Search

Purpose: The Normal Risk Ovarian Screening Study (NROSS) tested a two-stage screening strategy in postmenopausal women at conventional hereditary risk where significantly rising cancer antigen (CA)-125 prompted transvaginal sonography (TVS) and abnormal TVS prompted surgery to detect ovarian cancer., Methods: A total of 7,856 healthy postmenopausal women were screened annually for a total of 50,596 woman-years in a single-arm study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00539162). Serum CA125 was analyzed with the Risk of Ovarian Cancer Algorithm (ROCA) each year. If risk was unchanged and <1:2,000, women returned in a year. If risk increased above 1:500, TVS was undertaken immediately, and if risk was intermediate, CA125 was repeated in 3 months with a further increase in risk above 1:500 prompting referral for TVS. An average of 2% of participants were referred to TVS annually., Results: Thirty-four patients were referred for operations detecting 15 ovarian cancers and two borderline tumors with 12 in early stage (I-II). In addition, seven endometrial cancers were detected with six in stage I. As four ovarian cancers and two borderline tumors were diagnosed with a normal ROCA, the sensitivity for detecting ovarian and borderline cancer was 74% (17 of 23), and 70% of ROCA-detected cases (12 of 17) were in stage I-II. NROSS screening reduced late-stage (III-IV) disease by 34% compared with UKCTOCS controls and by 30% compared with US SEER values. The positive predictive value (PPV) was 50% (17 of 34) for detecting ovarian cancer and 74% (25 of 34) for any cancer, far exceeding the minimum acceptable study end point of 10% PPV., Conclusion: While the NROSS trial was not powered to detect reduced mortality, the high specificity, PPV, and marked stage shift support further development of this strategy.

Objective: The primary purpose of this study was to determine if farletuzumab, an antifolate receptor-α monoclonal antibody, improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo when added to standard chemotherapy regimens in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (OC) in first relapse (platinum-free interval: 6-36 months) with low cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) levels., Methods: Eligibility included CA-125 ≤ 3 x upper limit of normal (ULN, 105 U/mL), high-grade serous, platinum-sensitive recurrent OC, previous treatment with debulking surgery, and first-line platinum-based chemotherapy with 1st recurrence between 6 and 36 months since frontline platinum-based treatment. Patients received investigator's choice of either carboplatin (CARBO)/paclitaxel (PTX) every 3 weeks or CARBO/pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) every 4 weeks x6 cycles in combination with either farletuzumab [5 mg/kg weekly] or placebo randomized in a 2:1 ratio. Maintenance treatment with farletuzumab (5 mg/kg weekly) or placebo was given until disease progression or intolerance., Results: 214 patients were randomly assigned to farletuzumab+chemotherapy (142 patients) versus placebo+chemotherapy (72 patients). The primary efficacy endpoint, PFS, was not significantly different between treatment groups (1-sided α = 0.10; p-value = 0.25; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.89, 80% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71, 1.11), a median of 11.7 months (95% CI: 10.2, 13.6) versus 10.8 months (95% CI: 9.5, 13.2) for farletuzumab+chemotherapy and placebo+chemotherapy, respectively. No new safety concerns were identified with the combination of farletuzumab+chemotherapy., Conclusions: Adding farletuzumab to standard chemotherapy does not improve PFS in patients with OC who were platinum-sensitive in first relapse with low CA-125 levels. Folate receptor-α expression was not measured in this study. (Clinical Trial Registry NCT02289950)., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest TH reports medical writing support; consulting fees from Astra Zeneca (AZ), Caris, Clovis, Genentech, Gradalis, Epsilogen, Merck (MSD), Eisai, Seagen; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from AZ, Clovis, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK); participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from Incyte, Corcept; Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid as Treasurer GOG Foundation and Associate Director GOG-P. SP reports no conflicts of interest. SG reports payments for clinical trial conduct from Eisai; grants or contracts for clinical trial conduct from GSK, Merck, Mersana, Jounce, AZ, Seagen, Clovis; consulting fees from Seagen; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Eisai and GSK; Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid as GOG foundation, GASCO, National Cancer Institute Cervix committee. MR reports no conflicts of interest. KF reports grants and contracts from Eisai; consulting fees from Eisai. CV reports medical writing support from Eisai; consulting fees from Janssen-Cilag, Roche, GSK, Atheneum Partners, Astellas Pharma, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Leo-Pharma; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Janssens Cilag, Leo