Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and chemotherapy for metastatic, persistent, or recurrent cervical cancer (BEATcc): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The GOG240 trial established bevacizumab with chemotherapy as standard first-line therapy for metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer. In the BEATcc trial (ENGOT-Cx10-GEICO 68-C-JGOG1084-GOG-3030), we aimed to evaluate the addition of an immune checkpoint inhibitor to this standard backbone. METHODS: In this investigator-initiated, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial, patients from 92 sites in Europe, Japan, and the USA with metastatic (stage IVB), persistent, or recurrent cervical cancer that was measurable, previously untreated, and not amenable to curative surgery or radiation were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive standard therapy (cisplatin 50 mg/m2 or carboplatin area under the curve of 5, paclitaxel 175 mg/m2, and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg, all on day 1 of every 3-week cycle) with or without atezolizumab 1200 mg. Treatment was continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, patient withdrawal, or death. Stratification factors were previous concomitant chemoradiation (yes vs no), histology (squamous cell carcinoma vs adenocarcinoma including adenosquamous carcinoma), and platinum backbone (cisplatin vs carboplatin). Dual primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1 and overall survival analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03556839, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Oct 8, 2018, and Aug 20, 2021, 410 of 519 patients assessed for eligibility were enrolled. Median progression-free survival was 13·7 months (95% CI 12·3-16·6) with atezolizumab and 10·4 months (9·7-11·7) with standard therapy (hazard ratio [HR]=0·62 [95% CI 0·49-0·78]; p<0·0001); at the interim overall survival analysis, median overall survival was 32·1 months (95% CI 25·3-36·8) versus 22·8 months (20·3-28·0), respectively (HR 0·68 [95% CI 0·52-0·88]; p=0·0046). Grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 79% of patients in the experimental group and in 75% of patients in the standard group. Grade 1-2 diarrhoea, arthralgia, pyrexia, and rash were increased with atezolizumab. INTERPRETATION: Adding atezolizumab to a standard bevacizumab plus platinum regimen for metastatic, persistent, or recurrent cervical cancer significantly improves progression-free and overall survival and should be considered as a new first-line therapy option. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Atezolizumab and chemotherapy for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (AtTEnd): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: At the time of AtTEnd trial design, standard treatment for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer included carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy. This trial assessed whether combining atezolizumab with chemotherapy might improve outcomes in this population. METHODS: AtTEnd was a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial done in 89 hospitals in 11 countries across Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Asia. Enrolled patients were aged 18 years or older, and had advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma or carcinosarcoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and received no previous systemic chemotherapy for recurrence. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) using an interactive web response system (block size of six) to either atezolizumab 1200 mg or placebo given intravenously with chemotherapy (carboplatin at area under the curve of 5 or 6 and paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 every 21 days) for 6-8 cycles, then continued until progression. Stratification factors were country, histological subtype, advanced or recurrent status, and mismatch repair (MMR) status. Participants and treating clinicians were masked to group allocation. The hierarchically tested co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (in patients with MMR-deficient [dMMR] tumours, and in the overall population) and overall survival (in the overall population). Primary analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomly assigned patients who gave their full consent to participation in the study and data processing. Safety was assessed in all patients included in the intention-to-treat population who received at least one dose of study treatment. Here, we report the primary progression-free survival and the interim overall survival results. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03603184. FINDINGS: Between Oct 3, 2018, and Jan 7, 2022, 551 patients were randomly assigned to atezolizumab (n=362) or placebo (n=189). Two patients in the atezolizumab group were excluded from all analyses due to lack of consent. Median follow-up was 28·3 months (IQR 21·2-37·6). 81 (23%) patients in the atezolizumab group and 44 (23%) patients in the placebo group had dMMR disease by central assessment. In the dMMR population, median progression-free survival was not estimable (95% CI 12·4 months-not estimable [NE]) in the atezolizumab group and 6·9 months (6·3-10·1) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·36, 95% CI 0·23-0·57; p=0·0005). In the overall population, median progression-free survival was 10·1 months (95% CI 9·5-12·3) in the atezolizumab group and 8·9 months (8·1-9·6) in the placebo group (HR 0·74, 95% CI 0·61-0·91; p=0·022). Median overall survival was 38·7 months (95% CI 30·6-NE) in the atezolizumab group and 30·2 months (25·0-37·2) in the placebo group (HR 0·82, 95% CI 0·63-1·07; log-rank p=0·048). The p value for the interim analysis of overall survival did not cross the stopping boundary; therefore, the trial will continue until the required number of events are recorded. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (97 [27%] of 356 patients in the atezolizumab group vs 51 [28%] of 185 in the placebo group) and anaemia (49 [14%] vs 24 [13%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 46 (13%) patients in the atezolizumab group and six (3%) patients in the placebo group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in two patients (pneumonia in one patient in each group). INTERPRETATION: Atezolizumab plus chemotherapy increased progression-free survival in patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma, particularly in those with dMMR carcinomas, suggesting the addition of atezolizumab to standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment in this specific subgroup. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Long-term follow-up of efficacy and safety of selinexor maintenance treatment in patients with TP53wt advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer: A subgroup analysis of the ENGOT-EN5/GOG-3055/SIENDO study.

