Search

Background: Part 1 of the RUBY trial (NCT03981796) evaluated dostarlimab plus carboplatin–paclitaxel compared with placebo plus carboplatin–paclitaxel in patients with primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (EC). At the first interim analysis, the trial met one of its dual primary endpoints with statistically significant progression-free survival benefits in the mismatch repair-deficient/microsatellite instability-high (dMMR/MSI-H) and overall populations. Overall survival (OS) results are reported from the second interim analysis. Patients and methods: RUBY is a phase III, global, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Part 1 of RUBY enrolled eligible patients with primary advanced stage III or IV or first recurrent EC who were randomly assigned (1: 1) to receive either dostarlimab (500 mg) or placebo, plus carboplatin–paclitaxel every 3 weeks for 6 cycles followed by dostarlimab (1000 mg) or placebo every 6 weeks for up to 3 years. OS was a dual primary endpoint. Results: A total of 494 patients were randomized (245 in the dostarlimab arm; 249 in the placebo arm). In the overall population, with 51% maturity, RUBY met the dual primary endpoint for OS at this second interim analysis, with a statistically significant reduction in the risk of death [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54-0.89, P = 0.0020] in patients treated with dostarlimab plus carboplatin–paclitaxel versus carboplatin–paclitaxel alone. The risk of death was lower in the dMMR/MSI-H population (HR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.17-0.63, nominal P = 0.0002) and a trend in favor of dostarlimab was seen in the mismatch repair-proficient/microsatellite stable population (HR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.60-1.04, nominal P = 0.0493). The safety profile for dostarlimab plus carboplatin–paclitaxel was consistent with the first interim analysis. Conclusions: Dostarlimab in combination with carboplatin–paclitaxel

Objective: ARIEL3 (NCT01968213) is a placebo-controlled randomized trial of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib as maintenance treatment in patients with recurrent high-grade ovarian carcinoma who responded to their latest line of platinum therapy. Rucaparib improved progression-free survival across all predefined subgroups. Here, we present an exploratory analysis of clinical and molecular characteristics associated with exceptional benefit from rucaparib. Methods: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Molecular features (genomic alterations, BRCA1 promoter methylation) and baseline clinical characteristics were evaluated for association with exceptional benefit (progression-free survival ≥2 years) versus progression on first scan (short-term subgroup) and other efficacy outcomes. Results: Rucaparib treatment was significantly associated with exceptional benefit compared with placebo: 79/375 (21.1%) vs 4/189 (2.1%), respectively (p < 0.0001). Exceptional benefit was more frequent among patients with favorable baseline clinical characteristics and with carcinomas harboring molecular evidence of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). A comparison between patients who derived exceptional benefit from rucaparib and those in the short-term subgroup revealed both clinical markers (no measurable disease at baseline, complete response to latest platinum, longer penultimate platinum-free interval) and molecular markers (BRCA1, BRCA2, RAD51C, and RAD51D alterations and genome-wide loss of heterozygosity) significantly associated with exceptional benefit. Conclusions: Exceptional benefit in ARIEL3 was more common in, but not exclusive to, patients with favorable clinical characteristics or molecular features associated with HRD. Our results suggest that rucaparib can deliver exceptional benefit to a diverse set of patients with recurrent high-grade ovarian carcinoma.

The authors regret the following errors in Table 1: Under Maintenance in column two, for RO after PDS, “Excluded” should read “Stage III excluded, stage IV permitted”. Under Maintenance in column two, for RO after IDS, “Excluded” should read “Not reported”. The corrected table appears below. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.