Pharma, Bayer; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Roche and Pfizer. DA reports clinical trial support from Eisai. JS reports consulting fees from Eisai, Roche, Novocure, AZ, GSK, Tesaro, Pfizer, MSD, Merck, Clovis; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Eisai, Roche, Novocure, AZ, GSK, Tesaro, Pfizer, MSD, Merck; payment for expert testimony from Eisai, Roche, Novocure, AZ, GSK, Tesaro, Pfizer, MSD, Merck; support for attending meetings and/or travel from GSK, Roche, AZ; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from Eisai, Roche, Novocure, AZ, GSK, Tesaro, Pfizer, MSD, Merck, Clovis; Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid as ESGO council, NOGGO council, AGO Executive Board, GCIG member; RC reports grants or contracts from AZ, Clovis, Genelux, Genmab, Merck, Immunogen Janssen, Roche/Genentech; consulting fees from Agenus, Alkermes, AZ, Clovis, Deciphera, Genelux, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Janssen, OncoQuest, Onxeo, Onxerna, Regeneron, Roche/Genentech, Novocure, Merck, Abbvie; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from AZ, Clovis, Roche/Genentech, Merck; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from VBL Therapeutics. HG reports no conflicts of interest. GS reports grants or contracts from MSD Italia; consulting fees from Tesaro Bio Italy srl, Johnson and Johnson; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Clovis Oncology Italy srl. BM reports consulting fees from Acrivon, Adaptimune, Agenus, Akeso Bio, Amgen, Aravive, AZ, Bayer, Clovis, Eisai, Elevar, EMD Merck, Genmab/Seagen, GOG Foundation, Gradalis, Heng Rui, ImmunoGen, Karyopharm, Lovance, Laekna, Macrogenics, Merck, Mersana, Myriad, Novartis, Novocure, OncoC4, Panavance, Pieris, Pfizer, Puma, Regeneron, Roche/Genentech, Sorrento, Tesaro/GSK, US Oncology Research, VBL, Verastem, Zentalis; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from AZ, Clovis, Eisai, Merck, Myriad, Roche/Genentech, Tesaro/GSK. JA reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from BMS, Merck, Astellas, Eisai, Ipsen, Pfizer; support for attending meetngs and/or travel from Ipsen. KU reports grants or contracts from Eisai. RH reports grants or contracts from AZ, Clovis, GSK; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from AZ, Clovis, GSK; multiple cases for medicolegal expert witness; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from AZ, Clovis, GSK. CZ reports grants or contracts from Novartis; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, MSD, Eisai, GSK; support for attending meetings or travel from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, MSD, Eisai, GSK, ExactSciences, Clovis; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, MSD, Eisai, GSK, DaichiSankyo. RW reports support for medical writing from Eisai; grants or contracts from OnTarget Labs, Merck, Anixa Bioscience; consulting fees from Novocure, Mersana, AZ, Ovation Diagnostics, Sonnet Biotherapeutics, Shattuck Labs, Clovis, Abbvie, Tesaro/GSK, Seagen, Genentech, Merck, Regeneron, Legend Biotech, Eisai; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from AZ and GSK; support for attending meetngs and/or travel from Sonnet Biotherapeutics and Tapimmune; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from Tesaro, Seagen; stock or stock options from Ovation Diagnostics; AG reports grants or contracts from Roche and Tesaro/GSK; consulting fees from AZ, Genmab, MSD, Oncoinvent, PharmaMar, SOTIO, Clovis, Immunogen, Amgen Merck/Pfizer, Roche, GSK/Tesaro; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Roche, Tesaro/GSK, Clovis, Immunogen, Pfizer, Amgen, SOTIO, Marcrogenics, AZ, MSD, Genmab, Oncoinvent, EMD Serono, Mersana, SUTRO, PharmaMar; support for attending meetngs and/or travel from Roche, PharmaMar, AZ, Tesaro/GSK; BS reports consulting fees from AZ, Clovis, GSK, Merck, Eisai, Lilly, Novartis, Immunogen, Seagen, Genmab, Genentech; YJ reports employment from Eisai; LR reports employment from Eisai. KT reports support for the manuscript from Eisai; consulting fees from Merck, GSK, Clovis, AZ, Regeneron, Eisai, Seagen; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Merck, GSK, Clovis, AZ, Regeneron, Eisai, Seagen; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from Lovance. SW reports employment from Eisai. IV reports grants or contracts from Oncoinvent, AS, Amgen, Roche; consulting fees from Agenus, Akesobio, AZ BMS, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Elevar Therapeutics, Exelixis, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Jazzpharma, Karyopharm, Mersana, MSD, Novocure, Novartis, Oncoinvent, OncXerna, Regeneron, Sanofi, Seagen, Sotio, Verastem Oncology, Zentalis; support for attending meetngs and/or travel from Karyopharm, Genmab, Novocure., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Low-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary or peritoneum is characterised by MAPK pathway aberrations and its reduced sensitivity to chemotherapy relative to high-grade serous carcinoma. We compared the MEK inhibitor trametinib to physician's choice standard of care in patients with recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma., Methods: This international, randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 2/3 trial was done at 84 hospitals in the USA and UK. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma and measurable disease, as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1, had received at least one platinum-based regimen, but not all five standard-of-care drugs, and had received an unlimited number of previous regimens. Patients with serous borderline tumours or tumours containing low-grade serous and high-grade serous carcinoma were excluded. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral trametinib 2 mg once daily (trametinib group) or one of five standard-of-care treatment options (standard-of-care group): intravenous paclitaxel 80 mg/m 2 by body surface area on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 28-day cycle; intravenous pegylated liposomal doxorubicin 40-50 mg/m 2 by body surface area once every 4 weeks; intravenous topotecan 4 mg/m 2 by body surface area on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 28-day cycle; oral letrozole 2·5 mg once daily; or oral tamoxifen 20 mg twice daily. Randomisation was stratified by geographical region (USA or UK), number of previous regimens (1, 2, or ≥3), performance status (0 or 1), and planned standard-of-care regimen. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival while receiving randomised therapy, as assessed by imaging at baseline, once every 8 weeks for 15 months, and then once every 3 months thereafter, in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study therapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02101788, and is active but not recruiting., Findings: Between Feb 27, 2014, and April 10, 2018, 260 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the trametinib group (n=130) or the standard-of-care group (n=130). At the primary analysis, there were 217 progression-free survival events (101 [78%] in the trametinib group and 116 [89%] in the standard-of-care group). Median progression-free survival in the trametinib group was 13·0 months (95% CI 9·9-15·0) compared with 7·2 months (5·6-9·9) in the standard-of-care group (hazard ratio 0·48 [95% CI 0·36-0·64]; p<0·0001). The most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the trametinib group were skin rash (17 [13%] of 128), anaemia (16 [13%]), hypertension (15 [12%]), diarrhoea (13 [10%]), nausea (12 [9%]), and fatigue (ten [8%]). The most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the standard-of-care group were abdominal pain (22 [17%]), nausea (14 [11%]), anaemia (12 [10%]), and vomiting (ten [8%]). There were no treatment-related deaths., Interpretation: Trametinib represents a new standard-of-care option for patients with recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma., Funding: NRG Oncology, Cancer Research UK, Target Ovarian Cancer, and Novartis., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests DMG reports payments made to his institution from the National Cancer Institute (NRG Oncology), Novartis, and the GOG Foundation for this study; royalties or licenses from Elsevier and UpToDate outside the submitted work; consulting fees from Genentech outside the submitted work; personal fees for service as a member of the Committee of the National Cancer Institute outside the submitted work; and stock or stock options from Johnson & Johnson, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Biogen outside the submitted work. AM reports service as a masked study statistician for VBL Therapeutics; provision of statistical institutional support for Advaxis; service as a data safety monitoring board reporting statistician for Regeneron; and service on a study steering committee for Genentech and AstraZeneca, all outside the submitted work. RLC reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Merck–GlaxoSmithKline, and Clovis; grants from Genmab, Genentech–Roche, Janssen, Agenus, Regeneron, and OncoQuest; payments or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker's bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, Merck–GlaxoSmithKline, and Clovis; and service on a data safety monitoring board or an advisory board for Janssen, VBL Therapeutics, and AstraZeneca, all outside the submitted work. KNM reports service on advisory boards for Alkemeres, AstraZeneca, Aravive, Blueprint Medicines, Eisai, Elevar, GlaxoSmithKline–Tesaro, Genentech–Roche, Hengrui, Immunogen, IMab, Merck, Mereo, Mersana, Myriad, OncXerna, Onconova, Novartis, Sorrento, Tarveda, and VBL Therapeutics, all outside the submitted work; grant funding from PTC Therapeutics, Lilly, Merck, and Genentech–Roche outside the submitted work; funding paid to her institution from Cyteir, Immunocore, Bolt Bio, Amgen, Artios, GlaxoSmithKline–Tesaro, Mereo, Regeneron, Aravive, Verastem, and AstraZeneca, for all of which she also serves as a local principal investigator; serving as national principal investigator for the IMaGYN050 trial of ovarian cancer (Genentech–Roche), the MIRASOL trial of ovarian cancer (Immunogen), the Relevare study of ovarian cancer (OncXerna), the FIRST study of ovarian cancer (GlaxoSmithKline–Tesaro), and the ETCTN 10422 study of ovarian cancer (National Cancer