Randomized Phase II Study of Gemcitabine With or Without ATR Inhibitor Berzosertib in Platinum-Resistant Ovarian Cancer: Final Overall Survival and Biomarker Analyses.

PURPOSE: The multicenter, open-label, randomized phase 2 NCI-9944 study (NCT02595892) demonstrated that addition of ATR inhibitor (ATRi) berzosertib to gemcitabine increased progression-free survival (PFS) compared to gemcitabine alone (hazard ratio [HR]=0.57, one-sided log-rank P = .044, which met the one-sided significance level of 0.1 used for sample size calculation). METHODS: We report here the final overall survival (OS) analysis and biomarker correlations (ATM expression by immunohistochemistry, mutational signature 3 and a genomic biomarker of replication stress) along with post-hoc exploratory analyses to adjust for crossover from gemcitabine to gemcitabine/berzosertib. RESULTS: At the data cutoff of January 27, 2023 (>30 months of additional follow-up from the primary analysis), median OS was 59.4 weeks with gemcitabine/berzosertib versus 43.0 weeks with gemcitabine alone (HR 0.79, 90% CI 0.52 to 1.2, one-sided log-rank P = .18). An OS benefit with addition of berzosertib to gemcitabine was suggested in patients stratified into the platinum-free interval ≤3 months (N = 26) subgroup (HR, 0.48, 90% CI 0.22 to 1.01, one-sided log-rank P =.04) and in patients with ATM-negative/low (N = 24) tumors (HR, 0.50, 90% CI 0.23 to 1.08, one-sided log-rank P = .06). CONCLUSION: The results of this follow-up analysis continue to support the promise of combined gemcitabine/ATRi therapy in platinum resistant ovarian cancer, an active area of investigation with several ongoing clinical trials.

Vaccination of Adults With Cancer: ASCO Guideline.

PURPOSE: To guide the vaccination of adults with solid tumors or hematologic malignancies. METHODS: A systematic literature review identified systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and nonrandomized studies on the efficacy and safety of vaccines used by adults with cancer or their household contacts. This review builds on a 2013 guideline by the Infectious Disease Society of America. PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 1, 2013, to February 16, 2023. ASCO convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and formulate recommendations. RESULTS: A total of 102 publications were included in the systematic review: 24 systematic reviews, 14 RCTs, and 64 nonrandomized studies. The largest body of evidence addressed COVID-19 vaccines. RECOMMENDATIONS: The goal of vaccination is to limit the severity of infection and prevent infection where feasible. Optimizing vaccination status should be considered a key element in the care of patients with cancer. This approach includes the documentation of vaccination status at the time of the first patient visit; timely provision of recommended vaccines; and appropriate revaccination after hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation, chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, or B-cell-depleting therapy. Active interaction and coordination among healthcare providers, including primary care practitioners, pharmacists, and nursing team members, are needed. Vaccination of household contacts will enhance protection for patients with cancer. Some vaccination and revaccination plans for patients with cancer may be affected by the underlying immune status and the anticancer therapy received. As a result, vaccine strategies may differ from the vaccine recommendations for the general healthy adult population vaccine.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

Top advances of the year: Ovarian cancer.

Although cure rates remain low and effective screening strategies are elusive, the recent advances in systemic therapies over the past year highlighted in this review have prolonged survival for women with ovarian cancer. In 2022, the first antibody-drug conjugate for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer received accelerated US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. Confirmatory studies examining the efficacy of mirvetuximab and other antibody-drug conjugates are underway. In the upfront setting, the first data establishing an overall survival benefit from poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor maintenance was demonstrated after a 7-year follow-up period. In contrast, long-term updates from poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor trials in the noncurative setting reported survival detriments, and the FDA withdrew the respective indications. Several trials attempted to improve upon the standard of care for platinum-sensitive ovarian carcinoma and those with rare ovarian cancer histologies (carcinosarcoma, clear cell carcinoma) but failed to demonstrate a clinically or statistically meaningful benefit. This leaves the open question of how to further optimize systemic therapy for advanced ovarian carcinoma to improve long-term survival and cure rates.

Consensus report of the 2021 National Cancer Institute neuroendocrine tumor clinical trials planning meeting.