Recent data have demonstrated substantial efficacy with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors as treatment and/or maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Here, we review efficacy and safety results from four recent Phase III trials in newly diagnosed EOC: SOLO1 (olaparib), PAOLA-1 (olaparib in combination with bevacizumab), PRIMA (niraparib), and VELIA (veliparib). The implications of these data for current clinical practice and areas for future research are discussed, including ongoing studies of targeted agents in the newly diagnosed setting. Data from SOLO1, PAOLA-1, PRIMA, and VELIA confirm the benefit of PARP inhibitors (olaparib, niraparib, veliparib) for women with newly diagnosed EOC. The greatest benefit was seen in patients with a BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutation or in the homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-test positive subgroup. These four well-conducted studies have generated practice-changing data. However, deciding how to apply these results in clinical practice is challenging, and substantial differences in trial design impede cross-trial comparisons. Recent PARP inhibitor approvals (olaparib, niraparib) in the newly diagnosed EOC setting have provided new maintenance treatment options for a broader patient population. The results of these studies call for personalized medicine based on biomarker profile and other factors, including tolerability, cost considerations, and physician and patient preference. Important areas for future research include appropriate use of both BRCA mutation and HRD testing to inform magnitude of PARP inhibitor benefit as well as exploring further options for patients who are HRD-test negative and for those who become PARP inhibitor resistant.

Importance: A total of 1% to 3% of patients treated with a poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor for high-grade ovarian cancer (HGOC) develop therapy-related myeloid neoplasms (t-MNs), which are rare but often fatal conditions. Although the cause of these t-MNs is unknown, clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) variants can increase the risk of primary myeloid malignant neoplasms and are more frequent among patients with solid tumors. Objectives: To examine whether preexisting CHIP variants are associated with the development of t-MNs after rucaparib treatment and how these CHIP variants are affected by treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective genetic association study used peripheral blood cell (PBC) samples collected before rucaparib treatment from patients in the multicenter, single-arm ARIEL2 (Study of Rucaparib in Patients With Platinum-Sensitive, Relapsed, High-Grade Epithelial Ovarian, Fallopian Tube, or Primary Peritoneal Cancer) (n = 491; between October 30, 2013, and August 9, 2016) and the multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind ARIEL3 (Study of Rucaparib as Switch Maintenance Following Platinum-Based Chemotherapy in Patients With Platinum-Sensitive, High-Grade Serous or Endometrioid Epithelial Ovarian, Primary Peritoneal or Fallopian Tube Cancer) (n = 561; between April 7, 2014, and July 19, 2016), which tested rucaparib as HGOC therapy in the treatment and maintenance settings, respectively. The follow-up data cutoff date was September 1, 2019. Of 1052 patients in ARIEL2 and ARIEL3, PBC samples from 20 patients who developed t-MNs (cases) and 44 randomly selected patients who did not (controls) were analyzed for the presence of CHIP variants using targeted next-generation sequencing. Additional longitudinal analysis was performed on available ARIEL2 samples collected during treatment and at the end of treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Enrichment analysis of preexisting variants in 10 p

Background: The efficacy and safety of rucaparib maintenance treatment in ARIEL3 were evaluated in subgroups based on best response to most recent platinum-based chemotherapy and baseline disease. Methods: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive either oral rucaparib at a dosage of 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Investigator-assessed PFS was assessed in prespecified, nested cohorts: BRCA-mutated, homologous recombination deficient (HRD; BRCA mutated or wild-type BRCA/high loss of heterozygosity), and the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Results: Median PFS for patients in the ITT population with a complete response to most recent platinum-based chemotherapy was 11.1 months in the rucaparib arm (126 patients) versus 5.6 months in the placebo arm (64 patients) (HR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.23–0.48]), and in patients with a partial response (249 vs. 125), it was 9.0 versus 5.3 months (HR, 0.38 [0.30–0.49]). In subgroups of the ITT population based on baseline disease, median PFS was 8.2 versus 5.3 months (HR, 0.40 [0.28–0.57]) in patients with measurable disease (141 rucaparib vs. 66 placebo), 10.4 versus 4.5 months (HR, 0.31 [0.20–0.48]) in those with nonmeasurable but evaluable disease (104 vs. 56), and 14.1 versus 7.3 months (HR, 0.35 [0.24–0.51]) in those with no residual disease (130 vs. 67). Across subgroups, significantly longer median PFS was observed with rucaparib versus placebo in the BRCA-mutated and HRD cohorts. Objective responses were reported in patients with measurable disease and in patients with nonmeasurable but evaluable baseline disease. Safety was consistent across subgroups. Conclusion: Rucaparib maintenance treatment provided clinically meaningful efficacy benefits across subgroups based on response to last platinum-based chemotherapy or baseline disease.