Institute); being the associate director for GOG Partners, on the GOG Foundation board of directors, and the NRG Oncology chair of the ovarian cancer committee; and receiving speaking reimbursement from PER, Research to Practice, Medscape, Great Debates and Updates, and Gyn Mal, all of which are outside the scope of this work but were active during the conduct of this study. SB reports grants paid to their institution from AstraZeneca, Tesaro, and GlaxoSmithKline; personal fees for participation in advisory boards from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunogen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Mersana, Oncxerna, Seagen, Shattuck Lab, and Epsilogen; and personal fees for lectures from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunogen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mersana, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda, all outside the submitted work. AAS reports a National Cancer Trial Network grant; grants paid to her institution from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Clovis, Eisai, Immutep, Merck, OncoQuest, PharmaMar, Genentech–Roche, Seagen, Tesaro–GlaxoSmithKline, and VBL Therapeutics; consulting fees from Aravive, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Cordgenics, Eisai, Merck, Mersana, Myriad, Oncoquest, Genentech–Roche, and Tesaro–GlaxoSmithKline; presentations for educational events on cervical cancer sponsored by Research to Practice; service on advisory boards (uncompensated) for AbbVie and Regeneron; service on clinical trial steering committees (all uncompensated) for the AtTEnd trial (Hoffman-LaRoche), the Oval Trial (VBL Therapeutics), and the FLORA-5 trial (Oncoquest); and service on the GOG Foundation Board of Directors, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology Board of Directors, and the American Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Foundation Board of Trustees, all outside the submitted work. DMO reports National Cancer Institute support for this clinical trial; research funding paid to their institution from AstraZeneca, Tesaro–GlaxoSmithKline, Immunogen, Janssen–Johnson & Johnson, AbbVie Regeneron, Amgen, Novocure, Genentech–Roche, VentiRx Array Biopharma EMD Serono, Ergomed, Ajinomoto, Ludwig Cancer Research Stemcentrx, Cerulean Pharma, the GOG Foundation, the National Cancer Institute, Bristol Myers Squibb, C Serono, TRACON Pharmaceuticals, Yale University, New Mexico Cancer Care Alliance, inVentiv Health Clinical, Iovance Biotherapeutics, PRA Intl, Eisai, Agenus, Merck, GenMab, SeaGen, Mersana, and Clovis; personal fees for consulting or advisory board membership, or both, from AstraZeneca, Tesaro–GlaxoSmithKline, Immunogen, Ambry, Janssen–Johnson & Johnson, BBI, Agenus, AbbVie, Regeneron, Amgen, Novocure, Genentech–Roche, GOG Foundation, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Myriad Genetics, Eisai, Agenus, Tarveda, Merck, SeaGen, Novartis, Mersana, Clovis, Rubius, and Elevar, all outside the submitted work. OD reports grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Genentech, AbbVie, IMV, Millenium, and Pharmamar; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Tesaro–GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca; payment for expert testimony in one legal case unrelated to the current study; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Merck, Clovis, PACT, and Genentech, all outside the submitted work. SG reports financial support paid to her institution for the present study from the National Clinical Trials Network; grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Pfizer, Rigel, Iovance, Tesaro, Genentech–Roche, PharmaMar, and GlaxoSmithKline; patents licensed to Sermonix (US patent numbers 10,905,659 and 10,258,604); participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Sermonix, Elevar Therapeutics, and GlaxoSmithKline; and service as an NRG Oncology phase 1 subcommittee co-chair, all outside the submitted work. BS reports personal fees for service on advisory boards for Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Bostongene, Clovis, Eisai, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Jazz Pharmaceticals, Lilly, Merck, Myriad, Novartis, Nuvation, Onconova, and Seagen; and consulting for the GOG Foundation, all outside the submitted work. AE reports grants or contracts from UKRI for a post-doctoral fellowship outside the submitted work. CG reports grants from GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis for this study (trametinib, the test drug, was sold by GlaxoSmithKline to Novartis during the course of the study). WEB, JP, KCa, WR, DM, KCo, HG, PH, JF, MC, RLH, CSH, HQH, and LW declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© IGCS and ESGO 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: Low-grade serous carcinoma (LGSC) is a rare histotype of ovarian cancer with a unique disease course. Little data exist regarding the influence of sociodemographic factors on diagnosis and outcomes in this disease. Our objective was to evaluate the associations between these factors and the clinical characteristics, treatment approaches, and survival in LGSC., Methods: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for