Search

Purpose: We assessed the efficacy of cediranib, olaparib, and cediranib/olaparib compared with standard-of-care chemotherapy (SOC) in platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory epithelial ovarian cancer (PROC)., Patients and Methods: NRG-GY005 is an open-label, four-arm, phase II/III superiority trial enrolling patients with high-grade serous/endometrioid PROC and one to three previous therapies. Key exclusion criteria included previous receipt of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor or receipt of antiangiogenic therapy in the recurrent setting. Treatment arms (SOC [once weekly paclitaxel, topotecan, or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin], cediranib, olaparib, or cediranib/olaparib) were equally randomized. A preplanned interim futility analysis on the basis of progression-free survival (PFS) selected treatment arms to advance to phase III. PFS and overall survival (OS) were phase III coprimary end points, with hierarchical testing of PFS followed by OS to preserve type 1 error control, designed to have 90% power for a 0.625 PFS hazard ratio (HR). OS was tested after PFS in the multiple hierarchical testing procedure. Secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR) and patient-reported outcomes., Results: Five hundred sixty-two eligible patients were enrolled for phase II/III. Three arms met PFS criteria to carry forward to phase III (SOC, cediranib/olaparib, and cediranib). Median PFS was 3.4, 5.2, and 4 months with SOC, cediranib/olaparib, and cediranib, respectively, with a median follow-up duration of 42.2 months. PFS HR estimates for cediranib/olaparib and cediranib ( v SOC) were 0.796 (98.3% CI, 0.597 to 1.060) and 0.972 (98.3% CI, 0.726 to 1.300), respectively. Median OS was 13.6, 12.8, and 10.5 months, and of 443 patients with measurable disease, ORR was 8.6%, 24.7%, and 13.1% for SOC, cediranib/olaparib, and cediranib, respectively. No new safety signals were identified. In patients receiving cediranib/olaparib, no statistically significant difference was observed on the NFOSI-DRS-P subscale compared with SOC (98.3% CI, -1.3 to 1.5, P = .8725)., Conclusion: The cediranib-containing arms demonstrated clinical activity on the basis of PFS but were not superior compared with SOC.

Purpose: To compare taxane maintenance chemotherapy, paclitaxel (P) and paclitaxel poliglumex (PP), with surveillance (S) in women with ovarian, peritoneal, or fallopian tube (O/PC/FT) cancer who attained clinical complete response after first-line platinum-taxane therapy., Methods: Women diagnosed with O/PC/FT cancer who attained clinical complete response after first-line platinum-taxane-based chemotherapy were randomly allocated 1:1:1 to S or maintenance, P 135 mg/m 2 once every 28 days for 12 cycles, or PP at the same dose and schedule. Overall survival (OS) was the primary efficacy end point., Results: Between March 2005 and January 2014, 1,157 individuals were enrolled. Grade 2 or worse GI adverse events were more frequent among those treated with taxane (PP: 20%, P: 27% v S: 11%). Grade 2 or worse neurologic adverse events occurred more often with taxane treatment (PP: 46%, P: 36% v S: 14%). At the fourth scheduled interim analysis, both taxane regimens passed the OS futility boundary and the Data Monitoring Committee approved an early release of results. With a median follow-up of 8.1 years, 653 deaths were reported; none were attributed to the study treatment. Median survival durations were 58.3, 56.8, and 60.0 months for S, P, and PP, respectively. Relative to S, the hazard of death for P was 1.091 (95% CI, 0.911 to 1.31; P = .343) and for PP, it was 1.033 (95% CI, 0.862 to 1.24; P = .725). The median times to first progression or death (PFS) were 13.4, 18.9, and 16.3 months for S, P, and PP, respectively. Hazard ratio = 0.801; 95% CI, 0.684 to 0.938; P = .006 for P and hazard ratio = 0.854; 95% CI, 0.729 to 1.00; P = .055 for PP., Conclusion: Maintenance therapy with P and PP did not improve OS among patients with newly diagnosed O/tubal/peritoneal cancer, but may modestly increase PFS. GI and neurologic toxicities were more frequent in the taxane treatment arms.

