Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab for patients with previously treated advanced ovarian cancer: Results from the phase 2 multicohort LEAP-005 study.

OBJECTIVES: The phase 2, multicohort, open-label LEAP-005 study evaluated lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with previously treated advanced solid tumors. We report outcomes from the ovarian cancer cohort. METHODS: Eligible patients had metastatic/unresectable ovarian cancer and had received 3 previous lines of therapy. Patients received lenvatinib 20 mg/day plus pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks. Treatment continued until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or (for pembrolizumab) completion of 35 cycles. Primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST version 1.1 and safety. Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Thirty-one patients were enrolled. 39% had high grade serous ovarian cancer, 23% were platinum-sensitive, 55% were platinum-resistant, 23% were platinum-refractory, and 84% had tumors that had a PD-L1 combined positive (CPS) score ≥1. ORR (95% CI) was 26% (12%-45%) by investigator assessment and 35% (19%-55%) by blinded independent central review (BICR). Per BICR, median DOR was 9.2 (1.5+ to 37.8+) months. ORRs (95% CI) by BICR were 35% (9/26 patients; 17%-56%) for PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1 disease and 50% (2/4 patients; 7%-93%) for PD-L1 CPS < 1 disease. Median (95% CI) PFS by BICR and OS were 6.2 (4.0-8.5) months and 21.3 (11.7-32.3) months, respectively. Treatment-related AEs occurred in 94% of patients (grade 3-4, 77%). One patient died from treatment-related hypovolemic shock. CONCLUSIONS: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab demonstrated antitumor activity as fourth line therapy in patients with advanced ovarian cancer, and no unanticipated safety signals were identified. Responses were observed regardless of PD-L1 status.

Clinical evaluation of a low-coverage whole-genome test for detecting homologous recombination deficiency in ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: The PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trial showed that maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab increases survival of advanced ovarian cancer patients with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). However, decentralized solutions to test for HRD in clinical routine are scarce. The goal of this study was to retrospectively validate on tumor samples from the PAOLA-1 trial, the decentralized SeqOne assay, which relies on shallow Whole Genome Sequencing (sWGS) to capture genomic instability and targeted sequencing to determine BRCA status. METHODS: The study comprised 368 patients from the PAOLA-1 trial. The SeqOne assay was compared to the Myriad MyChoice HRD test (Myriad Genetics), and results were analyzed with respect to Progression-Free Survival (PFS). RESULTS: We found a 95% concordance between the HRD status of the two tests (95% Confidence Interval (CI); 92%-97%). The Positive Percentage Agreement (PPA) of the sWGS test was 95% (95% CI; 91%-97%) like its Negative Percentage Agreement (NPA) (95% CI; 89%-98%). In patients with HRD-positive tumors treated with olaparib plus bevacizumab, the PFS Hazard Ratio (HR) was 0.38 (95% CI; 0.26-0.54) with SeqOne assay and 0.32 (95% CI; 0.22-0.45) with the Myriad assay. In patients with HRD-negative tumors, HR was 0.99 (95% CI; 0.68-1.42) and 1.05 (95% CI; 0.70-1.57) with SeqOne and Myriad assays. Among patients with BRCA-wildtype tumors, those with HRD-positive tumors, benefited from olaparib plus bevacizumab maintenance, with HR of 0.48 (95% CI: 0.29-0.79) and of 0.38 (95% CI: 0.23 to 0.63) with the SeqOne and Myriad assay. CONCLUSION: The SeqOne assay offers a clinically validated approach to detect HRD.