data between 2004 and 2015 on patients with LGSC. LGSC was inclusive of invasive, grade 1, serous carcinoma of the ovary, fallopian tube, or peritoneum. Patient demographics, insurance status, disease characteristics, treatment approach, and survival were evaluated. ANOVA, Chi Square, Kaplan-Meier, and Cox regression were used in the analysis., Results: 3221 patients with LGSC were evaluated (89.5% White, 6.2% Black; 7.2% Hispanic, 92.8% non-Hispanic). Compared to Whites, Blacks were diagnosed younger (50.4 vs. 55.9 years, p < 0.01), received less chemotherapy (61.8% vs 67.0%, p = 0.04), and had less CA-125 elevation (OR 4.14 [1.26-13.57], p = 0.02). Compared to non-Hispanics, Hispanics were younger (49.5 vs. 55.8 years, p < 0.01) and received less chemotherapy (55% vs 67%, p < 0.001). In contrast to private insurance, government insurance was associated with a higher 30-day mortality (1.5% vs 0.01%, p < 0.001). Race/ethnicity were not predictive of OS, while older age (HR 1.013 [1.002-1.024], p = 0.03), advanced stage (HR 3.09 [2.15-4.43], p < 0.001), and government insurance (HR 2.33 [1.65-3.30], p < 0.001) were all independently associated with worse OS., Conclusions: Significant differences exist in the clinical characteristics, treatments, and outcomes of LGSC by sociodemographics, with Blacks and Hispanics being diagnosed younger and receiving less chemotherapy. Age, stage, and insurance status were predictive of overall survival., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors of this paper have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In January 2019, a group of basic, translational, and clinical investigators and patient advocates assembled in Miami, Florida, to discuss the current state of the science of low-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary or peritoneum-a rare ovarian cancer subtype that may arise de novo or following a diagnosis of serous borderline tumor. The purpose of the conference was to review current knowledge, discuss ongoing research by established researchers, and frame critical questions or issues for future directions. Following presentations and discussions, the primary objective was to initiate future collaborations, uniform database platforms, laboratory studies, and clinical trials to better understand this disease and to advance clinical care outside the boundaries of single academic institutions. This review summarizes the state of the science in five principal categories: epidemiology and patient outcomes, pathology, translational research, patient care and clinical trials, and patients' perspective., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Overall, there are no conflicts of interest with regard to this article (individual COI are disclosed on COI forms)., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Polypharmacy has been associated with morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. Data about polypharmacy among patients with ovarian cancer are limited. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate polypharmacy in a cohort of patients with ovarian cancer and to assess the evolution of polypharmacy from initial presentation to 2 years posttreatment. A secondary objective was to evaluate differences in polypharmacy between a subset of patients primarily treated in our comprehensive cancer center (CCC) and our safety net hospital (SNH)., Methods: Women treated for ovarian cancer between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2016, were included. Data were abstracted from the electronic medical record. Medication safety was assessed using the established Anticholinergic Burden (ACB) scale and the Beers criteria. Statistical analyses were performed using paired t tests and Cox proportional hazards models, with significance set at p < .05., Results: The study included 152 patients. The majority of patients had high-grade serous carcinoma. Hypertension was the most common medical problem. The mean number of medications at the time of diagnosis was 3.72. Paired testing demonstrated significant patient-level increases in the number medications at 2 years following initial diagnosis (4.16 vs. 7.01, p < .001). At the CCC, 47.4% of patients met criteria for polypharmacy at diagnosis compared with 19.4% at the SNH ( p < .001). By 2 years postdiagnosis, 77.6% of patients at the CCC met criteria for polypharmacy compared with 43.3% at the SNH ( p = .001). The use of any medications on the ACB scale ( p < .001) increased significantly between initial diagnosis and 2 years for the entire population. Polypharmacy was not a significant predictor of overall survival., Conclusion: Polypharmacy worsens as women go through ovarian cancer treatment. Both at initial presentation and at 2 years postdiagnosis, rates of polypharmacy were higher at the CCC. Polypharmacy did not have an effect on survival in this cohort., Implications for Practice: Awareness of escalating numbers of medications and potentially adverse interactions is crucial among women with ovarian cancer, who are at high risk for polypharmacy., Competing Interests: Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article., (© AlphaMed Press 2019.)

