Search

Purpose: Inhibition of the cyclin D-cyclin dependent kinase (CDK)4/6-INK4-retinoblastoma pathway can overcome acquired or de novo treatment resistance to endocrine monotherapy. Responses to endocrine monotherapy in advanced endometrial cancer (EC) are suboptimal, perhaps due to genomic alterations that promote estrogen receptor (ER)-independent cyclin D1-CDK4/6 activation. We hypothesized that addition of abemaciclib, a CDK4/6 kinase inhibitor, to antiestrogen therapy with fulvestrant will be an effective therapeutic strategy in patients with advanced or recurrent EC., Methods: In this phase II study, patients with advanced or recurrent EC received 150 mg of abemaciclib orally twice daily with 500 mg of fulvestrant intramuscularly monthly with a 2-week loading dose. Eligibility included ER or progesterone receptor expression ³1% by immunohistochemistry, measurable disease, £2 prior lines of chemotherapy, and £1 prior line of hormonal therapy. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST v1.1., Results: Twenty-seven patients initiated therapy and 25 were evaluable for efficacy. Eleven patients achieved partial response; 10 responses (91%) were in copy number-low/no specific molecular profile tumors, 1 (9%) was in a microsatellite instability-high tumor, and no responses were observed in copy number-high/TP53abnormal tumors. The ORR was 44% (90% CI, 27.0%-62.1%). Median duration of response was 15.6 months. Median progression-free survival was 9.0 months (90% CI: 1.8-20.4). The most common grade ³3 treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (26%) and anemia (19%); no new safety signals were identified., Conclusions: The combination of abemaciclib and fulvestrant has promising activity with durable responses in advanced or recurrent EC; a randomized trial is planned.

Introduction: DESTINY-PanTumor02 (NCT04482309) evaluated the efficacy and safety of trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) in pretreated patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-expressing [immunohistochemistry (IHC) 3+/2+] solid tumors across seven cohorts: endometrial, cervical, ovarian, bladder, biliary tract, pancreatic, and other. Subgroup analyses by HER2 status were previously reported by central HER2 IHC testing, determined at enrollment or confirmed retrospectively. Reflecting the testing methods available in clinical practice, most patients (n = 202; 75.7%) were enrolled based on local HER2 IHC testing. Here, we report outcomes by HER2 IHC status as determined by the local or central test results used for study enrollment., Methods: This phase 2, open-label study evaluated T-DXd (5.4 mg/kg once every 3 weeks) for HER2-expressing (IHC 3+/2+ by local or central testing) locally advanced or metastatic disease after ≥ 1 systemic treatment or without alternative treatments. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed confirmed objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included safety, duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival., Results: In total, 111 (41.6%) and 151 (56.6%) patients were enrolled with IHC 3+ and IHC 2+ tumors, respectively. In patients with IHC 3+ tumors, investigator-assessed confirmed ORR was 51.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 41.7, 61.0], and median DOR was 14.2 months (95% CI 10.3, 23.6). In patients with IHC 2+ tumors, investigator-assessed ORR was 26.5% (95% CI 19.6, 34.3), and median DOR was 9.8 months (95% CI 4.5, 12.6). Safety was consistent with the known profile of T-DXd., Conclusion: In line with previously reported results, T-DXd demonstrated clinically meaningful benefit in patients with HER2-expressing tumors, with the greatest benefit in patients with IHC 3+ tumors. These data support the antitumor activity of T-DXd in HER2-expressing solid tumors, irrespective of whether patients are identified by local or central HER2 IHC testing., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objectives: To determine the impact of adjuvant therapy on oncologic outcomes in patients with 2009 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IA, IB, or II endometrial clear cell carcinoma (ECCC)., Methods: We conducted a retrospective review at 4 international institutions. Patients with newly diagnosed clinical stage I or II disease of either clear cell or mixed histology with a clear cell component treated between 01/01/2000-12/31/2015 were included. Oncologic outcomes were assessed for patients based on adjuvant treatment received, including chemotherapy, radiation, or chemotherapy with radiation., Results: Of 125 patients identified and analyzed, 77 (61.6%) had clear cell histology and 118 (94.4%) had stage I disease. Median age at diagnosis was 65 years (range, 33-91). All patients underwent hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and lymph node assessment. Twenty-five patients (20.0%) underwent surgical management alone and 100 (80.0%) received adjuvant therapy: 20 (16.0%) received postoperative chemotherapy, 47 (37.6%) received postoperative radiation, and 33 (26.4%) received postoperative chemotherapy with radiation. Median follow-up was 88.4 months (range, <1-234). Progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) did not significantly differ between surgery alone and type of adjuvant therapy (P = 0.18 and P = 0.56, respectively). Patients with mixed ECCC did not have a survival advantage over those with pure ECCC (5-year PFS rate, 85.0% vs 82.7%, P = 0.77; 5-year OS rate, 88.3% vs 91.2%, P = 0.94)., Conclusions: Receipt of adjuvant therapy in surgically staged I/II ECCC did not appear to offer a survival advantage over observation alone. Adjuvant therapy in early-stage ECCC with consideration of molecular classification should be evaluated., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. Leitao reports personal fees from Medtronic, Intuitive Surgical, J&J/Ethicon, and Immunogen. Dr. Abu-Rustum reports research funding paid to the institution from GRAIL. Dr. Eriksson reports speaker fees from Intuitive Surgical and AstraZeneca. Dr. Makker reports unpaid consulting/advisory roles with the following: Duality, Novartis, Morphosys, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Clovis Oncology, Karyopharm Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, ArQule, Cullinan, Faeth Therapeutics, Jazz, Immunocore, Iteos Therapeutics, Ideaya, Kartos Therapeutics, Lilly, Moreo, Prelude, Takeda, and Zymeworks; research funding from the following: Merck (Inst), Eisai (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Clovis Oncology (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Takeda (Inst), Duality (Inst), Zymeworks (Inst), Karyopharm Therapeutics (Inst), Faeth Therapeutics (Inst), Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst), Lilly (Inst), and Cullinan (Inst); travel, accommodations, and expenses from the following: Eisai, Merck, AstraZeneca; and a relationship with IBM. Dr. du Bois reports honoraria/expenses from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BIOCAD, Clovis, GSK/Tesaro, Roche, and Zodiac; and consulting/advisory board role for Amgen, AstraZeneca, BIOCAD, Clovis, Genmab/Seattle Genetics, GSK/Tesaro, MSD, Roche, Pfizer. The other authors do not have potential conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The 2023 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging system includes lymphovascular invasion quantification as a staging criterion for endometrioid endometrial carcinomas; no lymphovascular invasion and focal invasion (≤4 vessels involved) are grouped as one category, and substantial invasion as another., Objective: To assess the association between lymphovascular invasion and oncologic outcomes., Methods: We retrospectively identified patients with FIGO 2009 stage I endometrioid endometrial cancer treated surgically with total hysterectomy and lymph node assessment at two tertiary care centers between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2019. Lymphovascular space invasion was categorized as focal (<5 vessels involved), substantial (≥5 vessels involved), and no lymphovascular invasion using WHO criteria., Results: Of 1555 patients included, 65 (4.2%) had substantial, 119 (7.7%) had focal, and 1371 (88.2%) had no lymphovascular invasion. Median age was 64 years (range 24-92). Thirty-five patients (53.8%) with substantial, 44 (37%) with focal, and 115 (8.4%) with no lymphovascular invasion had stage IB disease (p<0.001); 21 (32.3%) with substantial, 24 (20.2%) with focal, and 91 (6.6%) with no lymphovascular invasion had grade 3 disease (p<0.001). Thirty-six patients (55.4%) with substantial, 80 (67.2%) with focal, and 207 (15.1%) with no lymphovascular invasion received adjuvant treatment (p<0.001). Median follow-up was 61.5 months (range 0.8-133.9). Five-year progression-free survival rates were 68.7% (substantial), 70.5% (focal), and 90.7% (no invasion) (p<0.001). On multivariate analysis, any lymphovascular invasion was associated with increased risk of progression/death (adjusted HR (aHR)=1.84 (95% CI 1.73 to 1.96) for focal; 2.17 (95% CI 1.96 to 2.39) for substantial). Compared with focal, substantial lymphovascular invasion was associated with an aHR for disease progression of 1.18 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.39)., Conclusions: Focal and substantial lymphovascular invasion were associated with increased risk of disease progression and do not appear to be prognostically distinct. Focal versus no lymphovascular invasion have different prognostic outcomes and should not be combined into one category., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AGE reports speakers fee from Intuitive Surgical and GSK. BD is a speaker and consultant for MSD. NRA-R reports research funding from GRAIL paid to the institution. ML reports personal fees from Medtronic, Intuitive Surgical, J&J/Ethicon, and Immunogen. VM is supported (all funding to institution)/unpaid consultancy/advisory board membership from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Duality, Eisai, Faeth, Genentech, GSK, Immunocore, iTEOS, Kartos, Karyopharm, Moreo, Morphosys, MSD, Novartis, Takeda, and Zymeworks. The other authors have nothing to disclose., (© IGCS and ESGO 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To determine the safety and efficacy of the oral progesterone antagonist onapristone extended release (onapristone-XR) in patients with recurrent progesterone receptor (PR)-positive adult-type granulosa cell tumor (aGCT), low-grade serous ovarian cancer (LGSOC), or endometrioid endometrial cancer (EEC)., Methods: This single-institution phase II study included patients with PR-positive aGCT, LGSOC, or EEC who received ≥1 prior line of chemotherapy. Patients were enrolled from 5/2019-5/2020. PR status was evaluated via immunohistochemistry. Eligible patients had PR expression ≥1% on tissue collected within 3 years of enrollment. Patients received 50 mg of onapristone-XR twice daily until disease progression or treatment discontinuation. Adverse events were graded by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1. Secondary endpoints were response duration, clinical benefit rate (CBR), and safety., Results: Five patients with LGSOC and 1 with EEC enrolled, but both cohorts closed early due to slow accrual. Fourteen patients with aGCT enrolled and completed stage 1 accrual. No responses were observed. Four patients with LGSOC were evaluable, with median PFS of 4.4 months (range, 1.8-NE) and CBR of 50% (range, 6.8%-93.2%). All 14 patients with aGCT were evaluable, with median PFS of 2.8 months (range, 1.6-4.9), 6-month PFS rate of 21.4% (range, 5.2%-44.8%), 12-month PFS rate of 14.3% (range, 2.3%-36.6%), and a CBR of 35.7% (range, 12.8%-64.9%)., Conclusions: The study did not meet its primary endpoint. While onapristone-XR was well tolerated in all 3 arms, no objective responses were observed., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Alexia Iasonos reports consulting fees from Mylan. Chrisann Kyi reports grant funding from Conquer Cancer Foundation; grant funding paid to the institution from Merus, Gritstone, and BMS; and consulting fees from Scenic Immunology B.V. and OncLive. Rachel N. Grisham reports honoraria from GSK, AstraZeneca, Natera, Springworks, Corcept, MJH, and PER. Carol Aghajanian reports clinical trial funding paid to the institution from AstraZeneca; consulting fees (advisory board) from Eisai/Merck, Roche/Genentech, Abbvie, AstraZeneca/Merck, and Repare Therapeutics; advisory board participation (no fee) for Blueprint Medicine; and leadership/fiduciary roles for the GOG Foundation Board of Directors (travel cost reimbursement) and NRG Oncology Board of Directors (unpaid). Claire F. Friedman reports ongoing institutional research support from Merck, BMS, AstraZeneca, Mersana, Hotspot Therapeutics, Immunocore, Marengo and Volastra; consulting fees from BMS, Seagen, Aadi Biosciences, and Eli Lilly; honoraria for lectures from Onclive; meeting/travel support by Puma Biotechnology; and participation on Data Safety Monitoring or Advisory Board of Merck, Genentech, and Marengo (all uncompensated). Roisin E. O'Cearbhaill reports personal fees from Tesaro/GSK, Regeneron, R-PHARM, Seattle Genetics, Fresenius Kabi, Gynecologic Oncology Foundation, Bayer, Curio, Miltenyi, 2seventybio and Immunogen, and other from Hitech Health, all outside the submitted work. She is a non-compensated steering committee member for the PRIMA, Moonstone (Tesaro/GSK), and DUO-O (AstraZeneca) studies and non-compensated advisor for Carina Biotech. Her institute receives funding for clinical research from Bayer/Celgene/Juno, Gynecologic Oncology Foundation, Genentech, Kite Pharma, Tesaro/GSK, Ludwig Cancer Institute, TCR2 Therapeutics, Genmab/Seagen Therapeutics, MarkerTherapeutics, Syndax Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Sellas Therapeutics, Abbvie/StemCentrx, Regeneron, Lyell Immunopharma, Acrivon, and Atara Biotherapeutics. Britta Weigelt reports a research grant from REPARE Therapeutics paid to the institution and has an immediate family member who is employed by AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. Vicky Makker reports unpaid consulting/advisory roles with the following: Duality, Novartis, Morphosys, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Clovis Oncology, Karyopharm Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, ArQule, Cullinan, Faeth Therapeutics, Jazz, Immunocore, Iteos Therapeutics, Ideaya, Kartos Therapeutics, Lilly, Moreo, Prelude, Takeda, and Zymeworks; research funding from the following: Merck (Inst), Eisai (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Clovis Oncology (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Takeda (Inst), Duality (Inst), Zymeworks (Inst), Karyopharm Therapeutics (Inst), Faeth Therapeutics (Inst), Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst), Lilly (Inst), and Cullinan (Inst); travel, accommodations, and expenses from the following: Eisai, Merck, AstraZeneca; and a relationship with IBM. Dennis S. Chi reports personal fees from Apyx Medical, Verthermia Inc., Biom ‘Up, and AstraZeneca, as well as recent or current stock/options ownership of Apyx Medical, Verthemia, Intuitive Surgical, Inc., TransEnterix, Inc., Doximity, Moderna, and BioNTech SE. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: We assessed the prognosis and molecular subtypes of early stage endometrioid endometrial cancer with isolated tumor cells within sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) compared with node negative disease., Methods: Patients diagnosed with stage IA, IB, or II endometrioid endometrial cancer and primary surgical management were identified from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2019. All SLNs underwent ultrastaging according to the institutional protocol. Patients with cytokeratin positive cells, micrometastases, and macrometastases were excluded. Clinical, pathology, and molecular subtype data were reviewed., Results: Overall, 1214 patients with early stage endometrioid endometrial cancer met the inclusion criteria, of whom 1089 (90%) had node negative disease and 125 (10%) had isolated tumor cells. Compared with node negative disease, the presence of isolated tumor cells had a greater association with deep myometrial invasion, lymphovascular space invasion, receipt of adjuvant therapy, and adjuvant chemotherapy with or without radiation (p<0.01). There was no significant difference in survival rates between patients with isolated tumor cells and node negative disease (3 year progression free survival rate 94% vs 91%, respectively, p=0.21; 3 year overall survival rate 98% vs 96%, respectively, p=0.45). Progression free survival did not significantly differ among patients with isolated tumor cells who received no adjuvant therapy or chemotherapy with or without radiation (p=0.31). There was no difference in the distribution of molecular subtypes between patients with isolated tumor cells (n=28) and node negative disease (n=194; p=0.26). Three year overall survival rates differed significantly when stratifying the entire cohort by molecular subtype (p=0.04)., Conclusions: Patients with isolated tumor cells demonstrated less favorable uterine pathologic features and received more adjuvant treatment with similar survival compared with patients with nodenegative disease. Among the available data, molecular classification did not have a significant association with the presence of isolated tumor cells, although copy number-high status was a poor prognostic indicator in early stage endometrioid endometrial cancer., Competing Interests: Competing interests: BW reports research support by Repare Therapeutics, outside of the current work. CAA reports clinical trial funding paid to the institution from AstraZeneca; funding paid to the institution from BMS and SELLAS Life Sciences Group; consulting fees (advisory board) from Eisai/Merck, Roche/Genentech, Abbvie, AstraZeneca/Merck, and Repare Therapeutics; advisory board participation (no fee) for Blueprint Medicine; and leadership/fiduciary roles for the GOG Foundation Board of Directors (travel cost reimbursement) and NRG Oncology Board of Directors (unpaid). DZ reports institutional grants from Genentech, AstraZeneca, BMS, SELLAS Life Sciences Group, and Plexxikon; personal fees from Genentech, AstraZeneca, Xencor, Memgen, Synthekine, Celldex, and Hookipa; and stock options from Immunos, Accurius, Mana Therapeutics, and Calidi Biotherapeutics, outside of the submitted work. DZ is also an inventor on a patent related to the use of oncolytic Newcastle disease virus for cancer therapy. YLL reports research funding from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Repare Therapeutics. NRA-R reports research funding paid to the institution from GRAIL. ML reports research funding paid to the institution from KCI/Acelity, ad-hoc speaker for Intuitive Surgical, and advisory board participation for JnJ/Ethicon and Takeda. VM reports advisory board participation (unpaid) for Eisai, Merck, Clovis, Faeth, Duality, Morphyes, Karyopharm, Novartis, Lilly, and Immunocore. CFF reports participation in the scientific advisory boards for Merck (LYNK-002) and Genentech (MyPathway) without compensation, consulting for Seagen and Bristol Myers Squibb, and institutional research funds from Genentech/Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, AstraZeneca, and Daiichi. SC serves as a consultant for AstraZeneca., (© IGCS and ESGO 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