Purpose: Platinum-based chemotherapy is the standard of care for platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer, but complications from repeated platinum therapy occur. We assessed the activity of two all-oral nonplatinum alternatives, olaparib or olaparib/cediranib, versus platinum-based chemotherapy., Patients and Methods: NRG-GY004 is an open-label, randomized, phase III trial conducted in the United States and Canada. Eligible patients had high-grade serous or endometrioid platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to platinum-based chemotherapy, olaparib, or olaparib/cediranib. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary end points included activity within germline BRCA -mutated or wild-type subgroups and patient-reported outcomes (PROs)., Results: Between February 04, 2016, and November 13, 2017, 565 eligible patients were randomly assigned. Median PFS was 10.3 (95% CI, 8.7 to 11.2), 8.2 (95% CI, 6.6 to 8.7), and 10.4 (95% CI, 8.5 to 12.5) months with chemotherapy, olaparib, and olaparib/cediranib, respectively. Olaparib/cediranib did not improve PFS versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.86; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.10; P = .077). In women with germline BRCA mutation, the PFS HR versus chemotherapy was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.32 to 0.94) for olaparib/cediranib and 0.63 (95% CI, 0.37 to 1.07) for olaparib. In women without a germline BRCA mutation, the PFS HR versus chemotherapy was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.73 to 1.30) for olaparib/cediranib and 1.41 (95% CI, 1.07 to 1.86) for olaparib. Hematologic adverse events occurred more commonly with chemotherapy; however, nonhematologic adverse events were higher with olaparib/cediranib. In 489 patients evaluable for PROs, patients receiving olaparib/cediranib scored on average 1.1 points worse on the NFOSI-DRS-P subscale (97.5% CI, -2.0 to -0.2, P = .0063) versus chemotherapy; no difference between olaparib and chemotherapy was observed., Conclusion: Combination olaparib/cediranib did not improve PFS compared with chemotherapy and resulted in reduced PROs. Notably, in patients with a germline BRCA mutation, both olaparib and olaparib/cediranib had significant clinical activity., Competing Interests: Joyce F. LiuConsulting or Advisory Role: Tesaro, Mersana, Clovis Oncology, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Regeneron, AstraZenecaResearch Funding: Genentech/Roche (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Boston Biomedical (Inst), Acetylon Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Agenus (Inst), CytomX Therapeutics (Inst), Regeneron (Inst), Tesaro (Inst), Clovis Oncology (Inst), Surface Oncology (Inst), 2X Oncology (Inst), Vigeo Therapeutics (Inst), Aravive (Inst), Arch Oncology (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, MerckUncompensated Relationships: Merck Mark F. BradyConsulting or Advisory Role: Cel-Sci Ursula A. MatulonisHonoraria: Advaxis, Alkermes, SymphogenConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck, Novartis, NextCure, AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines, Trillium Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, AgenusResearch Funding: Merck, Novartis, Tesaro, Syndax, Immunogen, Mersana, Leap Therapeutics, Fujifilm, SQZ BiotechTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca Austin MillerConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca/Merck, Regeneron (Inst)Uncompensated Relationships: Genetect Elizabeth M. SwisherLeadership: IDEAYA Biosciences David CellaStock and Other Ownership Interests: FACIT.orgConsulting or Advisory Role: AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Astellas Pharma, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Asahi Kasei, Ipsen, Mei PharmaResearch Funding: Novartis (Inst), Ipsen (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), PledPharma (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), AbbVie (Inst), Regeneron (Inst), Clovis Oncology (Inst) Noelle G. ClovenConsulting or Advisory Role: Toray Industries Carolyn Y. MullerResearch Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst), Genmab (Inst), VBL Therapeutics (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst), TapImmune Inc (Inst), Linnaeus Therapeutics (Inst), agenus (Inst), Incyte (Inst), Merck (Inst)Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Have a pending patent on the cancer use for R-ketorolac - not yet its own new drug (Inst)Other Relationship: NCI, NCI, Department of Defense Richard G. MooreHonoraria: Fujirebio DiagnosticsConsulting or Advisory Role: Abcodia, Fujirebio DiagnosticsResearch Funding: Angle Steven E. WaggonerConsulting or Advisory Role: Regeneron Melissa A. GellerResearch Funding: Tesaro, Genentech, FATE Therapeutics, Morphotek, Bayer Keiichi FujiwaraHonoraria: Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Zeria Pharmaceutical, Nippon Kayaku, Chugai Pharma, Eisai, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Daiichi Sankyo, Ono Pharmaceutical, TakedaConsulting or Advisory Role: MSD, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Eisai, Takeda, Genmab, NanoCarrierResearch Funding: Eisai (Inst), Kaken Pharmaceutical (Inst), Chugai Pharma (Inst), Immunogen (Inst), Oncotherapeutics (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Zeria Pharmaceutical (Inst), Ono Pharmaceutical (Inst), MSD (Inst), Regeneron (Inst), Merck KGaA (Inst), Ono Pharmaceutical (Inst), Genmab (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: MSD Angeles Alvarez SecordHonoraria: Myriad GeneticsResearch Funding: Tesaro (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Genentech (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), AbbVie (Inst), Merck (Inst), PharmaMar (Inst), Clovis Oncology (Inst), Eisai (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), Immutep (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), VBL Therapeutics (Inst), OncoQuest Pharmaceuticals (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: GlaxoSmithKlineUncompensated Relationships: Roche/Genentech, VBL Therapeutics, GOG Foundation, OncoQuest Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron, Aravive Katherine M. MoxleyConsulting or Advisory Role: Tessa Therapeutics (Inst), Clovis Oncology (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline Michael A. BookmanEmployment: The Permanente Medical GroupConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Immunogen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Genentech/Roche, Seattle Genetics, AraviveNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Purpose: We report the final, protocol-specified analysis of overall survival (OS) in GOG-0218, a phase III, randomized trial of bevacizumab in women with newly diagnosed ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma., Methods: A total of 1,873 women with incompletely resected stage III to IV disease were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to six 21-day cycles of intravenous carboplatin (area under the concentration v time curve 6) and paclitaxel (175 mg/m 2 ) versus chemotherapy plus concurrent bevacizumab (15 mg/kg, cycles 2 to 6) versus chemotherapy plus concurrent and maintenance bevacizumab (cycles 2 to 22). Inclusion criteria included a Gynecologic Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2 and no history of clinically significant vascular events or evidence of intestinal obstruction. OS was analyzed in the intention-to-treat population. A total of 1,195 serum and/or tumor specimens were sequenced for BRCA1/2 and damaging mutations in homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes. Intratumoral microvessel density was studied using CD31 immunohistochemistry., Results: Median follow-up was 102.9 months. Relative to control (n = 625), for patients receiving bevacizumab-concurrent (n = 625), the hazard ratio (HR) of death was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.94 to 1.20); for bevacizumab-concurrent plus maintenance (n = 623), the HR was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.85 to 1.09). Disease-specific survival was not improved in any arm. No survival advantage was observed after censoring patients who received bevacizumab at crossover or as second line. Median OS for stage IV bevacizumab-concurrent plus maintenance was 42.8 v 32.6 months for stage IV control (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.95). Relative to wild type, the HR for death for BRCA1/2 mutated carcinomas was 0.62 (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.73), and for non- BRCA1/2 HRR, the HR was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.51 to 0.85). BRCA1/2 , HRR, and CD31 were not predictive of bevacizumab activity., Conclusion: No survival differences were observed for patients who received bevacizumab compared with chemotherapy alone. Testing for BRCA1/2 mutations and homologous recombination deficiency is essential.

