Tisotumab Vedotin as Second- or Third-Line Therapy for Recurrent Cervical Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent cervical cancer is a life-threatening disease, with limited treatment options available when disease progression occurs after first-line combination therapy. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, multinational, open-label trial of tisotumab vedotin as second- or third-line therapy in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer. Patients were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive tisotumab vedotin monotherapy (2.0 mg per kilogram of body weight every 3 weeks) or the investigator's choice of chemotherapy (topotecan, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, irinotecan, or pemetrexed). The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 502 patients underwent randomization (253 were assigned to the tisotumab vedotin group and 249 to the chemotherapy group); the groups were similar with respect to demographic and disease characteristics. The median overall survival was significantly longer in the tisotumab vedotin group than in the chemotherapy group (11.5 months [95% confidence interval {CI}, 9.8 to 14.9] vs. 9.5 months [95% CI, 7.9 to 10.7]), results that represented a 30% lower risk of death with tisotumab vedotin than with chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.89; two-sided P = 0.004). The median progression-free survival was 4.2 months (95% CI, 4.0 to 4.4) with tisotumab vedotin and 2.9 months (95% CI, 2.6 to 3.1) with chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.82; two-sided P<0.001). The confirmed objective response rate was 17.8% in the tisotumab vedotin group and 5.2% in the chemotherapy group (odds ratio, 4.0; 95% CI, 2.1 to 7.6; two-sided P<0.001). A total of 98.4% of patients in the tisotumab vedotin group and 99.2% in the chemotherapy group had at least one adverse event that occurred during the treatment period (defined as the period from day 1 of dose 1 until 30 days after the last dose); grade 3 or greater events occurred in 52.0% and 62.3%, respectively. A total of 14.8% of patients stopped tisotumab vedotin treatment because of toxic effects. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with recurrent cervical cancer, second- or third-line treatment with tisotumab vedotin resulted in significantly greater efficacy than chemotherapy. (Funded by Genmab and Seagen [acquired by Pfizer]; innovaTV 301 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04697628.).

Mirvetuximab Soravtansine in FRα-Positive, Platinum-Resistant Ovarian Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Mirvetuximab soravtansine-gynx (MIRV), a first-in-class antibody-drug conjugate targeting folate receptor α (FRα), is approved for the treatment of platinum-resistant ovarian cancer in the United States. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, global, confirmatory, open-label, randomized, controlled trial to compare the efficacy and safety of MIRV with the investigator's choice of chemotherapy in the treatment of platinum-resistant, high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Participants who had previously received one to three lines of therapy and had high FRα tumor expression (≥75% of cells with ≥2+ staining intensity) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive MIRV (6 mg per kilogram of adjusted ideal body weight every 3 weeks) or chemotherapy (paclitaxel, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, or topotecan). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival; key secondary analytic end points included objective response, overall survival, and participant-reported outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 453 participants underwent randomization; 227 were assigned to the MIRV group and 226 to the chemotherapy group. The median progression-free survival was 5.62 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.34 to 5.95) with MIRV and 3.98 months (95% CI, 2.86 to 4.47) with chemotherapy (P<0.001). An objective response occurred in 42.3% of the participants in the MIRV group and in 15.9% of those in the chemotherapy group (odds ratio, 3.81; 95% CI, 2.44 to 5.94; P<0.001). Overall survival was significantly longer with MIRV than with chemotherapy (median, 16.46 months vs. 12.75 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.89; P = 0.005). During the treatment period, fewer adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred with MIRV than with chemotherapy (41.7% vs. 54.1%), as did serious adverse events of any grade (23.9% vs. 32.9%) and events leading to discontinuation (9.2% vs. 15.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Among participants with platinum-resistant, FRα-positive ovarian cancer, treatment with MIRV showed a significant benefit over chemotherapy with respect to progression-free and overall survival and objective response. (Funded by ImmunoGen; MIRASOL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04209855.).

Top advances of the year: Immunotherapy in endometrial cancer.

In the past year, notable advances were achieved toward improving oncological outcomes in patients with advanced and recurrent endometrial cancer because of reporting of high-level results of several phase 3 clinical trial combining an immune checkpoint inhibitor with chemotherapy in the first-line setting. For the first time, patients with recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer have options for treatment that are superior to traditional chemotherapy alone. What remains to be determined is population specificity of these recommendations. All four major studies were in agreement that patients with endometrial cancer with deficient mismatch repair markedly benefited from addition of an immune checkpoint inhibitor for progression-free survival; some showed preliminary results demonstrating a potential overall survival. Molecular characterization details are needed to determine if and which patients with tumors that are mismatch proficient should receive this new combination approach. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Combining an immune checkpoint inhibitor with chemotherapy in the first-line setting treatment of patients with advanced endometrial cancer improved progression-free survival, especially in patients with mismatch repair deficiency. Improving patient selection with potential biomarkers of sensitivity and biomarkers of resistance is key in developing the next clinical trials and will assist in directing therapy to the correct patients and minimize toxicity.