Important progress has been made over the last decade in the classification, imaging, and treatment of neuroendocrine neoplasm (NENs), with several new agents approved for use. Although the treatment options available for patients with well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) have greatly expanded, the rapidly changing landscape has presented several unanswered questions about how best to optimize, sequence, and individualize therapy. Perhaps the most important development over the last decade has been the approval of 177Lu-DOTATATE for treatment of gastroenteropancreatic-NETs, raising questions around optimal sequencing of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) relative to other therapeutic options, the role of re-treatment with PRRT, and whether PRRT can be further optimized through use of dosimetry among other approaches. The NET Task Force of the National Cancer Institute GI Steering Committee convened a clinical trial planning meeting in 2021 with multidisciplinary experts from academia, the federal government, industry, and patient advocates to develop NET clinical trials in the era of PRRT. Key clinical trial recommendations for development included 1) PRRT re-treatment, 2) PRRT and immunotherapy combinations, 3) PRRT and DNA damage repair inhibitor combinations, 4) treatment for liver-dominant disease, 5) treatment for PRRT-resistant disease, and 6) dosimetry-modified PRRT.

State of the Biomarker Science in Ovarian Cancer: A National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials Planning Meeting Report.

PURPOSE: Despite therapeutic advances in the treatment of ovarian cancer (OC), 5-year survival remains low, and patients eventually die from recurrent, chemotherapy-resistant disease. The National Cancer Gynecologic Cancer Steering Committee identified the integration of scientifically defined subgroups as a top strategic priority in clinical trial planning. METHODS: A group of experts was convened to review the scientific literature in OC to identify validated predictive biomarkers that could inform patient selection and treatment stratification. Here, we report on these findings and their potential for use in future clinical trial design on the basis of hierarchal evidence grading. RESULTS: The biomarkers were classified on the basis of mechanistic targeting, including DNA repair and replication stress, immunotherapy and tumor microenvironment, oncogenic signaling, and angiogenesis. Currently, BRCA mutations and homologous recombination deficiency to predict poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor response are supported in OC by the highest level of evidence. Additional biomarkers of response to agents targeting the pathways above have been identified but require prospective validation. CONCLUSION: Although a number of biomarkers of response to various agents in OC have been described in the literature, high-level evidence for the majority is lacking. This report highlights the unmet need for identification and validation of predictive biomarkers to guide therapy and future trial design in OC.

Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors in the Management of Ovarian Cancer: ASCO Guideline Rapid Recommendation Update.

ASCO Rapid Recommendations Updates highlight revisions to select ASCO guideline recommendations as a response to the emergence of new and practice-changing data. The rapid updates are supported by an evidence review and follow the guideline development processes outlined in the ASCO Guideline Methodology Manual. The goal of these articles is to disseminate updated recommendations, in a timely manner, to better inform health practitioners and the public on the best available cancer care options.

Clinical research in ovarian cancer: consensus recommendations from the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup.

The Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) sixth Ovarian Cancer Conference on Clinical Research was held virtually in October, 2021, following published consensus guidelines. The goal of the consensus meeting was to achieve harmonisation on the design elements of upcoming trials in ovarian cancer, to select important questions for future study, and to identify unmet needs. All 33 GCIG member groups participated in the development, refinement, and adoption of 20 statements within four topic groups on clinical research in ovarian cancer including first line treatment, recurrent disease, disease subgroups, and future trials. Unanimous consensus was obtained for 14 of 20 statements, with greater than 90% concordance in the remaining six statements. The high acceptance rate following active deliberation among the GCIG groups confirmed that a consensus process could be applied in a virtual setting. Together with detailed categorisation of unmet needs, these consensus statements will promote the harmonisation of international clinical research in ovarian cancer.

Biomarker Development: Bedside to Bench.

This commentary complements the report from Nixon and colleagues by addressing the critical definitions, assay and analytical quality control and interpretation, and resources available to advance similar fit-for-purpose biomarker development. See related articles by Nixon et al., p. 2771 and 2779.

Olaparib With or Without Cediranib Versus Platinum-Based Chemotherapy in Recurrent Platinum-Sensitive Ovarian Cancer (NRG-GY004): A Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III Trial.