BACKGROUNDObesity is the foremost risk factor in the development of endometrial cancer (EC). However, the impact of obesity on the response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in EC remains poorly understood. This retrospective study investigates the association among BMI, body fat distribution, and clinical and molecular characteristics of EC patients treated with ICI.METHODSWe analyzed progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in EC patients treated with ICI, categorized by BMI, fat-mass distribution, and molecular subtypes. Incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) after ICI was also assessed based on BMI status.RESULTS524 EC patients were included in the study. Overweight and obese patients exhibited a significantly prolonged PFS and OS compared with normal BMI patients after treatment with ICI. Multivariable Cox's regression analysis confirmed the independent association of overweight and obesity with improved PFS and OS. Elevated visceral adipose tissue (VAT) was identified as a strong independent predictor for improved PFS to ICI. Associations between obesity and OS/PFS were particularly significant in the copy number-high/TP53abnormal (CN-H/TP53abn) EC molecular subtype. Finally, obese patients demonstrated a higher irAE rate compared with normal BMI individuals.CONCLUSIONObesity is associated with improved outcomes to ICI in EC patients and a higher rate of irAEs. This association is more pronounced in the CN-H/TP53abn EC molecular subtype.FUNDINGNIH/NCI Cancer Center; MSK Gerstner Physician Scholars Program; National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS); Cycle for Survival; Breast Cancer Research Foundation.

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

Programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors are approved for therapy of gynecologic cancers with DNA mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR), although predictors of response remain elusive. We conducted a single-arm phase 2 study of nivolumab in 35 patients with dMMR uterine or ovarian cancers. Co-primary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival at 24 weeks (PFS24). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR), duration of response (DOR) and safety. Exploratory endpoints included biomarkers and molecular correlates of response. The ORR was 58.8% (97.5% confidence interval (CI): 40.7-100%), and the PFS24 rate was 64.7% (97.5% one-sided CI: 46.5-100%), meeting the pre-specified endpoints. The DCR was 73.5% (95% CI: 55.6-87.1%). At the median follow-up of 42.1 months (range, 8.9-59.8 months), median OS was not reached. One-year OS rate was 79% (95% CI: 60.9-89.4%). Thirty-two patients (91%) had a treatment-related adverse event (TRAE), including arthralgia (n = 10, 29%), fatigue (n = 10, 29%), pain (n = 10, 29%) and pruritis (n = 10, 29%); most were grade 1 or grade 2. Ten patients (29%) reported a grade 3 or grade 4 TRAE; no grade 5 events occurred. Exploratory analyses show that the presence of dysfunctional (CD8 + PD-1 + ) or terminally dysfunctional (CD8 + PD-1 + TOX + ) T cells and their interaction with programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) + cells were independently associated with PFS24. PFS24 was associated with presence of MEGF8 or SETD1B somatic mutations. This trial met its co-primary endpoints (ORR and PFS24) early, and our findings highlight several genetic and tumor microenvironment parameters associated with response to PD-1 blockade in dMMR cancers, generating rationale for their validation in larger cohorts.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03241745 ., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: To evaluate the feasibility and outcomes of performing procedural interventions, defined as surgical resection, tumor ablation, or targeted radiation therapy, for oligoprogressive disease among patients with gynecologic malignancies who are treated with immune checkpoint blockade., Methods: Patients with gynecologic cancers treated with immune checkpoint blockade between January 2013 and October 2021 who underwent procedural interventions including surgical resection, interventional radiology ablation, or radiation therapy for oligoprogressive disease were identified. Procedures performed before immune checkpoint therapy initiation or ≥6 months after therapy completion were excluded. Long immunotherapy duration prior to intervention was defined as ≥6 months. Progression-free survival and overall survival were calculated from procedure date until disease progression or death, respectively., Results: During the study period, 886 patients met inclusion criteria and received immune checkpoint blockade therapy. Of these, 34 patients underwent procedural interventions for oligoprogressive disease; 7 underwent surgical resection, 3 underwent interventional radiology ablation, and 24 underwent radiation therapy interventions. Primary disease sites included uterus (71%), ovary (24%), and cervix (6%). Sites of oligoprogression included abdomen/pelvis (26%), bone (21%), lung (18%), distant lymph node (18%), brain (9%), liver (6%), and vagina (3%). Most tumors (76%) did not exhibit microsatellite instability or mismatch repair deficiency. Approximately half (53%) of the patients had long immune checkpoint therapy duration prior to intervention. Median progression-free survival following the procedure was 5.3 months (95% CI, 3.1-9.9), and median overall survival was 21.7 months (95% CI, 14.9-not estimable). Long versus short immune checkpoint therapy duration prior to procedure and length of immune checkpoint therapy had no effect on progression-free or overall survival., Conclusions: Procedural interventions for patients with oligoprogression on immune checkpoint blockade therapy are feasible and demonstrate favorable outcomes. With expanding use of immune checkpoint therapy, it is important to investigate combined modalities to maximize therapeutic benefit for patients with gynecologic cancers., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Outside the submitted work, AI reports consulting fees from Mylan. CFF reports institutional research support from Seagen, Merck, BMS, AstraZeneca, Mersana, and Hotspot Therapeutics; consulting fees from BMS, Seagen, and Aadi Biosciences; honoraria for lectures from Onclive; meeting/travel support by Puma; and participation on Data Safety Monitoring or Advisory Board of Merck, Genentech, and Marengo (all uncompensated). DZ reports institutional research support from AstraZeneca, Merck, Plexxikon Synthekine, and Genentech; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Synthekine, Astellas, Tessa Therapeutics, Memgen, Celldex, Crown Biosciences, Hookipa Biotech, Kalivir, Xencor, and GSK; royalties from Merck; and stock options from Accurius Therapeutics, ImmunOS Therapeutics, and Calidi Biotherapeutics. VM reports meeting/travel support by Eisai and Merck; participation on Data Safety Monitoring or Advisory Board of Duality, Merck, Karyopharm, Exelexis, Eisai, Karyopharm, BMS, Clovis, Faeth Immunocore, Morphosys, AstraZeneca, Novartis, GSK, and Bayer (all unpaid); and study support to the institution by Merck, Eisai, AztraZeneca, Faeth, Karyopharm, Zymeworks, Duality, Clovis, Bayer, and Takeda. YLL reports institutional research funding from Repare Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, and GSK; honoraria from Total Health and Sarah Lawrence College; and travel/meeting support by AstraZeneca. DSC reports personal fees from Apyx Medical, Verthermia Inc., Biom ‘Up, and AstraZeneca, as well as recent or current stock/options ownership of Apyx Medical, Verthemia, Intuitive Surgical, Inc., TransEnterix, Inc., Doximity, Moderna, and BioNTech SE. EJ reports personal fees from Covidien/Medtronic. RO reports personal fees from Tesaro/GSK, Regeneron, R-PHARM, Seattle Genetics, Fresenius Kabi, Gynecologic Oncology Foundation, Bayer, Curio, Miltenyi, 2seventybio, and Immunogen; and other from Hitech Health, all outside the submitted work; non-compensated steering committee membership for the PRIMA, Moonstone (Tesaro/GSK), and DUO-O (AstraZeneca) studies; a non-compensated advisor role for Carina Biotech; and funding for clinical research from Bayer/Celgene/Juno, Tesaro/GSK, Merck, Ludwig Cancer Institute, Abbvie/StemCentrx, Regeneron, TCR2 Therapeutics, Atara Biotherapeutics, MarkerTherapeutics, Syndax Pharmaceuticals, Genmab/Seagen Therapeutics, Sellas Therapeutics, Genentech, Kite Pharma, Acrivon, Lyell Immunopharma, and Gynecologic Oncology Foundation. CK reports grant funding from Conquer Cancer Foundation; grant funding paid to the institution from Merus, Gritstone, and BMS; and consulting fees from Scenic Immunology B.V. and OncLive. All other authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (© IGCS and ESGO 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: In the global phase 3 Study 309/KEYNOTE-775 (NCT03517449) at the first interim analysis, lenvatinib+pembrolizumab significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR) versus treatment of physician's choice chemotherapy (TPC) in patients with previously treated advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer (EC). This exploratory analysis evaluated outcomes in patients enrolled in East Asia at the time of prespecified final analysis., Methods: Women ≥18 years with histologically confirmed advanced, recurrent, or metastatic EC with progressive disease after 1 platinum-based chemotherapy (2 if 1 given in neoadjuvant/adjuvant setting) were enrolled. Patients were randomized 1:1 to lenvatinib 20 mg orally once daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks (≤35 cycles) or TPC (doxorubicin or paclitaxel). Primary endpoints were PFS per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review and OS. No alpha was assigned for this subgroup analysis., Results: Among 155 East Asian patients (lenvatinib+pembrolizumab, n=77; TPC, n=78), median follow-up time (data cutoff: March 1, 2022) was 34.3 (range, 25.1-43.0) months. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for PFS (lenvatinib+pembrolizumab vs. TPC) were 0.74 (0.49-1.10) and 0.64 (0.44-0.94) in the mismatch repair proficient (pMMR) and all-comer populations, respectively. HRs (95% CI) for OS were 0.68 (0.45-1.02) and 0.61 (0.41-0.90), respectively. ORRs were 36% with lenvatinib+pembrolizumab and 22% with TPC (pMMR) and 39% and 21%, respectively (all-comers). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 97% and 96% (grade 3-5, 74% and 72%), respectively., Conclusion: Lenvatinib+pembrolizumab provided clinically meaningful benefit with manageable safety compared with TPC, supporting its use in East Asian patients with previously treated advanced/recurrent EC., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03517449., Competing Interests: Kan Yonemori has received lecture fees from Eisai, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Takeda, Chugai, Fuji Film Pharma, PDR pharma, Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA (MSD), Boeringer Ingelheim, Ono, Daiichi-Sankyo, Bayer, Jansen, Sanofi, and AstraZeneca; is a member of the advisory board for Eisai, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Genmab, Gilead, OncXerna, Takeda, Novartis, and MSD; research funding from MSD, Daiichi-Sankyo, Merck Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Taiho, Pfizer, Novartis, Takeda, Chugai, Ono, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Genmab, Boehringer Ingelheim, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Nihon Kayaku, and Haihe; and is principle investigator for MSD, Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Taiho, Merk Biopharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Takeda, Chugai, Ono, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Genmab, Boeringer Ingelheim, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Nihon Kayaku, and Haihe., (© 2024. Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology, Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology, and Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology.)