Results of a randomised Phase II trial of olaparib, chemotherapy or olaparib and cediranib in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: OCTOVA compared the efficacy of olaparib (O) versus weekly paclitaxel (wP) or olaparib + cediranib (O + C) in recurrent ovarian cancer (OC). AIMS: The main aim of the OCTOVA trial was to determine the progression-free survival (PFS) of olaparib (O) versus the oral combination of olaparib plus cediranib (O + C) and weekly paclitaxel (wP) in recurrent ovarian cancer (OC). METHODS: In total, 139 participants who had relapsed within 12 months of platinum therapy were randomised to O (300 mg twice daily), wP (80 mg/m2 d1,8,15, q28) or O + C (300 mg twice daily/20 mg daily, respectively). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) of olaparib (O) versus olaparib plus cediranib (O + C) or weekly paclitaxel (wP). The sample size was calculated to observe a PFS hazard ratio (HR) 0.64 in favour of O + C compared to O (20% one-sided type I error, 80% power). RESULTS: The majority had platinum-resistant disease (90%), 22% prior PARPi, 34% prior anti-angiogenic therapy, 30% germline BRCA1/2 mutations. The PFS was increased for O + C vs O (O + C 5.4 mo (2.3, 9.6): O 3.7 mo (1.8, 7.6) HR = 0.73; 60% CI: 0.59, 0.89; P = 0.1) and no different between wP and O (wP 3.9 m (1.9, 9.1); O 3.7 mo (1.8, 7.6) HR = 0.89, 60% CI: 0.72, 1.09; P = 0.69). The main treatment-related adverse events included manageable diarrhoea (4% Grade 3) and hypertension (4% Grade 3) in the O + C arm. DISCUSSION: OCTOVA demonstrated the activity of O + C in women with recurrent disease, offering a potential non-chemotherapy option. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14784018, registered on 19th January 2018 http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN14784018 .

Efficacy and safety of rucaparib treatment in patients with BRCA-mutated, relapsed ovarian cancer: final results from Study 10.

BACKGROUND: Study 10, a four-part Phase 1/2 study, evaluated oral rucaparib monotherapy in patients with advanced solid tumours. Here we report the final efficacy and safety results in heavily pretreated patients with ovarian cancer who received rucaparib in Study 10 Parts 2A and 2B. METHODS: Parts 2A and 2B (Phase 2 portions) enrolled patients with relapsed, high-grade, platinum-sensitive or platinum-resistant, BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer who had received 2-4 (Part 2A) or 3-4 (Part 2B) prior chemotherapies. Patients received oral rucaparib 600 mg twice daily (starting dose). The primary endpoint was the investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST v1.1. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were enrolled: 42 in Part 2A (all had platinum-sensitive disease) and 12 in Part 2B (4 with platinum-sensitive disease; 8 with platinum-resistant disease). ORR was 59.3% (95% CI 45.0-72.4%). The median time to onset of the most common nonhaematological treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was typically early (<56 days) and was later for haematological TEAEs (53-84 days). The median duration of grade ≥3 TEAEs was ≤13 days. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with relapsed, platinum-sensitive or platinum-resistant germline BRCA-mutant high-grade ovarian cancer who had received ≥2 prior chemotherapies, rucaparib had robust antitumour activity with a safety profile consistent with prior reports. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01482715.