PURPOSE: Platinum-based chemotherapy is the standard of care for platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer, but complications from repeated platinum therapy occur. We assessed the activity of two all-oral nonplatinum alternatives, olaparib or olaparib/cediranib, versus platinum-based chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: NRG-GY004 is an open-label, randomized, phase III trial conducted in the United States and Canada. Eligible patients had high-grade serous or endometrioid platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to platinum-based chemotherapy, olaparib, or olaparib/cediranib. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary end points included activity within germline BRCA-mutated or wild-type subgroups and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). RESULTS: Between February 04, 2016, and November 13, 2017, 565 eligible patients were randomly assigned. Median PFS was 10.3 (95% CI, 8.7 to 11.2), 8.2 (95% CI, 6.6 to 8.7), and 10.4 (95% CI, 8.5 to 12.5) months with chemotherapy, olaparib, and olaparib/cediranib, respectively. Olaparib/cediranib did not improve PFS versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.86; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.10; P = .077). In women with germline BRCA mutation, the PFS HR versus chemotherapy was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.32 to 0.94) for olaparib/cediranib and 0.63 (95% CI, 0.37 to 1.07) for olaparib. In women without a germline BRCA mutation, the PFS HR versus chemotherapy was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.73 to 1.30) for olaparib/cediranib and 1.41 (95% CI, 1.07 to 1.86) for olaparib. Hematologic adverse events occurred more commonly with chemotherapy; however, nonhematologic adverse events were higher with olaparib/cediranib. In 489 patients evaluable for PROs, patients receiving olaparib/cediranib scored on average 1.1 points worse on the NFOSI-DRS-P subscale (97.5% CI, -2.0 to -0.2, P = .0063) versus chemotherapy; no difference between olaparib and chemotherapy was observed. CONCLUSION: Combination olaparib/cediranib did not improve PFS compared with chemotherapy and resulted in reduced PROs. Notably, in patients with a germline BRCA mutation, both olaparib and olaparib/cediranib had significant clinical activity.

Comparison of Design, Eligibility, and Outcomes of Neuroendocrine Neoplasm Trials Initiated From 2000 to 2009 vs 2010 to 2020.

Importance: Neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) have historically been grouped homogenously in clinical trials, despite their heterogeneity. Given the adoption of a more advanced pathologic classification system and drug licensure of several targeted therapies over the last decade, information is needed on whether study characteristics of NEN studies have evolved. Objective: To assess changes in study design, eligibility, accrual, sponsorship, and outcomes between phase II or III NEN clinical trials that began enrollment from 2000 to 2009 vs 2010 to 2020. Design, Setting, and Participants: This quality improvement study used a systematic survey of completed studies published between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2020. Therapeutic phase II and III NEN studies were identified through a database search of Medline (via PubMed), EMBASE (OvidSP), Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (EBSCOhost), Web of Science (Clarivate), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Wiley), ClinicalTrials.gov (National Institutes of Health), EU Clinical Trials Register, and National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials. Data were analyzed between March and June 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Study characteristic proportions between the 2 enrollment periods. Results: Of 3243 identified studies, 119 studies met criteria for inclusion, of which 117 studies (54 studies that began enrollment between 2000-2009 and 63 studies that began enrollment between 2010-2020) included exact dates of enrollment and were compared. Studies that began enrollment after 2010, compared with studies that began enrollment from 2000 to 2009, were less likely to include all NENs (13 studies [21%] vs 34 studies [63%]; P < .001) and more likely to include select NENs (eg, gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors, 25 studies [40%] vs 11 studies [20%]; P = .02; pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, 32 studies [51%] vs 16 studies [30%]; P = .02). Studies that began enrollment after 2010, compared with studies that began enrollment from 2000 to 2009, were more likely to specify tumor differentiation (59 studies [98%] vs 34 studies [63%]; P < .001) or Ki-67 index (23 studies [38%] vs 5 studies [9%]; P < .001) in inclusion criteria. Studies that began enrollment after 2010, compared with studies that began enrollment from 2000 to 2009, were more likely to use progression-free survival (22 studies [35%] vs 9 studies [18%]; P = .04) rather than objective response rate (19 studies [30%] vs 27 studies [53%]; P = .01) as a primary or coprimary end point. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that NEN trials enrolling over the last decade were more focused on select tumor populations, compared with studies that began enrollment before 2010. Despite this shift, more than 20% of studies still included all NENs. Studying novel agents in specific disease populations may enhance drug development in the field.

A Replication stress biomarker is associated with response to gemcitabine versus combined gemcitabine and ATR inhibitor therapy in ovarian cancer.

