differences in trial design (treatment and/or maintenance setting; single agent or combination; bevacizumab or no bevacizumab), patient selection (surgical outcome, biomarker eligibility, prognosis) and primary analysis population (intention-to-treat, BRCA mutated or homologous recombination deficiency positive) affect the conclusions that can be drawn from these trials. Overall survival data are pending and there is limited experience regarding long-term safety. CONCLUSIONS: PARP inhibitors play a pivotal role in the management of newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, which will affect subsequent treatment choices. Refinement of testing for patient selection and identification of regimens to treat populations that appear to benefit less from PARP inhibitors are a priority.

Antitumor activity and safety of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced recurrent ovarian cancer: results from the phase II KEYNOTE-100 study.

BACKGROUND: Advanced recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC) is the leading cause of gynecologic cancer-related death in developed countries and new treatments are needed. Previous studies of immune checkpoint blockade showed low objective response rates (ORR) in ROC with no identified predictive biomarker. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This phase II study of pembrolizumab (NCT02674061) examined two patient cohorts with ROC: cohort A received one to three prior lines of treatment with a platinum-free interval (PFI) or treatment-free interval (TFI) between 3 and 12 months and cohort B received four to six prior lines with a PFI/TFI of ≥3 months. Pembrolizumab 200 mg was administered intravenously every 3 weeks until cancer progression, toxicity, or completion of 2 years. Primary end points were ORR by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 per blinded independent central review by cohort and by PD-L1 expression measured as combined positive score (CPS). Secondary end points included duration of response (DOR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: Cohort A enrolled 285 patients; the first 100 served as the training set for PD-L1 biomarker analysis. Cohort B enrolled 91 patients. ORR was 7.4% for cohort A and 9.9% for cohort B. Median DOR was 8.2 months for cohort A and not reached for cohort B. DCR was 37.2% and 37.4%, respectively, in cohorts A and B. Based on the training set analysis, CPS 1 and 10 were selected for evaluation in the confirmation set. In the confirmation set, ORR was 4.1% for CPS <1, 5.7% CPS ≥1, and 10.0% for CPS ≥10. PFS was 2.1 months for both cohorts. Median OS was not reached for cohort A and was 17.6 months for cohort B. Toxicities were consistent with other single-agent pembrolizumab trials. CONCLUSIONS: Single-agent pembrolizumab showed modest activity in patients with ROC. Higher PD-L1 expression was correlated with higher response. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02674061.