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.).

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.

Pembrolizumab or placebo with chemoradiotherapy followed by pembrolizumab or placebo for newly diagnosed, high-risk, locally advanced cervical cancer (ENGOT-cx11/GOG-3047/KEYNOTE-A18): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab has shown efficacy in persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer. The effect of chemoradiotherapy might be enhanced by immunotherapy. In this phase 3 trial, we assessed the efficacy and safety of adding pembrolizumab to chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 ENGOT-cx11/GOG-3047/KEYNOTE-A18 clinical trial, adults (age ≥18 years) at 176 medical centres in 30 countries with newly diagnosed, high-risk, locally advanced cervical cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) using an interactive voice-response system with integrated web response to receive 5 cycles of pembrolizumab (200 mg) or placebo every 3 weeks plus chemoradiotherapy, followed by 15 cycles of pembrolizumab (400 mg) or placebo every 6 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by planned external beam radiotherapy type (intensity-modulated radiotherapy or volumetric-modulated arc therapy vs non-intensity-modulated radiotherapy or non-volumetric-modulated arc therapy), cervical cancer stage at screening (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2014 stage IB2-IIB node positive vs stage III-IVA), and planned total radiotherapy (external beam radiotherapy plus brachytherapy) dose (<70 Gy vs ≥70 Gy equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions). Primary endpoints were progression-free survival per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1-by investigator or by histopathologic confirmation of suspected disease progression-and overall survival. Primary analysis was conducted in the intention-to-treat population, which included all randomly allocated participants. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population, which included all randomly allocated patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04221945, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between June 9, 2020, and Dec 15, 2022, 1060 participants were randomly assigned to treatment, with 529 assigned to the pembrolizumab-chemoradiotherapy group and 531 to the placebo-chemoradiotherapy group. At data cutoff (Jan 9, 2023), median follow-up was 17·9 months (IQR 11·3-22·3) in both treatment groups. Median progression-free survival was not reached in either group; rates at 24 months were 68% in the pembrolizumab-chemoradiotherapy group versus 57% in the placebo-chemoradiotherapy group. The hazard ratio (HR) for disease progression or death was 0·70 (95% CI 0·55-0·89, p=0·0020), meeting the protocol-specified primary objective. Overall survival at 24 months was 87% in the pembrolizumab-chemoradiotherapy group and 81% in the placebo-chemoradiotherapy group (information fraction 42·9%). The HR for death was 0·73 (0·49-1·07); these data have not crossed the boundary of statistical significance. Grade 3 or higher adverse event rates were 75% in the pembrolizumab-chemoradiotherapy group and 69% in the placebo-chemoradiotherapy group. INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab plus chemoradiotherapy significantly improved progression-free survival in patients with newly diagnosed, high-risk, locally advanced cervical cancer. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co (MSD).

Top advances of the year: Cervical cancer.

The year 2023 was an extraordinary year for the further development and expansion of novel treatments for all patients with cervical cancer, ranging from early stage to later stage and metastatic or recurrent disease. Individuals with early-stage disease will benefit from less invasive surgery with subsequent improvement in quality of life. The effectiveness of immunotherapy has been demonstrated in upfront, locally advanced cervical cancer and confirmed in advanced metastatic disease. Induction chemotherapy will play a role in some patients with locally advanced disease, particularly those in low resource areas of the world. Novel therapeutics including antibody-drug conjugates have shown efficacy even in pretreated patients. As we continue to explore innovative therapeutics in this space, however, we must also continue to improve the diversity of clinical trial accrual to allow for generalizable results. At the same time, we must focus on eradicating this disease with appropriate screening and vaccination.

How far is too far? Cancer prevention and clinical trial enrollment in geographically underserved patient populations.

Despite dedicated efforts to improve equitable access to cancer care in the United States, disparities in cancer outcomes persist, and geographically underserved patients remain at an increased risk of cancer with lower rates of survival. The critical evaluation of cancer prevention inequities and clinical trial access presents the opportunity to outline novel strategies to incrementally improve bookended access to gynecologic cancer care for geographically underserved patients. Cancer prevention strategies that can be addressed in the rural patient population mirror priorities in the Healthy People 2030 objectives and include increased identification of high risk individuals who may benefit from increased cancer screening and risk reduction, increasing the proportion of people who discuss interventions to prevent cancer, such as HPV vaccination, with their provider, and increasing the proportion of adults who complete evidence based cancer screening. Barriers to accrual to clinical trials for rural patients overlap significantly with the same barriers to obtaining health care in general. These barriers include: lack of facilities and specialized providers; lack of robust health infrastructure; inability to travel; and financial barriers. In this review, we will discuss current knowledge and opportunities to improve cancer prevention initiatives and clinical trial enrollment in geographically underserved populations with a focus on rurality.

