Search

CRM1 inhibitors have demonstrated antitumor effects in ovarian and other cancers; however, rational combinations are largely unexplored. We performed a high-throughput drug library screen to identify drugs that might combine well with selinexor in ovarian cancer. Next, we tested the combination of selinexor with the top hit from the drug screen in vitro and in vivo. Finally, we assessed for mechanisms underlying the identified synergy using reverse phase protein arrays (RPPA). The drug library screen assessing 688 drugs identified olaparib (a PARP inhibitor) as the most synergistic combination with selinexor. Synergy was further demonstrated by MTT assays. In the A2780luc ip1 mouse model, the combination of selinexor and olaparib yielded significantly lower tumor weight and fewer tumor nodules compared with the control group (P < 0.04 and P < 0.03). In the OVCAR5 mouse model, the combination yielded significantly fewer nodules (P = 0.006) and markedly lower tumor weight compared with the control group (P = 0.059). RPPA analysis indicated decreased expression of DNA damage repair proteins and increased expression of tumor suppressor proteins in the combination treatment group. Collectively, our preclinical findings indicate that combination with selinexor to expand the utility and efficacy of PARP inhibitors in ovarian cancer warrants further exploration.

Objective. To describe molecular and clinical characteristics of patients with high-grade recurrent ovarian carcinoma (HGOC) who had long-term responses to the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor rucaparib. Methods. This post hoc analysis pooled patients from Study 10 (NCT01482715; Parts 2A and 2B; n = 54) and ARIEL2 (NCT01891344; Parts 1 and 2; n = 491). Patients with investigator-assessed complete or partial response per RECIST were classified based on duration of response (DOR): long (≥1 year), intermediate (6 months to

BackgroundThe optimal treatment strategy for women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer has yet to be determined. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have demonstrated substantial improvement in progression-free survival as monotherapy maintenance treatment in the frontline setting versus active surveillance. Furthermore, preclinical and early clinical studies have shown that PARP inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors have synergistic antitumor activity and may provide an additional therapeutic option for patients in this population.Primary ObjectivesIn women with newly diagnosed ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer, we wish to assess the efficacy of frontline maintenance treatment with the PARP inhibitor rucaparib versus placebo following response to platinum-based chemotherapy (ATHENA–MONO), and to assess the combination of rucaparib plus nivolumab (a programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1)–blocking monoclonal antibody) versus rucaparib alone (ATHENA–COMBO).Study Hypothesis(1) Maintenance therapy with rucaparib monotherapy may extend progression-free survival following standard treatment for ovarian cancer in the frontline setting. (2) The combination of nivolumab plus rucaparib may extend progression-free survival following standard treatment for ovarian cancer in the frontline setting compared with rucaparib alone.Trial DesignATHENA is an international, randomized, double-blind, phase III trial consisting of two independent comparisons (ATHENA–MONO and ATHENA–COMBO) in patients with newly diagnosed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Patients are randomized 4:4:1:1 to the following: oral rucaparib+ intravenous nivolumab (arm A); oral rucaparib + intravenous placebo (arm B); oral placebo+ intravenous nivolumab (arm C); and oral placebo + intravenous placebo (arm D). The starting dose of rucaparib is 600 mg orally twice a day and nivolumab 480 mg intravenously every 4 weeks. ATHENA–MONO compares arm B with arm D to evaluate rucaparib monotherapy versus placebo, and ATHENA–COMBO evaluates arm A versus arm B to investigate the effects of rucaparib and nivolumab in combination versus rucaparib monotherapy. ATHENA–MONO and ATHENA–COMBO share a common treatment arm (arm B) but each comparison is independently powered.Major Inclusion/Exclusion CriteriaPatients ≥18 years of age with newly diagnosed advanced, high-grade epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer who have achieved a response after completion of cytoreductive surgery and initial platinum-based chemotherapy are enrolled. No other prior treatment for ovarian cancer, other than the frontline platinum regimen, is permitted.Primary EndpointThe primary endpoint is investigator-assessed progression-free survival by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1.Sample SizeApproximately 1000 patients have been enrolled and randomized.Estimated Dates for Completing Accrual and Presenting ResultsThe trial completed accrual in 2020. While dependent on event rates, primary results of ATHENA–MONO are anticipated in early 2022 and results of ATHENA–COMBO are anticipated to mature at a later date.Trial RegistrationThis trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03522246).

OBJECTIVE: In the phase 3 VELIA/GOG-3005 trial, veliparib added to carboplatin-paclitaxel and continued as maintenance improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared to carboplatin-paclitaxel alone in patients with newly diagnosed ovarian carcinoma. Primary analysis of PFS was by investigator (INV) assessment, with a supplemental analysis of PFS by blinded independent central review (BICR).METHODS: Patients received veliparib or placebo with carboplatin-paclitaxel (6 cycles) and as maintenance (30 additional cycles). The primary analysis compared PFS in the veliparib-throughout arm to the carboplatin-paclitaxel only arm in the BRCA mutation (BRCAm), homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), and intention-to-treat (ITT) populations. Exploratory analyses of PFS in BRCA wildtype (BRCAwt), homologous recombination proficient (HRP), and HRD + BRCAwt populations were also performed. PFS per BICR and overall concordance rates between INV and BICR assessments were analyzed.RESULTS: Hazard ratios for PFS by INV and BICR were consistent in each of the primary analysis and exploratory populations. In the ITT population, median PFS per INV was 23.5 months in the veliparib-throughout arm versus 17.3 months in the control arm (hazard ratio [HR] 0.683, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.562-0.831; P CONCLUSIONS: Hazard ratios for PFS per BICR and per INV were consistent, with no suggestion of investigator bias. These findings support the reliability of PFS by INV in ovarian cancer trials.

The consolidation of information technology (IT) teams from individual facilities to an enterprise-wide reporting structure and the transition of IT staff from operating within a diagnostic imaging department, such as Radiology, to an enterprise IT group is common. The plan to optimize this workforce can have undesirable and unintended consequences, if not done correctly. For those organizations seeking to optimize their workforce to deliver the best possible IT services, including to areas that produce and use medical imaging, this can be an exercise of balancing specialized knowledge and centralized staffing capacity planning. Successfully blending staff that have developed through careers in either general or imaging IT areas into a single team structure requires an understanding of their traditional attitudes, priorities, and skill sets. This paper explores the historic similarities and differences in the skill sets and work cultures between imaging and Enterprise IT, and how to use both to deliver the best outcomes.

The GOG Foundation, Inc. (GOG-F) is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization with the purpose of promoting excellence in the quality and integrity of clinical and basic scientific research in the field of gynecologic malignancies. GOG Partners (GOG-P) is a program of the GOG-F and is positioned alongside NRG Oncology under the GOG-F organizational umbrella. GOG-P operates outside of the federally funded NCI NRG Oncology, a key distinguishing feature. By functioning as a site management organization (SMO), GOG-P provides an additional platform for clinical trial development, mentorship opportunities, patient accrual, and site infrastructure support yielding an expanded gynecologic oncology clinical trials infrastructure in the US. GOG-P has a consistent track record of conducting high quality clinical trials that lead to bringing novel FDA approved treatments for gynecologic cancer. This manuscript summarizes the history and organizational structure of the GOG-P. In addition, we outline the other key supportive programs within the GOG-F that help support the GOG-P effort to perform transformative gynecologic cancer research.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the factors associated with response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and the ability to undergo interval tumor reductive surgery (iTRS) in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review from April 2013 to March 2019 of patients with advanced stage ovarian cancer triaged to NACT based on our standard triage algorithm. Clinicopathologic and treatment data were analyzed for factors associated with response to NACT, outcomes at iTRS, and their impact on progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: 562 patients met inclusion criteria and triaged to NACT following laparoscopy (n=132) or without laparoscopy (n=430). 413 patients underwent iTRS (74%). Factors that correlated with a patient reaching iTRS included increasing age (p1cm, p