OBJECTIVE: To report long-term efficacy and safety of selinexor maintenance therapy in adults with TP53 wild-type (TP53wt) stage IV or recurrent endometrial cancer (EC) who achieved partial remission (PR) or complete remission (CR) following chemotherapy. METHODS: Analysis of the prespecified, exploratory subgroup of patients with TP53wt EC from the phase 3 SIENDO study was performed. Progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in patients with TP53wt EC and across other patient subgroups were exploratory endpoints. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. RESULTS: Of the 263 patients enrolled in the SIENDO trial, 113 patients had TP53wt EC; 70/113 (61.9%) had TP53wt/proficient mismatch repair (pMMR) EC, and 29/113 (25.7%) had TP53wt/deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) EC. As of April 1, 2024, the median PFS (mPFS) for TP53wt patients who received selinexor compared with placebo was 28.4 versus 5.2 months (36.8-month follow-up, HR 0.44; 95% CI 0.27-0.73). A benefit in mPFS was seen with selinexor versus placebo regardless of MMR status (patients with TP53wt/pMMR EC: 39.5 vs 4.9 months, HR 0.36; 95% CI 0.19-0.71; patients with TP53wt/dMMR EC: 13.1 vs 3.7 months, HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.18-1.34). Selinexor treatment was generally manageable, with no new safety signals identified. CONCLUSION: In the phase 3 SIENDO study, selinexor maintenance therapy showed a promising efficacy signal and a manageable safety profile in the prespecified subgroup of patients with TP53wt EC who achieved a PR or CR following chemotherapy. These results are being further evaluated in an ongoing randomized phase 3 trial (NCT05611931).

Immunotherapy in the treatment of advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer.

The standard treatment of patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer has not significantly changed over the past few decades, reflecting a major unmet clinical need. Fortunately, the arrival of immune checkpoint inhibition is rapidly changing this dismal scenario. This review discusses the most recent results from clinical trials evaluating the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors, either as monotherapy or in combination therapy, in both the post-platinum and frontline settings. Additionally, a section is devoted to the future clinical development of immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer.

Advances in immunotherapy in cervical cancer.

Cervical cancer represents a major public health problem, being the fourth most common cancer in incidence and mortality in women worldwide. Patients with recurrent, persistent, or metastatic disease unsuitable for curative therapeutic approaches have a dismal prognosis. Until recently, these patients were only candidates for cisplatin-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab. However, the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors has revolutionized the treatment of this disease, achieving historical overall survival improvements in both the post-platinum and front-line settings. Interestingly, the clinical development of immunotherapy in cervical cancer is currently advancing to the locally advanced setting, although preliminary efficacy outcomes in this setting have been disappointing so far. Moreover, promising data are emerging from early-phase trials on novel immunotherapy approaches, such as human papillomavirus therapeutic vaccines and adoptive cell therapy. This review summarizes the main clinical trials carried out in the field of immunotherapy in the last several years.