Objective: HER2 overexpression is associated with decreased overall survival in metastatic endometrial cancer. Trastuzumab with chemotherapy has demonstrated efficacy for first-line management of advanced HER2+ endometrial carcinoma, but HER2-directed therapy in the recurrent setting is limited. Zanidatamab (ZW25), a humanized, bispecific antibody that simultaneously binds the 2 distinct HER2 epitopes bound by trastuzumab and pertuzumab, has demonstrated safety and activity in HER2+ tumors. Here, we report the results of a phase 2, open-label study evaluating the efficacy and safety of zanidatamab in patients with HER2+ metastatic endometrial carcinoma/carcinosarcoma who received prior treatment., Methods: We enrolled 16 patients with HER2+ endometrial carcinoma/carcinosarcoma after progression on ≤2 lines of therapy on a single-arm phase 2 study of zanidatamab. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR; complete or partial response) by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. HER2 immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) were performed on pretreatment samples. Intratumor HER2 genetic heterogeneity was assessed., Results: This study did not meet its primary efficacy endpoint. Although a clinical benefit rate of 37.5% was observed by 24 weeks, only 1 patient achieved a partial response (ORR, 6.2%). Eight patients had HER2 intratumor heterogeneity or lacked HER2 amplification by FISH. Decreased HER2 expression on repeat pretreatment samples was observed in 3 (75%) of 4 patients evaluated., Conclusions: We observed a low response rate to zanidatamab in recurrent HER2+ endometrial carcinoma/carcinosarcoma, which may be driven by downregulation of HER2 expression. Repeat HER2 testing should be considered prior to second-line HER2-directed therapy., Clinicaltrials: govidentifier: NCT04513665., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest V Makker reports meeting/travel support by Eisai and Merck; participation on Data Safety Monitoring or Advisory Board of Duality, Merck, Karyopharm, Exelexis, Eisai, Karyopharm, BMS, Clovis, Faeth Immunocore, Morphosys, AstraZeneca, Novartis, GSK, Bayer (all unpaid); and study support to the institution by Merck, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Faeth, Karyopharm, Zymeworks, Duality, Clovis, Bayer and Takeda. CF Friedman reports institutional research support from Seagen, Merck, BMS, AstraZeneca, Mersana, and Hotspot Therapeutics; consulting fees from BMS, Seagen, and Aadi Biosciences; honoraria for lectures from Onclive; meeting/travel support by PUMA; and participation on Data Safety Monitoring or Advisory Board of Merck, Genentech, and Marengo (all uncompensated). A Iasonos reports consulting fees from Mylan. MM Rubinstein reports research funding from Merk, Zentalis, and AstraZeneca. C Kyi reports grant funding from Conquer Cancer Foundation; grant funding paid to the institution from Merus, Gritstone, and BMS; and consulting fees from Scenic Immunology B.V. and OncLive. RN Grisham reports honoraria from GSK, AstraZeneca, Natera, Springworks, Corcept, MJH, and PER. C Aghajanian reports clinical trial funding paid to the institution from AstraZeneca; consulting fees (advisory board) from Eisai/Merck, Roche/Genentech, Abbvie, AstraZeneca/Merck, and Repare Therapeutics; advisory board participation (no fee) for Blueprint Medicine; and leadership/fiduciary roles for the GOG Foundation Board of Directors (travel cost reimbursement) and NRG Oncology Board of Directors (unpaid). The other authors do not have potential conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Racial disparities in outcomes exist in endometrial cancer (EC). The contribution of ancestry-based variations in germline pathogenic variants (gPVs) is unknown., Methods: Germline assessment of ≥76 cancer predisposition genes was performed in patients with EC undergoing tumor-normal Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Integrated Mutation Profiling of Actionable Cancer Targets sequencing from January 1, 2015 through June 30, 2021. Self-reported race/ethnicity and Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry data classified patients into groups. Genetic ancestry was inferred from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Integrated Mutation Profiling of Actionable Cancer Targets. Rates of gPV and genetic counseling were compared by ancestry., Results: Among 1625 patients with EC, 216 (13%) had gPVs; 15 had >1 gPV. Rates of gPV varied by self-reported ancestry (Ashkenazi Jewish, 40/202 [20%]; Asian, 15/124 [12%]; Black/African American (AA), 12/171 [7.0%]; Hispanic, 15/124 [12%]; non-Hispanic (NH) White, 129/927 [14%]; missing, 5/77 [6.5%]; p = .009], with similar findings by genetic ancestry (p < .001). We observed a lower likelihood of gPVs in patients of Black/AA (odds ratio [OR], 0.44; 95% CI, 0.22-0.81) and African (AFR) ancestry (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.18-0.85) and a higher likelihood in patients of Ashkenazi Jewish genetic ancestry (OR, 1.62; 95% CI; 1.11-2.34) compared with patients of non-Hispanic White/European ancestry, even after adjustment for age and molecular subtype. Somatic landscape influenced gPVs with lower rates of microsatellite instability-high tumors in patients of Black/AA and AFR ancestry. Among those with newly identified gPVs (n = 114), 102 (89%) were seen for genetic counseling, with lowest rates among Black/AA (75%) and AFR patients (67%)., Conclusions: In those with EC, gPV and genetic counseling varied by ancestry, with lowest rates among Black/AA and AFR patients, potentially contributing to disparities in outcomes given implications for treatment and cancer prevention., Plain Language Summary: Black women with endometrial cancer do worse than White women, and there are many reasons for this disparity. Certain genetic changes from birth (mutations) can increase the risk of cancer, and it is unknown if rates of these changes are different between different ancestry groups. Genetic mutations in 1625 diverse women with endometrial cancer were studied and the lowest rates of mutations and genetic counseling were found in Black and African ancestry women. This could affect their treatment options as well as their families and may make disparities worse., (© 2023 American Cancer Society.)

Trastuzumab has demonstrated clinical efficacy in the treatment of HER2-positive serous endometrial cancer (EC), which led to its incorporation into standard-of-care management of this aggressive disease. Acquired resistance remains an important challenge, however, and its underlying mechanisms in EC are unknown. To define the molecular changes that occur in response to anti-HER2 therapy in EC, targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS), HER2 immunohistochemistry (IHC), and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) were performed on pre- and post-treatment tumour samples from 14 patients with EC treated with trastuzumab or trastuzumab emtansine. Recurrent tumours after anti-HER2 therapy acquired additional genetic alterations compared with matched pre-treatment ECs and frequently showed decreased HER2 protein expression by IHC (7/14, 50%). Complete/near-complete absence of HER2 protein expression (score 0/1+) observed post-treatment (4/14, 29%) was associated with retained HER2 gene amplification (n = 3) or copy number neutral status (n = 1). Whole-exome sequencing performed on primary and recurrent tumours from the latter case, which exhibited genetic heterogeneity of HER2 amplification in the primary tumour, revealed selection of an early HER2-non-amplified clone following therapy. Our findings demonstrate that loss of target expression, by selection of HER2-non-amplified clones or, more commonly, by downregulation of expression, may constitute a mechanism of resistance to anti-HER2 therapy in HER2-positive EC. © 2023 The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., (© 2023 The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab demonstrated clinically meaningful benefit in patients with previously treated advanced endometrial carcinoma in Study 111/KEYNOTE-146 (NCT02501096). In these exploratory analyses from this study, we evaluated the associations between clinical outcomes and gene expression signature scores and descriptively summarized response in biomarker subpopulations defined by tumor mutational burden (TMB) and DNA variants for individual genes of interest., Methods: Patients with histologically confirmed metastatic endometrial carcinoma received oral lenvatinib 20 mg once daily plus intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for 35 cycles. Archived formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue was obtained from all patients. T-cell-inflamed gene expression profile (Tcell inf GEP) and 11 other gene signatures were evaluated by RNA sequencing. TMB, hotspot mutations in PIK3CA (oncogene), and deleterious mutations in PTEN and TP53 (tumor suppressor genes) were evaluated by whole-exome sequencing (WES)., Results: 93 and 79 patients were included in the RNA-sequencing-evaluable and WES-evaluable populations, respectively. No statistically significant associations were observed between any of the RNA-sequencing signature scores and objective response rate or progression-free survival. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values for response ranged from 0.39 to 0.54; all 95% CIs included 0.50. Responses were seen regardless of TMB (≥175 or <175 mutations/exome) and mutation status. There were no correlations between Tcell inf GEP and TMB, Tcell inf GEP and microvessel density (MVD), or MVD and TMB., Conclusions: This analysis demonstrated efficacy for lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab regardless of biomarker status. Results from this study do not support clinical utility of the evaluated biomarkers. Further investigation of biomarkers for this regimen is warranted., Trial Registration Number: NCT02501096., Competing Interests: Competing interests: VM is supported in part by the NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA008748. Study support (all funding to institution)/unpaid consultancy/advisory board membership from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Duality, Eisai, Faeth, Genentech, GSK, Immunocore, iTEOS, Kartos, Karyopharm, Moreo, Morphosys, MSD, Novartis, Takeda, and Zymeworks. MHT received honoraria for consulting/advisory board participation from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai Inc, Novartis, Merck & Co., Inc., Pfizer, Bayer, Sanofi/Genzyme, Regeneron, LOXO Oncology, Blueprint Medicines, Immune-onc, Exelixis, and Cascade Prodrug. MHT received honoraria for participation in speakers' bureaus from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai Inc, Blueprint Medicines, and Merck & Co., Inc. Research funding to Dr Taylor’s institution was provided by Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Merck & Co., Inc., Pfizer, Immune-Onc, and Simcha. CA: Clinical trial funding (to institution): AbbVie, Artios Pharma, AstraZeneca, Clovis, and Genentech/Roche; Advisory board (fees): Merck; Advisory board (no fees): Blueprint Medicine; Data Monitoring Committee: AstraZeneca; Leadership role: GOG Foundation, Board of Directors (travel cost reimbursement for attending meetings) and NRG Oncology, Board of Directors (unpaid). CA is supported in part by the NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA008748. ALC: Honoraria: Amgen; Expert Testimony: Department of Justice. MSB: Consulting/advisory board member (honoraria paid to me): Eisai Inc, Exelixis, Loxo Oncology, Eli Lilly, and Bayer Pharmaceuticals. CDS: Nothing to disclose. ZAC, AL, RC, PJ, and RO: Employees of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA, and stockholders in Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. LS: Employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. LD, JM, and CED: Employees of Eisai Inc., Nutley, NJ, USA. YM: Employee of Eisai Co. Ltd., Tsukuba, Japan, and a stockholder in Eisai Co., Ltd. MJM: Nothing to disclose., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab significantly improved efficacy compared with chemotherapy in patients with advanced endometrial cancer (aEC) regardless of microsatellite instability status or histologic subtype, who had disease progression following prior platinum-based therapy, in Study-309/KEYNOTE-775. The safety profile of the combination was generally consistent with that of each monotherapy drug and of the combination in patients with endometrial cancer and other solid tumors. Given the medical complexity of patients with aEC, this paper aims to characterize key adverse reactions (ARs) of the combination treatment and review management strategies, providing a guide for AR management to maximize anticancer benefits and minimize treatment discontinuation., Materials and Methods: In Study-309/KEYNOTE-775, patients received lenvatinib (20 mg orally once daily) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks) or chemotherapy (doxorubicin or paclitaxel). The incidence and median time to the first onset of ARs, dose modifications, and concomitant medications are described. Key ARs characterized include hypothyroidism, hypertension, fatigue, diarrhea, musculoskeletal disorders, nausea, decreased appetite, vomiting, stomatitis, weight decreased, proteinuria, and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome., Results: As expected, the most common any-grade key ARs included: hypothyroidism, hypertension, fatigue, diarrhea, and musculoskeletal disorders. Grades 3-4 key ARs with incidence ≥10% included: hypertension, fatigue, and weight decreased. Key ARs first occurred within approximately 3 months of treatment initiation. AR management strategies consistent with the prescribing information and the study protocol are discussed., Conclusion: Successful AR management strategies for lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab include education of the patient and entire treatment team, preventative measures and close monitoring, and judicious use of dose modifications and concomitant medications., Clinicaltrials.gov Id: NCT03517449., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Purpose: Trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) is a human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2)-directed antibody-drug conjugate approved in HER2-expressing breast and gastric cancers and HER2-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer. Treatments are limited for other HER2-expressing solid tumors., Methods: This open-label phase II study evaluated T-DXd (5.4 mg/kg once every 3 weeks) for HER2-expressing (immunohistochemistry [IHC] 3+/2+ by local or central testing) locally advanced or metastatic disease after ≥1 systemic treatment or without alternative treatments. The primary end point was investigator-assessed confirmed objective response rate (ORR). Secondary end points included safety, duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS)., Results: At primary analysis, 267 patients received treatment across seven tumor cohorts: endometrial, cervical, ovarian, bladder, biliary tract, pancreatic, and other. The median follow-up was 12.75 months. In all patients, the ORR was 37.1% (n = 99; [95% CI, 31.3 to 43.2]), with responses in all cohorts; the median DOR was 11.3 months (95% CI, 9.6 to 17.8); the median PFS was 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 8.0); and the median OS was 13.4 months (95% CI, 11.9 to 15.5). In patients with central HER2 IHC 3+ expression (n = 75), the ORR was 61.3% (95% CI, 49.4 to 72.4), the median DOR was 22.1 months (95% CI, 9.6 to not reached), the median PFS was 11.9 months (95% CI, 8.2 to 13.0), and the median OS was 21.1 months (95% CI, 15.3 to 29.6). Grade ≥3 drug-related adverse events were observed in 40.8% of patients; 10.5% experienced adjudicated drug-related interstitial lung disease (ILD), with three deaths., Conclusion: Our study demonstrates durable clinical benefit, meaningful survival outcomes, and safety consistent with the known profile (including ILD) in pretreated patients with HER2-expressing tumors receiving T-DXd. Greatest benefit was observed for the IHC 3+ population. These data support the potential role of T-DXd as a tumor-agnostic therapy for patients with HER2-expressing solid tumors.