Purpose: To evaluate the impact of two different intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy regimens on progression-free survival (PFS) among women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian carcinoma., Methods: Eligible patients were randomly assigned to six cycles of IV paclitaxel 80 mg/m 2 once per week with intravenous (IV) carboplatin area under the curve 6 (IV carboplatin) versus IV paclitaxel 80 mg/m 2 once per week with IP carboplatin area under the curve 6 (IP carboplatin) versus once every 3 weeks IV paclitaxel 135 mg/m 2 over 3 hours day 1, IP cisplatin 75 mg/m 2 day 2, and IP paclitaxel 60 mg/m 2 day 8 (IP cisplatin). All participants received bevacizumab 15 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks in cycles 2 to 22., Results: A total of 1,560 participants were enrolled and had 84.8 months of follow-up. The median PFS duration was 24.9 months in the IV carboplatin arm, 27.4 months in the IP carboplatin arm, and 26.2 months in the IP cisplatin arm. For the subgroup of 1,380 patients with stage II/III and residual disease of 1 cm or less, median PFS was 26.9 (IV-carboplatin), 28.7 (IP-carboplatin), and 27.8 months (IP cisplatin), respectively. Median PFS for patients with stage II/III and no residual disease was 35.9, 38.8, and 35.5 months, respectively. Median overall survival for all enrolled was 75.5, 78.9, and 72.9 months, respectively, and median overall survival for stage II/III with no gross residual disease was 98.8 months, 104.8 months, and not reached. Mean patient-reported Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy neurotoxicity scores (Gynecologic Oncology Group) were similar for all arms, but the mean Trial Outcome Index of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovary scores during chemotherapy were statistically worse in the IP cisplatin arm., Conclusion: Compared with the IV carboplatin reference arm, the duration of PFS was not significantly increased with either IP regimen when combined with bevacizumab and was better tolerated than IP cisplatin.