A randomized phase III trial of platinum chemotherapy plus paclitaxel with bevacizumab and atezolizumab versus platinum chemotherapy plus paclitaxel and bevacizumab in metastatic (stage IVB), persistent, or recurrent carcinoma of the cervix: the BEATcc study (ENGOT-Cx10/GEICO 68-C/JGOG1084/GOG-3030).

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic, recurrent, or persistent cervical cancer not amenable to local control and/or distant metastases have a very poor prognosis, only being candidates for palliative-systemic therapy. First line standard treatment in this scenario is based on cisplatin/paclitaxel plus bevacizumab (GOG 240 regimen) with a short median overall survival (16.8 months) and progression-free survival (8.2 months). PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the addition of atezolizumab to cisplatin-paclitaxel and bevacizumab improves overall survival, compared with cisplatin-paclitaxel plus bevacizumab in patients with metastatic, recurrent, or persistent cervical cancer. STUDY HYPOTHESIS: The primary hypothesis is whether the addition of atezolizumab to cisplatin-paclitaxel and bevacizumab improves overall survival in metastatic, recurrent, or persistent cervical cancer. TRIAL DESIGN: The BEATcc study is a phase III, randomized, open-label, multi-center clinical trial. The study will be performed on an intent-to-treat population. The control arm is the administration of chemotherapy (platinum plus paclitaxel) and bevacizumab, while the experimental arm is the administration of atezolizumab in combination with the same chemotherapy regimen (1:1 randomization). The trial will be run under the ENGOT umbrella alongside JGOG and GOG-F. GEICO is the lead group on behalf of ENGOT. MAJOR INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Women over 18 years old with histologically or cytologically confirmed diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous metastatic, recurrent, or persistent cervical cancer, not amenable for curative treatment with surgery and/or radiation therapy, will be included. Women are not eligible if they have received prior systemic anti-cancer therapy for metastatic or persistent/recurrent disease or they have disease involving the bladder or rectum at the screening/baseline pelvic magnetic resonance imaging. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: Overall survival, defined as the observed length of life from entry into the study (day of randomization) to death from any cause or the date of last contact. SAMPLE SIZE: A total of 404 patients are expected to be recruited into the study, assuming a total 10% drop-out rate. In order to test whether the experimental arm improves overall survival, the study will have 80% power using one-sided α of 0.025. There will be one interim analysis to close the study in case of early efficacy results in the experimental arm. ESTIMATED DATES FOR COMPLETING ACCRUAL AND PRESENTING RESULTS: The trial was launched in Q3 2018 and the trial is estimated to close in Q3 2022. We expect to be able to report mature data from the BEATcc trial by 2023. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03556839).

Oral Selinexor as Maintenance Therapy After First-Line Chemotherapy for Advanced or Recurrent Endometrial Cancer.

PURPOSE: Selinexor inhibits exportin-1 (XPO1) resulting in nuclear accumulation of tumor suppressor proteins including p53 and has clinical activity in endometrial cancer (EC). The primary end point was to assess progression-free survival (PFS) with once-weekly oral selinexor in patients with advanced or recurrent EC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ENGOT-EN5/GOG-3055/SIENDO was a randomized, prospective, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study at 107 sites in 10 countries. Patients 18 years or older with histologically confirmed EC were enrolled. All had completed a single line of at least 12 weeks of taxane-platinum combination chemotherapy and achieved partial or complete response. Patients were assigned to receive 80 mg oral selinexor once weekly or placebo with 2:1 random assignment (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03555422). RESULTS: Between January 2018 and December 2021, 263 patients were randomly assigned, with 174 allocated to selinexor and 89 to placebo. The median PFS was 5.7 months (95% CI, 3.81 to 9.20) with selinexor versus 3.8 months (95% CI, 3.68 to 7.39) with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76 [95% CI, 0.54 to 1.08]; two-sided P = .126), which did not meet the criteria for statistical significance in the intent-to-treat population. Incorrect chemotherapy response stratification data for 7 (2.7%) patients were identified. In a prespecified exploratory analysis of PFS in audited stratification data, PFS for selinexor met the threshold for statistical significance (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.499 to 0.996; two-sided P = .049). Furthermore, patients with the TP53 wild-type (wt) EC had a median PFS of 13.7 and 3.7 months with selinexor and placebo. The most common grade 3 treatment-related adverse events were nausea (9%), neutropenia (9%), and thrombocytopenia (7%). CONCLUSION: The significance level for PFS was only met in the audited analysis. However, a preliminary analysis of a prespecified exploratory subgroup of patients with TP53wt EC showed promising results with selinexor maintenance therapy.