Introduction D-CARE, an international, phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in women with early-stage breast cancer at high risk of disease recurrence, failed to meet its primary endpoint—improvement in bone metastasis-free survival (BMFS) with adjuvant denosumab vs placebo injections. As a result of the limitations of assessing BMFS, which includes relapse in bone with and without extraskeletal recurrences and deaths from any cause, the prespecified exploratory bone endpoints’ analysis may provide a more clinically meaningful effect of denosumab in this disease setting. Methods The study enrolled women (aged ≥ 18 years) with histologically confirmed stage II/III breast cancer. Patients treated with adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy meeting inclusion criteria were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either denosumab (120 mg) or placebo subcutaneously every 3–4 weeks for about 6 months and then every 3 months for a total treatment duration of 5 years. Five prespecified exploratory bone endpoints and post hoc subgroup analysis based on age (

Background Clinical trials demonstrated that PARPi (poly [adenosine diphosphate–ribose]-ADP polymerase inhibitor) therapy is effective in solid tumors. However, long term effects such as therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukemia (MDS/AML) are poorly described. We sought to quantify whether PARPi therapy is associated with the development of MDS/AML. Methods Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched (inception to January 6, 2020) and phase 2 and 3 clinical trials that randomized patients with solid tumors to a PARPi or control therapy were included. The PRISMA guidelines were used to extract data independently by multiple authors. We extracted person-time and number of cases of MDS/AML in the PARPi and control arms of each study and pooled results with a random-effects Poisson regression model. The pooled incidence rate ratio (IRR) for MDS/AML among patients randomized to PARPi therapy was compared to those randomized to a control. Results We identified 14 studies that included 5739 patients. Accounting for intra-study clustering, the risk of MDS/AML was similar in patients who were randomly assigned to receive PARPi compared to controls (IRR 1.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78–2.26). In the front-line setting, PARPi therapy was associated with developing MDS/AML (IRR 5.43, 95% CI 1.51–19.60). Among patients treated for recurrence, however, the risk of MDS/AML appeared to be similar among patients randomized to PARPi or control treatment. Among studies that included only patients with a BRCA mutation, the risk of MDS/AML was similar in both treatment groups (IRR 0.83, 95% CI 0.45–1.53), but PARPi therapy was associated with MDS/AML in studies with an unrestricted population (IRR 2.43, 95% CI 1.17–5.06). Conclusion The pooled overall effect was not statistically significant. However, treatment with PARPi was associated with a statistically significant increase in the incidence of MDS/AML among patients receiving front-line cancer therapy and those with limited prior exposure to chemotherapy.

Recently, Vigil showed significant clinical benefit with improvement in relapse free (RFS) and overall survival (OS) in pre-planned subgroup analysis in stage III/IV newly diagnosed ovarian cancer patients with BRCA wild type (BRCA-wt) molecular profile. Here we analyze homologous recombination (HR) status of patients enrolled in the Phase 2b VITAL study and determine clinical benefit of Vigil in HR proficient (P) patients.Patients were previously enrolled in a Phase 2b, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. All were in complete response with Stage III/IV high grade serious, endometroid or clear cell ovarian cancer. HR status was determined using MyChoice®CDx score (42 = HRP) (Myriad Genetics, Inc., UT). Post-hoc analyses were carried out using Kaplan Meier and restricted mean survival time (RMST) analysis to evaluate RFS and OS based on HR deficiency (D) status.RFS was improved with Vigil (n = 25) in HRP patients compared to placebo (n = 20) (HR = 0.386; 90% CI 0.199-0.750; p = 0.007), results were verified by RMST (p = 0.017). Similarly, OS benefit was observed in Vigil group compared to placebo (HR = 0.342; 90% CI 0.141-0.832; p = 0.019). Results with OS were also verified with RMST (p = 0.008).Vigil exhibited clinical benefit in HRP molecular profile patients.

Background As with other alkylating agents, cardiac dysfunction can occur with trabectedin therapy for advanced soft tissue sarcomas (STS) or recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC) where treatment options for advanced disease are still limited. Cardiac safety for trabectedin monotherapy (T) for STS or in combination with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (T+PLD) for ROC was evaluated in this retrospective postmarketing regulatory commitment. Methods Patient data for multiple cardiac‐related treatment‐emergent adverse events (cTEAEs) were evaluated in pooled analyses of ten phase 2 trials, one phase 3 trial in STS (n = 982), and two phase 3 trials in ROC (n = 1231). Results Multivariate analyses on pooled trabectedin data revealed that cardiovascular medical history (risk ratio [RR (95% CI)]: 1.90 [1.24‐2.91]; p = 0.003) and age ≥65 years (RR [95% CI]: 1.78 [1.12‐2.83]; p = 0.014) were associated with increased risk for cTEAEs. Multivariate analyses showed increased risk of experiencing cTEAEs with T+PLD compared to PLD monotherapy (RR [95% CI]: 2.70 [1.75‐4.17]; p, Cardiac safety for trabectedin monotherapy advanced soft tissue sarcomas (STS) or in combination with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (T+PLD) for recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC) was evaluated in pooled analyses of 10 phase 2 trials, one phase 3 trial in STS (n = 982), and two phase 3 trials in ROC (n = 1231). Cardiovascular medical history, age ≥65 years, and prior use of anthracyclines were associated with increased risk for cTEAEs. For patients with STS or ROC who still have limited treatment options, trabectedin may be initiated after carefully considering benefit versus risk.

Objectives: The GOG240 trial introduced a doublet chemotherapy with bevacizumab as the new standard of care for first-line (1L) recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (r/mCC). While this regimen has been shown to prolong survival compared with chemotherapy alone in this advanced population, there is no standard systemic treatment for r/mCC after failure of 1L. The objectives of this study were to characterize the real-world patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes of patients who initiated second-line (2L) therapy for r/mCC in the US community oncology setting. Methods: This was an observational study of women with r/mCC who initiated 2L systemic therapy within the US Oncology Network (USON) between 2014 and 2019. USON's electronic health record was used to identify eligible patients and abstract data. Overall survival (OS), time to treatment discontinuation (TTD), and time to first subsequent treatment (TFST) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods. Results: A total of N=130 patients were identified (mean age: 52.8 years). At initiation of 2L systemic therapy, over 60% of patients had ECOG score of 0 or 1. Cytotoxic monotherapy was the most frequently prescribed regimen (N=60, 46%) in 2L, followed by combination therapies that included platinum doublet chemotherapy, or bevacizumab doublet or triplet combination therapy (N=45, 35%), pembrolizumab monotherapy (N=19, 15%), and bevacizumab monotherapy (N=6, 5%). Majority of patients initiating 2L had prior bevacizumab exposure in 1L (N=81, 62%), mostly as a triplet or doublet combination therapy. Median OS was 9.1 months (95% confidence interval (CI): 7.2-12.2) after initiation of 2L treatment. Median TTD was 2.8 months (95% CI: 2.5, 3.3), and median TFST was 4.9 months (95% CI: 4.2, 5.7). No statistically significant difference in the outcomes were found when stratified by 2L treatments, although sample sizes were small. Conclusions: Diverse treatment patterns were observed in the 2L r/mCC setting. Clinical outcomes in these patients were suboptimal and they did not vary significantly by 2L regimen. Additionally, many patients received combination therapies in 2L after having received similar treatments in 1L, even though there is no evidence to support this practice. These findings demonstrate the unmet medical need for new effective treatment options in this setting.

Vigil® is a personalized vaccine that enhances tumor neoantigen expression. We investigated for the first time safety and efficacy of Vigil in combination with atezolizumab in relapsed ovarian cancer (OC) patients. This is a randomized, Phase 1 study of Vigil, an autologous tumor tissue transfected vaccine encoding for GMCSF and bi-shRNA-furin thereby creating enhanced immune activation and TGFβ expression control. Part 1 is a safety assessment of Vigil (1 × 10e7 cells/mL/21 days) plus atezolizumab (1200 mg/21 days). Part 2 is a randomized study of Vigil first (Vigil-1st) or atezolizumab first (Atezo-1st) for two cycles followed by the combination of both agents. The primary endpoint of the study was the determination of safety. Twenty-four patients were enrolled in the study; three patients to Part 1 and 21 to Part 2. Patients in Part 1 completed combination therapy without dose-limiting toxicity justifying expansion to Part 2. Twenty-one patients were randomized (1:1) to Part 2 to Vigil-1st (n = 11) or Atezo-1st (n = 10). Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events of Atezo-1st vs. Vigil-1st were 17.2% vs. 5.1%. Median overall survival (OS) was not reached (NR) (Vigil-1st) vs. 10.8 months (Atezo-1st) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.33). The exploratory subset analysis of BRCAwt suggested improved OS benefit [NR in Vigil-1st vs. 5.2 months in Atezo-1st, HR 0.16, p 0.027]. The Vigil-1st combination therapy with atezolizumab was safe and results in support continued investigation in BRCAwt patients.