Purpose: To evaluate risk factors for GI adverse events (AEs) within a phase III trial of bevacizumab in first-line ovarian cancer therapy., Patients and Methods: Women with previously untreated advanced disease after surgery were randomly allocated to six cycles of platinum-taxane chemotherapy plus placebo cycles (C)2 to C22 (R1); chemotherapy plus bevacizumab C2 to C6 plus placebo C7 to C22 (R2); or chemotherapy plus bevacizumab C2 to C22 (R3). Patients were evaluated for history or on-study development of potential risk factors for GI AEs defined as grade ≥ 2 perforation, fistula, necrosis, or hemorrhage., Results: Of 1,873 patients enrolled, 1,759 (94%) were evaluable, and 2.8% (50 of 1,759) experienced a GI AE: 10 of 587 (1.7%, R1), 20 of 587 (3.4%, R2), and 20 of 585 (3.4%, R3). Univariable analyses indicated that previous treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD; P = .005) and small bowel resection (SBR; P = .032) or large bowel resection (LBR; P = .012) at primary surgery were significantly associated with a GI AE. The multivariable estimated relative odds of a GI AE were 13.4 (95% CI, 3.44 to 52.3; P < .001) for IBD; 2.05 (95% CI, 1.09 to 3.88; P = .026) for LBR; 1.95 (95% CI, 0.894 to 4.25; P = .093) for SBR; and 2.15 for bevacizumab exposure (aggregated 95% CI, 1.05 to 4.40; P = .036)., Conclusion: History of treatment for IBD, and bowel resection at primary surgery, increase the odds of GI AEs in patients receiving first-line platinum-taxane chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer. After accounting for these risk factors, concurrent bevacizumab doubles the odds of a GI AE, but is not appreciably increased by continuation beyond chemotherapy.

Purpose: Doxorubicin and cisplatin have activity in endometrial carcinoma and at initiation of this study ranked as the most active agents. This trial of stage III, IV, or recurrent disease evaluated whether combining these agents increases response rate (RR) and prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) over doxorubicin alone., Patients and Methods: Of 299 patients registered, 281 (94%) were eligible. Regimens were doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) intravenously or doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) plus cisplatin 50 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or a total of 500 mg/m(2) doxorubicin., Results: There were 12 (8%) complete (CR) and 26 (17%) partial responses (PR) among 150 patients receiving doxorubicin versus 25 (19%) CRs and 30 (23%) PRs among patients receiving the combination. The overall response rate was higher among patients receiving the combination (42%) compared with patients receiving doxorubicin (25%; P =.004). Median PFS was 5.7 and 3.8 months, respectively, for the combination and single agent. The PFS hazard ratio was 0.736 (95% CI, 0.577 to 0.939; P =.014). Median OS was 9.0 and 9.2 months, respectively, for the combination and single agent. Overall death rates were similar in the two groups (hazard ratio, 0.928; 95% CI, 0.727 to 1.185). Nausea, vomiting, and hematologic toxicities were common. The combination produced more grade 3 to 4 leukopenia (62% v 40%), thrombocytopenia (14% v 2%), anemia (22% v 4%), and nausea/vomiting (13% v 3%)., Conclusion: Adding cisplatin to doxorubicin in advanced endometrial carcinoma improves RR and PFS with a negligible impact on OS and produces increased toxicity. These results have served as a building block for subsequent phase III trials in patients with disseminated and high-risk limited endometrial carcinoma.