Progression-free survival and safety at 3.5 years of follow-up: results from the randomized phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial of niraparib maintenance treatment in patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer - a plain language summary.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This PLSP provides a short summary of an original scientific article that presented results from the PRIMA study after 3.5 years of follow-up time. The original article was published in the European Journal of Cancer in 2023. The PRIMA study included adult patients with newly diagnosed advanced high-risk ovarian cancer whose tumors shrunk or became undetectable after treatment with chemotherapy with or without surgery. The PRIMA study evaluated how well the drug niraparib, also known as Zejula, worked at delaying or preventing ovarian cancer from coming back (recurring) or getting worse (progressing) compared with placebo (a substance with no effects that a doctor gives to a patient instead of a drug). The first results from the PRIMA study were published in 2019, when patients had participated in the PRIMA study for about 1.2 years. The article this PLSP is based on reports longer-term data from the PRIMA study, when patients had participated in the PRIMA study for about 3.5 years. Patients were monitored (or followed) for a longer time to understand how well niraparib continued to work and to evaluate whether the safety of niraparib changed with additional time being monitored. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: Patients who took niraparib had more time before their cancer came back or got worse than patients who took placebo. In terms of safety, no new types of side effects with niraparib treatment were observed with additional time being monitored as part of the PRIMA study. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: These results support that niraparib remains an important treatment option to help delay the cancer from coming back or getting worse in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer that responded to initial treatment. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02655016 (PRIMA study) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

An international worldwide retrospective cohort observational study comparing primary cytoreductive surgery with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval cytoreductive surgery in patients with carcinoma of the ovary, fallopian tubes, and peritoneum (SUROVA trial).

BACKGROUND: Currently, a lively debate exists within the scientific community regarding the most suitable procedure for treating stages IIIB-IVB carcinoma of the ovary, fallopian tubes, and peritoneum. The options under most consideration are primary cytoreductive surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery. PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To compare overall survival at 5 years in patients who underwent primary cytoreductive surgery versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval cytoreductive surgery for stage IIIB-IVB ovarian cancer STUDY HYPOTHESIS: The treatment with primary cytoreductive surgery results in superior patient survival compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery. TRIAL DESIGN: This is a multicenter, retrospective cohort observational study. Data will be collected from patients undergoing surgery in hospitals worldwide. Two arms will be compared: primary cytoreductive surgery and neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery. MAJOR INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Patients must have suspected or histologically confirmed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stages IIIB-IVB ovarian, peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancers. They must have undergone primary surgery or first course of neoadjuvant chemotherapy between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019. Based on all available information before the surgery (primary or interval), the patient must have been considered completely resectable. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: Overall survival at 5 years from the first treatment (chemotherapy in the case of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and cytoreduction in the case of primary cytoreductive surgery). SAMPLE SIZE: An estimated total of 5000 patients will be enrolled in the study. ESTIMATED DATES FOR COMPLETING ACCRUAL AND PRESENTING RESULTS: March 2025 TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT06223763.

Health-related quality of life in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer treated with niraparib vs placebo: Results from the phase 3 randomized PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with ovarian cancer (OC) who received niraparib as first-line maintenance therapy. METHODS: PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 (NCT02655016) enrolled patients with newly diagnosed advanced OC who responded to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomized (2:1) to niraparib or placebo once daily in 28-day cycles until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or death. HRQoL was assessed as a prespecified secondary end point using patient-reported responses to the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QOL Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), the EORTC QLQ Ovarian Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-OV28), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovarian Symptom Index (FOSI), and EQ-5D-5L questionnaires. Assessments were collected at baseline and every 8 weeks (±7 days) for 56 weeks, beginning on cycle 1/day 1, then every 12 weeks (±7 days) thereafter while the patient received study treatment. RESULTS: Among trial participants (niraparib, n = 487; placebo, n = 246), PRO adherence exceeded 80% for all instruments across all cycles. Patients reported no decline over time in HRQoL measured via EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/QoL and FOSI overall scores. Scores for abdominal/gastrointestinal symptoms (EORTC QLQ-OV28) and nausea and vomiting, appetite loss, and constipation (EORTC QLQ-C30) were higher (worse symptoms) in niraparib-treated patients than placebo-treated patients; except for constipation, these differences resolved over time. Patients did not self-report any worsening from baseline of fatigue, headache, insomnia, or abdominal pain on questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some early, largely transient increases in gastrointestinal symptoms, patients with OC treated with niraparib first-line maintenance therapy reported no worsening in overall HRQoL.

Statement of the AGO Kommission Ovar, AGO Study Group, NOGGO, AGO Austria, Swiss AGO, BGOG, CEEGOG, GEICO, and SFOG regarding the use of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in epithelial ovarian cancer.