BACKGROUND: Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) score is related to chemotherapy response in some cancers, but its role in endometrial cancer in not known. We determined frequency and clinical significance of alterations in the HR pathway in endometrial cancer. METHODS: 253 endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma (EEA) samples from two independent cohorts (discovery and replication) were tested for HRD score using the Myriad HRD assay, microsatellite instability (MSI) and tumor mutation burden (TMB) using a next generation sequencing assay. HRD scores were also generated on endometrial cancer cell lines and in vivo response to olaparib was assessed. RESULTS: ROC curves were employed to determine optimal cutoffs of HRD in relation to survival impact in endometrial cancer and a cutoff of HRD ≥ 4 was suggested for DFS using discovery cohort. Patients from two independent cohorts with HRD score ≥ 4 trended toward worse survival as compared to those with HRD score

Objective This randomized open-label phase II study evaluated the safety and clinical activity of EP-100 plus weekly paclitaxel in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer expressing positive LHRH receptor. Methods In a limited “run-in” dose escalation phase for EP-100, six patients were treated with ascending dose levels (13 mg/m2, 20 mg/m2, 30 mg/m2). In the randomized phase, patients received weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 intravenously) plus twice weekly EP-100 (30 mg/m2 intravenously; combination arm) or weekly paclitaxel alone (80 mg/m2 intravenously; paclitaxel arm). The primary study endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Results Forty-four patients were then randomized to either the experimental combination arm (n = 23) or the standard of care paclitaxel monotherapy arm (n = 21). The ORR was 35% (95%CI 16%–57%) for the combination arm and 33% (95% CI 15%–57%) for the paclitaxel arm. An interesting observation from an unplanned analysis was that a subset of patients with target liver lesions showed a greater overall response rate to the combination (69%) compared to paclitaxel alone (16%). The frequency of treatment-related grade 3–4 adverse events was similar between treatment arms: 48% vs 43% for the combination and paclitaxel arms, respectively. Conclusions ORR in the EP-100 combination arm was similar to that in the group treated with paclitaxel alone; however, a subset of patients with liver metastases appeared to benefit from the combination. The addition of EP-100 did not appear to augment the adverse event profile of paclitaxel and was well tolerated.

Background Anastrozole has been associated with substantial accelerated bone mineral density (BMD) loss during active treatment. Methods One thousand four hundred and ten women were included in a BMD substudy and stratified into three strata according to their baseline T-score at spine or femoral neck. The primary objective of this analysis was to investigate whether DXA BMD at the spine and hip changed two years after treatment cessation (between years 5 and 7) in those who did not receive risedronate. Results Five- and seven-year BMD data were available for a total of 528 women who did not receive risedronate. In women with normal BMD at baseline, an increase in BMD at the lumbar spine after anastrozole withdrawal was observed 1.25% (95% CI 0.73 to 1.77) (P = 0.0004), which was larger than in those on placebo (0.14% (−0.29 to 0.56))). At the hip, BMD remained unchanged between years 5 and 7 for those previously on anastrozole but continued to a decrease in those who had been randomised to placebo (−1.35% (−1.70 to −0.98)). Conclusions These are the first results reporting BMD changes after stopping anastrozole in a breast cancer prevention setting. Our results show that the negative effects of anastrozole on BMD in the preventive setting are partially reversible.

Summary Background Gemogenovatucel-T is an autologous tumour cell vaccine manufactured from harvested tumour tissue, which specifically reduces expression of furin and downstream TGF-β1 and TGF-β2. The aim of this study was to determine the safety and efficacy of gemogenovatucel-T in front-line ovarian cancer maintenance. Methods This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b trial involved 25 hospitals in the USA. Women aged 18 years and older with stage III/IV high-grade serous, endometrioid, or clear cell ovarian cancer in clinical complete response after a combination of surgery and five to eight cycles of chemotherapy involving carboplatin and paclitaxel, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status of 0 or 1 were eligible for inclusion in the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to gemogenovatucel-T or placebo by an independent third party interactive response system after successful screening using randomly permuted block sizes of two and four and stratified by extent of surgical cytoreduction and neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy. Gemogenovatucel-T (1 × 107 cells per injection) or placebo was administered intradermally (one per month) for a minimum of four and up to 12 doses. Patients, investigators, and clinical staff were masked to patient allocation until after statistical analysis. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival, analysed in the per-protocol population. All patients who received at least one dose of gemogenovatucel-T were included in the safety analysis. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02346747 . Findings Between Feb 11, 2015, and March 2, 2017, 310 patients consented to the study at 22 sites. 217 were excluded. 91 patients received gemogenovatucel-T (n=47) or placebo (n=44) and were analysed for safety and efficacy. The median follow-up from first dose of gemogenovatucel-T was 40·0 months (IQR 35·0–44·8) and from first dose of placebo was 39·8 months (35·5–44·6). Recurrence-free survival was 11·5 months (95% CI 7·5–not reached) for patients assigned to gemogenovatucel-T versus 8·4 months (7·9–15·5) for patients assigned to placebo (HR 0·69, 90% CI 0·44–1·07; one-sided p=0·078). Gemogenovatucel-T resulted in no grade 3 or 4 toxic effects. Two patients in the placebo group had five grade 3 toxic events, including arthralgia, bone pain, generalised muscle weakness, syncope, and dyspnea. Seven patients (four in the placebo group and three in the gemogenovatucel-T group) had 11 serious adverse events. No treatment-related deaths were reported in either of the groups. Interpretation Front-line use of gemogenovatucel-T immunotherapy as maintenance was well tolerated but the primary endpoint was not met. Further investigation of gemogenovatucel-T in patients stratified by BRCA mutation status is warranted. Funding Gradalis.

Introduction50–70% of epithelial ovarian cancers overexpress epidermal growth factor receptor, and its expression has been correlated with poor prognosis. We conducted a phase Ib/II trial to examine the efficacy, safety, and toxicity of gefitinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, combined with topotecan in women with recurrent ovarian cancer with epidermal growth factor receptor positivity.MethodsPatients with measurable recurrent or persistent cancer after treatment with a platinum containing regimen with positive epidermal growth factor receptor expression, as determined by immunohistochemistry, were eligible for the study. Initial treatment was 250 mg/day gefitinib (oral) and 2.0 mg/m2 topotecan (intravenous) on days 1, 8, and 15, on a 28 day cycle. Dose escalations were planned for topotecan (dose levels 1–3: 2, 3, and 4 mg/m2) until the maximum tolerated dose was reached.Results19 patients received a total of 61 cycles. Median age was 59.8 years (range 42–76 years). Histologic types in treated patients included 74% serous (n=14), 11% mixed (n=2), 11% transitional (n=2), and 5% clear cell (n=1). For phase Ib, three patients were treated at dose level 1, three at dose level 2, and three at dose level 3 for topotecan. The maximum tolerated dose was 4.0 mg/m2 (days 1, 8, and 15) for topotecan and 250 mg (daily) for gefitinib. Therefore, dose level 3 was used for phase II. Among the 19 patients, 63.2% (n=12) had progressive disease, 15.8% (n=3) had stable disease, 10.5% (n=2) had a partial response, and 10.5% (n=2) were not evaluable. The most serious adverse events of any grade attributed to the therapy were anemia (89.4%), neutropenia (68.4%), abdominal pain (84%), constipation (78.9%), and diarrhea (78.9%).ConclusionAlthough the drug combination was relatively well tolerated, this prospective phase Ib/II clinical trial did not show sufficient clinical activity of topotecan combined with gefitinib in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor positive recurrent ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancers.