Purpose: To conduct a prospective study of intraperitoneal radioactive chromic phosphate (32P) versus cyclophosphamide-cisplatin (CP) in women with early ovarian cancer at high risk for recurrence (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage Ia or Ib grade 3 or Ic or stage II, no macroscopic residual disease) and to compare cumulative incidence of recurrence, overall survival, and relative toxicity., Materials and Methods: A total of 251 patients were randomly assigned to treatment with 32P or CP. Twenty-two (8.7%) were ineligible following centralized pathology review. Of the 229 patients included in the analysis, 110 received 32P, and 119 received CP., Results: The cumulative incidence of recurrence at 10 years was 35% (95% CI, 27% to 45%) for patients receiving 32P and 28% (95% CI, 21% to 38%) for those receiving CP. Patients receiving CP had a recurrence rate 29% lower than that of those receiving 32P (P =.15, two-tail test). The death rate for patients treated with CP was 17% lower than that for patients treated with 32P (difference not significant). Combining both arms, the 10-year cumulative incidence of recurrence for all stage I patients was 27% (95% CI, 20% to 34%) compared with 44% (95% CI, 32% to 56%) for stage II patients (P =.01). Both regimens were reasonably well tolerated, but problems with inadequate distribution (7%) and small-bowel perforation (3%) make the otherwise less toxic 32P less acceptable., Conclusion: Although there are no statistically significant differences in survival, the lower cumulative recurrence seen with CP and complications of 32P administration make platinum-based combinations the preferred adjuvant therapy for early ovarian cancer patients at high-risk for recurrence.

Purpose: To determine if increasing the dose of paclitaxel increases the probability of clinical response, progression-free survival, or overall survival in women who have persistent or recurrent ovarian cancer, and whether doubling the dose of prophylactic filgrastim accompanying the higher paclitaxel dose decreases the frequency of neutropenic fever., Patients and Methods: Consenting patients with persistent, recurrent, or progressing ovarian cancer, despite first-line platinum therapy (but no prior taxane), were randomly assigned to paclitaxel 135 mg/m2, 175 mg/m2, or 250 mg/m2 over 24 hours every 3 weeks. Patients receiving paclitaxel 250 mg/m2 were also randomly assigned to 5 or 10 microg/kg of filgrastim per day subcutaneously., Results: Accession to the paclitaxel 135-mg/m2 arm was closed early. Among the 271 patients on the other regimens with measurable disease, partial and complete response on paclitaxel 250 mg/m2 (36%) was significantly higher than on 175 mg/m2 (27%, P =.027). This difference was more evident among patients who never responded to prior platinum. However, progression-free and overall survival results were similar. The median durations of overall survival were 13.1 and 12.3 months for paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 and 250 mg/m2, respectively. Thrombocytopenia, neuropathy, and myalgia were greater with paclitaxel 250 mg/m2 (P <.05). The incidence of neutropenic fever after the first cycle of paclitaxel 250 mg/m2 was 19% and 18% on the 5-microg/kg and 10-microg/kg filgrastim dose, respectively (22% for paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 without filgrastim)., Conclusion: Paclitaxel exhibits a dose effect with regard to response rate, but there is more toxicity and no survival benefit to justify paclitaxel 250 mg/m2 plus filgrastim. Doubling the filgrastim dose from 5 to 10 microg/kg did not reduce the probability of neutropenic fever after high-dose paclitaxel.

Purpose: A phase II study was conducted to determine the efficacy of paclitaxel and valspodar (PSC 833) in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Valspodar, a nonimmunosuppressive cyclosporine D analogue that reverses P-glycoprotein-mediated multidrug resistance, in combination with paclitaxel might be active in paclitaxel-resistant and refractory ovarian cancer., Patients and Methods: Patients received valspodar 5 mg/kg orally qid x 12 doses. Paclitaxel (70 mg/m(2) intravenously for 3 hours) was administered on day 2, 2 hours after the fifth or sixth dose of valspodar. This treatment was repeated every 21 days. One blood sample was collected before the sixth dose of valspodar for the first three cycles to evaluate valspodar trough concentration. Tumor tissue was obtained from patients for immunohistochemical staining of P-glycoprotein., Results: Of 60 patients entered, 58 were assessable for response. There were five partial responses (8.6%; 90% confidence interval [CI], 3.8 to 20.0; median duration of response, 5.0 months [range, 1.9 to 10.5 months]). Median progression-free survival was 1.5 months (90% CI, 1.4 to 2.4). Grade 3 or 4 toxicities observed were neutropenia, anemia, nausea and vomiting, peripheral neuropathy, and cerebellar ataxia. The trough concentrations of valspodar were > or = 1,000 ng/mL in all but two of 40 patients in the first cycle. Immunohistochemical staining for P-glycoprotein was positive for one of two responding patients., Conclusion: Valspodar in combination with paclitaxel has limited activity in patients with paclitaxel-resistant ovarian carcinoma. An international randomized clinical trial of paclitaxel and carboplatin with or without valspodar as first-line therapy in advanced ovarian cancer is underway.