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

Objective: To compare clinical and pathologic characteristics of women with surgical stage I endometrial carcinoma by location of first recurrence and describe characteristics of isolated vaginal recurrence., Methods: Patients with 2009 International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology (FIGO) stage I endometrial carcinoma treated at two large cancer centers from 1/1/2009-12/31/2017 were identified. Sarcoma histology was excluded. Recurrences were grouped into isolated vaginal or extravaginal. Isolated vaginal recurrences were localized by anatomic location within the vaginal vault. Clinical and pathologic variables were compared with chi-square analysis, and Kaplan-Meier curves with log-rank tests., Results: Of 2815 women identified, 278 (10%) experienced a recurrence. Sixty-one patients (2%) had an isolated vaginal recurrence, including 42 (69%) at the vaginal apex; 217 (8%) had an extravaginal recurrence, including 18 with a vaginal component. Median time to recurrence was 11 months (range, 1-68) for isolated vaginal recurrence and 20 months (range, 1-98) for extravaginal recurrence (P < .004). Of 960 patients (34%) treated with adjuvant vaginal brachytherapy (VBT), 156 (16%) recurred; 19 (2%) had an isolated vaginal recurrence, including 16 (84%) at the vaginal apex. Three-year PFS rates for isolated vaginal recurrence were 97.6% (SE ± 0.4%) with minimally invasive surgery (MIS) versus 96.9% (SE ± 1.1%) with open (P = .8), and for extravaginal recurrence were 91.8% (SE ± 0.7%) with MIS versus 90.8% (SE ± 1.8%) with open (P = .8)., Conclusions: Isolated vaginal recurrences in stage I endometrial cancer are detected earlier than non-vaginal recurrences. Surgical approach does not appear to impact recurrence. Adjuvant VBT after primary surgery carries a 1%-2% risk of isolated vaginal apex recurrence., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Outside the submitted work, N.R. Abu-Rustum reports Stryker/Novadaq and GRAIL grants paid to the institution. V. Makker reports meeting/travel support by Eisai and Merck; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring or Advisory Board of Duality, Merck, Karyopharm, Exelexis, Eisai, Karyopharm, BMS, Clovis, Faeth Immunocore, Morphosys, AstraZeneca, Novartis, GSK, Bayer (all unpaid), and study support to the institution by Merck, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Faeth, Karyopharm, Zymeworks, Duality, Clovis, Bayer, and Takeda. M.M. Leitao Jr. reports research funding paid to the institution from KCI/Acelity, ad-hoc speaker for Intuitive Surgical, Inc., and advisory board participation for JnJ/Ethicon and Takeda. Y. Lakhman serves as a consultant for Calyx Clinical Trial Solutions. A. Jhingran reports a consulting agreement and advisory board participation with Genentech, and a patent (adaptive intracavitary brachytherapy applicator for cervical cancer). The other authors do not have potential conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: This phase 2 study investigated sapanisertib (selective dual inhibitor of mTORC1/2) alone, or in combination with paclitaxel or TAK-117 (a selective small molecule inhibitor of PI3K), versus paclitaxel alone in advanced, recurrent, or persistent endometrial cancer., Methods: Patients with histologic diagnosis of endometrial cancer (1-2 prior regimens) were randomized to 28-day cycles on four treatment arms: 1) weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m 2 (days 1, 8, and 15); 2) weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m 2  + oral sapanisertib 4 mg on days 2-4, 9-11, 16-18, and 23-25; 3) weekly sapanisertib 30 mg, or 4) sapanisertib 4 mg + TAK-117 200 mg on days 1-3, 8-10, 15-17, and 22-24., Results: Of 241 patients randomized, 234 received treatment (paclitaxel, n = 87 [3 ongoing]; paclitaxel+sapanisertib, n = 86 [3 ongoing]; sapanisertib, n = 41; sapanisertib+TAK-117, n = 20). The sapanisertib and sapanisertib+TAK-117 arms were closed to enrollment after futility analyses. After a median follow-up of 14.4 (paclitaxel) versus 17.2 (paclitaxel+sapanisertib) months, median progression-free survival (PFS; primary endpoint) was 3.7 versus 5.6 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58-1.15; p = 0.139); in patients with endometrioid histology (n = 116), median PFS was 3.3 versus 5.7 months (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.43-1.03). Grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse event rates were 54.0% with paclitaxel versus 89.5% paclitaxel+sapanisertib., Conclusions: Our findings support inclusion of chemotherapy combinations with investigational agents for advanced or metastatic disease. The primary endpoint was not met and toxicity was manageable., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02725268., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Ana Oaknin reports receiving institutional funding from Abbvie Deutschland, Advaxis Inc., Aeterna Zentaris, Amgen, Aprea Therapeutics AB, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Eisai Co., Ltd., F. Hoffmann–La Roche Ltd., Immunogen Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme de España SA, Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., PharmaMar SA, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Tesaro Inc.; personal fees for travel and/or accommodation from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar and Roche; personal fees for advisory board membership from Agenus, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Corcept Therapeutics, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai Co., Ltd., EMD Serono, F. Hoffmann–La Roche Ltd., Genmab, GSK, ImmunoGen, Itheos, Merck Sharp & Dohme de España, SA, Mersana Therapeutics, Novocure, PharmaMar, Sattucklabs, Seagen, and Sutro Biopharma; membership for ASCO, GOG, and SEOM; a non-remunerated role (member and Cervix Cancer Chair on behalf of GEICO) for GCIG; and being an unpaid member, Officer, Co-Chair of the ESMO Gynaecological Cancers Congress 2023–2025, Chair of the Gynaecological Track ESMO 2019, Scientific Track Member Gynaecological Cancers ESMO 2018, ESMO 2020, and ESMO 2022, member of the Gynaecological Cancers Faculty, and Subject Editor for the Gynaecological Clinical Practice Guidelines. Francesco Raspagliesi has received payment or honoraria from GSK, MSD, and AstraZeneca as well as support for attending meetings and/or travel from GSK. Robert M. Wenham reports receiving personal and institutional fees from Merck and Ovation Diagnostics; institutional clinical trial fees from AstraZeneca, Abbvie, Regeneron, and Eisai Co., Ltd.; personal consulting fees from Merck, Legend Biotech, Novacure, Genentech, GSK/Tesaro, AstraZeneca, Abbvie, Ovation Diagnostics, Regeneron, Seagen, Shattuck Labs, Eisai Co., Ltd., and Immunogen; speakers fees from Clovis Oncology; support for attending meetings and/or travel as part of the consulting, board participation, or abstract preparation, not in isolation; travel fees from Sonnet Biotherapeutics and Eisai Co., Ltd.; personal/DSMB fees from Seagen and GSK/Tesaro; personal/scientific advisory board fees from Sonnet Biotherapeutics; and personal stock or stock options for Ovation Diagnostics. Elena Ioana Braicu reports receiving research funding from Bayer and Tesaro; personal fees from Clovis Oncology, Tesaro, Eisai Co., Ltd., and RochePharma; and both research funding and personal fees from Roche Diagnostics, GSK, and AstraZeneca. Vicky Makker reports research funding (institution) from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Duality, Eisai Co., Ltd., Faeth Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Lilly, MSD, Takeda, and Zymeworks; an unpaid consulting or advisory role for ArQule, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Duality, Eisai Co., Ltd., Faeth Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, IBM, Immunocore, ITeos Therapeutics, Kartos Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Lilly, MSD, Moreo, Morphosys, Novartis, Takeda, and Zymeworks; support for travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Eisai Co., Ltd. and MSD. Eva María Guerra Alía reports advisory/consultancy honorarium from AstraZeneca-MSD, Clovis Oncology, GSK-Tesaro, PharmaMar, and Roche; speaker bureau/expert testimony honorarium from AstraZeneca-MSD, PharmaMar, Roche, and GSK-Tesaro; and support for travel, accommodation, and/or expenses from Roche, GSK-Tesaro, and Baxter. Zhenqiang Su is an employee of Takeda. Sylvie Vincent is an employee of Takeda. Farhad Sedarati is an employee of Takeda. Douglas V. Faller reports consulting fees from Viracta Therapeutics, Briacell Therapeutics, and Molecular Partners; equity from Oryzon Genomics, Phoenicia Biosciences, Viracta Therapeutics, and Briacell Therapeutics; and employment at Oryzon Genomics, Phoenicia Biosciences, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals (ended in 2022). Sileny N. Han, Amit Oza, Nicoletta Colombo, Andrea Jewell, Jonathan Krell, Jean- François Baurain, Rachel Neuwirth, and Giovanni Scambia have no disclosures to report., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate adverse events (AEs) of combination lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab for the treatment of recurrent endometrial cancer (EC) and to assess outcomes by lenvatinib starting dose., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients with recurrent EC treated with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab at our institution between 10/1/2019-11/30/2021. Starting dose of lenvatinib was defined as standard (20 mg) or reduced (10 mg/14 mg). AEs were manually extracted through chart review and graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5.0. PFS, overall survival (OS), and duration of response (DOR) were analyzed., Results: Forty-three patients were identified; median age was 67 years (range, 54-85). The most common histologies were serous (35%), endometrioid (23%), and carcinosarcoma (21%). Starting lenvatinib doses were 10 mg (n = 10), 14 mg (n = 10), and 20 mg (n = 23). Median number of cycles received was 8 (range, 1-42). Twenty-four patients (56%) required ≥1 lenvatinib dose reduction; 3 (7%) discontinued lenvatinib, and 1 (2%) discontinued pembrolizumab for intolerance or AE. Thirty-six patients (84%) experienced grade ≥ 3 AEs; hypertension, weight loss, anemia, fatigue, and thrombocytopenia were most common. The standard dose group experienced significantly shorter observed PFS vs the reduced dose group (P = .02). There was no difference in DOR (P = .09) or OS (P = .27) between the groups., Conclusion: In clinical practice, AEs associated with combination lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab were common and comparable to Study 309/KEYNOTE-775 findings. AEs were similar regardless of starting lenvatinib dose. Further dose optimization studies of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab may be indicated in recurrent EC. Clinical trial data remain the gold standard to guide starting lenvatinib dosing., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Outside the current study, A. Iasonos reports consulting fees from Mylan. N.R. Abu-Rustum reports honoraria from Klinik Essen Germany and NCCN; and GRAIL grants paid to the institution. V. Makker reports meeting/travel support by Eisai and Merck; participation on Data Safety Monitoring or Advisory Board of Duality, Merck, Karyopharm, Exelexis, Eisai, Karyopharm, BMS, Clovis, Faeth Immunocore, Morphosys, AstraZeneca, Novartis, GSK, Bayer (all unpaid), and study support to the institution by Merck, Eisai, AztraZeneca, Faeth, Karyopharm, Zymeworks, Duality, Clovis, Bayer and Takeda. C. Aghajanian reports clinical trial funding paid to the institution from AstraZeneca; consulting fees (advisory board) from Eisai/Merck, Roche/Genentech, Abbvie, AstraZeneca/Merck, and Repare Therapeutics; advisory board participation (no fee) for Blueprint Medicine; and leadership/fiduciary roles for the GOG Foundation Board of Directors (travel cost reimbursement) and NRG Oncology Board of Directors (unpaid). M. Rubinstein reports research funding from Merk, Zentalis, and AstraZeneca. A.K. Green reports research funding from Eli Lilly, Mereo Biopharma, and the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and personal fees from Merck. All other authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Anti-HER2 targeted therapies have recently demonstrated clinical activity in the treatment of high-grade endometrial carcinomas (ECs), particularly serous carcinomas with HER2 amplification and/or overexpression. Intratumor heterogeneity of HER2 amplification or HER2 genetic intratumor heterogeneity (G-ITH) has been associated with resistance to anti-HER2 therapies in breast and gastroesophageal cancers; however, its clinical relevance in EC is unknown. To characterize HER2 G-ITH in EC, archival specimens from a clinically annotated cohort of 57 ECs treated with trastuzumab or trasutuzmab emtansine in the recurrent (n = 38) or adjuvant (n = 19) setting were subjected to central pathology review, HER2 assessment by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), and next-generation sequencing. HER2 G-ITH, defined as HER2 amplification in 5% to 50% of tumor cells examined by FISH, was identified in 36% (19/53) of ECs and was associated with lower HER2 copy number and levels of protein expression. HER2 IHC revealed spatially distinct areas of strong expression juxtaposed with areas of low/absent expression in tumors with the "cluster" pattern of G-ITH, whereas the "mosaic" pattern was typically associated with a diffuse admixture of cells with variable levels of HER2 expression. HER2 G-ITH was frequently observed in cases with IHC/FISH or FISH/next-generation sequencing discrepancies and/or with an equivocal/negative FISH result (9/13, 69%). Although the objective response rate to anti-HER2 therapy in recurrent ECs was 52% (13/25) for tumors lacking HER2 G-ITH, none (0%, 0/10) of the patients with HER2 G-ITH achieved a complete or partial response (P = .005). HER2 G-ITH was significantly associated with worse progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 2.88; 95% CI, 1.33-6.27; P = .005) but not overall survival. HER2 IHC score, HER2/CEP17 ratio, HER2 copy number, histologic subtype, and other genetic alterations, including PIK3CA hotspot mutations, were not significantly associated with therapeutic response or survival outcomes. Treatment responses were not restricted to serous carcinomas, supporting consideration of anti-HER2 therapy in patients with HER2-positive high-grade ECs of non-serous histology. Our results demonstrate that HER2 G-ITH is an important determinant of response to trastuzumab and trastuzumab emtansine in EC, providing a rationale for the development of novel therapeutic strategies to target HER2-nonamplified