Introduction In ARIEL3 (NCT01968213), the poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo regardless of biomarker status when used as maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian cancer. The aim of the current analyses was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rucaparib in subgroups based on progression-free interval following penultimate platinum, number of prior chemotherapies, and prior use of bevacizumab. Methods Patients were randomized 2:1 to rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Within subgroups, progression-free survival was assessed in prespecified, nested cohorts: BRCA-mutant, homologous recombination deficient (BRCA-mutant or wild-type BRCA/high genomic loss of heterozygosity), and the intent-to-treat population. Results In the intent-to-treat population, median investigator-assessed progression-free survival was 8.2 months with rucaparib versus 4.1 months with placebo (n=151 vs n=76; HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.46, p<0.0001) for patients with progression-free interval 6 to =12 months, and 13.6 versus 5.6 months (n=224 vs n=113; HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.52, p<0.0001) for those with progression-free interval >12 months. Median progression-free survival was 10.4 versus 5.4 months (n=231 vs n=124; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.54, p<0.0001) for patients who had received two prior chemotherapies, and 11.1 versus 5.3 months (n=144 vs n=65; HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.41, p<0.0001) for those who had received =3 prior chemotherapies. Median progression-free survival was 10.3 versus 5.4 months (n=83 vs n=43; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.68, p=0.0004) for patients who had received prior bevacizumab, and 10.9 versus 5.4 months (n=292 vs n=146; HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.45, p<0.0001) for those who had not. Across subgroups, median progression-free survival was also significantly longer with rucaparib versus placebo in the BRCA-mutant and homologous recombination deficient co

Background: In the phase 3 trial ARIEL3, maintenance treatment with the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor rucaparib provided clinical benefit versus placebo for patients with recurrent, platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Here, we evaluate the impact of age on the clinical utility of rucaparib in ARIEL3. Methods: Patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian carcinoma with ≥2 prior platinum-based chemotherapies who responded to their last platinum-based therapy were enrolled in ARIEL3 and randomized 2:1 to rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Exploratory, post hoc analyses of progression-free survival (PFS), patient-centered outcomes (quality-adjusted PFS [QA-PFS] and quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity [Q-TWiST]), and safety were conducted in three age subgroups (<65 years, 65–74 years, and ≥75 years). Results: Investigator-assessed PFS was significantly longer with rucaparib than placebo in patients aged <65 years (rucaparib n = 237 vs placebo n = 117; median, 11.1 vs 5.4 months; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.33 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.25–0.43]; P < 0.0001) and 65–74 years (n = 113 vs n = 64; median, 8.3 vs 5.3 months; HR 0.43 [95% CI 0.29–0.63]; P < 0.0001) and numerically longer in patients aged ≥75 years (n = 25 vs n = 8; median, 9.2 vs 5.5 months; HR 0.47 [95% CI 0.16–1.35]; P = 0.1593). QA-PFS and Q-TWiST were significantly longer with rucaparib than placebo across all age subgroups. Safety of rucaparib was generally similar across the age subgroups. Conclusions: Efficacy, patient-centered outcomes, and safety of rucaparib were similar between age subgroups, indicating that all eligible women with recurrent ovarian cancer should be offered this therapeutic option, irrespective of age. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01968213.