Phase 2 Trial (POLA Study) of Lurbinectedin plus Olaparib in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors: Results of Efficacy, Tolerability, and the Translational Study.

We hypothesized that the combination of olaparib and lurbinectedin maximizes DNA damage, thus increasing its efficacy. The POLA phase 1 trial established the recommended phase 2 dose of lurbinectedin as being 1.5 mg (day 1) and that of olaparib as being 250 mg/12 h (days 1-5) for a 21-day cycle. In phase 2, we explore the efficacy of the combination in terms of clinical response and its correlation with mutations in the HRR genes and the genomic instability (GI) parameters. Results: A total of 73 patients with high-grade ovarian (n = 46), endometrial (n = 26), and triple-negative breast cancer (n = 1) were treated with lurbinectedin and olaparib. Most patients (62%) received ≥3 lines of prior therapy. The overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were 9.6% and 72.6%, respectively. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.54 months (95% CI 3.0-5.2). Twelve (16.4%) patients were considered long-term responders (LTR), with a median PFS of 13.3 months. No clinical benefit was observed for cases with HRR gene mutation. In ovarian LTRs, although a direct association with GI and a total loss of heterozygosity (LOH) events was observed, the association did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.055). Globally, the total number of LOHs might be associated with the ORR (p =0.074). The most common grade 3-4 toxicities were anemia and thrombocytopenia, in 6 (8.2%) and 3 (4.1%) patients, respectively. Conclusion: The POLA study provides evidence that the administration of lurbinectedin and olaparib is feasible and tolerable, with a DCR of 72.6%. Different GI parameters showed associations with better responses.

A phase I dose-finding, pharmacokinetics and genotyping study of olaparib and lurbinectedin in patients with advanced solid tumors.

The poly (ADP-Ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib has shown antitumor activity in patients with ovarian or breast cancer with or without BRCA1/2 mutations. Lurbinectedin is an ecteinascidin that generates DNA double-strand breaks. We hypothesized that the combination of olaparib and lurbinectedin maximizes the DNA damage increasing the efficacy. A 3 + 3 dose-escalation study examined olaparib tablets with lurbinectedin every 21 days. The purpose of this phase I study is to determine the dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) of the combination, to investigate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), the recommended phase II dose (RP2D), efficacy, pharmacokinetics, in addition to genotyping and translational studies. In total, 20 patients with ovarian and endometrial cancers were included. The most common adverse events were asthenia, nausea, vomiting, constipation, abdominal pain, neutropenia, anemia. DLT grade 4 neutropenia was observed in two patients in dose level (DL) 5, DL4 was defined as the MTD, and the RP2D was lurbinectedin 1.5 mg/m2 + olaparib 250 mg twice a day (BID). Mutational analysis revealed a median of 2 mutations/case, 53% of patients with mutations in the homologous recombination (HR) pathway. None of the patients reached a complete or partial response; however, 60% of stable disease was achieved. In conclusion, olaparib in combination with lurbinectedin was well tolerated with a disease control rate of 60%. These results deserve further evaluation of the combination in a phase II trial.

EVOLVE: A Multicenter Open-Label Single-Arm Clinical and Translational Phase II Trial of Cediranib Plus Olaparib for Ovarian Cancer after PARP Inhibition Progression.

