OV21/PETROC: a randomized Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup phase II study of intraperitoneal versus intravenous chemotherapy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy and optimal debulking surgery in epithelial ovarian cancer.

Background: The purpose of this multistage, adaptively, designed randomized phase II study was to evaluate the role of intraperitoneal (i.p.) chemotherapy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and optimal debulking surgery in women with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Patients and methods: We carried out a multicenter, two-stage, phase II trial. Eligible patients with stage IIB-IVA EOC treated with platinum-based intravenous (i.v.) NACT followed by optimal (<1 cm) debulking surgery were randomized to one of the three treatment arms: (i) i.v. carboplatin/paclitaxel, (ii) i.p. cisplatin plus i.v./i.p. paclitaxel, or (iii) i.p. carboplatin plus i.v./i.p. paclitaxel. The primary end point was 9-month progressive disease rate (PD9). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), toxicity, and quality of life (QOL). Results: Between 2009 and 2015, 275 patients were randomized; i.p. cisplatin containing arm did not progress beyond the first stage of the study after failing to meet the pre-set superiority rule. The final analysis compared i.v. carboplatin/paclitaxel (n = 101) with i.p. carboplatin, i.v./i.p. paclitaxel (n = 102). The intention to treat PD9 was lower in the i.p. carboplatin arm compared with the i.v. carboplatin arm: 24.5% (95% CI 16.2% to 32.9%) versus 38.6% (95% CI 29.1% to 48.1%) P = 0.065. The study was underpowered to detect differences in PFS: HR PFS 0.82 (95% CI 0.57-1.17); P = 0.27 and OS HR 0.80 (95% CI 0.47-1.35) P = 0.40. The i.p. carboplatin-based regimen was well tolerated with no reduction in QOL or increase in toxicity compared with i.v. administration alone. Conclusion: In women with stage IIIC or IVA EOC treated with NACT and optimal debulking surgery, i.p. carboplatin-based chemotherapy is well tolerated and associated with an improved PD9 compared with i.v. carboplatin-based chemotherapy. Clinical trial number: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01622543.

The forgotten woman's cancer: vulvar squamous cell carcinoma (VSCC) and a targeted approach to therapy.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of vulvar squamous cell carcinoma (VSCC) has been on the rise since the 1990s. There has been no new treatment for advanced and recurrent disease in decades, with most women succumbing to the disease. Despite two distinct etiologies of VSCC, human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated and HPV-independent disease, there is no difference in therapeutic options. METHODS: A literature review was carried out by searching EMBASE and Medline databases between January 1990 and March 2016 by pairing the keywords of vulvar carcinoma, vulva cancer, vulvar and vulva with molecular markers involved in the cell cycle, apoptosis and angiogenesis. Molecular targets of prognostic significance were identified and targeted agents of therapeutic relevance to both HPV-independent and HPV-associated VSCC were then reviewed. RESULTS: Recent advances in our understanding of the molecular biology of VSCC provide insight into the future management of VSCC with molecular targeted therapies. Aberrant cell cycle activity is common in both HPV-associated and HPV-independent VSCC and is characterized by overexpression of p53, Rb and cyclin D1, supporting targeting of these protein products and their downstream pathways. Extracellular regulators of cellular activity, such as EGFR, as well as inhibitors of angiogenesis are being clinically evaluated in VSCC. HPV-independent VSCC is characterized by actionable mutations, including PI3K, CDKN2A and PTEN. In HPV-associated disease, therapeutic vaccines targeting the E6 and E7 HPV oncogenes and immune-based therapies are under investigation. CONCLUSION: There has been a paucity of clinical trials in recent years in this neglected women's cancer. Directed therapy against cell cycle regulatory molecules and extracellular proteins and the inhibition of angiogenesis are of broad therapeutic relevance in VSCC. Therapeutic strategies that target actionable mutations should be explored. In HPV-associated VSCC, novel treatments that exploit the virology of HPV and/or enhance the host immune response merit further study.

First application of the Automated QUantitative Analysis (AQUA) technique to quantify PTEN protein expression in ovarian cancer: A correlative study of NCIC CTG OV.16.