An international joint statement about the use of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in ovarian cancer was published in 2016, warning about the uncritical use of HIPEC outside controlled studies. This statement has now been updated after the most recent literature was reviewed by the participating study groups and societies. HIPEC became a treatment option in patients with advanced colon cancer after positive results of a randomized trial comparing surgery and HIPEC versus palliative treatment alone. Although this trial did not compare the added value of HIPEC to surgery alone, HIPEC for the treatment of peritoneal metastases was in the subsequent years generalized to many other cancer types associated with peritoneal carcinomatosis including epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). In the meantime, new evidence from prospective randomized trials specifically for EOC-patients emerged, with however contradicting results and several quality aspects that made the interpretation of their findings critical. Moreover, three additional trials in colorectal cancer failed to confirm the previously presumed survival benefit through the implementation of HIPEC in peritoneally disseminated colorectal cancers. Based on a still unclear and inconsistent landscape, the authors conclude that HIPEC should remain within the remit of clinical trials for EOC-patients. Available evidence is not yet sufficient to justify its broad endorsement into the routine clinical practice.

Analysis of Tumor Microenvironment Changes after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy with or without Bevacizumab in Advanced Ovarian Cancer (GEICO-89T/MINOVA Study).

PURPOSE: The aim of our study was to elucidate the impact of bevacizumab added to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) on the tumor immune microenvironment and correlate the changes with the clinical outcome of the patients. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: IHC and multiplex immunofluorescence for lymphoid and myeloid lineage markers were performed in matched tumor samples from 23 patients with ovarian cancer enrolled in GEICO 1205/NOVA clinical study before NACT and at the time of interval cytoreductive surgery. RESULTS: Our results showed that the addition of bevacizumab to NACT plays a role mainly on lymphoid populations at the stromal compartment, detecting a significant decrease of CD4+ T cells, an increase of CD8+ T cells, and an upregulation in effector/regulatory cell ratio (CD8+/CD4+FOXP3+). None of the changes observed were detected in the intra-epithelial site in any arm (NACT or NACT-bevacizumab). No differences were found in myeloid lineage (macrophage-like). The percentage of Treg populations and effector/regulatory cell ratio in the stroma were the only two variables significantly associated with progression-free survival (PFS). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of bevacizumab to NACT did not have an impact on PFS in the GEICO 1205 study. However, at the cellular level, changes in CD4+, CD8+ lymphocyte populations, and CD8+/CD4+FOXP3 ratio have been detected only at the stromal site. On the basis of our results, we hypothesize about the existence of mechanisms of resistance that could prevent the trafficking of T-effector cells into the epithelial component of the tumor as a potential explanation for the lack of efficacy of ICI in the first-line treatment of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. See related commentary by Soberanis Pina and Oza, p. 12.

Efficacy and Safety of Trastuzumab Deruxtecan in Patients With HER2-Expressing Solid Tumors: Primary Results From the DESTINY-PanTumor02 Phase II Trial.

PURPOSE: Trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) is a human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2)-directed antibody-drug conjugate approved in HER2-expressing breast and gastric cancers and HER2-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer. Treatments are limited for other HER2-expressing solid tumors. METHODS: This open-label phase II study evaluated T-DXd (5.4 mg/kg once every 3 weeks) for HER2-expressing (immunohistochemistry [IHC] 3+/2+ by local or central testing) locally advanced or metastatic disease after ≥1 systemic treatment or without alternative treatments. The primary end point was investigator-assessed confirmed objective response rate (ORR). Secondary end points included safety, duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: At primary analysis, 267 patients received treatment across seven tumor cohorts: endometrial, cervical, ovarian, bladder, biliary tract, pancreatic, and other. The median follow-up was 12.75 months. In all patients, the ORR was 37.1% (n = 99; [95% CI, 31.3 to 43.2]), with responses in all cohorts; the median DOR was 11.3 months (95% CI, 9.6 to 17.8); the median PFS was 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 8.0); and the median OS was 13.4 months (95% CI, 11.9 to 15.5). In patients with central HER2 IHC 3+ expression (n = 75), the ORR was 61.3% (95% CI, 49.4 to 72.4), the median DOR was 22.1 months (95% CI, 9.6 to not reached), the median PFS was 11.9 months (95% CI, 8.2 to 13.0), and the median OS was 21.1 months (95% CI, 15.3 to 29.6). Grade ≥3 drug-related adverse events were observed in 40.8% of patients; 10.5% experienced adjudicated drug-related interstitial lung disease (ILD), with three deaths. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates durable clinical benefit, meaningful survival outcomes, and safety consistent with the known profile (including ILD) in pretreated patients with HER2-expressing tumors receiving T-DXd. Greatest benefit was observed for the IHC 3+ population. These data support the potential role of T-DXd as a tumor-agnostic therapy for patients with HER2-expressing solid tumors.