Trametinib versus standard of care in patients with recurrent low-grade serous ovarian cancer (GOG 281/LOGS): an international, randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 2/3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Low-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary or peritoneum is characterised by MAPK pathway aberrations and its reduced sensitivity to chemotherapy relative to high-grade serous carcinoma. We compared the MEK inhibitor trametinib to physician's choice standard of care in patients with recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma. METHODS: This international, randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 2/3 trial was done at 84 hospitals in the USA and UK. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma and measurable disease, as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1, had received at least one platinum-based regimen, but not all five standard-of-care drugs, and had received an unlimited number of previous regimens. Patients with serous borderline tumours or tumours containing low-grade serous and high-grade serous carcinoma were excluded. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral trametinib 2 mg once daily (trametinib group) or one of five standard-of-care treatment options (standard-of-care group): intravenous paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 by body surface area on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 28-day cycle; intravenous pegylated liposomal doxorubicin 40-50 mg/m2 by body surface area once every 4 weeks; intravenous topotecan 4 mg/m2 by body surface area on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 28-day cycle; oral letrozole 2·5 mg once daily; or oral tamoxifen 20 mg twice daily. Randomisation was stratified by geographical region (USA or UK), number of previous regimens (1, 2, or ≥3), performance status (0 or 1), and planned standard-of-care regimen. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival while receiving randomised therapy, as assessed by imaging at baseline, once every 8 weeks for 15 months, and then once every 3 months thereafter, in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study therapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02101788, and is active but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Feb 27, 2014, and April 10, 2018, 260 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the trametinib group (n=130) or the standard-of-care group (n=130). At the primary analysis, there were 217 progression-free survival events (101 [78%] in the trametinib group and 116 [89%] in the standard-of-care group). Median progression-free survival in the trametinib group was 13·0 months (95% CI 9·9-15·0) compared with 7·2 months (5·6-9·9) in the standard-of-care group (hazard ratio 0·48 [95% CI 0·36-0·64]; p<0·0001). The most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the trametinib group were skin rash (17 [13%] of 128), anaemia (16 [13%]), hypertension (15 [12%]), diarrhoea (13 [10%]), nausea (12 [9%]), and fatigue (ten [8%]). The most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the standard-of-care group were abdominal pain (22 [17%]), nausea (14 [11%]), anaemia (12 [10%]), and vomiting (ten [8%]). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Trametinib represents a new standard-of-care option for patients with recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma. FUNDING: NRG Oncology, Cancer Research UK, Target Ovarian Cancer, and Novartis.

New therapies for clear cell ovarian carcinoma.

Ovarian clear cell carcinoma is a rare subtype of epithelial ovarian cancer with unique clinicopathological features. The most common genetic aberration observed is loss of function ARID1A mutations. Advanced and recurrent ovarian clear cell carcinoma is characterized by resistance to standard-of-care cytotoxic chemotherapy and a poor prognosis. Despite the distinct molecular features of ovarian clear cell carcinoma, current treatments for this subtype of epithelial ovarian cancer are based on clinical trials which predominantly recruited patients with high grade serous ovarian carcinoma. These factors have encouraged researchers to develop novel treatment strategies specifically for ovarian clear cell carcinoma which are currently being tested in the context of clinical trials. These new treatment strategies currently focus on three key areas: immune checkpoint blockade, targeting angiogenesis, and exploiting ARID1A synthetic lethal interactions. Rational combinations of these strategies are being assessed in clinical trials. Despite the progress made in identifying new treatments for ovarian clear cell carcinoma, predictive biomarkers to better define those patients likely to respond to new treatments remain to be elucidated. Additional future challenges which may be addressed through international collaboration include the need for randomized trials in a rare disease and establishing the relative sequencing of these novel treatments.

The peritoneal cancer index as a predictor of complete cytoreduction at primary and interval cytoreductive surgery in advanced ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The peritoneal cancer index quantitatively assesses cancer distribution and tumor burden in the peritoneal cavity. The aim of this study is to evaluate the association between the peritoneal cancer index and completeness of surgical cytoreduction for ovarian cancer and to identify a cut-off above which complete cytoreduction is unlikely. METHODS: This is a single-center prospective cohort observational study. A total of 100 consecutive patients who underwent ovarian cancer surgery were included. Peritoneal cancer index scores prior to and after surgery were calculated, and a cut-off value for incomplete cytoreduction was identified using a receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve. Surgical complexity, blood loss, length of surgery, and complications were analyzed and associations with the peritoneal cancer index score were evaluated. RESULTS: The overall median peritoneal cancer index score was 9.5 (range 0-36). The median age of the patients was 61 years (range 24-85). The most common stage was III (13% stage II, 53% stage III, 34% stage IV) and the most common histologic sub-type was high-grade serous (76% high-grade serous, 8% low-grade serous, 5% clear cell, 4% serous borderline, 2% endometrioid, 2% adult granulosa cell, 2% adenocarcinoma, 1% carcinosarcoma). Complete cytoreduction was achieved in 82% of patients, with a median score of 9 (range 0-30). The remaining 18% had a median score of 28.5 (range 0-36). The best predictor of incomplete cytoreduction was the peritoneal cancer index score, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.928 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.00). ROC curve analysis determined a peritoneal cancer index cut-off score of 20. Major complications occurred in 15% of patients with peritoneal cancer index scores >20 and in 2.5% of patients with scores ≤20, which was statistically significant (p=0.014). CONCLUSIONS: In our study we found that a peritoneal cancer index score of ≤20 was associated with a high likelihood of complete cytoreduction. Incorporating the peritoneal cancer index into routine surgical practice and research may impact treatment plans.