resistant tumor subpopulations, such as HER2 antibody-drug conjugates with bystander effects., (Copyright © 2023 United States & Canadian Academy of Pathology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: We sought to compare outcomes between minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and laparotomy in patients with clinical stage I uterine serous carcinoma (USC)., Methods: Patients who underwent surgery for newly diagnosed USC between 11/1/1993 and 12/31/2017 were retrospectively identified and assigned to either the MIS cohort or the laparotomy cohort. Patients with conversion to laparotomy were analyzed with the MIS cohort. Chi-square and Mann-Whitney tests were used to compare categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate survival and compared using the log-rank test., Results: In total, 391 patients met inclusion criteria; 242 underwent MIS (35% non-robotic and 65% robotic-assisted laparoscopies) and 149 underwent laparotomy. Age, BMI, stage, and washings status did not differ between cohorts. Patients who underwent MIS were less likely to have lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI; 35.1% vs 48.3%), had fewer nodes removed (median, 9 vs 15), and lower rates of paraaortic nodal dissection (44.6% vs 65.1%). Rates of adjuvant therapy did not differ between cohorts. Median follow-up times were 63.0 months (MIS cohort) vs 71.0 months (laparotomy cohort; P = .04). Five-year PFS rates were 58.7% (MIS) vs 59.8% (laparotomy; P = .1). Five-year OS rates were 65.2% (MIS) compared to 63.5% (laparotomy; P = .2). On multivariable analysis, higher stage, deep myometrial invasion, and positive washings were associated with decreased PFS. Age ≥ 65 years, higher stage, LVSI, and positive washings were associated with shorter OS., Conclusions: MIS does not compromise outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed USC and should be offered to these patients to minimize surgical morbidity., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest N.R. Abu-Rustum reports research funding paid to the institution from GRAIL. M.M. Leitao Jr. reports research funding paid to the institution from KCI/Acelity, ad-hoc speaker for Intuitive Surgical, Inc., and advisory board participation for JnJ/Ethicon and Takeda. V. Makker reports advisory board participation (unpaid) for Eisai, Merck, Clovis, Faeth, Duality, Morphyes, Karyopharm, Novartis, Lilly, and Immunocore. All other authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have new indications for treatment in gynecologic malignancies. These targeted drugs have both unique and overlapping toxicities, which require careful attention and management. New combination therapies with immune-oncology agents have demonstrated promise in endometrial cancer. This review examines common adverse events associated with TKIs and provides readers with an evidence-based review on current uses and strategies for the management of these medications., Methods: A comprehensive review of the medical literature on TKI use in gynecologic cancer was undertaken by a committee approach. Details of each drug, its molecular target, and relevant data on both clinical efficacy and side effects were compiled and organized for clinical use. Information on drug-related secondary effects and management strategies for specific toxicities, including dose reduction and concomitant medications, were gathered., Results: TKIs can potentially offer improved response rates and durable responses for a group of patients who were previously without an effective standard second-line therapy. The combination of lenvatinib and pembrolizumab represents a more targeted approach to the drivers of endometrial cancer; however, there remains significant drug-related toxicity, and thus dose reduction and dose delay are frequently required. Toxicity management requires frequent check-ins and management strategies to help patients find the highest tolerable dose. TKIs are expensive and patient financial toxicity is as critical a measure of a drug's utility as any drug side effect. Many of these drugs have patient assistance programs, which should be fully utilized to minimize cost., Conclusions: Future studies are needed to expand the role of TKIs into new molecularly driven groups. Attention to cost, durability of response, and long-term toxicity management is needed to ensure all eligible patients have access to treatment., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest, (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Using next generation sequencing (NGS), The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) found that endometrial carcinomas (ECs) fall under one of four molecular subtypes, and a POLE mutation status, mismatch repair (MMR) and p53 immunohistochemistry (IHC)-based surrogate has been developed. We sought to retrospectively classify and characterize a large series of unselected ECs that were prospectively subjected to clinical sequencing by utilizing clinical molecular and IHC data., Experimental Design: All patients with EC with clinical tumor-normal MSK-IMPACT NGS from 2014 to 2020 (n = 2115) were classified by integrating molecular data (i.e., POLE mutation, TP53 mutation, MSIsensor score) and MMR and p53 IHC results. Survival analysis was performed for primary EC patients with upfront surgery at our institution., Results: Utilizing our integrated approach, significantly more ECs were molecularly classified (1834/2115, 87%) as compared to the surrogate (1387/2115, 66%, p < 0.001), with an almost perfect agreement for classifiable cases (Kappa 0.962, 95% CI 0.949-0.975). Discrepancies were primarily due to TP53 mutations in p53-IHC-normal ECs. Of the 1834 ECs, most were of copy number (CN)-high molecular subtype (40%), followed by CN-low (32%), MSI-high (23%) and POLE (5%). Histologic and genomic variability was present amongst all molecular subtypes. Molecular classification was prognostic in early- and advanced-stage disease, including early-stage endometrioid EC., Conclusions: The integration of clinical NGS and IHC data allows for an algorithmic approach to molecularly classifying newly diagnosed EC, while overcoming issues of IHC-based genetic alteration detection. Such integrated approach will be important moving forward given the prognostic and potentially predictive information afforded by this classification., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest N.R. Abu-Rustum reports Stryker/Novadaq and GRAIL grants paid to the institution, outside the current study. C.F. Friedman reports institutional research support from Seagen, Merck, BMS, AstraZeneca, Mersana and Hotspot Therapeutics; consulting fees from BMS, Seagen and Aadi Biosciences; honoraria for lectures from Onclive; meeting/ travel support by Puma; participation on Data Safety Monitoring or Advisory Board of Merck, Genentech and Marengo (all uncompensated). D. Zamarin reports institutional research support from AstraZeneca, Merck, Plexxikon Synthekine and Genentech; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Synthekine, Astellas, Tessa Therapeutics, Memgen, Celldex, Crown Biosciences, Hookipa Biotech, Kalivir, Xencor and GSK; royalties from Merck; and stock options from Accurius Therapeutics, ImmunOS Therapeutics and Calidi Biotherapeutics, all outside the submitted work. V. Makker reports meeting/travel support by Eisai and Merck; participation on Data Safety Monitoring or Advisory Board of Duality, Merck, Karyopharm, Exelexis, Eisai, Karyopharm, BMS, Clovis, Faeth Immunocore, Morphosys, AstraZeneca, Novartis, GSK, Bayer (all unpaid), and study support to the institution by Merck, Eisai, AztraZeneca, Faeth, Karyopharm, Zymeworks, Duality, Clovis, Bayer and Takeda. Y. Liu reports institutional research funding from Repare Therapeutics, AstraZeneca and GSK; honoraria from Total Health and Sarah Lawrence College; and travel/meeting support by AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. B. Weigelt reports a research grant from REPARE Therapeutics paid to the institution, outside the submitted work. D.S. Chi reports personal fees from Apyx Medical, Verthermia Inc., Biom ‘Up, and AstraZeneca, as well as recent or current stock/options ownership of Apyx Medical, Verthemia, Intuitive Surgical, Inc., TransEnterix, Inc., Doximity, Moderna, and BioNTech SE. E.L. Jewell reports personal fees from Covidien/Medtronic. M. M. Leitao is an ad hoc speaker for Intuitive Surgical, Inc.; outside the submitted work, he is on the Advisory Board of Ethicon/Johnson & Johnson and Takeda; and reports grants paid to the institution by KCI/Acelity. C. Aghajanian reports clinical trial funding paid to the institution from AstraZeneca; consulting fees (advisory board) from Eisai/Merck, Roche/Genentech, Abbvie, AstraZeneca/Merck, and Repare Therapeutics; advisory board participation (no fee) for Blueprint Medicine; and leadership/fiduciary roles for the GOG Foundation Board of Directors (travel cost reimbursement) and NRG Oncology Board of Directors (unpaid). The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To describe the prevalence of germline pathogenic variants (gPVs) in endometrial and ovarian carcinosarcomas and determine if gPVs are drivers of carcinosarcoma., Methods: Patients with endometrial or ovarian carcinosarcomas who underwent clinical tumor-normal sequencing from 1/1/2015 to 6/1/2021 and consented to germline assessment of ≥76 cancer predisposition genes were included. In patients with gPVs, biallelic inactivation was identified through analysis of loss of heterozygosity and somatic pathogenic alterations., Results: Of 216 patients identified, 167 (77%) were diagnosed with endometrial carcinosarcoma and 49 (23%) with ovarian carcinosarcoma. Overall, 33 gPVs were observed in 29 patients (13%); 20 gPVs (61%) had biallelic loss in tumors. The rate of high-penetrance gPVs overall was 7% (16 of 216); 88% of high-penetrance gPVs had biallelic loss. In the endometrial carcinosarcoma cohort, 22 gPVs were found in 19 (11%) of 167 patients; 12 gPVs (55%) had biallelic loss in tumors, including 8 (89%) of 9 in high-penetrance gPVs. Among the ovarian carcinosarcoma cohort, 11 gPVs were found in 10 (20%) of 49 patients; 8 gPVs (73%) had biallelic loss in tumors, and all evaluable high-penetrance gPVs (n = 6) had biallelic loss. All gPVs in homologous recombination (BRCA1, BRCA2, RAD51C) and Lynch syndrome (MSH2, MSH6) genes had biallelic loss in tumors (n = 15)., Conclusions: gPVs in genes affecting homologous recombination- or Lynch-associated mismatch repair exhibited biallelic inactivation within tumors, suggesting likely drivers of gynecologic carcinosarcoma. Our data support germline testing for patients with gynecologic carcinosarcomas, given implications for treatment and risk-reduction in patients and at-risk family members., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest B.Weigelt reports research funding and scientific advisory board participation from Repare Therapeutics, outside the submitted work. K. Offit is a founder and shareholder of AnaNeo Therapeutics Incorporated. Z.K. Stadler has an immediate family member who serves as a consultant in Ophthalmology for Alcon, Adverum, Gyroscope Therapeutics Ltd., Neurogene and RegenexBio, outside the submitted work. M.F. Berger reports receiving research funding from GRAIL and advisory board activities for Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, and PetDx. Y.L. Liu reports research funding from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Repare Therapeutics. N.R. Abu-Rustum reports research funding paid to the institution from GRAIL. C. Aghajanian reports clinical trial funding paid to the institution from AstraZeneca; consulting fees (advisory board) from Eisai/Merck, Roche/Genentech, Abbvie, AstraZeneca/Merck, and Repare Therapeutics; advisory board participation (no fee) for Blueprint Medicine; and leadership/fiduciary roles for the GOG Foundation Board of Directors (travel cost reimbursement) and NRG Oncology Board of Directors (unpaid). D.S. Chi reports personal fees from Apyx Medical, Verthermia Inc., Biom ‘Up, and AstraZeneca, as well as recent or current stock/options ownership of Apyx Medical, Verthemia, Intuitive Surgical, Inc., TransEnterix, Inc., Doximity, Moderna, and BioNTech SE. R.N. Grisham reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Corcept, GlaxoSmithKline, MJH Life Sciences, Natera, PER, and SpringWorks. M.M. Leitao Jr. reports research funding paid to the institution from KCI/Acelity, ad-hoc speaker for Intuitive Surgical, Inc., and advisory board participation for JnJ/Ethicon and Takeda. V. Makker reports advisory board participation (unpaid) for Eisai, Merck, Clovis, Faeth, Duality, Morphyes, Karyopharm, Novartis, Lilly, and Immunocore. R.E. O'Cearbhaill reports honoraria from GSK, Bayer, Regeneron, SeaGen, Fresenius Kabi, Immunogen, MJH Life Sciences, Curio, R-Pharm, GOG Foundation, and Onclive/PER. M. Rubinstein reports research funding from Merk, Zentalis, and AstraZeneca. M.L. Hensley reports advisory board participation at Aadi Bioscience, GSK, Thrive Bioscience, and Lilly; has an immediate family member who is employed by Sanofi; and served as a CME faculty speaker for Research to Practice. All other authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. We report the final prespecified analysis for overall survival (OS), along with updated progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR), and safety from the open-label, randomized, phase III Study 309/KEYNOTE-775. In total, 827 patients with advanced, recurrent, or metastatic endometrial cancer (EC) were randomly assigned to receive lenvatinib 20 mg orally once daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks (n = 411) or chemotherapy of the treating physician's choice (doxorubicin 60 mg/m 2 intravenously once every 3 weeks or paclitaxel 80 mg/m 2 intravenously once weekly [3 weeks on; 1 week off] [n = 416]). Efficacy was reported for patients with mismatch repair proficient (pMMR) tumors and all-comers, and by subgroups (histology, prior therapy, MMR status). Updated safety was also reported.Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab showed benefits in OS (pMMR HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.83; all-comer HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.77), PFS (pMMR HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.72; all-comer HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.66), and ORR (pMMR patients, 32.4% v 15.1%; all-comers, 33.8% v 14.7%) versus chemotherapy. OS, PFS, and ORR favored lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in all subgroups of interest. No new safety signals were observed. Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab continued to show improved efficacy versus chemotherapy and manageable safety in patients with previously treated advanced EC.