Background: In ARIEL3, rucaparib maintenance treatment significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo. Here, we report prespecified, investigator-assessed, exploratory post-progression endpoints and updated safety data. Methods: In this ongoing (enrolment complete) randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, patients aged 18 years or older who had platinum-sensitive, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 who had received at least two previous platinum-based chemotherapy regimens and responded to their last platinum-based regimen were randomly assigned (2:1) to oral rucaparib (600 mg twice daily) or placebo in 28-day cycles using a computer-generated sequence (block size of six with stratification based on homologous recombination repair gene mutation status, progression-free interval following penultimate platinum-based regimen, and best response to most recent platinum-based regimen). Patients, investigators, site staff, assessors, and the funder were masked to assignments. The primary endpoint of investigator-assessed progression-free survival has been previously reported. Prespecified, exploratory outcomes of chemotherapy-free interval (CFI), time to start of first subsequent therapy (TFST), time to disease progression on subsequent therapy or death (PFS2), and time to start of second subsequent therapy (TSST) and updated safety were analysed (visit cutoff Dec 31, 2017). Efficacy analyses were done in all patients randomised to three nested cohorts: patients with BRCA mutations, patients with homologous recombination deficiencies, and the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01968213. Findings: Between April 7, 2014, and July 19, 2016, 564 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to r

Background: In ARIEL3, rucaparib maintenance treatment significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo. Here, we report prespecified, investigator-assessed, exploratory post-progression endpoints and updated safety data. Methods: In this ongoing (enrolment complete) randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, patients aged 18 years or older who had platinum-sensitive, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 who had received at least two previous platinum-based chemotherapy regimens and responded to their last platinum-based regimen were randomly assigned (2:1) to oral rucaparib (600 mg twice daily) or placebo in 28-day cycles using a computer-generated sequence (block size of six with stratification based on homologous recombination repair gene mutation status, progression-free interval following penultimate platinum-based regimen, and best response to most recent platinum-based regimen). Patients, investigators, site staff, assessors, and the funder were masked to assignments. The primary endpoint of investigator-assessed progression-free survival has been previously reported. Prespecified, exploratory outcomes of chemotherapy-free interval (CFI), time to start of first subsequent therapy (TFST), time to disease progression on subsequent therapy or death (PFS2), and time to start of second subsequent therapy (TSST) and updated safety were analysed (visit cutoff Dec 31, 2017). Efficacy analyses were done in all patients randomised to three nested cohorts: patients with BRCA mutations, patients with homologous recombination deficiencies, and the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01968213. Findings: Between April 7, 2014, and July 19, 2016, 564 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to r

Background: In recurrent ovarian cancer, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP)-inhibiting agents have transformed the treatment of platinum-sensitive disease. New data support use of PARP inhibitors earlier in the treatment algorithm. Design: We review results from recent phase III trials evaluating PARP inhibitors as treatment and/or maintenance therapy for patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer. We discuss the efficacy and safety of these agents in the all-comer and biomarker-selected populations studied in clinical trials, and compare the strengths and limitations of the various trial designs. We also consider priorities for future research, with a particular focus on patient selection and future regimens for populations with high unmet need. Results: Four phase III trials (SOLO-1, PAOLA-1/ENGOT-OV25, PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26 and VELIA/GOG-3005) demonstrated remarkable improvements in progression-free survival with PARP inhibitor therapy (olaparib, niraparib or veliparib) for newly diagnosed ovarian cancer. Differences in trial design (treatment and/or maintenance setting; single agent or combination; bevacizumab or no bevacizumab), patient selection (surgical outcome, biomarker eligibility, prognosis) and primary analysis population (intention-to-treat, BRCA mutated or homologous recombination deficiency positive) affect the conclusions that can be drawn from these trials. Overall survival data are pending and there is limited experience regarding long-term safety. Conclusions: PARP inhibitors play a pivotal role in the management of newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, which will affect subsequent treatment choices. Refinement of testing for patient selection and identification of regimens to treat populations that appear to benefit less from PARP inhibitors are a priority.