BACKGROUND: Platinum resistance is a dominant cause of poor outcomes in advanced ovarian cancer (OC). A mechanism of platinum resistance is the inhibition of apoptosis through phosphatidylinositol 3 kinase (PI3K) pathway activation. The role of phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN), a negative regulator of this pathway, as a tumor biomarker is unclear. Quantitative analysis of PTEN expression as an alternative to immunohistochemistry has not been considered. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 238 patient tumors from the NCIC-CTG trial OV.16, PTEN protein expression was quantified by Automated QUantitative Analysis (AQUA). Cox model was used to study the association between PTEN expression and clinical outcomes using a minimum p-value approach in univariate analysis. Multivariate analysis was used to adjust for clinical and pathological parameters. RESULTS: PTEN scores (range 13.9-192.3) of the 202 samples that passed quality control were analyzed. In univariate analysis, there was a trend suggesting an association between PTEN expression by AQUA as a binary variable (low ≤61 vs high >61) and progression free survival (HR=0.77, p=0.083), and in multivariate analysis, this association approached significance (HR=0.74, p=0.059). The relationship between quantitative PTEN expression and PFS differed (p=0.01 for interaction) by the extent of surgical debulking (residual disease (RD) <1cm or ≥1cm), with a numerically superior PFS in patients with high PTEN (23.5 vs 14.9m) only when RD<1cm (p=0.19). There was no association between PTEN levels and overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: AQUA is a novel method to measure PTEN expression. Further study of PTEN as a biomarker in OC is warranted.

Should we abandon hormonal therapy in endometrial cancer? Outcomes of recurrent and metastatic endometrial cancer treated with systemic progestins.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study is to determine primary survival endpoints in women with recurrent and metastatic endometrial carcinoma (RMEC) treated with progestins. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted at The Ottawa Hospital using electronic medical records. Inclusion criteria were a diagnosis of RMEC between 2000 and 2019, endometrioid histology, and ≥one line of progestin treatment. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Of 2342 cases reviewed, 74 met inclusion criteria. Sixty-six (88.0%) patients received megestrol acetate and 9 (12.0%) received a progestin alternative. The distribution of tumors by grade was: 1: 25 (33.3%), 2: 30 (40.0%), and 3: 20 (26.7%). The PFS and OS for the entire study sample was 14.3 months (95% CI 6.2-17.9) and 23.3 months (14.8-36.8), respectively. The PFS for patients with Grade 1-2 RMEC was 15.7 months (8.0, 19.5), compared to 5.0 months (3.0, 23.0) with Grade 3 disease. The OS for patients with Grade 1-2 versus Grade 3, was 25.9 months (15.3, 40.3) versus 12.5 months (5.7, 35.9), respectively. Thirty-four (45.9%) and 40 (54.1%) patients were treated with 0 and ≥1 line of chemotherapy. The PFS for chemotherapy-naïve patients was 17.9 months (14.3, 27.0), versus 6.2 months (3.9, 14.8) following ≥1 line of treatment. The OS was 29.1 months (17.9, 61.1) for chemotherapy-naïve patients versus 23.0 months (10.5, 37.6) for patients previously exposed. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world data on RMEC suggests there is a role for progestins in select subgroups of women. The PFS for chemotherapy-naïve patients was 17.9 months (14.3, 27.0), versus 6.2 months (3.9, 14.8) following ≥1 line of treatment. The OS was 29.1 months (17.9, 61.1) for chemotherapy-OS was 29.1 months (17.9, 61.1) for chemotherapy-naïve patients versus 23.0 months (10.5, 37.6) for patients previously exposed.

Breast cancer 1 (BRCA1) protein expression as a prognostic marker in sporadic epithelial ovarian carcinoma: an NCIC CTG OV.16 correlative study.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer 1 (BRCA1) protein inactivation in sporadic ovarian carcinoma (OC) is common and low BRCA1 expression is linked with platinum sensitivity. The clinical validation of BRCA1 as a prognostic marker in OC remains unresolved. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 251 patient samples from the NCIC CTG clinical trial, OV.16, BRCA1 protein expression was determined by immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: For all patients, when BRCA1 score was analyzed as a continuous variable, there was no significant correlation between BRCA1 protein expression and progression-free survival (PFS) [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 1.15 (0.96-1.37), P = 0.12] or response rate [HR = 0.89 (0.70-1.12), P = 0.32]. In the 116 patients with minimal residual disease (RD), higher BRCA1 expression correlated significantly with worse PFS [HR = 1.40 (1.04-1.89), P = 0.03]. Subgroup analysis divided patients with minimal RD into low (BRCA1 ≤2.5) and high (BRCA1 >2.5) expression groups. Patients with low BRCA1 expression had a more favorable outcome [median PFS was 24.7 and 16.6 months in patients with low and high BRCA1, respectively; HR = 0.56 (0.35-0.89), P = 0.01]. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that BRCA1 protein is a prognostic marker in sporadic OC patients with minimal RD. Further research is needed to evaluate BRCA1 as a predictive biomarker and to target BRCA1 expression to enhance chemotherapeutic sensitivity.

Clinical Considerations of BRCA1- and BRCA2-Mutation Carriers: A Review.

Individuals who carry an inherited mutation in the breast cancer 1 (BRCA1) and BRCA2 genes have a significant risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer over the course of their lifetime. As a result, there are important considerations for the clinician in the counseling, followup and management of mutation carriers. This review outlines salient aspects in the approach to patients at high risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer, including criteria for genetic testing, screening guidelines, surgical prophylaxis, and chemoprevention.