In a trial of patients with high grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC), addition of the ATR inhibitor berzosertib to gemcitabine improved progression free survival (PFS) compared to gemcitabine alone but biomarkers predictive of treatment are lacking. Here we report a candidate biomarker of response to gemcitabine versus combined gemcitabine and ATR inhibitor therapy in HGSOC ovarian cancer. Patients with replication stress (RS)-high tumors (n = 27), defined as harboring at least one genomic RS alteration related to loss of RB pathway regulation and/or oncogene-induced replication stress achieve significantly prolonged PFS (HR = 0.38, 90% CI, 0.17-0.86) on gemcitabine monotherapy compared to those with tumors without such alterations (defined as RS-low, n = 30). However, addition of berzosertib to gemcitabine benefits only patients with RS-low tumors (gemcitabine/berzosertib HR 0.34, 90% CI, 0.13-0.86) and not patients with RS-high tumors (HR 1.11, 90% CI, 0.47-2.62). Our findings support the notion that the exacerbation of RS by gemcitabine monotherapy is adequate for lethality in RS-high tumors. Conversely, for RS-low tumors addition of berzosertib-mediated ATR inhibition to gemcitabine is necessary for lethality to occur. Independent prospective validation of this biomarker is required.

Assessment of Adult Women With Ovarian Masses and Treatment of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: ASCO Resource-Stratified Guideline.

PURPOSE: To provide expert guidance to clinicians and policymakers in three resource-constrained settings on diagnosis and staging of adult women with ovarian masses and treatment of patients with epithelial ovarian (including fallopian tube and primary peritoneal) cancer. METHODS: A multidisciplinary, multinational ASCO Expert Panel reviewed existing guidelines, conducted a modified ADAPTE process, and conducted a formal consensus process with additional experts. RESULTS: Existing sets of guidelines from eight guideline developers were found and reviewed for resource-constrained settings; adapted recommendations from nine guidelines form the evidence base, informing two rounds of formal consensus; and all recommendations received ≥ 75% agreement. RECOMMENDATIONS: Evaluation of adult symptomatic women in all settings includes symptom assessment, family history, and ultrasound and cancer antigen 125 serum tumor marker levels where feasible. In limited and enhanced settings, additional imaging may be requested. Diagnosis, staging, and/or treatment involves surgery. Presurgical workup of every suspected ovarian cancer requires a metastatic workup. Only trained clinicians with logistical support should perform surgical staging; treatment requires histologic confirmation; surgical goal is staging disease and performing complete cytoreduction to no gross residual disease. In first-line therapy, platinum-based chemotherapy is recommended; in advanced stages, patients may receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy. After neoadjuvant chemotherapy, all patients should be evaluated for interval debulking surgery. Targeted therapy is not recommended in basic or limited settings. Specialized interventions are resource-dependent, for example, laparoscopy, fertility-sparing surgery, genetic testing, and targeted therapy. Multidisciplinary cancer care and palliative care should be offered.Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/resource-stratified-guidelines. It is ASCO's view that health care providers and health care system decision makers should be guided by the recommendations for the highest stratum of resources available. The guideline is intended to complement but not replace local guidelines.

A Surgical Window Trial Evaluating Medroxyprogesterone Acetate with or without Entinostat in Patients with Endometrial Cancer and Validation of Biomarkers of Cellular Response.

PURPOSE: This surgical window of opportunity (window) study assessed the short-term effect of medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) alone versus MPA plus the histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor entinostat on regulation of progesterone receptor (PR) in women with newly diagnosed endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multisite, randomized, open-label surgical window study treated women intramuscularly on day 1 with 400 mg MPA. Entinostat given 5 mg by mouth on days 1, 8, and 15 was randomly assigned with equal probability. Surgery followed on days 21-24. Pretreatment and posttreatment tissue was assessed for PR H-scores, Ki-67 levels, and histologic response. RESULTS: Fifty patients were accrued in 4 months; 22 and 20 participants had PR evaluable pretreatment and posttreatment slides in the MPA and MPA/entinostat arms, respectively. Median posttreatment PR H-scores were significantly lower than pretreatment H-scores in both arms but did not differ significantly (MPA: 247 vs. 27, MPA/entinostat 260 vs. 23, respectively, P = 0.87). Decreased Ki-67 was shown in 90% treated with MPA/entinostat compared with 68% treated with MPA alone (P = 0.13). Median PR H-score decreases were larger when Ki-67 was decreased (208) versus not decreased (45). The decrease in PR pretreatment versus posttreatment was associated with loss of Ki-67 nuclear staining, consistent with reduced cellular proliferation (P < 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: This surgical window trial rapidly accrued in a multisite setting and evaluated PR as its primary endpoint and Ki-67 as secondary endpoint. Despite no immediate effect of entinostat on PR in this short-term study, lessons learned can inform future window and treatment trials.