Low-grade serous ovarian cancer: expert consensus report on the state of the science.

Compared with high-grade serous carcinoma, low-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary or peritoneum is a less frequent epithelial ovarian cancer type that is poorly sensitive to chemotherapy and affects younger women, many of whom endure years of ineffective treatments and poor quality of life. The pathogenesis of this disease and its management remain incompletely understood. However, recent advances in the molecular characterization of the disease and identification of novel targeted therapies with activity in low-grade serous carcinoma offer the promise of improved outcomes. To update clinicians regarding recent scientific and clinical trial advancements and discuss unanswered questions related to low-grade serous carcinoma diagnosis and treatment, a panel of experts convened for a workshop in October 2022 to develop a consensus document addressing pathology, translational research, epidemiology and risk, clinical management, and ongoing research. In addition, the patient perspective was discussed. The recommendations developed by this expert panel-presented in this consensus document-will guide practitioners in all settings regarding the clinical management of women with low-grade serous carcinoma and discuss future opportunities to improve research and patient care.

Homologous recombination deficiency in newly diagnosed FIGO stage III/IV high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer: a multi-national observational study.

OBJECTIVE: Olaparib plus bevacizumab maintenance therapy improves survival outcomes in women with newly diagnosed, advanced, high-grade ovarian cancer with a deficiency in homologous recombination. We report data from the first year of routine homologous recombination deficiency testing in the National Health Service (NHS) in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland between April 2021 and April 2022. METHODS: The Myriad myChoice companion diagnostic was used to test DNA extracted from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor tissue in women with newly diagnosed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III/IV high-grade epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer. Tumors with homologous recombination deficiency were those with a BRCA1/2 mutation and/or a Genomic Instability Score (GIS) ≥42. Testing was coordinated by the NHS Genomic Laboratory Hub network. RESULTS: The myChoice assay was performed on 2829 tumors. Of these, 2474 (87%) and 2178 (77%) successfully underwent BRCA1/2 and GIS testing, respectively. All complete and partial assay failures occurred due to low tumor cellularity and/or low tumor DNA yield. 385 tumors (16%) contained a BRCA1/2 mutation and 814 (37%) had a GIS ≥42. Tumors with a GIS ≥42 were more likely to be BRCA1/2 wild-type (n=510) than BRCA1/2 mutant (n=304). The distribution of GIS was bimodal, with BRCA1/2 mutant tumors having a higher mean score than BRCA1/2 wild-type tumors (61 vs 33, respectively, χ2 test p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: This is the largest real-world evaluation of homologous recombination deficiency testing in newly diagnosed FIGO stage III/IV high-grade epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer. It is important to select tumor tissue with adequate tumor content and quality to reduce the risk of assay failure. The rapid uptake of testing across England, Wales, and Northern Ireland demonstrates the power of centralized NHS funding, center specialization, and the NHS Genomic Laboratory Hub network.