Phase II trial of pembrolizumab and epacadostat in recurrent clear cell carcinoma of the ovary: An NRG oncology study GY016.

INTRODUCTION: Early reports of PD-1 inhibition in ovarian clear cell carcinomas (OCCC) demonstrate promising response. We evaluated the combination of pembrolizumab and IDO-1 inhibitor epacadostat in patients with recurrent OCCC. METHODS: This single arm, two-stage, phase 2 trial included those with measurable disease and 1-3 prior regimens. Patients received intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks and oral epacadostat 100 mg twice a day. Primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR), secondary endpoints were toxicity, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The study was powered to detect an absolute 25% increase in response (15% to 40%). RESULTS: Between September 28, 2018 and April 10, 2019, 14 patients enrolled at first stage. Rate of accrual was 2.3 patients per month. Median age was 65 years (44-89), 10 (71.4%) had ≥2 prior regimens. ORR was 21% (95% CI 5-51%) within 7 months of study entry with 3 partial responses, and 4 had stable disease (disease control rate 50%). Median PFS was 4.8 months (95% CI: 1.9-9.6), OS 18.9 months (95% CI: 1.9-NR). Most common grade ≥ 3 adverse events were electrolyte abnormalities and gastrointestinal pain, nausea, vomiting, bowel obstruction. In July 2019, the study reached the pre-specified criteria to re-open to second stage; however, the study closed prematurely in February 2021 due to insufficient drug supply. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab and epacadostat demonstrated an ORR of 21% in this small cohort of recurrent OCCC. The rapid rate of accrual highlights the enthusiasm and need for therapeutic studies in patients with OCCC.

Top advances of the year: Cervical cancer.

Cervical cancer continues to affect women in the United States and throughout the world despite an effective vaccine against human papillomavirus and cancer screening programs. For the women who develop cervical cancer, surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy have been the mainstays of treatment for years. Recently, novel therapeutics have been developed that offer new treatment opportunities for women living with advanced and/or recurrent disease. Immunotherapy has become an important tool against cervical cancer with the approval of pembrolizumab in the second line for advanced or recurrent disease. Checkpoint inhibitors have recently been approved in the front line for advanced and/or recurrent disease in combination with chemotherapy, and they are being studied in the front line in combination with chemoradiation. Antibody-drug conjugates-specifically tisotumab vedotin (TV)-also have recently received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, and TV is currently being studied in combination with checkpoint inhibitors and with carboplatin. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes have been studied in early-phase trials and have shown promise in small patient series. Despite these new therapies, there continue to be racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic inequities with respect to access to care, access to and participation in clinical trials, and survival in the United States as well as globally. New FDA guidance requires researchers to work to reduce disparities by including women of more diverse backgrounds in clinical trials. Finally, as progress continues to be made in the treatment of established disease, prevention through vaccination and screening remains paramount. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: The treatment of cervical cancer remains a significant problem in the United States and especially worldwide. Although early cases can be cured, cervical cancer that has spread remains difficult to treat. The past few years have seen significant advances in new therapies and combinations of therapies for women with advanced or recurrent disease. Although this is excellent news for these women, cervical cancer is a preventable disease through screening with Papanicolaou smears and vaccination with the human papillomavirus vaccine. By improving access to and acceptance of screening and vaccination, we can eradicate cervical cancer in the United States and the world.

Treatment patterns and real-world clinical outcomes in patients with advanced endometrial cancer who are microsatellite instability (MSI)-high or are mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: Microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) and deficient DNA mismatch repair (dMMR) status have emerged as actionable biomarkers for advanced endometrial cancer (aEC). The objective of this study was to assess clinical outcomes and treatment patterns among MSI-H/dMMR aEC patients who had disease progression following prior systemic therapy (FPST) in the US. METHODS: Endometrial Cancer Health Outcomes (ECHO) was a retrospective, medical chart review study of patients with MSI-H/dMMR aEC who had disease progression between 07/01/2016 and 12/31/2018 FPST and were not candidates for curative surgery. Data on patient demographics, clinical and treatment characteristics, and clinical outcomes were collected. Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed to estimate real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) and overall survival (OS), stratified by drug class. RESULTS: A total of 124 eligible patients who initiated second-line chemotherapy ± bevacizumab or immunotherapy were included. Mean age was 61.4 years at aEC diagnosis and 86.3% of patients were stage IIIB-IV. Median rwPFS and OS were 4.0 months (95% CI: 2.0-9.0) and 7.0 months (95% CI: 5.0-18.0), respectively, among 21 patients who received chemotherapy ± bevacizumab, and 29.0 months (95% CI: 18.0-NE) and not reached (95% CI: 30.0-NA), respectively, among 103 patients who received immunotherapy. Most patients (n = 92) received pembrolizumab; among these patients, rwPFS and OS were 29.0 months (95% CI: 18.0-NE) and 30 months (95% CI: 30.0-NA), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world evidence suggests that pembrolizumab monotherapy provides considerable clinical benefits and has become the standard of care for MSI-H/dMMR aEC patients FPST who are not candidates for curative surgery in real-world settings.