Asbestos recently returned to the spotlight when Johnson & Johnson halted sales of baby powder due to lawsuits claiming that the talc in baby powder may have been contaminated with asbestos, which has been linked to the risk of ovarian cancer development. Although talc and asbestos have some structural similarities, only asbestos is considered causally associated with ovarian cancer by the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer. While it is useful to understand the types and properties of asbestos and its oncologic biology, the history of its association with ovarian cancer is largely based on retrospective observational studies in women working in high asbestos exposure environments. In reviewing the literature, it is critical to understand the distinction between associative risk and causality, and to examine the strength of association in the context of how the diagnosis of ovarian cancer is made and how the disease should be distinguished from a similar appearing but unrelated neoplasm, malignant mesothelioma. Based on contextual misinterpretation of these factors, it is imperative to question the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s assertion that asbestos has a clear causal inference to ovarian cancer. This has important clinical implications in the way patients are conceivably counseled and provides motivation to continue research to improve the understanding of the association between asbestos and ovarian cancer.

Objective To explore the relationship between tumor size and response to combined anti-vascular targeted therapy using the anti-angiogenesis inhibitor, bevacizumab, and the tubulin-binding vascular disrupting agent, fosbretabulin. Methods An exploratory, post-hoc analysis of the randomized phase II trial, Gynecologic Oncology Group-0186I, was performed. One hundred and seven patients with recurrent ovarian carcinoma, treated with up to 3 prior regimens, were randomized to bevacizumab 15 mg/kg body weight with or without intravenous fosbretabulin 60 mg/m2 body surface area every 21 days until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary analysis favored the combination (HR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.47–1.00; p = .049) [Monk BJ, et al. J Clin Oncol 2016;34:2279–86]. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the treatment effect in various subpopulations. Results With extended follow-up, the median PFS for bevacizumab plus fosbretabulin was 7.6 months as compared to 4.8 months with bevacizumab alone (HR 0.74; 90% CI, 0.54–1.02). Overall survival was similar in the experimental and control arms (25.2 vs 24.4 mos, respectively, HR 0.85; 90% CI, 0.59–1.22; p = .461). Eighty-one patients had measurable disease and median tumor size was 5.7 cm. In the ≤5.7 cm subgroup, the HR for progression or death was 0.77 (90% CI 0.45–1.31). Patients with tumors >5.7 cm (n = 40) had a HR for progression or death of 0.55; 90% CI, 0.32–0.96; p = .075). Conclusions Although no significant survival benefit was observed, the trend showing a reduced HR for progression or death with increasing tumor size when fosbretabulin is added to bevacizumab compared to bevacizumab alone warrants further study.

Purpose: JV-GL1 is an efficacious, potent, and long-acting antiglaucoma agent, according to studies in ocular normotensive and hypertensive monkeys. As an obligatory step in the drug development pr...

The use of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in the front-line management of advanced ovarian cancer has recently emerged as an exciting strategy with the potential to improve outcomes for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. In this article, we review the results of four recently published Phase III randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of PARP inhibitors in the primary treatment of ovarian cancer (SOLO1, PRIMA, PAOLA-1, and VELIA). Collectively, the studies suggest that PARP maintenance in the upfront setting is most beneficial among patients with BRCA-associated ovarian cancers (hazard ratios range from 0.31 to 0.44), followed by patients with tumours that harbour homologous recombination deficiencies (hazard ratios range from 0.33 to 0.57). All three studies that included an all-comer population were able to demonstrate benefit of PARP inhibitors, regardless of biomarker status. The FDA has approved olaparib for front-line maintenance therapy among patients with BRCA-associated ovarian cancers, and niraparib for all patients, regardless of biomarker status. In determining which patients should be offered front-line maintenance PARP inhibitors, and which agent to use, there are multiple factors to consider, including FDA indication, dosing preference, toxicity, risks versus benefits for each patient population, and cost. There are ongoing studies further exploring the front-line use of PARP inhibitors, including the potential downstream effects of PARP-inhibitor resistance in the recurrent setting, combining PARP-inhibitors with other anti-angiogenic drugs, immunotherapeutic agents, and inhibitors of pathways implicated in PARP inhibitor resistance.

BackgroundObservational studies have supported the practice of offering minimally invasive interval debulking surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for well-selected patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. However, there are no prospective randomized data comparing the oncologic efficacy of minimally invasive and open interval debulking surgery in epithelial ovarian cancer.Primary objectiveThe primary objective of this study is to examine whether minimally invasive surgery is non-inferior to laparotomy in terms of disease-free survival in women with advanced stage epithelial ovarian cancer that responded to three or four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy.Study hypothesisWe hypothesize that in patients who had a complete or partial response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, minimally invasive interval debulking surgery is not inferior to laparotomy.Trial designThe Laparoscopic cytoreduction After Neoadjuvant ChEmotherapy (LANCE) trial is an international, prospective, randomized, multicenter, non-inferiority phase III trial to compare minimally invasive surgery vs laparotomy in women with advanced stage high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer that had a complete or partial response to three or four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and normalization of CA-125. The first 100 participants will be enrolled into a pilot lead-in to determine feasibility. The study will be considered feasible and will continue to Phase III under the following conditions: the accrual rate reaches at least 80% of the target rate after all pilot sites are open; the crossover rate in the minimally invasive group is less than 25%; and the difference of complete gross resection between the minimally invasive and open group is less than 20%. If the study is determined to be feasible, all remaining participants will be enrolled into the Phase III stage.Major inclusion/exclusion criteriaPatients with stage IIIC or IV high-grade epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal or fallopian tube carcinoma who had a complete or partial response to three or four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy based on imaging and normalization of CA-125 will be enrolled. Patients with evidence of tumor not amenable to minimally invasive resection on pre-operative imaging will be excluded.Primary endpointThe primary endpoint is non-inferiority of disease-free survival in minimally invasive vs laparotomic interval debulking surgery.Sample sizeTo demonstrate non-inferiority with a margin of 33% in the hazard ratio (HR=1.33), 549 patients will be randomized.

Expression of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) in breast cancer defines a subset of patients (∼15%-20%) who are candidates for anti-HER2 therapies, most notably, trastuzumab, pertuzumab, antibody drug conjugates (eg, T-DM1), and tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) drugs (eg, lapatinib and neratinib), all of which have dramatically changed the prognosis for this aggressive subtype of breast cancer. A roundtable meeting of the Breast Cancer Therapy Expert Group (BCTEG) was convened in March 2018 in an effort to discuss and clarify, from the perspective of the practicing community oncologist, recent developments in the diagnosis and treatment of HER2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer. Members of the group selected 4 key topics for discussion prior to the meeting, including diagnosis of HER2+ disease, and its treatment in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and metastatic settings. Approved testing methods, such as immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization, are used to demonstrate overexpression and/or amplification of HER2 in breast tumors, and established clinical guidelines are used to appropriately define treatment plans for patients with HER2+ disease. The panel acknowledges a range of treatment options now available for treatment of HER2+ breast cancer in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and advanced/metastatic settings, although it is noted that many controversies remain, including the optimal sequence of therapies, the most appropriate treatment(s) for subsets of patients with HER2+ disease (eg, hormone receptor-negative or -positive/HER2+), and uncertainties surrounding the diagnosis and definition of HER2+ disease. The current report summarizes the discussion of the BCTEG panel on this topic.

ObjectivesThis review examines how response rates to progestin treatment of low-grade endometrial cancer can be improved. In addition to providing a brief overview of the pathogenesis of low-grade endometrial cancer, we discuss limitations in the current classification of endometrial cancer and how stratification may be refined using molecular markers to reproducibly identify ‘low-risk’ cancers which may represent the best candidates for progestin therapy. We also discuss constraints in current approaches to progestin treatment of low-grade endometrial cancer and perform a systematic review of predictive biomarkers.MethodsPubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies reporting pre-treatment biomarkers associated with outcome in women with low-grade endometrial cancer or endometrial hyperplasia with an intact uterus who received progestin treatment. Studies of fewer than 50 women were excluded. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (ID 152374). A descriptive synthesis of pre-treatment predictive biomarkers reported in the included studies was conducted.ResultsOf 1908 records reviewed, 19 studies were included. Clinical features such as age or body mass index cannot predict progestin response. Lesions defined as ‘low-risk’ by FIGO criteria (stage 1A, grade 1) can respond well; however, the reproducibility and prognostic ability of the current histopathological classification system is suboptimal. Molecular markers can be reproducibly assessed, have been validated as prognostic biomarkers, and may inform patient selection for progestin treatment. DNA polymerase epsilon (POLE)-ultramutated tumors and a subset of p53 wild-type or DNA mismatch repair (MMR)-deficient tumors with ‘low-risk’ features (eg, progesterone and estrogen receptor-positive) may have improved response rates, though this needs to be validated.DiscussionMolecular markers can identify cases which may be candidates for progestin treatment. More work is needed to validate these biomarkers and potentially identify new ones. Predictive biomarkers are anticipated to inform future research into progestin treatment of low-grade endometrial cancer and ultimately improve patient outcomes.