Objective: Germline mutations occur in approximately 25% of patients with epithelial ovarian cancers while somatic BRCA mutations are estimated at 5-7%. The objectives of this study were to determine the rate of germline and somatic testing in women with ovarian cancer and to identify disparities in testing at a comprehensive cancer center (CCC) and a safety net hospital (SNH)., Methods: Patients treated for ovarian cancer from 2011 to 2016 were included. Clinicopathologic data were abstracted from the electronic medical records. Logistic regression modeling were performed to calculate odds ratios (OR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95%CI)., Results: Out of 367 women, 55.3% completed germline testing; 27.0% received somatic testing. Women at the CCC were more likely to be tested for germline (60.4% vs 38.1%, p ≤ 0.001) and somatic (34.3% vs 2.4%, p ≤ 0.001) mutations than those at the SNH. Patients with Medicare (aOR = 0.51, 95%CI 0.28-0.94, p = 0.032) or Medicaid (aOR = 0.42, 95%CI 0.18-0.99, p = 0.048) were less likely to receive germline testing than those privately insured. Patients with Medicaid were less likely to receive somatic testing (aOR = 0.15, 95%CI 0.04-0.62, p = 0.009) than those privately insured. Women with disease recurrence had a higher likelihood of being tested for germline (OR = 3.64, 95%CI 1.94-6.83, P < 0.001) and somatic (OR = 7.89, 95%CI 3.41-18.23, p < 0.001) mutations. There was no difference in germline or somatic testing by race/ethnicity., Conclusions: Disparities in both germline and somatic testing exist. Understanding and overcoming barriers to testing may improve cancer-related mortality by allowing for more tailored treatments as well as for improved cascade testing., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Low grade serous ovarian carcinoma is a rare subtype of ovarian cancer with an indolent and chemorefractory course. As such, treatment strategies among practitioners are not uniformly known. The primary objective of this study was to identify differences in practice patterns among physicians who treat low grade serous carcinoma., Methods Materials: A de novo survey was distributed to members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology. Questions about demographics, management of primary and recurrent disease, and use of consolidation therapy were included. Statistical analyses were performed using χ 2 and Fisher's exact tests., Results: 194 gynecologic oncologists completed the survey. Approximately two-thirds of respondents practiced in a university based setting and treated a high volume of ovarian cancers, including low grade serous carcinoma. 82% recommended somatic testing during treatment and 84% routinely sent patients for genetic counseling. Treatment preferences for primary disease varied by debulking status. 48% of practitioners used hormone antagonism as consolidation after primary treatment. Secondary cytoreduction was preferred for patients with platinum sensitive recurrence and a long disease free interval following primary treatment (P<0.001). Hormone antagonism was the preferred treatment for the first platinum resistant recurrence (54%), while a BRAF inhibitor was the preferred agent in platinum resistant recurrence in the presence of a known BRAF mutation (56%)., Conclusions: There was significant variation in the preferred management of low grade serous carcinoma among practitioners. Further efforts to improve knowledge of this disease, identify optimal treatment modalities, and provide guidelines for management should be encouraged., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© IGCS and ESGO 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: Hedgehog pathway inhibition has been suggested as a potential maintenance treatment approach in ovarian cancer through disruption of tumor-stromal interactions. Vismodegib is an orally available Hedgehog pathway inhibitor with clinical activity in advanced basal cell carcinoma and medulloblastoma. This phase II, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was designed to provide a preliminary estimate of efficacy in patients with ovarian cancer in second or third complete remission (CR)., Experimental Design: Patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer in second or third CR were randomized 1:1 to vismodegib (GDC-0449; 150 mg daily) or placebo three to 14 weeks after completing chemotherapy. Treatment continued until radiographic progression or toxicity. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS)., Results: One hundred four patients were randomized to vismodegib (n = 52) or placebo (n = 52); median PFS was 7.5 months and 5.8 months, respectively [HR 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.46-1.35]. The HR was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.36-1.20) for second CR patients (n = 84) and 1.79 (95% CI, 0.50-6.48) for third CR patients (n = 20). The most common adverse events in the vismodegib arm were dysgeusia/ageusia, muscle spasms, and alopecia. Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 12 patients (23.1%) with vismodegib and six (11.5%) with placebo. Hedgehog expression was detected in 13.5% of archival tissues., Conclusions: In this study, the sought magnitude of increase in PFS was not achieved for vismodegib maintenance versus placebo in patients with ovarian cancer in second or third CR. The frequency of Hedgehog ligand expression was lower than expected., (©2012 AACR.)