GIInger predicts homologous recombination deficiency and patient response to PARPi treatment from shallow genomic profiles.

Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) is a predictive biomarker for poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 inhibitor (PARPi) sensitivity. Routine HRD testing relies on identifying BRCA mutations, but additional HRD-positive patients can be identified by measuring genomic instability (GI), a consequence of HRD. However, the cost and complexity of available solutions hamper GI testing. We introduce a deep learning framework, GIInger, that identifies GI from HRD-induced scarring observed in low-pass whole-genome sequencing data. GIInger seamlessly integrates into standard BRCA testing workflows and yields reproducible results concordant with a reference method in a multisite study of 327 ovarian cancer samples. Applied to a BRCA wild-type enriched subgroup of 195 PAOLA-1 clinical trial patients, GIInger identified HRD-positive patients who experienced significantly extended progression-free survival when treated with PARPi. GIInger is, therefore, a cost-effective and easy-to-implement method for accurately stratifying patients with ovarian cancer for first-line PARPi treatment.

Optimizing disease progression assessment using blinded central independent review and comparing it with investigator assessment in the PRIMA/ENGOT-ov26/GOG-3012 trial: challenges and solutions.

OBJECTIVE: Progression-free survival is an established clinically meaningful endpoint in ovarian cancer trials, but it may be susceptible to bias; therefore, blinded independent centralized radiological review is often included in trial designs. We compared blinded independent centralized review and investigator-assessed progressive disease performance in the PRIMA/ENGOT-ov26/GOG-3012 trial examining niraparib monotherapy. METHODS: PRIMA/ENGOT-ov26/GOG-3012 was a randomized, double-blind phase 3 trial; patients with newly diagnosed stage III/IV ovarian cancer received niraparib or placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST] v1.1), determined by two independent radiologists, an arbiter if required, and by blinded central clinician review. Discordance rates between blinded independent centralized review and investigator assessment of progressive disease and non-progressive disease were routinely assessed. To optimize disease assessment, a training intervention was developed for blinded independent centralized radiological reviewers, and RECIST refresher training was provided for investigators. Discordance rates were determined post-intervention. RESULTS: There was a 39% discordance rate between blinded independent centralized review and investigator-assessed progressive disease/non-progressive disease in an initial patient subset (n=80); peritoneal carcinomatosis was the most common source of discordance. All reviewers underwent training, and as a result, changes were implemented, including removal of two original reviewers and identification of 10 best practices for reading imaging data. Post-hoc analysis indicated final discordance rates between blinded independent centralized review and investigator improved to 12% in the overall population. Median progression-free survival and hazard ratios were similar between blinded independent centralized review and investigators in the overall population and across subgroups. CONCLUSION: PRIMA/ENGOT-ov26/GOG-3012 highlights the need to optimize blinded independent centralized review and investigator concordance using early, specialized, ovarian-cancer-specific radiology training to maximize validity of outcome data.

Molecular determinants of clinical outcomes of pembrolizumab in recurrent ovarian cancer: Exploratory analysis of KEYNOTE-100.