Weekly dose-dense chemotherapy in first-line epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer treatment (ICON8): overall survival results from an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Standard-of-care first-line chemotherapy for epithelial ovarian cancer is carboplatin and paclitaxel administered once every 3 weeks. The JGOG 3016 trial reported significant improvement in progression-free and overall survival with dose-dense weekly paclitaxel and 3-weekly (ie, once every 3 weeks) carboplatin. However, this benefit was not observed in the previously reported progression-free survival results of ICON8. Here, we present the final coprimary outcomes of overall survival and updated progression-free survival analyses of ICON8. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial (ICON8), women aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed stage IC-IV epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma (here collectively termed ovarian cancer, as defined by International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics [FIGO] 1988 criteria) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were recruited from 117 hospitals with oncology departments in the UK, Australia and New Zealand, Mexico, South Korea, and Ireland. Patients could enter the trial after immediate primary surgery (IPS) or with planned delayed primary surgery (DPS) during chemotherapy, or could have no planned surgery. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1), using the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London randomisation line with stratification by Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup group, FIGO disease stage, and outcome and timing of surgery, to either 3-weekly carboplatin area under the curve (AUC)5 or AUC6 and 3-weekly paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 (control; group 1), 3-weekly carboplatin AUC5 or AUC6 and weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 (group 2), or weekly carboplatin AUC2 and weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 (group 3), all administered via intravenous infusion for a total of six 21-day cycles. Coprimary outcomes were progression-free survival and overall survival, with comparisons done between group 2 and group 1, and group 3 and group 1, in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who started at least one chemotherapy cycle. The trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01654146, and ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN10356387, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between June 6, 2011, and Nov 28, 2014, 1566 patients were randomly assigned to group 1 (n=522), group 2 (n=523), or group 3 (n=521). The median age was 62 years (IQR 54-68), 1073 (69%) of 1566 patients had high-grade serous carcinoma, 1119 (71%) had stage IIIC-IV disease, and 745 (48%) had IPS. As of data cutoff (March 31, 2020), with a median follow-up of 69 months (IQR 61-75), no significant difference in overall survival was observed in either comparison: median overall survival of 47·4 months (95% CI 43·1-54·8) in group 1, 54·8 months (46·6-61·6) in group 2, and 53·4 months (49·2-59·6) in group 3 (group 2 vs group 1: hazard ratio 0·87 [97·5% CI 0·73-1·05]; group 3 vs group 1: 0·91 [0·76-1·09]). No significant difference was observed for progression-free survival in either comparison and evidence of non-proportional hazards was seen (p=0·037), with restricted mean survival time of 23·9 months (97·5% CI 22·1-25·6) in group 1, 25·3 months (23·6-27·1) in group 2, and 24·8 months (23·0-26·5) in group 3. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were reduced neutrophil count (78 [15%] of 511 patients in group 1, 183 [36%] of 514 in group 2, and 154 [30%] of 513 in group 3), reduced white blood cell count (22 [4%] in group 1, 80 [16%] in group 2, and 71 [14%] in group 3), and anaemia (26 [5%] in group 1, 66 [13%] in group 2, and 24 [5%] in group 3). No new serious adverse events were reported. Seven treatment-related deaths were reported (two in group 1, four in group 2, and one in group 3). INTERPRETATION: In our cohort of predominantly European women with epithelial ovarian cancer, we found that first-line weekly dose-dense chemotherapy did not improve overall or progression-free survival compared with standard 3-weekly chemotherapy and should not be used as part of standard multimodality front-line therapy in this patient group. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Health Research Board in Ireland, Irish Cancer Society, and Cancer Australia.

Real-world outcomes in patients with advanced endometrial cancer: A retrospective cohort study of US electronic health records.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize clinical outcomes of women with advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer (AEC) in routine practice using electronic health records from a real-world database. METHODS: Adult women diagnosed with AEC (stage III/IV, or early stage with locoregional/distant recurrence) between January 1, 2013 and September 30, 2020, inclusive, were eligible provided they received platinum-based chemotherapy at any time following diagnosis and had ≥2 clinical visits. Follow-up was from initiation of systemic treatment after advanced diagnosis (index) until March 30, 2021, last available follow-up, or death, whichever occurred first. Outcomes, by histological subtype, included Kaplan-Meier estimates of overall survival (OS) and time to first subsequent therapy or death (TFST). RESULTS: Of the 2202 women with AEC, most were treated in a community setting (82.7%) and presented with stage III/IV disease at initial diagnosis (74.0%). The proportion with endometrioid carcinoma, uterine serous carcinoma (USC), and other AEC subtypes was 59.8%, 25.0%, and 15.2%, respectively. The most common first systemic treatment following advanced/recurrent diagnosis was platinum-based combination chemotherapy (82.0%). Median OS (95% CI) from initiation of first systemic treatment was shorter with USC (31.3 [27.7-34.3] months) and other AECs (29.4 [21.4-43.9] months) versus endometrioid carcinoma (70.8 [60.5-83.2] months). Similar results were observed for TFST. Black/African American women had worse OS and TFST than white women. CONCLUSIONS: Women with AEC had poor survival outcomes, demonstrating the requirement for more effective therapies. To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive evaluation of contemporary treatment of AEC delivered in a community setting to date.

PARP inhibitors in ovarian cancer: An overview of the practice-changing trials.

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have transformed the management of recurrent ovarian cancer in patients with BRCA-mutations and beyond. Olaparib was the first PARP inhibitor to gain approval as maintenance therapy for patients with newly diagnosed, advanced BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer establishing a new standard of care. At the end of 2020, as a result of the SOLO1, PRIMA, and PAOLA-1 phase III trials, we are now in an era where three maintenance PARP inhibitor strategies have FDA and European Medicines Agency approval in the first-line setting. In this review, we provide an overview of the key PARP inhibitor trials that have changed clinical practice, discuss directing therapy according to biomarker status (BRCA and homologous recombination deficiency) and future strategies in ovarian cancer and other gynecological malignancies.