DKK1 is a predictive biomarker for response to DKN-01: Results of a phase 2 basket study in women with recurrent endometrial carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Dickkopf-1 (DKK1) is a Wnt signaling modulator promoting tumor growth, metastasis, angiogenesis, and immunosuppression by regulating innate immunity. DKK1 is over-expressed in gynecologic cancers and is associated with shortened survival. DKN-01 is a humanized monoclonal antibody with DKK1 neutralizing activity that may provide clinical benefit to patients whose tumors have overexpression of DKK1 or Wnt genetic alterations. METHODS: We conducted an open-label, Phase 2 basket study with 2-stage design in patients with endometrial carcinoma (EC) and platinum-resistant/refractory epithelial ovarian cancer. DKN-01 was administered either as monotherapy or in combination with weekly paclitaxel at investigator's discretion. All patients underwent NGS testing prior to enrollment; tumor tissue was also tested for DKK1 expression by RNAscope pre-treatment and after cycle 1 if available. At least 50% of patients were required to have a Wnt signaling alteration either directly or tangentially. This publication reports results from the EC population overall and by DKK1-expression. RESULTS: DKN-01 monotherapy and in combination with paclitaxel was more effective in patients with high DKK1-expressing tumors compared to low-expressing tumors. DKN-01 monotherapy demonstrated an objective response rate [ORR] of 25.0% vs. 0%; disease control rate [DCR] of 62.5% vs. 6.7%; median progression-free survival [PFS] was 4.3 vs. 1.8 months, and overall survival [OS] was 11.0 vs. 8.2 months in DKK1-high vs DKK1-low patients. Similarly, DKN-01 in combination with paclitaxel demonstrated greater clinical activity in patients with DKK1-high tumors compared to DKK1-low tumors: DCR was 55% vs. 44%; median PFS was 5.4 vs. 1.8 months; and OS was 19.1 vs. 10.1 months. Wnt activating mutations correlated with higher DKK1 expression. DKN-01 was well tolerated as a monotherapy and in combination with paclitaxel. CONCLUSIONS: Collectively, data demonstrates promising clinical activity of a well-tolerated drug, DKN-01, in EC patients with high tumoral DKK1 expression which frequently corresponded to the presence of a Wnt activating mutation. Future development will focus on using DKN-01 in DKK1-high EC patients in combination with immunotherapy.

Niraparib and dostarlimab for the treatment of recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer: results of a Phase II study (MOONSTONE/GOG-3032).

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the efficacy, safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of the treatment regimen of dostarlimab, a programmed death-1 inhibitor, combined with niraparib, a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, in patients with BRCA wild type (BRCAwt) recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC) who had previously received bevacizumab treatment. METHODS: This Phase II, open-label, single-arm, multicenter study, conducted in the USA, enrolled patients with recurrent PROC to receive niraparib and dostarlimab until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (up to 3 years). A preplanned interim futility analysis was performed after the first 41 patients had undergone ≥1 radiographic evaluation (approximately 9 weeks from the first treatment). RESULTS: The prespecified interim futility criterion was met and the study was therefore terminated. For the 41 patients assessed, the objective response rate (ORR) was 7.3% (95% confidence interval: 1.5-19.9); no patients achieved a complete response, 3 patients (7.3%) achieved a partial response (duration of response; 3.0, 3.8, and 9.2 months, respectively), and 9 patients (22.0%) had stable disease. In total, 39 patients (95.1%) experienced a treatment-related adverse event, but no new safety issues were observed. HRQoL, assessed using FOSI, or Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Ovarian Symptom Index scores, worsened over time compared with baseline scores. CONCLUSIONS: The study was terminated due to the observed ORR at the interim futility analysis. This highlights a need for effective therapies in treating patients with recurrent BRCAwt PROC.