OBJECTIVE: This prespecified exploratory analysis evaluated the association of gene expression signatures, tumor mutational burden (TMB), and multiplex immunohistochemistry (mIHC) tumor microenvironment-associated cell phenotypes with clinical outcomes of pembrolizumab in advanced recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC) from the phase II KEYNOTE-100 study. METHODS: Pembrolizumab-treated patients with evaluable RNA-sequencing (n = 317), whole exome sequencing (n = 293), or select mIHC (n = 125) data were evaluated. The association between outcomes (objective response rate [ORR], progression-free survival [PFS], and overall survival [OS]) and gene expression signatures (T-cell-inflamed gene expression profile [TcellinfGEP] and 10 non-TcellinfGEP signatures), TMB, and prespecified mIHC cell phenotype densities as continuous variables was evaluated using logistic (ORR) and Cox proportional hazards regression (PFS; OS). One-sided p-values were calculated at prespecified α = 0.05 for TcellinfGEP, TMB, and mIHC cell phenotypes and at α = 0.10 for non-TcellinfGEP signatures; all but TcellinfGEP and TMB were adjusted for multiplicity. RESULTS: No evidence of associations between ORR and key axes of gene expression was observed. Negative associations were observed between outcomes and TcellinfGEP-adjusted glycolysis (PFS, adjusted-p = 0.019; OS, adjusted-p = 0.085) and hypoxia (PFS, adjusted-p = 0.064) signatures. TMB as a continuous variable was not associated with outcomes (p > 0.05). Positive associations were observed between densities of myeloid cell phenotypes CD11c+ and CD11c+/MHCII-/CD163-/CD68- in the tumor compartment and ORR (adjusted-p = 0.025 and 0.013, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory analysis in advanced ROC did not find evidence for associations between gene expression signatures and outcomes of pembrolizumab. mIHC analysis suggests CD11c+ and CD11c+/MHCII-/CD163-/CD68- phenotypes representing myeloid cell populations may be associated with improved outcomes with pembrolizumab in advanced ROC. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02674061.

Validation of the Clinical Use of GIScar, an Academic-developed Genomic Instability Score Predicting Sensitivity to Maintenance Olaparib for Ovarian Cancer.

PURPOSE: The optimal application of maintenance PARP inhibitor therapy for ovarian cancer requires accessible, robust, and rapid testing of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). However, in many countries, access to HRD testing is problematic and the failure rate is high. We developed an academic HRD test to support treatment decision-making. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Genomic Instability Scar (GIScar) was developed through targeted sequencing of a 127-gene panel to determine HRD status. GIScar was trained from a noninterventional study with 250 prospectively collected ovarian tumor samples. GIScar was validated on 469 DNA tumor samples from the PAOLA-1 trial evaluating maintenance olaparib for newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, and its predictive value was compared with Myriad Genetics MyChoice (MGMC). RESULTS: GIScar showed significant correlation with MGMC HRD classification (kappa statistics: 0.780). From PAOLA-1 samples, more HRD-positive tumors were identified by GIScar (258) than MGMC (242), with a lower proportion of inconclusive results (1% vs. 9%, respectively). The HRs for progression-free survival (PFS) with olaparib versus placebo were 0.45 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.33-0.62] in GIScar-identified HRD-positive BRCA-mutated tumors, 0.50 (95% CI, 0.31-0.80) in HRD-positive BRCA-wild-type tumors, and 1.02 (95% CI, 0.74-1.40) in HRD-negative tumors. Tumors identified as HRD positive by GIScar but HRD negative by MGMC had better PFS with olaparib (HR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.07-0.72). CONCLUSIONS: GIScar is a valuable diagnostic tool, reliably detecting HRD and predicting sensitivity to olaparib for ovarian cancer. GIScar showed high analytic concordance with MGMC test and fewer inconclusive results. GIScar is easily implemented into diagnostic laboratories with a rapid turnaround.

Rucaparib for PARP inhibitor-pretreated ovarian cancer: A GEICO retrospective subgroup analysis from the Spanish Rucaparib Access Program.

The poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) rucaparib is approved as maintenance therapy for patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent high-grade ovarian cancer (HGOC). The efficacy and safety of rucaparib after PARPi therapy are largely unknown; therefore, we analyzed outcomes in the subgroup of PARPi-pretreated patients from Spanish hospitals participating in the Rucaparib Access Program. This post hoc subgroup analysis explored baseline characteristics, treatment exposure, safety, effectiveness, and subsequent therapy among women receiving rucaparib 600 mg twice daily after at least one prior PARPi for HGOC. Of 14 women eligible for the analysis, 11 (79%) had tumors harboring BRCA1/2 mutations. Patients had received a median of 5 (range 3-8) treatment lines before rucaparib. Twelve patients (86%) had previously received olaparib and two (14%) niraparib; 12 patients received rucaparib as treatment for platinum-resistant HGOC, one as treatment for platinum-sensitive HGOC, and one as maintenance therapy. Progression-free survival was 0.2-9.1 months. One of seven patients assessable for response by RECIST achieved stable disease. Adverse events occurred in 11 patients (79%; grade 3 in 29%), leading to treatment interruption in eight patients (57%), dose reduction in six (43%), but treatment discontinuation in only one (7%). No new safety signals were observed. This is one of the first reported series of real-world data on rucaparib after prior PARPi for HGOC. In this heavily pretreated population, rucaparib demonstrated meaningful activity in some patients and tolerability consistent with previous prospective trials. Future investigation should focus on identifying patients who may benefit from rucaparib after prior PARPi exposure.