Objectives: We hypothesize that differences in the expression of selected tumor suppressor genes, cell surface adhesion molecules, and multidrug resistance glycoproteins could account for some of the reported differences between uterine serous carcinoma (USC) and extrauterine serous carcinomas (ESC), including ovarian and primary peritoneal carcinoma (OSC and PSC, respectively)., Methods: We studied the expression of the following antigens in 20 USCs, 20 OSCs, and 10 PSCs: p53 and mdm-2 (tumor suppressor genes), CD44 and CD44v6 (cell surface adhesion molecules), and the p-glycoprotein (a multidrug resistance protein recognized by two antibodies, C494 and JSB1). We further studied chemotherapeutic drug resistance by examining reports prepared using the Oncotech Extreme Drug Resistance Assay from 24 of the 50 study patients. Clinical data were obtained from medical record review., Results: USC, OSC, and PSC patients were similar with respect to mean age at diagnosis, mean gravidity, mean parity, personal history of breast cancer, percentage treated with chemotherapy, and survival at 3 and 5 years postdiagnosis. Significant clinical differences included a high prevalence of nulliparity in OSC (P = 0.05), a low prevalence of Caucasian race in USC (P = 0.008), a paucity of stage I patients in OSC and PSC (P = 0.03), a high prevalence of familial breast cancer in OSC (P = 0.06), and superior 2-year survival in OSC (P = 0.02). Seventy-five percent of USCs, 52% of OSCs, and 60% of PSCs expressed p53. Five percent of USCs, 19% of OSCs, and 0% of PSCs expressed mdm-2. Forty percent of USCs, 33% of OSCs, and 10% of PSCs expressed CD44. None of the USCs, OSCs, or PSCs expressed CD44v6. Sixty-one percent of USCs and OSCs and 82% of PSCs expressed C494 while 17% of USCs, 19% of OSCs, and 20% of PSCs expressed JSB1. None of these apparent differences was statistically significant. USC, OSC, and PSCs patients did not demonstrate significant differences with respect to extreme drug resistance. However, the following trends were noted (P = 0.06): more prevalent low drug resistance for cyclophosphamide in OSC compared with USC and more prevalent extreme drug resistance for etoposide in OSC compared with USC., Conclusions: Therefore, despite significant clincial differences, the USCs and ESCs in our series do not differ significantly with respect to the expression of the tumor suppressor genes, cell surface adhesion molecules, and drug resistance proteins studied. It is premature, however, to recommend that USCs and ESCs should be treated identically., (Copyright 2000 Academic Press.)

Background: Desmoplastic small round cell tumor (DSRCT) is a rare, aggressive, malignant neoplasm that has recently been characterized. It has not been associated with a primary visceral organ. In women, cases are even more rare and often have some ovarian involvement., Case: An 11-year-old girl presented with abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting. A CT scan revealed a large heterogeneous pelvic mass with cystic components and an 8-cm midabdominal mass. During exploratory laparotomy, the patient was found to have a pelvic mass measuring 12. 9 cm replacing normal ovarian tissue. The midabdominal mass was also removed. Pathology, cytology, and immunohistochemistry confirmed a desmoplastic small round cell tumor. Even with aggressive surgical and medical intervention, the patient died 11 months after initial diagnosis., Conclusion: We present a rare small cell tumor that is associated with ovarian involvement. The prognosis in these patients is extremely poor and very few survivals have been reported., (Copyright 2000 Academic Press.)