Purpose: Lenvatinib and pembrolizumab (LEN+PEMBRO) demonstrated clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvements in efficacy versus treatment of physician's choice (TPC) in patients with advanced endometrial cancer (aEC) in the phase 3 Study 309/KEYNOTE-775. Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) is reported., Patients and Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to receive LEN+PEMBRO (n = 411; LEN 20 mg/day; PEMBRO 200 mg Q3W) or TPC (n = 416; doxorubicin 60 mg/m 2 Q3W or paclitaxel 80 mg/m 2 [weekly, 3 weeks on/1 week off]). Impact of treatment on HRQoL assessed by the global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL) score of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) was a secondary objective; other scales of the Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30), EORTC QLQ-Endometrial, 24 questions (EORTC QLQ-EN24), and EuroQoL 5 dimensions, 5 levels (EQ-5D-5L) were exploratory objectives. HRQoL was assessed on day 1 of each cycle. Completion/compliance, change from baseline, time to first and definitive deterioration were assessed. No multiplicity adjustments were applied for HRQoL endpoints., Results: The latest timepoint at which the predefined rates of completion (≥60%) and compliance (≥80%) were met was week 12. HRQoL at week 12 between treatment groups was generally similar. Time to first deterioration symptom scales favoured LEN+PEMBRO for QLQ-C30 dyspnoea, and QLQ-EN24 for poor body image, tingling/numbness, and hair loss; and TPC was favoured for QLQ-C30 pain, appetite loss, and diarrhoea, and QLQ-EN24 muscular pain. While the QLQ-C30 physical functional scale favoured TPC, other functional scales were generally similar between arms. Time to definitive deterioration favoured LEN+PEMBRO on most scales., Conclusion: HRQoL data from Study 309/KEYNOTE-775, with previously published efficacy and safety results, indicate that LEN+PEMBRO has an overall favourable benefit/risk profile versus TPC for the treatment of patients with aEC., Clinicaltrials: GOV: NCT03517449., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Domenica Lorusso: Advisory Board: GSK, AstraZeneca, MSD, Clovis Oncology, PharmaMar, Merck Serono, Seagen, Immunogen, Genmab, Oncoinvest, Corcept, Sutro; Consultancy: PharmaMar, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD, Immunogen, Genmab, Seagen; Funding (inst.): MSD, Clovis Oncology, GSK, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, Seagen, Genmab, Immogen, Incyte, Novartis, Roche; Invited Speaker: Genmab, PharmaMar, MSD; Principal Investigator: AstraZeneca, MSD, Genmab, Immunogen, Clovis, Roche, Incyte; Board of Directors: GCIG Nicoletta Colombo: Honoraria: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunogen, mersana, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche/Genentech, Tesaro; Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, BioCad, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunogen, Mersana, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche/Genentech, Tesaro Antonio Casado Herraez: advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Merck, PharmaMar; some support for attending major international oncological conferences (virtually or face to face meetings) from PharmaMar, Lilly, Roche, AstraZeneca-Merck and GSK; Research support (institution): PharmaMar Alessandro Santin: grants from Puma, Immunomedics, Gilead, Synthon, Merck, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Genentech, Tesaro, Eisai; personal fees from Merck, Tesaro, Eisai Emeline Colomba: Honoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Ipsen, Merck; Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Pfizer David Scott Miller: Advisory Board: Eisai, Karyopharm, Tesaro, Tarveda, Myriad, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, Seagen; Board of Directors/Leadership Role: NRG Oncology; Research Grant: NRG Oncology, Karyopharm, Advaxis, Immunogen, Advenchen, Regeneron, Merck, Agenus, Akesobio, EMD Serono Keiichi Fujiwara: Honoraria: Chugai Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Nippon Kayaku, Ono Pharmaceutical, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Takeda, Zeria Pharmaceutical; Consulting or Advisory Role: Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Genmab, MSD, Pfizer, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Takeda; Research Funding (institution): AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharma, Eisai, Genmab, Immunogen, Kaken Pharmaceutical, Lilly, MSD, Oncotherapeutics, Ono Pharmaceutical, Regeneron, Shionogi, Zeria Pharmaceutical; Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Abbvie, MSD, Pfizer; Consulting or Advisory Role - Abbvie; AstraZeneca; Eisai; Genmab; MSD; Pfizer; Taiho Pharmaceutical; Takeda; Research Funding - AstraZeneca (Inst); Chugai Pharma (Inst); Eisai (Inst); Genmab (Inst); Immunogen (Inst); Kaken Pharmaceutical (Inst); Lilly (Inst); MSD (Inst); Oncotherapeutics (Inst); Ono Pharmaceutical (Inst); Regeneron (Inst); Shionogi (Inst); Zeria Pharmaceutical (Inst); Travel, Accommodations, Expenses - Abbvie; MSD; Pfizer Sandro Pignata: Honoraria: AstraZeneca, MSD, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, Tesaro; Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, Tesaro; Research Funding (institution) AstraZeneca, MSD, Pfizer, Roche Sally E. Baron-Hay: Consultancy fees: Eisai, Merck Sharp and Dohme (Australia Pty Ltd), Pfizer, AstraZeneca Australia; Honoraria: Amgen, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Australia Pty Ptd, Eli Lilly Australia, Roche, Merck Sharp and Dohme (Australia Pty Ltd) Isabelle Laure Ray-Coquard: Honoraria: Abbvie, Advaxis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, DECIPHERA, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, MERSANA, MSD Oncology, OxOnc, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, Tesaro; Consulting or Advisory Role: Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Deciphera, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, Mersana, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, Tesaro; Research Funding: BMS, MSD Oncology; Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Advaxis, AstraZeneca, BMS, Clovis Oncology, GlaxoSmithKline, PharmaMar, Roche, Tesaro Ronnie Shapira-Frommer: Honoraria: AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Medison, MSD, NeoPharm, Novartis, Roche; Consulting or Advisory Role: MSD, VBL Therapeutics; Research Funding: MSD Yong Man Kim: Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Genolution, Johnson & Johnson; Research Funding: Regeneron, Roche Mary McCormack: Research Funding (institution): Roche/Genentech; Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche; honoraria from GSK, AZ, and Eisai. Rachid Massaad: Full-time employee of MSD Europe Allison Martin Nguyen: Full-time employee/stock ownership: Merck & Co., Inc. Qi Zhao: Full time employee of Eisai Inc. Jodi McKenzie: Full time employee of Eisai Inc. Vimalanand S. Prabhu: Full-time employee/stock ownership: Merck & Co., Inc.; Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Merck & Co., Inc Vicky Makker: study support (all funding to institution) / consultancy / advisory board membership from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Eisai, Faeth, Genentech, GSK, iTEOS, Karyopharm, Moreo, Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Takeda, Zymeworks; Dr Makker is supported in part by the NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA008748., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: We sought to determine the prevalence of germline pathogenic variants (gPVs) in unselected patients with endometrial cancer (EC), define biallelic gPVs within tumors, and describe their associations with clinicopathologic features., Methods: Germline assessment of at least 76 cancer predisposition genes was performed in patients with EC undergoing clinical tumor-normal Memorial Sloan Kettering-Integrated Mutation Profiling of Actionable Cancer Targets (MSK-IMPACT) sequencing from January 1, 2015, to June 30, 2021. In patients with gPVs, biallelic alterations in ECs were identified through analysis of loss of heterozygosity and somatic PVs. Clinicopathologic variables were compared using nonparametric tests., Results: Of 1625 patients with EC, 216 (13%) had gPVs, and 15 patients had 2 gPVs. There were 231 gPVs in 35 genes (75 [32%] high penetrance; 39 [17%] moderate penetrance; and 117 [51%] low, recessive, or uncertain penetrance). Compared with those without gPVs, patients with gPVs were younger (P = .002), more often White (P = .009), and less obese (P = .025) and had differences in distribution of tumor histology (P = .017) and molecular subtype (P < .001). Among 231 gPVs, 74 (32%) exhibited biallelic inactivation within tumors. For high-penetrance gPVs, 63% (47 of 75) of ECs had biallelic alterations, primarily affecting mismatch repair (MMR) and homologous recombination related genes, including BRCA1,BRCA2, RAD51D, and PALB2. Biallelic inactivation varied across molecular subtypes with highest rates in microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) or copy-number (CN)-high subtypes (3 of 12 [25%] POLE, 30 of 77 [39%] MSI-H, 27 of 60 [45%] CN-high, 9 of 57 [16%] CN-low; P < .001)., Conclusions: Of unselected patients with EC, 13% had gPVs, with 63% of gPVs in high-penetrance genes (MMR and homologous recombination) exhibiting biallelic inactivation, potentially driving cancer development. This supports germline assessment in EC given implications for treatment and cancer prevention., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. The open-label phase Ib/II Study 111/KEYNOTE-146 of daily lenvatinib 20 mg plus pembrolizumab 200 mg once every 3 weeks showed promising efficacy and tolerable safety in patients with previously treated advanced endometrial carcinoma (EC; primary data cutoff date: January 10, 2019). This updated analysis reports long-term follow-up efficacy and safety data from 108 patients with previously treated EC included in the primary analysis. End points included objective response rate, duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. Investigators performed tumor assessments per immune-related RECIST. At the updated data cutoff date (August 18, 2020), the median study follow-up duration was 34.7 months (95% CI, 30.9 to 41.2), the objective response rate was 39.8% (95% CI, 30.5 to 49.7), and the median duration of response was 22.9 months (95% CI, 10.2 to not estimable). The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 7.4 months (95% CI, 5.2 to 8.7) and 17.7 months (95% CI, 15.5 to 25.8), respectively. Treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade occurred in 104 (96.3%) patients. The most common grade ≥ 3 treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events were hypertension (33.3%), elevated lipase (9.3%), fatigue (8.3%), and diarrhea (7.4%). The results demonstrate extended efficacy and tolerability of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in this cohort of patients with previously treated advanced EC.