Molecular Features of Cancers Exhibiting Exceptional Responses to Treatment.

A small fraction of cancer patients with advanced disease survive significantly longer than patients with clinically comparable tumors. Molecular mechanisms for exceptional responses to therapy have been identified by genomic analysis of tumor biopsies from individual patients. Here, we analyzed tumor biopsies from an unbiased cohort of 111 exceptional responder patients using multiple platforms to profile genetic and epigenetic aberrations as well as the tumor microenvironment. Integrative analysis uncovered plausible mechanisms for the therapeutic response in nearly a quarter of the patients. The mechanisms were assigned to four broad categories-DNA damage response, intracellular signaling, immune engagement, and genetic alterations characteristic of favorable prognosis-with many tumors falling into multiple categories. These analyses revealed synthetic lethal relationships that may be exploited therapeutically and rare genetic lesions that favor therapeutic success, while also providing a wealth of testable hypotheses regarding oncogenic mechanisms that may influence the response to cancer therapy.

PARP Inhibitors in the Management of Ovarian Cancer: ASCO Guideline.

PURPOSE: To provide recommendations on the use of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) for management of epithelial ovarian, tubal, or primary peritoneal cancer (EOC). METHODS: Randomized, controlled, and open-labeled trials published from 2011 through 2020 were identified in a literature search. Guideline recommendations were based on the review of the evidence, US Food and Drug Administration approvals, and consensus when evidence was lacking. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 17 eligible trials. RECOMMENDATIONS: The guideline pertains to patients who are PARPi naïve. All patients with newly diagnosed, stage III-IV EOC whose disease is in complete or partial response to first-line, platinum-based chemotherapy with high-grade serous or endometrioid EOC should be offered PARPi maintenance therapy with niraparib. For patients with germline or somatic pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in BRCA1 (g/sBRCA1) or BRCA2 (g/sBRCA2) genes should be treated with olaparib. The addition of olaparib to bevacizumab may be offered to patients with stage III-IV EOC with g/sBRCA1/2 and/or genomic instability and a partial or complete response to chemotherapy plus bevacizumab combination. Maintenance therapy (second line or more) with single-agent PARPi may be offered for patients with EOC who have not received a PARPi and have responded to platinum-based therapy regardless of BRCA mutation status. Treatment with a PARPi should be offered to patients with recurrent EOC that has not recurred within 6 months of platinum-based therapy, who have not received a PARPi and have a g/sBRCA1/2, or whose tumor demonstrates genomic instability. PARPis are not recommended for use in combination with chemotherapy, other targeted agents, or immune-oncology agents in the recurrent setting outside the context of a clinical trial. Recommendations for managing specific adverse events are presented. Data to support reuse of PARPis in any setting are needed.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gynecologic-cancer-guidelines.

Phase II trial of bevacizumab and sorafenib in recurrent ovarian cancer patients with or without prior-bevacizumab treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether blocking multiple points of the angiogenesis pathway by addition of sorafenib, a multi-kinase inhibitor against VEGFR2/3, Raf, c-Kit, and PDGFR, to bevacizumab would yield clinical activity in ovarian cancer (OvCa). METHODS: This phase II study tested bevacizumab plus sorafenib in two cohorts; bevacizumab-naïve and bevacizumab-exposed patients. Bevacizumab (5 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks) was given with sorafenib 200 mg bid 5 days-on/2 days-off. The primary objective was response rate using a Simon two-stage optimal design. Progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicity were the secondary endpoints. Exploratory correlative studies included plasma cytokine concentrations, tissue proteomics and dynamic contrast-enhanced-magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI). RESULTS: Between March 2007 and August 2012, 54 women were enrolled, 41 bevacizumab-naive and 13 bevacizumab-prior, with median 5 (2-9) and 6 (5-9) prior systemic therapies, respectively. Nine of 35 (26%) evaluable bevacizumab-naive patients attained partial responses (PR), and 18 had stable disease (SD) ≥ 4 months. No responses were seen in the bevacizumab-prior group and 7 (54%) patients had SD ≥ 4 months, including one exceptional responder with SD of 27 months. The overall median PFS was 5.5 months (95%CI: 4.0-6.8 months). Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events (≥5%) included hypertension (17/54 [31%]; grade 3 in 16 patients and grade 4 in one patient) and venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (5/54 [9%]; grade 3 in 4 patients and grade 4 in one patient). Pretreatment low IL8 concentration was associated with PFS ≥ 4 months (p = .031). CONCLUSIONS: The bevacizumab and sorafenib combination did not meet the pre-specified primary endpoint although some clinical activity was seen in heavily-pretreated bevacizumab-naive OvCa patients with platinum-resistant disease. Anticipated class toxicities required close monitoring and dose modifications.