PURPOSE: PARP inhibitors (PARPi) are standard-of-care therapy for high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC). We investigated combining cediranib (antiangiogenic) with olaparib (PARPi) at emergence of PARPi resistance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The proof-of-concept EVOLVE study (NCT02681237) assessed cediranib-olaparib combination therapy after progression on a PARPi. Women with HGSOC and radiographic evidence of disease progression were enrolled into one of three cohorts: platinum sensitive after PARPi; platinum resistant after PARPi; or progression on standard chemotherapy after progression on PARPi (exploratory cohort). Patients received olaparib tablets 300 mg twice daily with cediranib 20 mg once daily until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The coprimary endpoints were objective response rate (RECIST v1.1) and progression-free survival (PFS) at 16 weeks. Archival tissue (PARPi-naïve) and baseline biopsy (post-PARPi) samples were mandatory. Genomic mechanisms of resistance were assessed by whole-exome and RNA sequencing. RESULTS: Among 34 heavily pretreated patients, objective responses were observed in 0 of 11 (0%) platinum-sensitive patients, 2 of 10 (20%) platinum-resistant patients, and 1 of 13 (8%) in the exploratory cohort. Sixteen-week PFS rates were 55%, 50%, and 39%, respectively. The most common grade 3 toxicities were diarrhea (12%) and anemia (9%). Acquired genomic alterations at PARPi progression were reversion mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, or RAD51B (19%); CCNE1 amplification (16%); ABCB1 upregulation (15%); and SLFN11 downregulation (7%). Patients with reversion mutations in homologous recombination genes and/or ABCB1 upregulation had poor outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This is currently the largest post-PARPi study identifying genomic mechanisms of resistance to PARPis. In this setting, the activity of cediranib-olaparib varied according to the PARPi resistance mechanism.

Genomic heterogeneity and efficacy of PI3K pathway inhibitors in patients with gynaecological cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Aberrant PI3K/AKT/mTOR activation is common in gynaecological malignancies. However, predictive biomarkers of response to PI3K pathway inhibitors (PAMi) have yet to be identified. METHODS: We analysed the outcomes of patients with advanced gynaecological cancer with available genomic data, treated with PAMi as single agents or in combination in phase I clinical trials. Clinical relevance of the PIK3CA mutant allele fraction (MAF) was investigated. MAF of each variant was normalised for tumour purity in the sample (adjMAFs) to infer clonality of PIK3CA mutations, defined as clonal (≥0.4) or subclonal (<0.4). RESULTS: A total of 50 patients with gynaecological cancer (24 ovarian; 15 endometrial; 11 cervical) with available targeted mutation profiling were selected. PAMi therapy was matched to PIK3CA/PTEN mutation in 30 patients (60%). The overall response rate, median time to progression (mTTP) and clinical benefit rate (CBR) of the entire population were 10% (N=5), 3.57 months (2.57-4.4) and 40% (N=18), respectively. Genotype-matched therapy did not lead to a favourable CBR (OR 0.91, p=1 (0.2-3.7)) or mTTP (3.57 months (2.6-4.4) vs 3.73 months (1.9-13.2); HR 1.41; p=0.29). We did not detect differences in mTTP according to therapy or PIK3CA codon mutation (HR 1.71, p=0.24). Overall, 41% of patients had a TTP ratio (TTP PAMi/TTP on immediately prior or subsequent palliative chemotherapy) ≥1.3, without statistically significant differences according to tumour type (p=0.39), molecular alteration status (p=0.13) or therapy (p=0.54). In univariate analysis, genotype-matched therapy in patients with PIK3CA clonal events was associated with improved mTTP (HR 3.6; p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that patients with advanced gynaecological cancer, refractory to standard therapies, achieved meaningful clinical benefit from PAMi. The impact of PI3KCA clonality on response to selected PAMi in patients with gynaecological cancer deserves further investigation.

Challenges in the management of neuroendocrine cervical cancer during pregnancy: A case report.

Large-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) is an uncommon histological subtype of cervical cancer that is associated with poor survival and its occurrence during pregnancy is particularly rare. We herein present the case of a female patient who was diagnosed with cervical LCNEC during pregnancy. The patient declined pregnancy termination and was treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy with cisplatin and etoposide, without associated toxicity and with good fetal development. At 31.4 weeks of gestation, the fetus was delivered by caesarean section, and the patient underwent radical nerve-sparing hysterectomy with bilateral adnexectomy, along with pelvic and inframesenteric para-aortic lymphadenectomy. The patient received adjuvant chemoradiotherapy and there was no evidence of recurrence or metastasis at 38 months postoperatively. The baby has also been followed up, without any signs of neurodevelopmental disorders. To the best of our knowledge, the present report describes the first case of LCNEC with pregnancy-preserving management in the literature to date.