Patient-centred outcomes and effect of disease progression on health status in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation receiving maintenance olaparib or placebo (SOLO1): a randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the phase 3 SOLO1 trial, maintenance olaparib provided a significant progression-free survival benefit versus placebo in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation in response after platinum-based chemotherapy. We analysed health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and patient-centred outcomes in SOLO1, and the effect of radiological disease progression on health status. METHODS: SOLO1 is a randomised, double-blind, international trial done in 118 centres and 15 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older; had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-1; had newly diagnosed, advanced, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer, primary peritoneal cancer, or fallopian tube cancer with a BRCA mutation; and were in clinical complete or partial response to platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to either 300 mg olaparib tablets or placebo twice per day using an interactive voice and web response system and were treated for up to 2 years. Treatment assignment was masked for patients and for clinicians giving the interventions, and those collecting and analysing the data. Randomisation was stratified by response to platinum-based chemotherapy (clinical complete or partial response). HRQOL was a secondary endpoint and the prespecified primary HRQOL endpoint was the change from baseline in the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovarian Cancer Trial Outcome Index (TOI) score for the first 24 months. TOI scores range from 0 to 100 (higher scores indicated better HRQOL), with a clinically meaningful difference defined as a difference of at least 10 points. Prespecified exploratory endpoints were quality-adjusted progression-free survival and time without significant symptoms of toxicity (TWiST). HRQOL endpoints were analysed in all randomly assigned patients. The trial is ongoing but closed to new participants. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01844986. FINDINGS: Between Sept 3, 2013, and March 6, 2015, 1084 patients were enrolled. 693 patients were ineligible, leaving 391 eligible patients who were randomly assigned to olaparib (n=260) or placebo (n=131; one placebo patient withdrew before receiving any study treatment), with a median duration of follow-up of 40·7 months (IQR 34·9-42·9) for olaparib and 41·2 months (32·2-41·6) for placebo. There was no clinically meaningful change in TOI score at 24 months within or between the olaparib and placebo groups (adjusted mean change in score from baseline over 24 months was 0·30 points [95% CI -0·72 to 1·32] in the olaparib group vs 3·30 points [1·84 to 4·76] in the placebo group; between-group difference of -3·00, 95% CI -4·78 to -1·22; p=0·0010). Mean quality-adjusted progression-free survival (olaparib 29·75 months [95% CI 28·20-31·63] vs placebo 17·58 [15·05-20·18]; difference 12·17 months [95% CI 9·07-15·11], p<0·0001) and the mean duration of TWiST (olaparib 33·15 months [95% CI 30·82-35·49] vs placebo 20·24 months [17·36-23·11]; difference 12·92 months [95% CI 9·30-16·54]; p<0·0001) were significantly longer with olaparib than with placebo. INTERPRETATION: The substantial progression-free survival benefit provided by maintenance olaparib in the newly diagnosed setting was achieved with no detrimental effect on patients' HRQOL and was supported by clinically meaningful quality-adjusted progression-free survival and TWiST benefits with maintenance olaparib versus placebo. FUNDING: AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Maintenance olaparib for patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation (SOLO1/GOG 3004): 5-year follow-up of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a high unmet need for treatment regimens that increase the chance of long-term remission and possibly cure for women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. In the primary analysis of SOLO1/GOG 3004, the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo in patients with a BRCA mutation; median progression-free survival was not reached. Here, we report an updated, post-hoc analysis of progression-free survival from SOLO1, after 5 years of follow-up. METHODS: SOLO1 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, done across 118 centres in 15 countries, that enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 and with BRCA-mutated, newly diagnosed, advanced, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer with a complete or partial clinical response after platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) via a web-based or interactive voice-response system to receive olaparib (300 mg twice daily) or placebo tablets orally as maintenance monotherapy for up to 2 years; randomisation was by blocks and was stratified according to clinical response after platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients, treatment providers, and data assessors were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Efficacy is reported in the intention-to-treat population and safety in patients who received at least one dose of treatment. The data cutoff for this updated, post-hoc analysis was March 5, 2020. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01844986) and is ongoing but closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between Sept 3, 2013, and March 6, 2015, 260 patients were randomly assigned to olaparib and 131 to placebo. The median treatment duration was 24·6 months (IQR 11·2-24·9) in the olaparib group and 13·9 months (8·0-24·8) in the placebo group; median follow-up was 4·8 years (2·8-5·3) in the olaparib group and 5·0 years (2·6-5·3) in the placebo group. In this post-hoc analysis, median progression-free survival was 56·0 months (95% CI 41·9-not reached) with olaparib versus 13·8 months (11·1-18·2) with placebo (hazard ratio 0·33 [95% CI 0·25-0·43]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were anaemia (57 [22%] of 260 patients receiving olaparib vs two [2%] of 130 receiving placebo) and neutropenia (22 [8%] vs six [5%]), and serious adverse events occurred in 55 (21%) of 260 patients in the olaparib group and 17 (13%) of 130 in the placebo group. No treatment-related adverse events that occurred during study treatment or up to 30 days after discontinuation were reported as leading to death. No additional cases of myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukaemia were reported since the primary data cutoff, including after the 30-day safety follow-up period. INTERPRETATION: For patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation, after, to our knowledge, the longest follow-up for any randomised controlled trial of a PARP inhibitor in this setting, the benefit derived from 2 years' maintenance therapy with olaparib was sustained beyond the end of treatment, extending median progression-free survival past 4·5 years. These results support the use of maintenance olaparib as a standard of care in this setting. FUNDING: AstraZeneca; Merck Sharpe & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