Objectives To evaluate the safety and preliminary efficacy of demcizumab (DLL4 targeted IgG2 humanized monoclonal antibody; potent inhibitor of the Notch pathway) in combination with weekly paclitaxel in platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC); and to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or maximum administered dose (MAD). Methods We conducted a 3 + 3 dose-escalation trial in patients with recurrent, platinum-resistant EOC with RECIST v. 1.1 measurable disease and ≤4 prior chemotherapy regimens. Two dosing cohorts (2.5 mg/kg and 5 mg/kg) were targeted; however, an intermediate dose level (3.5 mg/kg) was to be evaluated if the 5 mg/kg dose was not tolerable. Demcizumab was administered on days 1 and 15 and paclitaxel, weekly on days 1, 8, and 15 for each of three 28-day cycles: the 3-cycle doublet could be repeated once if safe. Thereafter, paclitaxel was administered until unacceptable toxicity or disease progression. Results Nineteen patients were enrolled. No dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) were observed; however, the intermediate dose level (3.5 mg/kg) was enrolled and expanded based on emerging safety data from other trials in the demcizumab program. The MTD was not reached. The most common treatment emergent adverse events (TEAE) were diarrhea (68%), fatigue (58%), peripheral edema (53%), and nausea (53%). Pulmonary hypertension, grade 2 (n = 2) and grade 1 (n = 1), was observed. Overall response rate (ORR) was 21% (95% CI: 6–45%); clinical benefit rate (CBR) was 42% (95% CI: 20–66%). Conclusions Demcizumab in combination with paclitaxel has a manageable toxicity profile and showed activity in patients with heavily pretreated platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

To compare rates of complete response (no emesis, retching, or rescue antiemetics) in the late phase (days 4–7 post-chemotherapy) of cycle 1 between transdermal granisetron and oral ondansetron in cervical, endometrial, or vaginal cancer survivors undergoing chemoradiation at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and LBJ Hospital in Houston, TX. In this non-blinded parallel design trial, eligible patients received a granisetron patch replaced every 7 days or 8 mg of ondansetron thrice daily continued for 72 h after chemotherapy completion. Data were collected on medication compliance, episodes of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), use of rescue antiemetics, and effects of CINV on quality of life. Seventy-five survivors receiving chemoradiation for cervical (n = 61), endometrial (n = 12), or vaginal (n = 2) cancer were electronically randomized to transdermal granisetron (n = 41) or oral ondansetron (n = 34). In the late phase of cycle 1, the rate of complete response was 49.8% (95% CI, 35.2–64.3%) for transdermal granisetron and 39.7% (95% CI, 24.4–56.1%) for oral ondansetron. The posterior probability that transdermal granisetron achieved a higher success rate in controlling late-onset CINV compared with oral ondansetron was 82%. During the acute phase (day 1 post-chemotherapy) of cycles 2 and 3, transdermal granisetron patients used more rescue antiemetics than oral ondansetron patients (p = 0.006 and p = 0.003, respectively). Otherwise, no between-group differences in CINV events were observed. Medication compliance and the effect of CINV on quality of life were similar between groups. Transdermal granisetron was 82% more like to control CINV than oral ondansetron in the late phase of cycle 1 and performed similarly to oral ondansetron in all other cycles. Transdermal granisetron should be considered an option as prophylactic antiemetic therapy for gynecologic cancer survivors undergoing chemoradiation.

Objective This phase 3 study aimed to compare overall survival (OS) of women with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC) treated with third-line trabectedin (T) + pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) vs. PLD monotherapy. Methods Women with advanced-relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer were randomly assigned 1: 1 to intravenous infusions of either T + PLD (trabectedin 1.1 mg/m2 for 3 h; PLD 30 mg/m2 for 1.5 h, every 3 weeks) or PLD (50 mg/m2 for 1.5 h, every 4 weeks). Primary endpoint was OS. Secondary endpoints included investigator-assessed progression free survival (PFS) and objective response rates (ORR). At randomization, patients were stratified by time from last dose of first-line platinum therapy to disease progression, ECOG grade 0 or 1, BRCA1/2 germline mutational status, and prior PLD therapy. Exploratory endpoints included OS, PFS, and ORR in the stratified subgroups (PFI, ECOG, BRCA1/2 status, and prior PLD therapy). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01846611. Results 576 patients were randomized (T + PLD, n = 289; PLD, n = 287). Median OS was 23.8 months with T + PLD vs. 22.2 months with PLD (HR:0.92, 95%CI:0.73–1.18; p = 0.52). Median PFS was 7.52 vs. 7.26 months (HR:0.93, 95%CI:0.76–1.15; p = 0.52); ORR was 46% vs. 35.9% (OR:1.52, 95%CI:1.07–2.16; p = 0.01). Patients with BRCA1/2 mutations had median OS of 34.2 months with T + PLD vs. 20.9 months with PLD (HR:0.54, 95%CI:0.33–0.90; p = 0.016). Patients with BRCA1/2 mutations had median PFS of 10.1 months with T + PLD vs. 7.6 months with PLD (HR:0.72, 95%CI:0.48–1.08; p = 0.039). Patients with BRCA1/2 mutations and a 6–12 months platinum-free interval (PFI), median OS was 31.5 vs. 14.9 months, respectively (HR:0.37, 95%CI:0.17–0.82; p = 0.011). Grade 3–4 AEs were higher in T + PLD (79%) vs. PLD (54%). Conclusion Combination of T and PLD did not show favorable OS benefit nor safety; however, patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations and/or a PFI of 6–12 months appear to have clinically relevant survival benefit with T + PLD. No new safety signals were identified.

Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the long-term outcome of women with primary or locally advanced breast cancer randomised to receive either doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) or doxorubicin and docetaxel (AD) as primary chemotherapy. Patients and methods: Eligible patients with histology-proven breast cancer with primary tumours ≥ 3 cm, inflammatory or locally advanced disease, and no evidence of distant metastases, were randomised to receive a maximum of 6 cycles of either doxorubicin (60 mg/m(2)) plus cyclophosphamide (600 mg/m(2)) i/v or doxorubicin (50 mg/m(2)) plus docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)) i/v every 3 weeks, followed by surgery on completion of chemotherapy. Results: Clinical and pathologic responses have previously been reported 1. Time to relapse, site of relapse, and all-cause mortality were recorded. This updated analysis compares long-term disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) using stratified log rank methods. A total of 363 patients were randomised to AC (n = 181) or AD (n = 182). At a median follow-up of 119 months, there is no significant difference between the two groups for DFS (P = 0.274) and OS (P = 0.327). The 10-year DFS for AC is 54% (95% CI 47-62%) and for AD 60% (95% CI 52-67). The 10-year OS is 49% (95% CI 42-57%) for AC and 51% (95% CI 43-58%) for AD. Metastatic breast cancer accounted for 89% of deaths in those treated with AC and 86% in those treated with AD. Estrogen receptor (ER) and nodal status were independent prognostic factors for DFS and OS (p Conclusions: This was one of the first studies to evaluate taxanes versus anthracyclines in the neoadjuvant setting. Our mature data do not support an added clinical benefit for the simultaneous administration of AD compared to AC. This supports current practice with respect to sequential treatment with taxanes followed by anthracyclines leading to an increase in pathological complete response rate and better survival outcomes. 1. Evans TR, Yellowlees A, Foster E et al. Phase III randomized trial of doxorubicin and docetaxel versus doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as primary medical therapy in women with breast cancer: an Anglo-Celtic cooperative Oncology group study. J Clin Oncol 2005, 23: 2988–2995. Citation Format: Chara Stavraka, T. R. Jeffry Evans, Joanna Dunlop, Helena Earl, David A. Cameron, Robert E Coleman, Timothy Perren, Robert CF Leonard, Janine L Mansi. 10-year outcome for women randomized in a phase III trial comparing doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide with doxorubicin and docetaxel as primary medical therapy in early breast cancer: An anglo-celtic cooperative oncology group study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-16-15.