Purpose: In two large Gynecologic Oncology Group studies of patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma and no previous systemic therapy, progestins have demonstrated activity against advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma with response rates between 15% and 25%. Tamoxifen has been reported as variously active or inactive with or without previous systemic therapy. The purpose of this study was to determine whether tamoxifen exhibits enough activity in patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma, who have not received systemic therapy, to warrant a phase III trial., Patients and Methods: Sixty-eight eligible patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma received oral tamoxifen 20 mg bid until toxicity was unacceptable or disease progressed., Results: Three complete (4%) and four partial (6%) responses were observed for an overall response rate of 10% (90% confidence interval [CI], 5.7% to 17.9%). Patients with tumors that were more anaplastic tended to respond less frequently. The median progression-free survival for all 68 eligible patients was 1.9 months (90% CI, 1.7 to 3.2 months). The median survival was 8.8 months (90% CI, 7.0 to 10.1 months)., Conclusion: Tamoxifen demonstrated modest activity at best against endometrial carcinoma and does not warrant further investigation as a single agent for this disease. Ongoing trials will assess the sequential use of tamoxifen and progestational agents.

Purpose: To assess progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with suboptimally debulked epithelial ovarian cancer receiving cisplatin (100 mg/m(2)) or 24-hour infusion paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) or the combination of paclitaxel (135 mg/m(2)) followed by cisplatin (75 mg/m(2))., Patients and Methods: After stratification for disease measurability, patients were randomized to receive six cycles of one of the treatments every 3 weeks. If measurable, complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) was determined., Results: Six hundred fourteen of 648 patients who entered onto the trial were eligible. Monotherapies were discontinued more frequently (cisplatin because of toxicity or patient refusal [17%], and paclitaxel because of progression [20%]) compared with the combination therapy (7% and 6%, respectively). Neutropenia, fever, and alopecia were more severe with paclitaxel-containing regimens; whereas anemia, thrombocytopenia, neurotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, and gastrointestinal toxicity were more severe with cisplatin-containing regimens. The CR/PR rates on paclitaxel monotherapy were significantly lower compared with the cisplatin regimens (42% v 67%, respectively; P <.001). The relative hazard (RH) of first progression or death was significantly greater among those randomized to paclitaxel (RH = 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15 to 1.73; P <.001) when compared with cisplatin; however, RH did not differ significantly between the two cisplatin regimens (RH = 1.06; 95% CI, 0.895 to 1.30). Relative to cisplatin, the death rate on paclitaxel was 15% greater (RH = 1.15; 95% CI, 0. 929 to 1.42), and the death rate on the combination treatment was 1% less (RH = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.795 to 1.23). These differences among treatment groups were not statistically significant (P =.31)., Conclusion: Cisplatin alone or in combination yielded superior response rates and PFS relative to paclitaxel. However, OS was similar in all three arms, and the combination therapy had a better toxicity profile. Therefore, the combination of cisplatin and paclitaxel remains the preferred initial treatment option.

Purpose: Progestins have definite activity against advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma. Both parenteral and oral progestins yield similar serum levels and response rates, which range from 18% to 34%. The one major study that used oral medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) noted a response rate at the lower end of the range (18%) and much poorer progression-free and overall survival times (4 and 10.5 months, respectively) than previously reported. The present study sought to confirm this earlier study of oral MPA, to assess the importance of prognostic factors such as histologic grade and receptor levels, and to determine whether a higher dose of MPA would yield a higher response rate., Patients and Methods: Two hundred ninety-nine eligible women with advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma were randomized to receive oral MPA either 200 mg/d or 1, 000 mg/d until unacceptable toxicity intervened or their disease progressed., Results: Among 145 patients receiving the low-dose regimen, there were 25 complete (17%) and 11 partial (8%) responses for an overall response rate of 25%. The 154 patients receiving the high-dose regimen experienced 14 (9%) complete and 10 (6%) partial responses for an overall response rate of 15%. Median durations of progression-free survival were 3.2 months and 2.5 months for the low-dose and high-dose regimens, respectively. Median survival durations were 11.1 months and 7.0 months, respectively. The adjusted relative odds of responding to the high-dose regimen compared with the low-dose regimen was 0.61 (90% confidence interval, 0.36 to 1.04). Prognostic factors having a significant impact on the probability of response included initial performance status, age, histologic grade, and progesterone receptor concentration. Compliance with oral therapy was documented with serum levels 1 month after starting therapy, when possible. MPA levels were commensurate with the assigned dose and schedule., Conclusion: Oral MPA is active against endometrial carcinoma. Response to progestin therapy is more frequent among patients with a well-differentiated histology and positive progesterone receptor status. This study provides no evidence to support the use of MPA 1,000 mg/d orally instead of MPA 200 mg/d orally. In fact, the trends suggest the opposite. The use of oral MPA 200 mg/d is a reasonable initial approach to the treatment of advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma, particularly those lesions that are well-differentiated and/or progesterone receptor-positive (> 50 fmol/mg cytosol protein). Patients with poorly differentiated and/or progesterone receptor levels less than 50 fmol/mg cytosol protein had only an 8% to 9% response rate.