Association of Multiple High-Risk Factors on Observed Outcomes in Real-World Patients With Advanced Ovarian Cancer Treated With First-Line Therapy.

PURPOSE: To identify risk factors for disease progression or death and assess outcomes by risk categories in real-world patients with advanced ovarian cancer. METHODS: This retrospective study included adult patients from a nationwide electronic health record-derived deidentified database with stage III/IV ovarian cancer who received first-line therapy and had ≥12 weeks of follow-up after index date (end of first-line therapy). Factors predictive of time to next treatment and overall survival (OS) were assessed. Patients were grouped according to the cumulative number of high-risk factors present (stage IV disease, no debulking surgery or neoadjuvant therapy and interval debulking surgery, visible residual disease after surgery, and breast cancer gene [BRCA] wild-type disease/unknown BRCA status), and time to next treatment and OS were assessed. RESULTS: Region of residence, disease stage, histology, BRCA status, surgery modality, and visible residual disease were significant predictors of time to next treatment; age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, disease stage, BRCA status, surgery modality, visible residual disease, and platelet levels were significant predictors of OS (N = 1,920). Overall, 96.4%, 74.1%, and 40.3% of patients had at least 1, 2, or 3 high-risk factors, respectively; 15.7% of patients had all four high-risk factors. Observed median time to next treatment was 26.4 months (95% CI, 17.1 to 49.2) in patients with no high-risk factors and 4.6 months (95% CI, 4.1 to 5.7) in patients with four high-risk factors. Observed median OS was shorter among patients with more high-risk factors. CONCLUSION: These results underscore the complexity of risk assessment and demonstrate the importance of assessing a patient's cumulative risk profile rather than the impact of individual high-risk factors. They also highlight the potential for bias in cross-trial comparisons of median progression-free survival because of differences in risk-factor distribution among patient populations.

Progression-free survival and safety at 3.5years of follow-up: results from the randomised phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial of niraparib maintenance treatment in patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: To report updated long-term efficacy and safety from the double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 study (NCT02655016). METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer with complete or partial response (CR or PR) to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy received niraparib or placebo once daily (2:1 ratio). Stratification factors were best response to first-line chemotherapy regimen (CR/PR), receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (yes/no), and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) status (deficient [HRd]/proficient [HRp] or not determined). Updated (ad hoc) progression-free survival (PFS) data (as of November 17, 2021) by investigator assessment (INV) are reported. RESULTS: In 733 randomised patients (niraparib, 487; placebo, 246), median PFS follow-up was 3.5years. Median INV-PFS was 24.5 versus 11.2months (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.68) in the HRd population and 13.8 versus 8.2months (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.56-0.79) in the overall population for niraparib and placebo, respectively. In the HRp population, median INV-PFS was 8.4 versus 5.4months (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.87), respectively. Results were concordant with the primary analysis. Niraparib-treated patients were more likely to be free of progression or death at 4years than placebo-treated patients (HRd, 38% versus 17%; overall, 24% versus 14%). The most common grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events in niraparib patients were thrombocytopenia (39.7%), anaemia (31.6%), and neutropenia (21.3%). Myelodysplastic syndromes/acute myeloid leukaemia incidence rate (1.2%) was the same for niraparib- and placebo-treated patients. Overall survival remained immature. CONCLUSIONS: Niraparib maintained clinically significant improvements in PFS with 3.5years of follow-up in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer at high risk of progression irrespective of HRD status. No new safety signals were identified.