Purpose: Treatment for patients with recurrent endometrioid endometrial cancer (EEC) are limited as paclitaxel is the only second-line chemotherapy with a response rate >13%. Targeting PIK3/mTOR in combination with hormonal therapy has shown promise. The addition of metformin may enhance this response. We conducted a phase II study evaluating everolimus, letrozole, and metformin in advanced/recurrent EEC. Patients and Methods: A Simon two-stage design was employed. Women with ≤2 prior chemotherapy regimens for recurrence were eligible. Pretreatment biopsy was required, followed by everolimus 10 mg orally, letrozole 2.5 mg orally, and metformin 500 mg orally twice a day on a 4-week cycle. The primary endpoint was clinical benefit (CB), defined as complete response (CR), partial response (PR), or stable disease (SD) confirmed at 16 weeks. Patients were treated until progression or toxicity. Results: Sixty-two patients were enrolled. Median age was 62 years (40–77) with 401 cycles completed, median of 6 cycles (1–31). Fifty-four patients were evaluable for response with a CB rate of 50% (27/54). Best overall response (OR) was PR 28% (15/54) and SD 22% (12/54). Thirteen patients received >12 cycles. Median follow-up was 17.9 months (2–47). Median progression-free survival was 5.7 [95% confidence interval (CI), 3.0–8.1] and OS was 19.6 months (95% CI, 14.2–26.3). Positive progesterone receptor expression was associated with CB (89.5% vs. 27.3%, P = 0.001). Conclusions: Everolimus, letrozole, and metformin resulted in 50% CB and 28% OR in women with recurrent EEC. Progesterone receptor–positive tumors may have better response; validation studies are needed. See related commentary by Madariaga et al., p. 523

Multiple practice changing studies were presented at the 2019 ESMO Congress in Barcelona, Spain. The ovarian cancer studies presented at the Presidential session will likely refine and redefine the initial treatment of ovarian cancer. Other compelling trial data in ovarian, uterine and cervical cancer were also unveiled. The key oral abstracts from this meeting are summarized in this meeting report.

Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds to, and inhibits, the receptor activator of RANKL (TNFSF11) and might affect breast cancer biology, as shown by preclinical evidence. We aimed to assess whether denosumab combined with standard-of-care adjuvant or neoadjuvant systemic therapy and locoregional treatments would increase bone metastasis-free survival in women with breast cancer.In this international, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study (D-CARE), patients were recruited from 389 centres in 39 countries. We enrolled women (aged ≥ 18 years) with histologically confirmed stage II or III breast cancer and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. On eligibility confirmation, investigators at each site telephoned an interactive voice response system to centrally randomly assign patients (1:1) based on a fixed stratified permuted block randomisation list (block size 4) to receive either denosumab (120 mg) or matching placebo subcutaneously every 3-4 weeks, starting with neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy, for about 6 months and then every 12 weeks for a total duration of 5 years. Stratification factors were breast cancer therapy, lymph node status, hormone receptor and HER2 status, age, and geographical region. The primary endpoint was the composite endpoint of bone metastasis-free survival. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01077154.Between June 2, 2010, and Aug 24, 2012, 4509 women were randomly assigned to receive denosumab (n=2256) or placebo (n=2253) and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The primary analysis of the study was done when all patients had the opportunity to complete 5 years of follow-up with an analysis data cutoff date of Aug 31, 2017. The primary endpoint of bone metastasis-free survival was not significantly different between the groups (median not reached in either group; hazard ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·82-1·14; p=0·70). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events, reported in patients who had at least one dose of the investigational product (2241 patients with denosumab vs 2218 patients with placebo), were neutropenia (340 [15%] vs 328 [15%]), febrile neutropenia (112 [5%] vs 142 [6%]), and leucopenia (62 [3%] vs 61 [3%]). Positively adjudicated osteonecrosis of the jaw occurred in 122 (5%) of 2241 patients treated with denosumab versus four (1%) of 2218 patients treated with placebo; treatment-emergent hypocalcaemia occurred in 152 (7%) versus 82 (4%). Two treatment-related deaths occurred in the placebo group due to acute myeloid leukaemia and depressed level of consciousness.Despite preclinical evidence suggesting RANKL inhibition might delay bone metastasis or disease recurrence in patients with early-stage breast cancer, in this study, denosumab did not improve disease-related outcomes for women with high-risk early breast cancer.Amgen.

BACKGROUND: Data are limited regarding the use of poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, such as veliparib, in combination with chemotherapy followed by maintenance as initial treatment in patients with high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma. METHODS: In an international, phase 3, placebo-controlled trial, we assessed the efficacy of veliparib added to first-line induction chemotherapy with carboplatin and paclitaxel and continued as maintenance monotherapy in patients with previously untreated stage III or IV high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive chemotherapy plus placebo followed by placebo maintenance (control), chemotherapy plus veliparib followed by placebo maintenance (veliparib combination only), or chemotherapy plus veliparib followed by veliparib maintenance (veliparib throughout). Cytoreductive surgery could be performed before initiation or after 3 cycles of trial treatment. Combination chemotherapy was 6 cycles, and maintenance therapy was 30 additional cycles. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the veliparib-throughout group as compared with the control group, analyzed sequentially in the BRCA-mutation cohort, the cohort with homologous-recombination deficiency (HRD) (which included the BRCA-mutation cohort), and the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: A total of 1140 patients underwent randomization. In the BRCA-mutation cohort, the median progression-free survival was 34.7 months in the veliparib-throughout group and 22.0 months in the control group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28 to 0.68; P

Endometrial cancers have high rates of phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) pathway alterations. MK-2206 is an allosteric inhibitor of AKT, an effector kinase of PI3K signals. We hypothesized patients with tumors harboring PIK3CA mutations would be more likely to benefit from MK-2206 than those without PIK3CA mutation. A Phase II study was performed in patients with recurrent endometrial cancer; all histologies except carcinosarcoma were eligible. Up to two prior chemotherapy lines were permitted, excluding prior treatment with PI3K pathway inhibitors. The first 18 patients were treated with MK-2206 200 mg weekly. Due to unacceptable toxicity, dose was reduced to 135 mg. Co-primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival at 6 months (6moPFS). Thirty-seven patients were enrolled (one ineligible). By somatic PIK3CA mutation analysis, nine patients were mutant (MT) [one with partial response (PR)/6moPFS, two with 6moPFS]. Twenty-seven patients were wild-type (WT) (one PR and four 6moPFS). Most common toxicities were rash (44%), fatigue (41%), nausea (42%) and hyperglycemia (31%). Grade 3 and 4 toxicities occurred in 25 and 17% of patients, respectively. Exploratory analysis found serous histology had greater 6moPFS as compared to all other histologies (5/8 vs. 2/28, p = 0.003). PTEN expression was associated with median time to progression (p = 0.04). No other significant associations with PI3K pathway alterations were identified. There is limited single agent activity of MK-2206 in PIK3CA MT and PIK3CA WT endometrial cancer populations. Activity was detected in patients with serous histology and due to their poor outcomes warrants further study (NCT01307631).

BACKGROUND: Secondary surgical cytoreduction in women with platinum-sensitive, recurrent epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian-tube (“ovarian”) cancer is widely practiced but has not been evaluated in phase 3 investigation. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with recurrent ovarian cancer who had received one previous therapy, had an interval during which no platinum-based chemotherapy was used (platinum-free interval) of 6 months or more, and had investigator-determined resectable disease (to no macroscopic residual disease) to undergo secondary surgical cytoreduction and then receive platinum-based chemotherapy or to receive platinum-based chemotherapy alone. Adjuvant chemotherapy (paclitaxel–carboplatin or gemcitabine–carboplatin) and use of bevacizumab were at the discretion of the investigator. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 485 patients underwent randomization, 240 to secondary cytoreduction before chemotherapy and 245 to chemotherapy alone. The median follow-up was 48.1 months. Complete gross resection was achieved in 67% of the patients assigned to surgery who underwent the procedure. Platinum-based chemotherapy with bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab maintenance was administered to 84% of the patients overall and was equally distributed between the two groups. The hazard ratio for death (surgery vs. no surgery) was 1.29 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 1.72; P=0.08), which corresponded to a median overall survival of 50.6 month and 64.7 months, respectively. Adjustment for platinum-free interval and chemotherapy choice did not alter the effect. The hazard ratio for disease progression or death (surgery vs. no surgery) was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.66 to 1.01; median progression-free survival, 18.9 months and 16.2 months, respectively). Surgical morbidity at 30 days was 9%; 1 patient (0.4%) died from postoperative complications. Patient-reported quality of life decreased significantly after surgery but did not differ significantly between the two groups after recovery. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer, secondary surgical cytoreduction followed by chemotherapy did not result in longer overall survival than chemotherapy alone. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; GOG-0213 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00565851.)