Purpose: To determine the response rate of intraperitoneal (i.p.) paclitaxel in patients with small-volume residual carcinomas of the ovary, fallopian tube, or peritoneum., Patients and Methods: Eligibility criteria included patients with one of the cancers noted above, with the largest residual disease 0.5 cm or less in maximum diameter at the end of second-look surgery, and prior treatment with systemic paclitaxel was permitted. The treatment plan was paclitaxel 60 mg/m2 i.p. weekly for 16 weeks, followed by surgical evaluation in patients without evidence of disease progression., Results: Of 80 patients entered onto the study, 76 were eligible, of whom 86% were considered to be potentially cisplatin-sensitive. Although five patients (7%) did not complete the first course of therapy because of catheter leakage or blockade, 53 patients (70%) received all 16 planned courses. Only 14 patients (18%) received fewer than 11 courses. Treatment was well tolerated, which included only moderate abdominal pain (grade 2, 12 patients; grade 3, one patient) and minimal neutropenia (grade 2, three patients; grade 3, one patient). Of 28 assessable patients with microscopic disease at the start of i.p. therapy, 17 patients (61%) achieved a surgically defined complete response (CR). Only one of 31 patients (3%) with any macroscopic disease achieved a CR. Of the eligible patients, 18 of 76 (24%) achieved a CR., Conclusion: Salvage i.p. paclitaxel is tolerable and active in patients with microscopic residual disease. The impact of this treatment strategy on survival remains to be assessed in a phase III trial.

Purpose: To produce definitions based on serial CA 125 levels to measure response of ovarian carcinoma in patients receiving first-line chemotherapy., Patients and Methods: Definitions were derived from analysis of 277 patients in North Thames Ovary Trial 3. Patient data were then incorporated into a computer program and tested against 254 patients in North Thames Ovary Trial 4 and 458 patients in Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) protocol 97. For optimum detection of response, three response definitions have been combined into a computer program. The precise definitions use mathematic logic and take account of factors such as intervening samples. Response to a specific treatment has occurred if after two samples there has been a 50% decrease, confirmed by a fourth sample (50% response), or a serial decrease over three samples of greater than 75% (75% response). The final sample has to be at least 28 days after the previous sample., Results: Six hundred twenty of 989 patients were considered assessable for response according to CA 125 level. Only two patients (0.3%) had a CA 125 response at the time of clinical progression. The CA 125 response rate was 62% and 54% in the North Thames trials. In the GOG trial, it was 66% in all 317 patients assessable for CA 125 and 67% in 221 patients whose CA 125 level was not measurable according to GOG criteria, compared with a GOG-defined response rate of 62%. The sensitivity for detecting GOG-defined response was at least 68%., Conclusion: Definitions based on a 50% or 75% decrease of CA 125 levels have been shown reliably to define partial response of ovarian cancer in patients receiving first-line chemotherapy. These definitions should be used in addition to or instead of standard response criteria.