Avelumab alone or in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer (JAVELIN Ovarian 200): an open-label, three-arm, randomised, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with ovarian cancer will relapse after receiving frontline platinum-based chemotherapy and eventually develop platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory disease. We report results of avelumab alone or avelumab plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) compared with PLD alone in patients with platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer. METHODS: JAVELIN Ovarian 200 was an open-label, parallel-group, three-arm, randomised, phase 3 trial, done at 149 hospitals and cancer treatment centres in 24 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer (maximum of three previous lines for platinum-sensitive disease, none for platinum-resistant disease) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via interactive response technology to avelumab (10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks), avelumab plus PLD (40 mg/m2 intravenously every 4 weeks), or PLD and stratified by disease platinum status, number of previous anticancer regimens, and bulky disease. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival by blinded independent central review and overall survival in all randomly assigned patients, with the objective to show whether avelumab alone or avelumab plus PLD is superior to PLD. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02580058. The trial is no longer enrolling patients and this is the final analysis of both primary endpoints. FINDINGS: Between Jan 5, 2016, and May 16, 2017, 566 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (combination n=188; PLD n=190, avelumab n=188). At data cutoff (Sept 19, 2018), median duration of follow-up for overall survival was 18·4 months (IQR 15·6-21·9) for the combination group, 17·4 months (15·2-21·3) for the PLD group, and 18·2 months (15·8-21·2) for the avelumab group. Median progression-free survival by blinded independent central review was 3·7 months (95% CI 3·3-5·1) in the combination group, 3·5 months (2·1-4·0) in the PLD group, and 1·9 months (1·8-1·9) in the avelumab group (combination vs PLD: stratified HR 0·78 [repeated 93·1% CI 0·59-1·24], one-sided p=0·030; avelumab vs PLD: 1·68 [1·32-2·60], one-sided p>0·99). Median overall survival was 15·7 months (95% CI 12·7-18·7) in the combination group, 13·1 months (11·8-15·5) in the PLD group, and 11·8 months (8·9-14·1) in the avelumab group (combination vs PLD: stratified HR 0·89 [repeated 88·85% CI 0·74-1·24], one-sided p=0·21; avelumab vs PLD: 1·14 [0·95-1·58], one-sided p=0·83]). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (18 [10%] in the combination group vs nine [5%] in the PLD group vs none in the avelumab group), rash (11 [6%] vs three [2%] vs none), fatigue (ten [5%] vs three [2%] vs none), stomatitis (ten [5%] vs five [3%] vs none), anaemia (six [3%] vs nine [5%] vs three [2%]), neutropenia (nine [5%] vs nine [5%] vs none), and neutrophil count decreased (eight [5%] vs seven [4%] vs none). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 32 (18%) patients in the combination group, 19 (11%) in the PLD group, and 14 (7%) in the avelumab group. Treatment-related adverse events resulted in death in one patient each in the PLD group (sepsis) and avelumab group (intestinal obstruction). INTERPRETATION: Neither avelumab plus PLD nor avelumab alone significantly improved progression-free survival or overall survival versus PLD. These results provide insights for patient selection in future studies of immune checkpoint inhibitors in platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer. FUNDING: Pfizer and Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.

Translational genomics of ovarian clear cell carcinoma.

Ovarian clear cell carcinomas (OCCC) are rare aggressive, chemo-resistant tumours comprising approximately 13% of all epithelial ovarian cancers, which have distinct clinical and molecular features, when compared to other gynaecological malignancies. At present, there are no specific licensed targeted therapies for OCCC, although a number of candidate targets have been identified. This review focuses on recent knowledge underpinning our understanding of the pathogenesis of OCCC including direct and synthetic-lethal therapeutic strategies in particular focussing on ARID1A deficiency. We also discuss current targeted clinical trials and immunotherapeutic approaches.