A plain language summary of results from the GARNET study of dostarlimab in patients with endometrial cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: Dostarlimab, also known by the brand name JEMPERLI, is a medicine that can be used to treat certain types of endometrial cancer. GARNET is an ongoing phase 1 clinical study that is testing the safety and side effects of dostarlimab and the best way to administer it to patients. The results presented in this summary are from a time point in the middle of the study. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: The results from the GARNET study published in 2022 showed how well dostarlimab worked for people participating in the study. Dostarlimab was found to reduce the size of tumors in patients with certain types of endometrial cancer. The patients treated with dostarlimab had side effects that could be managed and few severe side effects. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: The results of the GARNET study led to dostarlimab being approved to treat patients with certain types of endometrial cancer. For patients with advanced-stage endometrial cancer, or endometrial cancer that has come back after chemotherapy (recurrent), there are few treatment options. The results suggest that dostarlimab may provide long-term benefits for these patients.

Overcoming disparities to improve cancer care: The story of cervical cancer.

Effective screening and vaccination programs can potentially eliminate cervical cancer in the future; however, to accomplish this goal, we have to be able to offer services to all girls and women. In particular, women who live in rural areas and women who have low socioeconomic status are at highest risk. Efforts are required to improve access to care at all levels for these women at risk.

Society of Gynecologic Oncology recommendations for fellowship education during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: Innovating programs to optimize trainee success.

In approximately ten months' time, the novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has infected over 34 million people and caused over one million deaths worldwide. The impact of this virus on our health, relationships, and careers is difficult to overstate. As the economic realities for academic medical centers come into focus, we must recommit to our core missions of patient care, education, and research. Fellowship education programs in gynecologic oncology have quickly adapted to the "new normal" of social distancing using video conferencing platforms to continue clinical and didactic teaching. United in a time of crisis, we have embraced systemic change by developing and delivering collaborative educational content, overcoming the limitations imposed by institutional silos. Additional innovations are needed in order to overcome the losses in program surgical volume and research opportunities. With the end of the viral pandemic nowhere in sight, program directors can rethink how education is best delivered and potentially overhaul aspects of fellowship curriculum and content. Similarly, restrictions on travel and the need for social distancing has transformed the 2020 fellowship interview season from an in-person to a virtual experience. During this time of unprecedented and rapid change, program directors should be particularly mindful of the needs and health of their trainees and consider tailoring their educational experiences accordingly.

Post hoc analyses of GOG 9923: Does BRCA status affect toxicities?: An NRG oncology study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how women with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), dichotomized by BRCA status, tolerate intravenous (IV) or intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy given with veliparib and bevacizumab (bev) on a GOG phase I study (GOG 9923, NCT00989651). METHODS: This is an unplanned, post hoc analysis of an IRB approved, multi-institutional, prospective study (GOG 9923). Clinical characteristics and toxicity data based on BRCA status were evaluated and descriptive statistics were used to summarize baseline patient characteristics and toxicities. The Kaplan Meier method was used to generate survival estimates. RESULTS: Four hundred twenty-four patients were evaluable. Patients were treated with IV carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bev every 21 days (regimen 1), weekly IV paclitaxel with carboplatin and bev (regimen 2) or IV paclitaxel and bev with IP cisplatin (regimen 3). Bev was continued as maintenance in all arms. Within each of these regimens, veliparib was given either twice daily for the entirety of each cycle (continuous) or on days -2 to 5 (intermittent). Ten percent of patients treated on regimen 1, 12% on regimen 2, and 19.8% on regimen 3 had BRCA-associated tumors. Patients with BRCA-associated tumors, when compared to wild type, experienced similar rates of anemia, febrile neutropenia (, abdominal pain, colonic perforation, nausea, vomiting, and peripheral sensory neuropathy. Median progression free survival (PFS) was not significantly different between BRCA-associated and wild type cancers (HR 0.96, CI 0.65-1.42), though this study's primary aim was not to evaluate outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Germline BRCA mutations positively affect chemosensitivity in EOC, but whether differences in toxicities among BRCA-associated and BRCA wild type tumors existed was previously not reported. In this population with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer no differences in reported toxicity between the two groups was observed.

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.