IntroductionACOSOG-Z0011(Z11) trial showed that axillary node clearance (ANC) may be omitted in women with ≤2 positive nodes undergoing breast conserving surgery (BCS) and whole breast radiotherapy (RT). A confirmatory study is needed to clarify the role of axillary treatment in women with ≤2 macrometastases undergoing BCS and groups that were not included in Z11 for example, mastectomy and those with microscopic extranodal invasion. The primary objective of POsitive Sentinel NOde: adjuvant therapy alone versus adjuvant therapy plus Clearance or axillary radiotherapy (POSNOC) is to evaluate whether for women with breast cancer and 1 or 2 macrometastases, adjuvant therapy alone is non-inferior to adjuvant therapy plus axillary treatment, in terms of 5-year axillary recurrence.Methods and analysisPOSNOC is a pragmatic, multicentre, non-inferiority, international trial with participants randomised in a 1:1 ratio. Women are eligible if they have T1/T2, unifocal or multifocal invasive breast cancer, and 1 or 2 macrometastases at sentinel node biopsy, with or without extranodal extension. In the intervention group women receive adjuvant therapy alone, in the standard care group they receive ANC or axillary RT. In both groups women receive adjuvant therapy, according to local guidelines. This includes systemic therapy and, if indicated, RT to breast or chest wall. The UK Radiotherapy Trials Quality Assurance Group manages the in-built radiotherapy quality assurance programme. Primary endpoint is 5-year axillary recurrence. Secondary outcomes are arm morbidity assessed by Lymphoedema and Breast Cancer Questionnaire and QuickDASH questionnaires; quality of life and anxiety as assessed with FACT B+4 and State/Trait Anxiety Inventory questionnaires, respectively; other oncological outcomes; economic evaluation using EQ-5D-5L. Target sample size is 1900. Primary analysis is per protocol. Recruitment started on 1 August 2014 and as of 9 June 2021, 1866 participants have been randomised.Ethics and disseminationProtocol was approved by the National Research Ethics Service Committee East Midlands—Nottingham 2 (REC reference: 13/EM/0459). Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberISRCTN54765244;NCT0240168Cite Now

Purpose of review Although the survival rate of patients with ovarian cancer (OC) has significantly improved, OC is still one of the most common causes of gynecologic cancer death in women worldwide. The current advances in primary treatment are based on recent regulatory approvals and recurrency of such treatments, challenging the development of a unified approach to care. Herein, we examine how integration of these new approaches is applied to patient's treatment. Recent findings We and others have recently reported clinical trials using bevacizumab and/or inhibitors of Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP), which have greatly affected the change in first-line treatments for OC. As first-line therapy has evolved, therapeutic agents once designated for recurrent disease are increasingly being incorporated, changing our standard of care following previously indexed trials. Here, we provide an overview of the current treatment for OC patients, and we highlight practice patterns in Europe and in the USA with corresponding opinions on current and future treatments for platinum-sensitive recurrent OC.

SUMMARYTranscriptional bursting is thought to be a stochastic process that allows the dynamic regulation of most genes. The random telegraph model assumes the existence of two states, ON and OFF. However recent studies indicate the presence of additional ON states, suggesting that bursting kinetics and their regulation can be quite complex. We have developed a system to study transcriptional bursting in the context of p53 biology using the endogenous p21 gene tagged with MS2 in human cells. Remarkably, we find that transcriptional bursts from the p21 gene contain multiple ON and OFF states that can be regulated by elevation of p53 levels. Distinct ON states are characterized by differences in burst duration, classified as Short and Long, with long bursts associated with higher Pol II initiation rates. Importantly, the different ON states display memory effects that allow us to predict the likelihood of properties of future bursting events. Long bursting events result in faster re-activation, longer subsequent bursts and higher transcriptional output in the future compared to short bursts. Bursting memory persists up to 2 hours suggesting a stable inheritable promoter architecture. Bursting memory at the p21 gene is the strongest under basal conditions and is suppressed by UV and inhibition of H3K9me1/2, which also increase transcriptional noise. Stabilization of p53 by Nutlin-3a partially reverses suppression of bursting memory suggesting that higher p53 levels may be a key in enforcing memory under conditions of cellular stress. Overall our data uncover a new found bursting property termed Short-Term Transcriptional Memory (STTM) that has the potential to fine-tune transcriptional output at the p21 gene.

Simple Summary Advanced epithelial ovarian cancer has a poor prognosis, but targeted therapies have been developed and are providing new hope. We reviewed recent results with PARP inhibitors as treatment and/or maintenance therapy following chemotherapy in newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. Data confirm the benefit of PARP inhibitors in this setting, especially in subgroups with genomic instability. We describe the implications of these trial results for clinical practice, focusing on the need for a personalized treatment approach based on biomarker profile and other factors, including tolerability, cost considerations, and physician and patient preference. We have developed a systemic treatment algorithm for newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer, intended as a tool for clinicians to aid decision making in their daily practice. We also consider areas of future research, such as exploring further options for patients whose disease relapses following PARP inhibitor treatment. Abstract Recent data have demonstrated substantial efficacy with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors as treatment and/or maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Here, we review efficacy and safety results from four recent Phase III trials in newly diagnosed EOC: SOLO1 (olaparib), PAOLA-1 (olaparib in combination with bevacizumab), PRIMA (niraparib), and VELIA (veliparib). The implications of these data for current clinical practice and areas for future research are discussed, including ongoing studies of targeted agents in the newly diagnosed setting. Data from SOLO1, PAOLA-1, PRIMA, and VELIA confirm the benefit of PARP inhibitors (olaparib, niraparib, veliparib) for women with newly diagnosed EOC. The greatest benefit was seen in patients with a BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutation or in the homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-test positive subgroup. These four well-conducted studies have generated practice-changing data. However, deciding how to apply these results in clinical practice is challenging, and substantial differences in trial design impede cross-trial comparisons. Recent PARP inhibitor approvals (olaparib, niraparib) in the newly diagnosed EOC setting have provided new maintenance treatment options for a broader patient population. The results of these studies call for personalized medicine based on biomarker profile and other factors, including tolerability, cost considerations, and physician and patient preference. Important areas for future research include appropriate use of both BRCA mutation and HRD testing to inform magnitude of PARP inhibitor benefit as well as exploring further options for patients who are HRD-test negative and for those who become PARP inhibitor resistant.