Biomarkers for site-specific response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in epithelial ovarian cancer: relating MRI changes to tumour cell load and necrosis.

BACKGROUND: Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) potentially interrogates site-specific response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). METHODS: Participants with newly diagnosed EOC due for platinum-based chemotherapy and interval debulking surgery were recruited prospectively in a multicentre study (n = 47 participants). Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and solid tumour volume (up to 10 lesions per participant) were obtained from DW-MRI before and after NAC (including double-baseline for repeatability assessment in n = 19). Anatomically matched lesions were analysed after surgical excision (65 lesions obtained from 25 participants). A trained algorithm determined tumour cell fraction, percentage tumour and percentage necrosis on histology. Whole-lesion post-NAC ADC and pre/post-NAC ADC changes were compared with histological metrics (residual tumour/necrosis) for each tumour site (ovarian, omental, peritoneal, lymph node). RESULTS: Tumour volume reduced at all sites after NAC. ADC increased between pre- and post-NAC measurements. Post-NAC ADC correlated negatively with tumour cell fraction. Pre/post-NAC changes in ADC correlated positively with percentage necrosis. Significant correlations were driven by peritoneal lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Following NAC in EOC, the ADC (measured using DW-MRI) increases differentially at disease sites despite similar tumour shrinkage, making its utility site-specific. After NAC, ADC correlates negatively with tumour cell fraction; change in ADC correlates positively with percentage necrosis. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01505829.

Maintenance Olaparib in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Advanced Ovarian Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Most women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer have a relapse within 3 years after standard treatment with surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy. The benefit of the oral poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib in relapsed disease has been well established, but the benefit of olaparib as maintenance therapy in newly diagnosed disease is uncertain. METHODS: We conducted an international, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy of olaparib as maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage III or IV) high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer, primary peritoneal cancer, or fallopian-tube cancer (or a combination thereof) with a mutation in BRCA1, BRCA2, or both ( BRCA1/2) who had a complete or partial clinical response after platinum-based chemotherapy. The patients were randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive olaparib tablets (300 mg twice daily) or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: Of the 391 patients who underwent randomization, 260 were assigned to receive olaparib and 131 to receive placebo. A total of 388 patients had a centrally confirmed germline BRCA1/2 mutation, and 2 patients had a centrally confirmed somatic BRCA1/2 mutation. After a median follow-up of 41 months, the risk of disease progression or death was 70% lower with olaparib than with placebo (Kaplan-Meier estimate of the rate of freedom from disease progression and from death at 3 years, 60% vs. 27%; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.23 to 0.41; P<0.001). Adverse events were consistent with the known toxic effects of olaparib. CONCLUSIONS: The use of maintenance therapy with olaparib provided a substantial benefit with regard to progression-free survival among women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation, with a 70% lower risk of disease progression or death with olaparib than with placebo. (Funded by AstraZeneca and Merck; SOLO1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844986 .).

Tolerability of maintenance olaparib in newly diagnosed patients with advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation in the randomized phase III SOLO1 trial.

OBJECTIVES: In the phase III SOLO1 trial (NCT01844986), maintenance olaparib provided a substantial progression-free survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation who were in response after platinum-based chemotherapy. We analyzed the timing, duration and grade of the most common hematologic and non-hematologic adverse events in SOLO1. METHODS: Eligible patients were randomized to olaparib tablets 300 mg twice daily (N = 260) or placebo (N = 131), with a 2-year treatment cap in most patients. Safety outcomes were analyzed in detail in randomized patients who received at least one dose of study drug (olaparib, n = 260; placebo, n = 130). RESULTS: Median time to first onset of the most common hematologic (anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia) and non-hematologic (nausea, fatigue/asthenia, vomiting) adverse events was <3 months in olaparib-treated patients. The first event of anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, nausea and vomiting lasted a median of <2 months and the first event of fatigue/asthenia lasted a median of 3.48 months in the olaparib group. These adverse events were manageable with supportive treatment and/or olaparib dose modification in most patients, with few patients requiring discontinuation of olaparib. Of 162 patients still receiving olaparib at month 24, 64.2% were receiving the recommended starting dose of olaparib 300 mg twice daily. CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance olaparib had a predictable and manageable adverse event profile in the newly diagnosed setting with no new safety signals identified. Adverse events usually occurred early, were largely manageable and led to discontinuation in a minority of patients.