Results of an early safety analysis of a study of the combination of pembrolizumab and pelvic chemoradiation in locally advanced cervical cancer.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors are being considered for locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) together with standard-of-care pelvic chemoradiation (CRT). However, the safety of the combination and its optimal schedule are unknown. Defining the safety of the combination is a primary objective of a study examining concurrent and sequential schedules. This article presents a safety analysis that was fully accrued and met reporting requirements. METHODS: Pembrolizumab was given after CRT (arm 1) or during CRT (arm 2) according to a randomized phase 2 design. Patients who were 18 years old or older and had LACC (stages IB-IVA according to the 2009 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics system) were randomized 1:1 to the treatment regimens. The CRT was identical in the 2 arms. Pembrolizumab was administered every 3 weeks for 3 doses; no maintenance was allowed. All patients receiving any treatment were evaluated for safety. Safety assessments included the incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs) and the occurrence of protocol-defined dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) through 30 days after the last pembrolizumab infusion. RESULTS: As of August 2019, 52 of the 88 planned patients had completed treatment and were evaluable for toxicity. Treatment-related grade 2 or higher toxicity was experienced by 88%; 11 had at least 1 grade 4 AE, and another 23 had at least 1 grade 3 AE. Grade 1 or higher diarrhea was reported in 34 patients (65%; 50% of these were grade 1), and there was no difference between arms (63% in arm 1 vs 68% in arm 2). Two patients experienced 3 DLTs. Most patients completed cisplatin (100% in arm 1 vs 82% in arm 2); 83% in both arms completed all pembrolizumab. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary results support the safety and feasibility of adding pembrolizumab to pelvic CRT concurrently or sequentially. LAY SUMMARY: Pembrolizumab is a humanized antibody against programmed cell death protein 1 that is used in cancer immunotherapy. Preliminary data suggest that pembrolizumab can be safely combined with chemotherapy and pelvic radiation in the treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer. Future studies of the addition of immunotherapy to traditional chemoradiation are planned to determine the best way to deliver the treatment and whether any improvement is seen with the addition of immunotherapy to traditional therapy.

Looking past PD-L1: expression of immune checkpoint TIM-3 and its ligand galectin-9 in cervical and vulvar squamous neoplasia.

Immunotherapies targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway have shown some success in cervical and vulvar squamous cell carcinomas, but little is known about the potential vulnerability of these tumors to other checkpoint inhibitors. TIM-3 is a checkpoint molecule that exerts immunosuppressive function via its interaction with Gal-9. TIM-3 and Gal-9 have been identified on a variety of malignancies but have not been studied in cervical and vulvar cancers, nor has their relationship to PD-L1 been established. Sixty-three cervical and vulvar invasive (n = 34) and intraepithelial lesions (n = 29) were assessed for TIM-3, Gal-9, and PD-L1 in tumor/lesional cells and associated immune cells. Tumoral TIM-3 expression was identified in 85% of squamous cell carcinomas but only 21% of intraepithelial lesions (p < 0.0001). When immune cells were also accounted for, 97% of invasive and 41% of intraepithelial lesions had a TIM-3 combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 1 (p < 0.0001). Tumoral membranous expression of Gal-9 was seen in 82% of squamous cell carcinomas and 31% of intraepithelial lesions (p = 0.0001); nearly all cases had Gal-9-positive immune cells. Tumoral PD-L1 was seen in 71% of squamous cell carcinomas and 10% of intraepithelial lesions (p < 0.0001), while the PD-L1 CPS was ≥1 in 82 and 21%, respectively (p < 0.0001). There were no significant differences in TIM-3, GAL-9, or PD-L1 expression in cervical vs. vulvar neoplasms, nor was HPV status significantly associated with any of the three markers. Dual TIM-3/Gal-9 expression was present in the majority (86%) of PD-L1-positive cases including 100% of PD-L1-positive squamous cell carcinomas, suggesting a possible role for TIM-3 checkpoint inhibition in concert with anti-PD-1/PD-L1.

Are ethnic and racial minority women less likely to participate in clinical trials?