Introduction/Background* Pembrolizumab, an anti-PD-1 antibody, has demonstrated activity in patients with previously treated mismatch repair (MMR) deficient (dMMR; 57.1% objective response rate [ORR] as monotherapy and 63.6% ORR as combination therapy with lenvatinib) and MMR proficient (pMMR; 36.2% ORR as combination therapy with lenvatinib) endometrial cancer. ENGOT-en11/GOG-3053/KEYNOTE-B21 (NCT04634877) is a phase 3, randomized, double-blind study of pembrolizumab or placebo in combination with adjuvant chemotherapy with/without radiotherapy in patients with endometrial cancer. Methodology Eligible patients are ≥18 years old with newly diagnosed, high-risk (stage I/II non-endometrioid or with p53 abnormality and any histology, stage III/IVA), previously untreated endometrial cancer following surgery with curative intent with no evidence of disease post-operatively. Approximately 990 patients are randomized to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks (Q3W) for 6 cycles plus chemotherapy (carboplatin area under the curve [AUC] 5/6 plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 Q3W or carboplatin AUC 2/2.7 plus paclitaxel 60 mg/m2 QW) in stage 1. Patients receive pembrolizumab 400 mg or placebo Q6W for 6 cycles in stage 2. Radiotherapy (external beam radiotherapy [EBRT] and/or brachytherapy) ± radiosensitizing cisplatin 50 mg/m2 (days 1 and 29) may be administered after completion of chemotherapy. Randomization is stratified by MMR status (pMMR vs dMMR) and, within pMMR, by planned radiation therapy (cisplatin-EBRT vs EBRT vs no EBRT), histology (endometrioid vs non-endometrioid), and International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics surgical stage (I/II vs III/IVA). Dual primary endpoints are disease-free survival (DFS; per investigator assessment) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints include DFS (per blinded independent central review), DFS (per investigator assessment) and OS by biomarker status (PD-L1 and tumor mutational burden), safety (per National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0), and quality of life (per European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 [EORTC QLQ-C30] and Endometrial Cancer Module [EORTC QLQ-EN24]). Enrolment began December 2020 and is ongoing at 221 sites in 28 countries. Result(s)* N/A Conclusion* N/A

Introduction/Background* Clinical trials consistently demonstrate the detrimental impact of progressive disease (PD) on patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Progression-free survival (PFS) is an established regulatory endpoint. However, PFS is often excluded as an efficacy endpoint on the basis that — PFS is not patient relevant — in early benefit assessment by select EU health technology agencies. The PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 (NCT02655016) Phase 3 trial showed niraparib significantly prolongs median PFS vs placebo in patients with AOC responsive to 1L platinum (Pt)-based chemotherapy, (CT), regardless of biomarker status. This post-hoc analysis of PRIMA is the first study to examine the relationship between HRQoL and PD in a broad frontline AOC maintenance treatment setting. Methodology In PRIMA, patients with AOC responsive to 1L Pt CT were randomised 2:1 to once-daily, maintenance niraparib or placebo. Impact of PD on patient HRQoL, irrespective of treatment, was evaluated within the pooled ITT population by comparing HRQoL at the last on-treatment (pre-progression) visit with HRQoL at end of treatment (EOT), +4 weeks, +8w, +12w, and +24w. Assessments included FOSI, EORTC QLQ-C30, EQ-5D-VAS, and EORTC QLQ-OV28 abdominal/GI symptom scale. ANCOVA was applied with treatment as a fixed effect and HRQoL at last on-treatment visit as a continuous covariate. Mixed models for repeated measurements (MMRM) evaluated cumulative HRQoL changes. Result(s)* Significant reductions in HRQoL from pre- to post-progression were observed across all measures. Compared with pre-progression, FOSI scores (Least-squares mean [95% CI]) were lower at EOT+4w (-2.2 [-2.8, -1.6]) and EOT+24w (-1.7 [-2.3, -1.1]); each p Conclusion* These findings demonstrate HRQoL is negatively impacted by PD in AOC. Preservation of HRQoL, an important therapy goal in the maintenance setting particularly for asymptomatic patients, can be achieved with PFS prolongation. PFS is of significant relevance and clinically important for AOC patients.

Introduction/Background* ARIEL3 is a placebo-controlled randomized trial of the PARP inhibitor rucaparib as maintenance treatment in high-grade ovarian cancer (HGOC) patients who responded to the latest line of platinum therapy (NCT01968213). Rucaparib improved progression-free survival (PFS) across all predefined subgroups. Here, we present an exploratory analysis of characteristics associated with exceptional benefit from rucaparib. Methodology Between 7 April 2014, and 19 July 2016, 564 patients were randomized 2:1 to rucaparib 600 mg BID or placebo. As of 31 December 2019 (data cutoff), 33/375 (9%) and 1/189 (0.5%) patients were still ongoing and receiving rucaparib or placebo. Molecular features (genomic alterations and BRCA1 promoter methylation) and baseline clinical characteristics were compared between patients who derived exceptional benefit (PFS ≥2 years), and those with disease progression on first scan (≈12 weeks; the short-term subgroup) within each treatment arm. Result(s)* Of 564 patients, a greater percentage of rucaparib vs placebo patients showed exceptional benefit: 79/375 (21%) in the rucaparib arm and 4/189 (2%) in the placebo arm (including 26/375 [7%] patients in the rucaparib arm and 1/189 [0.5%] patient in the placebo arm with PFS >4 years as of the data cutoff date). Within the rucaparib arm, exceptional benefit patients had more favourable clinical prognostic factors at baseline versus the short-term subgroup (table 1). Although BRCA (BRCA1 or BRCA2) mutations were enriched in the rucaparib exceptional benefit subgroup, 33/79 (42%) of these patients were BRCA wild type. Patterns of enrichment varied among other biomarkers. Overall trends were similar in the placebo arm. Conclusion* Exceptional benefit in ARIEL3 was more common in, but not exclusive to, patients with favourable clinical characteristics and known mechanisms of sensitivity to a PARP inhibitor. Our results suggest rucaparib can deliver exceptional benefit to a diverse set of patients with HGOC.

Introduction/Background* High-risk locally advanced cervical cancer has a poor prognosis, and more than half of patients recur in 2 years. External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with concurrent chemotherapy followed by brachytherapy is the standard of care for locally advanced cervical cancer. The immunostimulatory activity of the PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab may be enhanced by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). After the KEYNOTE-158 study, in which pembrolizumab showed durable antitumor activity, pembrolizumab monotherapy was approved for patients with PD-L1–positive recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer who progressed during or after chemotherapy. ENGOT-cx11/GOG 3047/KEYNOTE-A18 (NCT04221945) is a phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled study evaluating pembrolizumab with CCRT for the treatment of high-risk, locally advanced cervical cancer. Methodology Approximately 980 patients with high-risk (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2014 stage IB2-IIB with node-positive disease or stage III-IVA), locally advanced, histologically confirmed cervical cancer who have not received systemic therapy, immunotherapy, definitive surgery, or radiation will be randomized 1:1 to receive either 5 cycles of pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks (Q3W) + CCRT followed by 15 cycles of pembrolizumab 400 mg Q6W or 5 cycles of placebo Q3W + CCRT followed by 15 cycles of placebo Q6W. CCRT includes 5 cycles (optional 6th dose) of cisplatin 40 mg/m2 Q1W + EBRT followed by brachytherapy. Randomization is stratified by planned EBRT type (intensity-modulated radiotherapy [IMRT] or volumetric-modulated arc therapy [VMAT] vs non-IMRT or non-VMAT), cancer stage at screening (stage IB2-IIB vs III-IVA), and planned total radiotherapy dose. Treatment will continue until the patient has received 20 cycles of pembrolizumab (5 cycles 200 mg Q3W, 15 cycles 400 mg Q6W) vs placebo (~2 years) or until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal. Primary endpoints are progression-free survival (PFS) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 by investigator and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints include PFS by blinded independent central review, PFS at 2 years, OS at 3 years, complete response at 12 weeks, objective response rate, PFS and OS by PD-L1 status, quality of life, and safety. Enrolment began May 2020 and is planned for 193 sites in 30 countries. Klikněte nebo klepněte sem a zadejte text.

Balstilimab (anti-programmed death 1) and zalifrelimab (anti-CTLA-4) are two new checkpoint inhibitors that have emerged as promising investigational agents for the treatment of cervical cancer, particularly in the setting of previously-treated, recurrent/metastatic disease. Here we describe the rationale and design of RaPiDS (NCT03894215), a two-arm Phase II study evaluating the safety, tolerability and efficacy of balstilimab administered alone or in combination with zalifrelimab in patients with advanced cervical cancer who progressed after first-line, platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio. The primary end point is objective response rate, and key secondary objectives include safety, duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival and quality of life outcomes.Lay abstract Current treatment options for women with recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer are limited. Immunotherapy is altering the therapeutic landscape in this setting yet opportunities remain to improve on current outcomes. Dual blockade of different immune checkpoints is an approach shown to be highly effective in other cancers. Balstilimab (anti-programmed death 1) and zalifrelimab (anti-CTLA-4) are two new checkpoint inhibitors showing promise in patients with advanced cervical cancer. The RaPiDS trial is designed to characterize the safety and activity of balstilimab, alone and in combination with zalifrelimab, in patients with recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer who progressed after prior platinum-based chemotherapy. Clinical trial registration: NCT03894215 (ClinicalTrials.gov).