Endometrial carcinosarcoma is a rare and aggressive high-grade endometrial carcinoma with secondary sarcomatous trans-differentiation (conversion theory). The clinical presentation and diagnostic work-up roughly align with those of the more common endometrioid counterpart, although endometrial carcinosarcoma is more frequently diagnosed at an advanced stage. Endometrial carcinosarcoma is not a single entity but encompasses different histological subtypes, depending on the type of carcinomatous and sarcomatous elements. The majority of endometrial carcinosarcomas are characterized by p53 abnormalities. The proportion of POLE and microsatellite instablity-high (MSI-H) is directly related to the epithelial component, being approximately 25% and 3% in endometrioid and non-endometrioid components.The management of non-metastatic disease is based on a multimodal approach with optimal surgery followed by (concomitant or sequential) chemotherapy and radiotherapy, even for early stages. Palliative chemotherapy is recommended in the metastatic or recurrent setting, with carboplatin/paclitaxel doublet being the first-line regimen. Although the introduction of immunotherapy plus/minus a tyrosine kinase inhibitor shifted the paradigm of treatment of patients with recurrent endometrial cancer, patients with endometrial carcinosarcoma were excluded from most studies evaluating single-agent immunotherapy or the combination. However, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved the use of pembrolizumab and lenvatinib in endometrial cancer (all histotypes) after progression on chemotherapy and single-agent immunotherapy in MSI-H cancers. In the era of precision medicine, emerging knowledge on molecular endometrial carcinosarcoma is opening new promising therapeutic options for more personalized treatment. The present review outlines state-of-the-art knowledge and future directions for patients with endometrial carcinosarcoma., Competing Interests: Competing interests: GB: Novartis AG Pharma (C/A, H), Italian Ministry of Health (RG); NC: AstraZeneca (C/A, SH), Seattle Genetics (C/A, SH), MSD (SAB), Mersana (C/A, SH), eTheRNA immunotherapies NV (C/A, SH), Roche (travel expenses), Genmab (travel expenses), Amgen (travel expenses). IR-C: honoraria from AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK/Tesaro, and PharmaMar; consulting/advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Roche, Clovis, GSK/Tesaro, Genmab, PharmaMar, MSD, Mersana, Deciphera, OncXea, Esai, BMS, Novartis, and Pfizer; research funding from MSD; travel expenses from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Roche. YS: AstraZeneca (CA), GSK (CA). PW: Amgen (SH, RF, SAB), AstraZeneca (SH, RF, H, SAB), Clovis (SH, RF, SAB), Eisai (SH, SAB), GSK (SH, SAB), Lilly (SH, SAB), MSD (SH, RF, SAB), Novartis (SH, RF, SAB), Pfizer (SH, RF, SAB), Roche (SH, RF, H, SAB), TEVA (SH, SAB). NYLN: AstraZeneca (SH), Janssen (SH). KT: AstraZeneca (SH), Chugai (SH, RF), Eisai (SH), MSD (SH), Mochida (SH), Takeda (SH). TE: Takeda (SH), Astra Zeneca (SH), Eisai (SH), Chugai Pharma (SH, RF), MSD (SH), Mochida (SH). DL: AstraZeneca (H, CA), Clovis (H, CA, RF), GSK/Tesaro (H, CA), Roche (CA), Genmab (CA), PharmaMar (CA, RF), MSD (CA, RF), Esai (CA), Merck Serono (CA), Novartis (CA), and PharmaMar (H); consulting/advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Roche, Clovis, GSK/Tesaro. DMP: AstraZeneca (CA, SH, SAB), GSK (CA, SH, SAB). NRA-R: NIH/NCI Cancer Center support grant P30 CA008748 (F). HD: Roche (CA, SH, SAB), Pfizer (CA, SH, SAB), AstraZeneca (SH, SAB), Lily (SAB), GSK (SAB), Novartis (SH), Pharmamar (SH); BJM: AstraZeneca (SH, SAB), GSK (SH, SAB), Incyte (SAB), Merck (SH, SAB), Roche/Genentech (SH, SAB), Eisai (SAB), GOG-Foundation (E), US Oncology (E)., (© IGCS and ESGO 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Our understanding of the biologic heterogeneity of endometrial cancer has improved, but which patients benefit from single-agent versus combination immune checkpoint blockade remains unclear., Methods: We conducted a single-center, randomized, open-label, phase 2 study of durvalumab 1500 mg (Arm 1) versus durvalumab 1500 mg plus tremelimumab 75 mg every 4 weeks (Arm 2) in patients with endometrial carcinoma. The primary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) at 24 weeks. Patients were stratified by mismatch repair (MMR) status and carcinosarcoma histology. Using a Simon two-stage minimax design, we determined 40 patients per arm would provide 90% power and Type 1 error of 10%., Results: Eighty-two patients were enrolled; 77 were evaluable for toxicity (Arm 1: 38, Arm 2: 39) and 75 evaluable for efficacy (Arm 1: 37, Arm 2: 38). Patient were stratified by MMR status (Arm 1: 5, Arm 2: 4 were MMR-deficient). The ORR in Arm 1 was 10.8% (one-sided 90% CI: 4.8-100%); the ORR in Arm 2 was 5.3% (one-sided 90% CI: 1.4-100%). Since the primary endpoint of ORR was not met, 24-week PFS was not compared to historical controls per protocol specification. No new safety signals were identified., Conclusions: In these patients with predominantly MMR-proficient endometrial cancer, there was limited response with single-agent and combined immune checkpoint blockade. The pre-specified efficacy thresholds were not met for further evaluation. A deeper understanding of potential mechanisms of resistance to immunotherapy in MMR-proficient endometrial cancer is needed for the development of novel therapeutic approaches., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. Rubinstein reports grant support paid to the institution from Merck, Zentalis, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Iasonos reports consulting fees from Mylan. Dr. Friedman reports grant support paid to the institution from Genentech/Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Merck, AstraZeneca, and Daiichi; consulting fees from Seagen and BMS; and waived compensation for advisory board participation from Merck and Genentech. Dr. O'Cearbhaill reports meeting/travel support from the Gynecologic Oncology Foundation, Curio, and Hitech Health; participation in the advisory boards of Tesaro/GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Regeneron, Seattle Genetics, Fresenius Kabi, Bayer, and CarinaBiotech (non-compensated); non-compensated steering committee participation for Tesaro/GSK and AstraZeneca; and grant support paid to the institution from Bayer/Celgene/Juno, Tesaro/GSK, Merck, the Ludwig Cancer Institute, Abbvie/StemCentrx, Regeneron, TCR2 Therapeutics, Marker Therapeutics, Syndax Pharmaceuticals, Genmab/Seagen Therapeutics, Sellas Therapeutics, Genentech, KitePharma, and the Gynecologic Oncology Foundation. Dr. Cadoo reports grant support paid to the institution from The Irish Cancer Society, MSD, and Immunogen; consulting fees from Nextcure, MJH Life Sciences, and GSK; honoraria from SGK, AstraZeneca, and MSD; meeting/travel support from Roche, Pfizer, and MSD; and board/committee participation for MSD, AstraZeneca, GSK, Eisai, The National Cancer Control Programme Ireland (voluntary), and the ARC Cancer Support Centers (voluntary). Dr. Kyi reports grant support paid to the institution from Merus, Gritstone, and BMS; consulting fees from Scenic Immunology BV and OncLive; and meeting/travel support from the Conquer Cancer Foundation and Gritstone. Dr. Zamarin reports grant support paid to the institution from AstraZeneca, Roche, Plexxikon, and Synthekine; patents from Merck and Newcastle Disease Virus for Cancer Therapy; consulting fees from Memgen, Celldex, Agenus, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Crown Biosciences, Roche, GSK, Hookipa, ImmunOS, Kalivir, Synologic Therapeutics, Synthekine, Takeda, Targovax, Tessa Therapeutics, and Xencor; and stock options from Accurius Therapeutics, ImmunOS Therapeutics, and Calidi Biotherapeutics. Dr. Aghajanian reports grant support paid to the institution from Abbvie, Clovis, Genentech, and AstraZeneca; consulting fees from Eisai/Merck, Mersana Therapeutics, Roche/Genentech, Abbvie, AstraZeneca/Merck, and Repare Therapeutics; advisory board participation for Blueprint Medicine; and unpaid participation on the Board of Directors of the GOG Foundation and NRG Oncology. Dr. Billinson reports stock ownership in Abbvie and Johnson and Johnson. Dr. Makker reports unpaid board participation for Eisai, Merck, Clovis, Faeth, Duality, Morphyes, Karyopharm, Novartis, Lilly and Immunocore. The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common gynecologic malignancy, with worldwide increasing incidence and disease-associated mortality. Although most patients with EC are diagnosed with early-stage disease, systemic treatment options for patients with advanced or recurrent EC have historically been limited. EC-focused clinical trials and the ensuing therapeutic landscape have expanded since The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) identified 4 distinct EC subgroups associated with differential survival. This endeavor revolutionized our understanding of the genomic characterization of EC as well as molecular drivers of this heterogeneous malignancy, leading to precision oncology approaches to therapeutics and advancement in treatment options. This review describes the current status of and recent advancements in therapeutic options for patients with advanced and recurrent EC. The NCCN Guidelines for Uterine Neoplasms provide detailed recommendations regarding the diagnosis, workup, and management of EC.

Background: To characterize the safety, immunogenicity, and outcomes of patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) in second or greater remission treated with a polyvalent antigen-KLH plus OPT-821 vaccine construct and bevacizumab., Methods: Patients with recurrent HGSOC were treated with the vaccine plus bevacizumab at our institution from 01/05/2011 to 03/20/2012. Follow-up continued until 03/2021. Blood/urine samples were collected. "Responders" had an immunogenic response to ≥ 3 antigens; "non-responders" to ≤ 2 antigens., Results: Twenty-one patients were treated on study. One developed a dose-limiting toxicity (grade 4 fever). Two (10%) experienced bevacizumab-related grade 3 hypertension. Thirteen (68%) and 16 (84%) of 19 responded to ≥ 3 and ≥ 2 antigens, respectively (Globo-H, GM2, TF cluster Tn, MUC-1). Four of 21 patients were alive > 5 years post-treatment. Responders and non-responders had a median PFS of 4.9 months (95% CI: 2.8-8.1) and 5.0 months (95% CI: 0.7-cannot estimate), respectively; median OS was 30.7 months (95% CI: 16.9-52.0) and 34.2 months (95% CI: 12.8-cannot estimate), respectively. On two-timepoint analysis (baseline, week 17), increased IL-8 exhibited improved PFS (HR as 10-unit increase, 0.43; p = 0.04); increased PDGF exhibited worse OS (HR as 10-unit increase, 1.01; p = 0.02)., Conclusions: This is the longest follow-up of vaccine administration with bevacizumab in patients with ovarian cancer. The vaccine was well tolerated with bevacizumab. Response was not associated with improved survival. On two-timepoint analysis, increased IL-8 was associated with significant improvement in PFS; increased PDGF with significantly worse OS. For all timepoint measurements, cytokine levels were not significantly associated with survival., Trial Registration: NCT01223235., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Endometrial cancer incidence and mortality are rising among all ethnic groups. Carboplatin plus paclitaxel is the established frontline treatment for advanced/recurrent disease; however, subsequent treatment with traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy is challenging. The molecular characterization of endometrial cancer has provided important insights into the biological drivers of carcinogenesis, which has allowed for the development of newer precision immunotherapies and targeted therapies, including pembrolizumab, dostarlimab, and lenvatinib. Until recently, platinum rechallenge was often considered at the time of recurrence, given the lack of other available therapeutic options; however, "platinum sensitivity" in endometrial cancer is subjective and largely based on expert opinion and/or practitioner experience. Small retrospective studies have tried to provide guidance on the utility of platinum rechallenge, but they are limited by variable patient characteristics and small sample sizes. The applicability of these retrospective studies to contemporary clinical practice is difficult in the setting of changing patient demographics, a better understanding of endometrial cancer drivers, and the recent approvals of immune checkpoint inhibitors and the combination of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in the second-line setting. The primary focus of this review is to distill the available data regarding platinum-doublet chemotherapy rechallenge and highlight recent pivotal developments in endometrial cancer treatment, as well as future directions., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement Outside the submitted work, M Rubinstein reports funding from Merck, Zentalis, and AstraZeneca. V Makker reports advisory board participation for Eisai, Merck, Clovis, Faeth, Duality, Morphyes, Karyopharm, Novartis, Lilly, and Immunocore. A Nogueira-Rodrigues is a speaker for AstraZeneca, Merck, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Oncologia Brasil, and GSK; and is a consultant for Agenus, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Merck, Roche, and GSK. D Aoki reports consulting fees from Abbie, MSD, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Eisai, and Chugai; and personal fees from MSD, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Genmab, Takeda, Chugai, and Myriad Genetics. S Shen reports payment/honoraria from MJH Life Sciences. J Sehouli reports funding from GSK, Clovis, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, MSD, and Merck; consulting fees from GSK, Clovis, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, MSD, Merck, Roche, Pharmamar, and Eisai; payment/honoraria and advisory board from GSK, Clovis, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, MSD, Merck, Pharmamar, Novocure, and Incyte; payment from GSK, Clovis, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, MSD, Merck, Pharmamar, Novocure, and Eisai; support for meetings/travel from AstraZeneca, Roche, GSK, Tesaro, and Pharmamar; and leadership/fiduciary role for NOGGO, AGO, ENGAGE, and ESGO. DSP Tan reports consultancy fees and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Roche, MSD, Merck Serono, Bayer, Eisai, GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim; institutional research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, MSD, Eisai, BMS, Roche and Karyopharm; stock ownership of the Asian Microbiome Library (AMiLi); and support from the Singapore Ministry of Health's National Medical Research Council Clinician Scientist Award and Pangestu Family Foundation Gynaecological Cancer Research Fund. BJ Monk reports consulting fees from Acrivon, Adaptimune, Agenus, Akeso Bio, Amgen, Aravive, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis, Easai, Elevar, EMD Merck, Genmab/Seagen, GOG Foundation, Gradalis, Heng Rui, ImmunoGen, Karyopharm, Iovance, Laekna, Macrogenics, Merck, Mersana, Myriad, Novartis, Novocure, OncoC4, Panavance, Pieris, Pfizer, Puma, Regeneron, Roche/Genentech, Sorrento, TESARO/GSK, US Oncology Research, VBL, Verastem, and Zentalis; and payment/honoraria from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Easai, Merck, Myriad, Roche/Genentech, and TESARO/GSK., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The role of adjuvant therapy in stage I grade 3 endometrioid endometrial carcinoma (EEC) is debatable. We sought to define the agreement between Post Operative Radiation Therapy in Endometrial Carcinoma 1 (PORTEC-1) high-intermediate risk (HIR) and Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG)-99 HIR criteria, assess their concordance with The Cancer Genome Atlas molecular subtypes, and evaluate oncologic outcomes in this population., Methods: We identified patients with stage I grade 3 EECs who underwent surgical staging at our institution from January 2014 to January 2020. Patients were stratified into PORTEC-1 HIR, GOG-99 HIR, and The Cancer Genome Atlas molecular subtypes. Adjuvant treatment, and progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed., Results: Seventy-five patients were included. The agreement between PORTEC-1 and GOG-99 HIR classification was 68% (95% CI, 56.2 to 78.3), with a kappa of 0.36 ( P = .001). There was no agreement between PORTEC-1 or GOG-99 HIR classification and a dichotomized molecular classification (copy number-high [CN-H] v other subtypes), with a kappa of 0.03 ( P = .39) and -0.03 ( P = .601), respectively. There was no difference in PFS between PORTEC-1 HIR and non-HIR (HR, 10.9; 95% CI, 0.28 to 4.21) or between GOG-99 HIR and non-HIR (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.32 to 4.6) stage I grade 3 EECs. Patients with CN-H compared with non-CN-H EEC had worse PFS (HR, 5.67; 95% CI, 1.73 to 18.63) and OS (HR, 5.05; 95% CI, 1.13 to 22.5)., Conclusion: In surgically staged patients with stage I grade 3 EEC, PORTEC-1 and GOG-99 HIR criteria were not prognostic and did not identify CN-H patients. Patients with CN-H EEC had worse PFS and OS compared with those with other molecular subtypes. The integration of the molecular classification with recognized clinicopathologic factors may identify patients with higher-risk stage I grade 3 EEC who benefit from additional therapy., Competing Interests: Alexia IasonosStock and Other Owner Interests: Bristol Myers Squibb/SanofiConsulting and Advisory Role: Intelligencia, Mirati Therapeutics Carol AghajanianConsulting and Advisory Role: AbbVie, Eisai, AstraZeneca/Merck, Roche/Genentech, Repare TherapeuticsResearch Funding: Genentech/Roche, AbbVie, Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca Vicky MakkerConsulting and Advisory Role: Eisai, Merck, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Takeda, ArQuie, IBM, GlaxoSmithKline, Clovis Oncology, Faeth Therapeutics, Novartis, Duality, ITeos Therapeutics, Kartos Therapeutics, LillyResearch Funding: Lilly, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Takeda, Clovis Oncology, Bayer, Zymeworks, Duality, Faeth TherapeuticsTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Eisai, Merck, Karyopharm TherapeuticsOther Relationship: IBM Mario M. Leitao JrHonoraria: Intuitive SurgicalConsulting and Advisory Role: Intuitive Surgical, Ethicon/Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, TakedaResearch Funding: KCITravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Intuitive Surgical Nadeem R. Abu-RustumHonoraria: Prime Oncology, NCCMResearch Funding: GRAILTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Prime Oncology Britta WeigeltStock and Other Owner Interests: Repare Therapeutics (I)Consulting and Advisory Role: Ventana Medical Systems, VolitionRx, PAIGE, Goldman Sachs, Repare Therapeutics, Lilly (I)No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Study 309/KEYNOTE-775 is a phase 3 open-label, randomized trial of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus treatment of physician's choice (TPC) in patients with advanced endometrial cancer with progression after platinum-based therapy. Primary endpoints of superiority for lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab were met for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in all-comers (ie, regardless of mismatch repair [MMR] status) and patients with MMR proficiency (pMMR). We present results for the Japanese subset. Patients were randomized to oral lenvatinib 20 mg/day plus intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks (Q3W; up to 35 cycles of pembrolizumab) or TPC (intravenous doxorubicin 60 mg/m 2 Q3W or paclitaxel 80 mg/m 2 QW [3 weeks on/1 week off]). Primary endpoints were PFS by blinded independent central review per RECIST version 1.1 and OS. One hundred four patients were randomized in Japan (data cutoff, October 26, 2020; median follow-up, 11.8 [range, 1.1-26.9] months). Hazard ratios (HRs) for PFS with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus TPC were 1.04 (95% CI, 0.63-1.73) in patients with pMMR and 0.81 (0.50-1.31) in all-comers. Hazard ratios for OS were 0.74 (0.41-1.34) with pMMR and 0.59 (0.33-1.04) for all-comers. Adverse events were manageable and led to discontinuation of one/both study drugs in 36.5% of patients in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group versus 7.8% in the TPC group. Similar to the global Study 309/KEYNOTE-775 results, this analysis suggested favorable efficacy and manageable safety with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab after platinum-based chemotherapy in Japanese patients with advanced endometrial cancer and supports this combination as a new standard of care in this population., (© 2022 The Authors. Cancer Science published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Japanese Cancer Association.)