OBJECTIVES: Given the disparity that exists in enrollment of minorities to oncology clinical trials, the objective of our study was to assess whether race is associated with willingness to participate in gynecologic oncology clinical trials in a rural Southern academic medicine setting. Our secondary aim was to determine whether willingness to participate is impacted by an educational intervention. METHODS: A single institution prospective survey study was performed at an academic medical center. Women presenting to the gynecologic oncology clinic with a current or prior diagnosis of gynecologic malignancy were approached to participate. The validated Attitudes to Randomized Trials Questionnaire (ARTQ) assessed willingness to participate in clinical trials. Relevant demographic and clinical data were abstracted. Characteristics were compared between those willing and unwilling to participate in clinical trials with a chi-square test for categorical variables and Wilcoxon rank sum tests for continuous data. RESULTS: We enrolled 156 participants (50% White, 50% non-White) from May 2017 to January 2018. The minority group included 35% non-Hispanic Black, 9% Hispanic, 4% Asian, and 2% other. Median age was 63 years with endometrial cancer being the most common diagnosis (48%). On initial screen, only 35% were willing to participate in a clinical trial. Willingness to participate did not differ between race, age, marital status, education level, cancer type, stage, or mode of treatment. Rates improved to 82% after being provided additional educational information. Following education, White women and those with more education were significantly more willing to participate in clinical trials than their minority and less educated counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Willingness to participate improved among all sub-categories following an educational intervention. The increase in willingness was less robust among racial and ethnic minorities, suggesting that different tools are needed for recruitment of minorities to gynecologic oncology clinical trials.

Validation of the surprise question in gynecologic oncology: A one-question screen to promote palliative care integration and advance care planning.

OBJECTIVE: The "surprise question" ("Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next year?") has been shown to be predictive of 12-month mortality in multiple populations, but has not been studied in gynecologic oncology (GO) patients. We sought to evaluate the prognostic performance of the surprise question in GO patients among physician and non-physician providers. METHODS: GO providers at two tertiary care centers were asked the surprise question about a cohort of their patients undergoing chemotherapy or radiation. Demographic and clinical information was chart abstracted. Mortality data were collected at one year; relative risk of death at one year based on response to the surprise question was then calculated. RESULTS: 32 providers (12 MDs, 7 APPs, 13 RNs) provided 942 surprise question assessments for 358 patients. Fifty-seven % had ovarian cancer and 54% had recurrent disease. Eighty-three (24%) patients died within a year. Patients whose physician answered "No" to the surprise question had a 43% one-year mortality (compared to 10% for "Yes"). Overall RR of 12-month mortality for "No" was 3.76 (95% CI 2.75-5.48); this association remained significant in all provider types. Among statistically significant predictors of 12-month mortality (including recurrent disease and >2 prior lines of chemotherapy), the surprise question had the highest RR. CONCLUSIONS: The surprise question is a simple, one question tool that effectively identifies GO patients increased risk of 12-month mortality. The surprise question could be used to identify patients for early referral to palliative care and initiation advance care planning.

A phase I study of intravenous or intraperitoneal platinum based chemotherapy in combination with veliparib and bevacizumab in newly diagnosed ovarian, primary peritoneal and fallopian tube cancer.

BACKGROUND: Improvements in disease free survival for epithelial ovarian, peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer (EOC) will only come with improved primary therapy. Incorporation of poly-ADP-ribose inhibitors (PARPi) in the frontline setting may represent one strategy. This study sought to determine the maximum tolerated and feasible doses of the PARPi veliparib in combination with chemotherapy for EOC. METHODS: A phase I, 3 + 3 dose escalation evaluated dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) in cycles 1-2. Once <2/6 patients experienced a DLT, that dose level expanded to evaluate feasibility over 4 cycles. This study opened 10/2009 and closed 8/2016. Eligible patients had untreated, stage II-IV EOC. Veliparib was added either continuous (day 1-21) or intermittent (day - 2 to 5) during 6 cycles of chemotherapy. Three chemotherapy backbones were evaluated (2 intravenous (q3week and weekly) and 1 intraperitoneal (IP)) all inclusive of bevacizumab with and as maintenance to 22 cycles. FINDINGS: Dose evaluations for 424 treated patients were available. Regimen 1 (q3 week), continuous (Reg1c) the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was 250 mg veliparib BID and feasible dose was 150 mg BID. For regimen 1, intermittent (Reg1i) the MTD and feasible dose were 400 and 250 mg BID. For Reg2c (weekly paclitaxel) the MTD and feasible dose were 150 mg BID. For Reg2i the MTD and feasible dose were 250 and 150 mg BID. For Reg3c (IP) the MTD and feasible dose were 150 mg BID and for Reg3i (IP), the MTD and feasible dose were 400 mg and 300 mg BID. INTERPRETATION: The feasible dose for Reg1c, 2c, 2i and 3c was 150 mg po BID. For Reg1i and 3i the dose was pushed to 250 and 300 mg po BID respectively. There is no apparent difference in efficacy between continuous and intermittent dosing indicating that the higher doses achieved in intermittent dosing may not be needed. (NCT00989651). FUNDING: National Cancer Institute.