Berzosertib plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone in platinum-resistant high-grade serous ovarian cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: High-grade serous ovarian cancers show increased replication stress, rendering cells vulnerable to ATR inhibition because of near universal loss of the G1/S checkpoint (through deleterious TP53 mutations), premature S phase entry (due to CCNE1 amplification, RB1 loss, or CDKN2A mRNA downregulation), alterations of homologous recombination repair genes, and expression of oncogenic drivers (through MYC amplification and other mechanisms). We hypothesised that the combination of the selective ATR inhibitor, berzosertib, and gemcitabine could show acceptable toxicity and superior efficacy to gemcitabine alone in high-grade serous ovarian cancer. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 study, 11 different centres in the US Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trials Network enrolled women (aged ≥18 years) with recurrent, platinum-resistant high-grade serous ovarian cancer (determined histologically) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, who had unlimited previous lines of cytotoxic therapy in the platinum-sensitive setting but no more than one line of cytotoxic therapy in the platinum-resistant setting. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) on day 1 and day 8, or gemcitabine plus intravenous berzosertib (210 mg/m2) on day 2 and day 9 of a 21-day cycle until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. Randomisation was done centrally using the Theradex Interactive Web Response System, stratified by platinum-free interval, and with a permuted block size of six. Following central randomisation, patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, and analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of the study drugs. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02595892, and is active but closed to enrolment. FINDINGS: Between Feb 14, 2017, and Sept 7, 2018, 88 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 70 were randomly assigned to treatment with gemcitabine alone (36 patients) or gemcitabine plus berzosertib (34 patients). At the data cutoff date (Feb 21, 2020), the median follow-up was 53·2 weeks (25·6-81·8) in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group and 43·0 weeks (IQR 23·2-69·1) in the gemcitabine alone group. Median progression-free survival was 22·9 weeks (17·9-72·0) for gemcitabine plus berzosertib and 14·7 weeks (90% CI 9·7-36·7) for gemcitabine alone (hazard ratio 0·57, 90% CI 0·33-0·98; one-sided log-rank test p=0·044). The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were decreased neutrophil count (14 [39%] of 36 patients in the gemcitabine alone group vs 16 [47%] of 34 patients in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group) and decreased platelet count (two [6%] vs eight [24%]). Serious adverse events were observed in ten (28%) patients in the gemcitabine alone group and nine (26%) patients in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group. There was one treatment-related death in the gemcitabine alone group due to sepsis and one treatment-related death in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group due to pneumonitis. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this is the first randomised study of an ATR inhibitor in any tumour type. This study shows a benefit of adding berzosertib to gemcitabine in platinum-resistant high-grade serous ovarian cancer. This combination warrants further investigation in this setting. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute.

Moving Forward in Cervical Cancer: Enhancing Susceptibility to DNA Repair Inhibition and Damage, an NCI Clinical Trials Planning Meeting Report.

Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women worldwide, and prognosis is poor for those who experience recurrence or develop metastatic disease, in part due to the lack of active therapeutic directions. The National Cancer Institute convened a Cervical Cancer Clinical Trials Planning Meeting in October 2018 to facilitate the design of hypothesis-driven clinical trials focusing on locally advanced, metastatic, and recurrent cervical cancer around the theme of enhancing susceptibility to DNA repair inhibition and DNA damage. Before the meeting, a group of experts in the field summarized available preclinical and clinical data to identify potentially active inducers and inhibitors of DNA. The goals of the Clinical Trials Planning Meeting focused on identification of novel experimental strategies capitalizing on DNA damage and repair (DDR) regulators and cell cycle aberrations, optimization of radiotherapy as a DDR agent, and design of clinical trials incorporating DDR regulation into the primary and recurrent or metastatic therapies for cervical carcinoma. Meeting deliverables were novel clinical trial concepts to move into the National Clinical Trials Network. This report provides an overview for the rationale of this meeting and the state of the science related to DDR regulation in cervical cancer.