Background: A complex relationship between adipose tissue and malignancy, involving an inflammatory response, has been reported. The goal of this work was to assess the prevalence of white adipose tissue (WAT) inflammation in patients with endometrial cancer (EC), and the association with circulating inflammation markers. Furthermore, the aim was to characterize the pathways activated in and the cell type composition of adipose tissue in patients with EC., Methods: Adipose tissue and blood samples were prospectively collected from 101 patients with EC at initial surgery. WAT inflammation was determined based on adipocytes surrounded by macrophages forming crown-like structures. Circulating levels of metabolic syndrome-associated and inflammatory markers were quantified. RNA-sequencing was performed on adipose samples (n = 55); differential gene expression, pathway, and cellular decomposition analyses were performed using state-of-the-art bioinformatics methods., Results: WAT inflammation was identified in 46 (45.5%) of 101 EC patients. Dyslipidemia, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus were significantly associated with WAT inflammation (p < .05). WAT inflammation was associated with greater body mass index (p < .001) and higher circulating levels of leptin, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and interleukin-6, as well as lower levels of adiponectin and sex hormone-binding globulin (p < .05). Transcriptomic analysis demonstrated increased levels of proinflammatory and pro-neoplastic-related gene expression in inflamed omental adipose tissue., Conclusions: WAT inflammation is associated with metabolic syndrome, obesity, and inflammatory markers, as well as increased expression of proinflammatory and proneoplastic genes., (© 2022 American Cancer Society.)

HER2 is an established therapeutic biomarker in advanced or recurrent endometrial serous carcinoma. Current clinical guidelines recommend HER2 testing exclusively in this endometrial carcinoma (EC) subtype; however, the full spectrum of ECs harboring HER2 amplification remains ill-defined. The present study characterizes the clinicopathologic and molecular features of HER2-amplified ECs across all histologic subtypes. Retrospective analysis of our institutional cohort of 2,042 ECs subjected to targeted clinical massively parallel sequencing identified 77 (3.8%) cases with HER2 amplification, a group comprised of serous (n = 29), endometrioid (low-grade, n = 2, high-grade, n = 1) and clear cell (n = 4) carcinomas, carcinosarcomas (n = 18) and high-grade ECs with ambiguous features (HGEC, n = 23). A co-existing TP53 mutation was identified in 94% (72/77) of HER2-amplified ECs. Other recurrent genetic alterations included amplification of CCNE1 (22%) and ERBB3 (10%), FBXW7 mutations or deletions (13%), and mutations in PIK3CA (40%) and PPP2R1A (13%). The HER2 immunohistochemistry score was 2+ or 3+ for all evaluable cases (n = 61). Apart from carcinosarcomas, which often showed lower HER2 expression, particularly in the sarcomatous component, HER2 immunohistochemical staining pattern and intensity were similar across EC subtypes. Intratumor heterogeneity in HER2 expression was common and correlated with genetic heterogeneity as detected by fluorescence in-situ hybridization. These results demonstrate the frequent co-occurrence of HER2 amplification with TP53 mutation and high-grade histology, rather than being specific to serous carcinoma, per se. Overall, these findings suggest that HER2 targeted therapy may be more broadly applicable to all high-grade EC histotypes and consideration should be given to expanding therapeutic eligibility., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to United States & Canadian Academy of Pathology.)

Objective: To assess survival among patients diagnosed with uterine carcinosarcoma (CS) who underwent sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy alone vs. systematic lymph node dissection (LND)., Methods: We identified newly diagnosed CS patients who underwent primary surgical management from January 1996-December 2019. The SLN cohort underwent SLN biopsy alone with bilateral SLNs identified. The systematic LND cohort did not undergo SLN biopsy., Results: Ninety-nine patients underwent SLN biopsy, and 100 patients underwent systematic LND. There was no difference by age, stage, body mass index, myoinvasion (<50%, ≥50%), lymphovascular space invasion, or positive washings. Eighty-five SLN (85.9%) and 15 LND (15%) underwent minimally invasive surgery (P < 0.001). The median total node count was four (range, 1-13) for SLN and 19 (range, 2-50) for LND (P < 0.001). Nodal metastasis occurred in 23 (23.2%) SLN and in 22 (22%) LND (P = 0.4). Postoperative therapy was administered to 85 (85.9%) SLN and 71 (71%) LND (P = 0.02). Median follow-up was 33 months (range, 1-205) for SLN and 55.3 months (range, 1-269) for LND (P = 0.001). The three-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 62.9% (SE 5.2%) for SLN and 52.3% (SE 5.3%) for LND (P = 0.13). The three-year overall survival (OS) was 72.1% (SE 5.1%) for SLN and 71.6% (SE 4.6%) for LND (P = 0.68). An isolated nodal recurrence occurred in two (2%) SLN and four (4%) LND (P = 0.26)., Conclusions: There is no difference in PFS or OS among CS patients who undergo SLN biopsy vs. systematic LND. SLN biopsy detects nodal metastasis without compromising oncologic outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Outside the submitted work, Dr. Makker reports industry support and unpaid consultant fees from Astra Zeneca, Eisai, Merck, Lilly, Karyopharm, Takeda, Genentech, Clovis, Novartis, Faeth, Zymeworks, GSK, and Moreo. Dr. Makker also discloses personal fees from IBM Watson. Dr. Abu-Rustum reports institutional grants from Stryker/Novadaq and GRAIL. Dr. Leitao reports grants from KCI/Acelity, personal fees from Takeda, J&J/Ethicon, and Intuitive Surgical. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Lenvatinib is an oral multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor that has shown efficacy and manageable safety across multiple cancer types. The recommended starting doses for lenvatinib differ across cancer types and indications based on whether it is used as monotherapy or as combination therapy., Areas Covered: This review covers clinical trials that established the dosing paradigm and efficacy of lenvatinib and defined its adverse-event profile as a monotherapy; or in combination with the mTOR inhibitor, everolimus; or the anti-PD-1 antibody, pembrolizumab; and/or chemotherapy., Expert Opinion: Lenvatinib has been established as standard-of-care either as a monotherapy or in combination with other anticancer agents for the treatment of radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid carcinoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, renal cell carcinoma, and endometrial carcinoma, and is being investigated further across several other tumor types. The dosing and adverse-event management strategies for lenvatinib have been developed through extensive clinical trial experience. Collectively, the data provide the rationale to start lenvatinib at the recommended doses and then interrupt or dose reduce as necessary to achieve required dose intensity for maximized patient benefit. The adverse-event profile of lenvatinib is consistent with that of other tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and clinicians are encouraged to review and adopt relevant symptom-management strategies.

Clear cell endometrial carcinoma represents an uncommon and poorly understood entity. Data from molecular/genomic profiling highlighted the importance of various signatures in assessing the prognosis of endometrial cancer according to four classes of risk (POLE mutated, MMRd, NSMP, and p53 abnormal). Unfortunately, data specific to clear cell histological subtype endometrial cancer are lacking. More recently, data has emerged to suggest that most of the patients (more than 80%) with clear cell endometrial carcinoma are characterized by p53 abnormality or NSMP type. This classification has important therapeutic implications. Although it is an uncommon entity, clear cell endometrial cancer patients with POLE mutation seem characterized by a good prognosis. Chemotherapy is effective in patients with NSMP (especially in stage III and IV) and patients with p53 abnormal disease (all stages). While, preliminary data suggested that patients with MMRd are less likely to benefit from chemotherapy. The latter group appears to benefit much more from immune checkpoint inhibitors: recent data from clinical trials on pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib and nivolumab plus cabozantinib supported that immunotherapy plus tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) would be the most appropriate treatment for recurrent non-endometrioid endometrial cancer (including clear cell carcinoma) after the failure of platinum-based chemotherapy. Moreover, ongoing clinical trials testing the anti-tumor activity of innovative products will clarify the better strategies for advanced/recurrent clear cell endometrial carcinoma. Further prospective evidence is urgently needed to better characterize clear cell endometrial carcinoma., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Giorgio Bogani: Novartis AG Pharma (C/A, H), Italian Ministry of Health (RG). Nicole Concin: AstraZeneca (C/A, SH), Seattle Genetics (C/A, SH), MSD (SAB), Mersana (C/A, SH), eTheRNA immunotherapies NV (C/A, SH), Roche (travel expenses), Genmab (travel expenses), Amgen (travel expenses). Isabelle Ray-Coquard: Honoraria from AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK/Tesaro and PharmaMar; Consulting/advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Roche, Clovis, GSK/Tesaro, Genmab, PharmaMar, MSD, Mersana, Deciphera, OncXea, Esai, BMS, Novartis and Pfizer; Research funding from MSD;Travel expenses from AstraZeneca, GSK and Roche. Yakir Segev: AstraZeneca (CA), GSK (CA). Pauline Wimberger: Amgen (SH, RF, SAB), AstraZeneca (SH, RF, H, SAB), Clovis (SH, RF, SAB), Eisai (SH, SAB), GSK (SH, SAB), Lilly (SH, SAB), MSD (SH, RF, SAB), Novartis (SH, RF, SAB), Pfizer (SH, RF, SAB), Roche (SH, RF, H, SAB), TEVA (SH, SAB). Natalie YL Ngoi: AstraZeneca (SH), Janssen (SH). Kazuhiro Takehara: AstraZeneca (SH), Chugai (SH, RF), Eisai (SH), MSD (SH), Mochida (SH), Takeda (SH). Takayuki Enomoto: Takeda (SH), Astra Zeneca (SH), Eisai (SH), Chugai Pharma (SH, RF), MSD (SH), Mochida (SH). Domenica Lorusso: AstraZeneca (H, CA), Clovis (H, CA, RF), GSK/Tesaro (H, CA), Roche (CA), Genmab (CA), PharmaMar (CA, RF), MSD (CA, RF), Esai (CA), Merck Serono (CA), Novartis (CA) and PharmaMar (H); Consulting/advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Roche, Clovis, GSK/Tesaro. Diane Provencher: AstraZeneca (CA, SH, SAB), GSK (CA, SH, SAB). Nadeem Abu-Rustum: NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA008748 (F). Hannelore Denys: Roche (CA, SH, SAB), Pfizer (CA, SH, SAB), AstraZeneca (SH, SAB), Lily (SAB), GSK (SAB), Novartis (SH), Pharmamar (SH). Bradley J Monk: AstraZeneca (SH, SAB), GSK (SH, SAB), Incyte (SAB), Merck (SH, SAB), Roche/Genentech (SH, SAB), Eisai (SAB), GOG-Foundation (E), US Oncology (E). The other authors indicated no financial relationship. Legend: consulting/advisory relationship (CA); speaker honoraria (SH); honoraria (H); research funding (RF); ownership interest (OI); intellectual propriety/patent holder (IP); scientific advisory board (SAB)., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Standard therapy for advanced endometrial cancer after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy remains unclear., Methods: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with advanced endometrial cancer who had previously received at least one platinum-based chemotherapy regimen to receive either lenvatinib (20 mg, administered orally once daily) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg, administered intravenously every 3 weeks) or chemotherapy of the treating physician's choice (doxorubicin at 60 mg per square meter of body-surface area, administered intravenously every 3 weeks, or paclitaxel at 80 mg per square meter, administered intravenously weekly [with a cycle of 3 weeks on and 1 week off]). The two primary end points were progression-free survival as assessed on blinded independent central review according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, and overall survival. The end points were evaluated in patients with mismatch repair-proficient (pMMR) disease and in all patients. Safety was also assessed., Results: A total of 827 patients (697 with pMMR disease and 130 with mismatch repair-deficient disease) were randomly assigned to receive lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (411 patients) or chemotherapy (416 patients). The median progression-free survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with chemotherapy (pMMR population: 6.6 vs. 3.8 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50 to 0.72; P<0.001; overall: 7.2 vs. 3.8 months; hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.66; P<0.001). The median overall survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with chemotherapy (pMMR population: 17.4 vs. 12.0 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.84; P<0.001; overall: 18.3 vs. 11.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.75; P<0.001). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 88.9% of the patients who received lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and in 72.7% of those who received chemotherapy., Conclusions: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab led to significantly longer progression-free survival and overall survival than chemotherapy among patients with advanced endometrial cancer. (Funded by Eisai and Merck Sharp and Dohme [a subsidiary of Merck]; Study 309-KEYNOTE-775 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03517449.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)