Normalized LST Is an Efficient Biomarker for Homologous Recombination Deficiency and Olaparib Response in Ovarian Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: The efficiency of the Myriad Homologous Recombination Deficiency (HRD) test to guide the use of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors has been demonstrated in several phase III trials. However, a need exists for alternative clinically validated tests. METHODS: A novel biomarker for HRD was developed using The Cancer Genome Atlas database and, as part of the ENGOT HRD European Initiative, applied to 469 samples from the PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trial. Results were compared with the Myriad myChoice Genomic Instability Score (GIS) with respect to the progression-free survival in the olaparib + bevacizumab and placebo + bevacizumab arms. RESULTS: Analysis of the TCGA cohort revealed that a normalization of the number of large-scale state transitions by the number of whole-genome doubling events allows a better separation and classification of HRD samples than the GIS. Analysis of the PAOLA-1 samples, using the Geneva test (OncoScan + nLST), yielded a lower failure rate (27 of 469 v 59 of 469) and a hazard ratio of 0.40 (95% CI, 0.28 to 0.57) compared with 0.37 for Myriad myChoice (BRCAm or GIS+) in the nLST-positive samples. In patients with BRCAwt, the Geneva test identified a novel subpopulation of patients, with a favorable 1-year PFS (85%) but a poor 2-year PFS (30%) on olaparib + bevacizumab treatment. CONCLUSION: The proposed test efficiently separates HRD-positive from HRD-negative patients, predicts response to PARP inhibition, and can be easily deployed in a clinical laboratory for routine practice. The performance is similar to the available commercial test, but its lower failure rate allows an increase in the number of patients who will receive a conclusive laboratory result.

PARP inhibitor predictive value of the Leuven HRD test compared with Myriad MyChoice CDx PLUS HRD on 468 ovarian cancer patients from the PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trial.

BACKGROUND: The PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trial showed improved progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in homologous recombination deficient (HRD) positive patients treated with olaparib, but not when HRD negative (HRD tested with MyChoice CDx PLUS [Myriad test]). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The academic Leuven HRD test consists of capture-based targeted sequencing of genome-wide single-nucleotide polymorphisms and coding exons of eight HR genes including BRCA1, BRCA2, and TP53. We compared the predictive value of the Leuven HRD versus Myriad HRD test for PFS and OS in the randomised PAOLA-1 trial. RESULTS: 468 patients had left-over DNA after Myriad testing for Leuven HRD testing. Positive/negative/overall percent agreement for the Leuven versus Myriad HRD status was 95%/86%/91%, respectively. Tumours were HRD+ in 55% and 52%, respectively. In Leuven HRD+ patients, 5years PFS (5yPFS) was 48.6% versus 20.3% (HR 0.431; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.312-0.595) for olaparib versus placebo, respectively (Myriad test 0.409; 95% CI 0.292-0.572). In Leuven HRD+/BRCAwt patients 5yPFS was 41.3% versus 12.6% (HR 0.497; 95% CI 0.316-0.783), and 43.6% versus 13.3% (HR 0.435; 95% CI 0.261-0.727) for the Myriad test. 5yOS was prolonged in the HRD+ subgroup with both tests 67.2% versus 54.4% (HR 0.663; 95% CI 0.442-0.995) for the Leuven test, and 68.0% versus 51.8% (HR 0.596 95% CI 0.393-0.904) for the Myriad test. HRD status was undetermined in 10.7% and 9.4% of the samples, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A robust correlation between the Leuven HRD and Myriad test was observed. For HRD+ tumours, the academic Leuven HRD showed a similar difference in PFS and OS as the Myriad test.

Prospective evaluation of the tolerability and efficacy of niraparib dosing based on baseline body weight and platelet count: Results from the PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial.