Purpose: Progestins represent the most widely used form of endocrine therapy in advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma. Based on encouraging response rates in breast cancer with high-dose megestrol acetate (MA) 800 mg/d, this phase II trial assessed response rates in patients with endometrial carcinoma treated with high-dose MA., Patients and Methods: Sixty-three patients with recurrent or advanced endometrial carcinoma were entered into this Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) study. Patients had either failed to respond to or were considered incurable with local therapy and had not received prior cytotoxic or hormonal therapy. MA 800 mg/d was administered orally in divided doses. Standard GOG toxicity criteria were used., Results: Of 63 patients entered, 58 were assessable for toxicity and 54 for response. Of 13 responders (24%), six (11%) had a complete and seven (13%) a partial response. Four of the responses lasted greater than 18 months. Twelve patients (22%) had stable disease. The response rate of patients with grade 1 or 2 lesions (11 of 30, 37%) was significantly higher (P = .02) than that of patients with more poorly differentiated tumors (two of 24, 8%). There was no difference in response rates comparing advanced versus recurrent disease, cell type, including papillary serous lesions, site of disease, prior radiation, age, or weight. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival intervals were 2.5 and 7.6 months, respectively. Grade 3 weight gain (> 20%) was seen in three patients and grade 3/4 hyperglycemia in three. Three deaths secondary to cardiovascular events were possibly related to therapy; diabetes was also a contributing factor in all three cases., Conclusion: High-dose MA is active in endometrial carcinoma, but appears to have no advantage over lower-dose progestins.

Purpose: From December 1983 through February 1992, a prospective study designed to determine the clinical course of patients with ovarian tumors of low malignant potential (LMP) was conducted by the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG)., Materials and Methods: This protocol was developed to evaluate the following (1) the biologic behavior of ovarian LMP tumors, (2) the effectiveness of melphalan chemotherapy in patients with clinically detectable residual disease after surgical staging and in patients whose tumors progress or recur after surgical therapy, and (3) the response rate to cisplatin in those who failed to respond to melphalan therapy. The study group consisted of 146 assessable patients with stage I serous LMP tumors. All of these women had the affected ovary (or ovaries) removed, and a complete staging operation was performed in each case. While 123 patients had a total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH) and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO), 21 retained the uterus and one normal-appearing ovary and fallopian tube. No adjuvant chemotherapy or radiation therapy was administered to any patients in the stage I study group., Results: The median follow-up time was 42.4 months (range, 1.6 to 108). Thus far, no patient with a stage I ovarian serous LMP tumor has developed recurrent disease., Conclusion: Stage I ovarian serous LMP tumors rarely, if ever, recur. Limited resection, after meticulous surgical exploration, is adequate therapy for women of reproductive age.

Purpose: We report a prospective randomized trial in women with advanced ovarian cancer to evaluate the importance of chemotherapy dose-intensity on survival, progression-free survival (PFS), and response., Patients and Methods: A total of 485 patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and residual masses more than 1 cm following surgery (stage III presentation) or any stage IV presentation were randomly assigned to receive either standard therapy (cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m2 and cisplatin 50 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks for eight courses) or intense therapy (cyclophosphamide 1,000 mg/m2 and cisplatin 100 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks for four courses). Dose modification was rigidly controlled to maintain intensity. Clinical and pathologic responses were assessed, when appropriate, as well as PFS interval and survival., Results: A total of 458 patients met all eligibility criteria and were assessed for survival and PFS. The dose-intensive group received the same total dose of cyclophosphamide and cisplatin, but 1.97 times greater dose-intensity than the standard group. Clinical and pathologic response rates; response duration, and survival were similar in both groups of patients. Hematologic, gastrointestinal, febrile episodes, septic events, and renal toxicities were significantly more common and severe in the dose-intensive group., Conclusion: A doubling of the dose-intensity in the treatment of bulky ovarian epithelial cancers led to no discernible improvement in patient outcome and was associated with more severe toxicity. This study provides no evidence to support the hypothesis that modest increases in dose-intensity without increasing total dose are associated with significant improvement in overall survival or PFS.

Long-term follow-up was obtained on 726 women with advanced ovarian carcinoma (suboptimal stage III and stage IV) who had received primary chemotherapy on two Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) protocols between 1976 and 1982. The first study compared melphalan alone versus melphalan plus hexamethylmelamine versus cyclophosphamide plus doxorubicin (CA). The second study evaluated the same CA regimen with or without cisplatin. Eligibility for the two studies was the same. At last contact, 76 patients were alive. In a multivariate analysis, cell type other than clear cell or mucinous, cisplatin-based treatment, good performance status, younger age, lower stage, clinically nonmeasurable disease, smaller residual tumor volume, and absence of ascites were favorable characteristics for overall survival (P less than .05). Second-look laparotomy was negative significantly more often among those with endometrioid tumors; there were no negative second-look laparotomies among those with mucinous or clear cell tumors. There were 30 patients with suboptimal stage III disease who had a negative second-look laparotomy; 18 (60%) have experienced recurrence, and 13 (43%) have died. Although cisplatin treatment was beneficial, new treatments are clearly needed.