BACKGROUND: The PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 (NCT02655016) trial was amended to prospectively evaluate the safety and efficacy of an individualized starting dose (ISD) regimen of niraparib for first-line maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. METHODS: In the phase 3 PRIMA trial, patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer with a complete/partial response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy (N = 733) were initially treated with a fixed starting dose (FSD) regimen of 300 mg once daily. Subsequently, the protocol was amended so newly enrolled patients received an ISD: 200 mg once daily in patients with baseline body weight < 77 kg or baseline platelet count < 150,000/µL, and 300 mg once daily in all other patients. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed by starting dose. RESULTS: Overall, 475 (64.8%) patients were assigned to an FSD (niraparib, n = 317; placebo, n = 158) and 258 (35.2%) were assigned to an ISD (niraparib, n = 170; placebo, n = 88). Efficacy in patients who received FSD or ISD was similar for the overall (FSD hazard ratio [HR], 0.59 [95% CI, 0.46-0.76] vs. ISD HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.48-0.98]) and the homologous recombination-deficient (FSD HR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.30-0.64] vs. ISD HR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.22-0.72]) populations. In patients with low body weight/platelet count, rates of grades ≥3 and 4 hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events, dose interruptions, and dose reductions were lower for those who received ISD than for those who received FSD. CONCLUSIONS: In PRIMA, similar dose intensity, similar efficacy, and improved safety were observed with the ISD compared with the FSD regimen.

Real-World Outcomes Following First-Line Treatment in Patients with Advanced Ovarian Cancer with Multiple Risk Factors for Disease Progression who Received Maintenance Therapy or Active Surveillance.

INTRODUCTION: We evaluated real-world outcomes in patients with advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) based on their cumulative risk profile and maintenance therapy (MT) status following first-line (1L) treatment. METHODS: This retrospective observational study of a nationwide electronic health record-derived de-identified database included adult patients diagnosed with stage III/IV OC from January 1, 2011 to February 28, 2021, who received 1L therapy and had ≥ 12 weeks of follow-up after the index date (end of 1L therapy). Patients were grouped according to whether they received MT or active surveillance (AS) following 1L treatment and by the cumulative number of risk factors (RF) present (stage IV disease; no surgery/treated with neoadjuvant therapy and interval debulking surgery; had postoperative visible residual disease; and had BRCA wild-type disease/unknown BRCA status). Time to next treatment (TTNT) and overall survival (OS) were assessed with a cloning and inverse probability of censoring (IPC)-weighted Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Among 1920 patients, 22.2% received MT and 77.8% received AS. Median IPC-weighted TTNT and OS were 13.3 months (95% CI 11.7-15.8) and 39.1 months (95% CI 32.5-48.6) in the MT cohort, respectively, and 8.6 months (95% CI 8.0-9.5) and 38.4 months (95% CI 36.4-41.0) in the AS cohort, respectively. Almost all patients had ≥ 1 RF (MT 95.3%; AS 96.7%). Median IPC-weighted TTNT was shorter among patients with more RF in both cohorts (MT: 1 RF, 19.3 months, 95% CI 13.5-37.8; 2 RF, 17.2 months, 95% CI 12.8-20.2; 3 RF, 11.0 months, 95% CI 8.2-13.8; 4 RF, 7.0 months, 95% CI 6.2-8.8; AS: 1 RF, 17.7 months, 95% CI 13.5-22.3; 2 RF, 10.2 months, 95% CI 9.1-11.5; 3 RF, 6.5 months, 95% CI 5.8-7.4; 4 RF, 4.1 months, 95% CI 3.5-4.5). CONCLUSION: Regardless of RF number, MT was associated with longer TTNT in real-world patients with AOC.

Controversies in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer in the PARP inhibitors era: a Delphi consensus.

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to reach a consensus on the management of the most controversial issues of advanced ovarian cancer. METHODS: Nominal group and Delphi techniques were used. A steering committee of 5 experts analyzed current management of advanced ovarian cancer, identified controversies, critically analyzed the evidence, and formulated guiding statements for clinicians. Subsequently, a panel of 15 experts was selected to test agreement with the statements through two Delphi rounds. Items were scored on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 4 (totally agree). In the first and second rounds, consensus was considered if ≥70% of answers pertained to category 1 or category 4. RESULTS: Overall, 112 statements were incorporated in the following areas: 1) biomarkers and hereditary ovarian cancer; 2) first-line treatment; 3) recurrent disease when platinum might be the best option; and 4) post-poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors setting. In the first Delphi round, 37 statements reached consensus and did thus not pass to the second round. After the second round, another 18 statements reached consensus. Forty-six of the consensus were with the agreement and 9 with the disagreement. CONCLUSION: Through the methodology used, a consensus was reached in approximately half of the statements. The results of this work may be useful in addressing the most controversial issues on the management of advanced ovarian cancer.