Background: In the phase 3 trial ARIEL3, maintenance treatment with the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor rucaparib provided clinical benefit versus placebo for patients with recurrent, platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Here, we evaluate the impact of age on the clinical utility of rucaparib in ARIEL3. Methods: Patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian carcinoma with ≥2 prior platinum-based chemotherapies who responded to their last platinum-based therapy were enrolled in ARIEL3 and randomized 2:1 to rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Exploratory, post hoc analyses of progression-free survival (PFS), patient-centered outcomes (quality-adjusted PFS [QA-PFS] and quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity [Q-TWiST]), and safety were conducted in three age subgroups (<65 years, 65–74 years, and ≥75 years). Results: Investigator-assessed PFS was significantly longer with rucaparib than placebo in patients aged <65 years (rucaparib n = 237 vs placebo n = 117; median, 11.1 vs 5.4 months; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.33 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.25–0.43]; P < 0.0001) and 65–74 years (n = 113 vs n = 64; median, 8.3 vs 5.3 months; HR 0.43 [95% CI 0.29–0.63]; P < 0.0001) and numerically longer in patients aged ≥75 years (n = 25 vs n = 8; median, 9.2 vs 5.5 months; HR 0.47 [95% CI 0.16–1.35]; P = 0.1593). QA-PFS and Q-TWiST were significantly longer with rucaparib than placebo across all age subgroups. Safety of rucaparib was generally similar across the age subgroups. Conclusions: Efficacy, patient-centered outcomes, and safety of rucaparib were similar between age subgroups, indicating that all eligible women with recurrent ovarian cancer should be offered this therapeutic option, irrespective of age. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01968213.

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

PURPOSE To investigate quality-adjusted progression-free survival (QA-PFS) and quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) in a post hoc exploratory analysis of the phase III ARIEL3 study of rucaparib maintenance treatment versus placebo. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian carcinoma were randomly assigned to rucaparib (600 mg twice per day) or placebo. QA-PFS was calculated as progression-free survival function 3 the 3-level version of the EQ-5D questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) index score function. Q-TWiST analyses were performed defining TOX as the mean duration in which a patient experienced grade $ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) or the mean duration in which a patient experienced grade $ 2 TEAEs of nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and asthenia. Q-TWiST was calculated as mTOX 3 TOX 1 TWiST, with mTOX calculated using EQ-5D-3L data. RESULTS The visit cutoff was Apr 15, 2017. Mean QA-PFS was significantly longer with rucaparib versus placebo in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (375 randomly assigned to rucaparib v 189 randomly assigned to placebo; difference, 6.28 months [95% CI, 4.85 to 7.47 months]); BRCA-mutant cohort (130 rucaparib v 66 placebo; 9.37 months [95% CI, 6.65 to 11.85 months]); homologous recombination deficient (HRD) cohort (236 rucaparib v 118 placebo; 7.93 months [95% CI, 5.93 to 9.53 months]); and BRCA wild-type/loss of heterozygosity (LOH) low patient subgroup (107 rucaparib v 54 placebo; 2.71 months [95% CI, 0.31 to 4.44 months]). With TOX defined using grade $ 3 TEAEs, the difference in mean Q-TWiST (rucaparib v placebo) was 6.88 months (95% CI, 5.71 to 8.23 months), 9.73 months (95% CI, 7.10 to 11.94 months), 8.11 months (95% CI, 6.36 to 9.49 months), and 3.35 months (95% CI, 1.66 to 5.40 months) in the ITT population, BRCA-mutant cohort, HRD cohort, and BRCA wild-type/LOH low patient subgroup, respectively. Q-TWiST with TOX defined using select grade $ 2 TEAEs also consistently favor

The authors regret that in their original paper, the Masson’s image of the control group in Fig. 7 J was incorrect as a result of an error during figure preparation. The corrected figure appears below. The online HTML and PDF have been corrected. The error remains only in the print version. (Figure Presented).

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy has demonstrated efficacy in treating human metastatic cancers, but therapeutic resistance is a practical limitation and most tumors eventually become unresponsive. To identify microenvironmental factors underlying the resistance of cancer to antiangiogenesis therapy, we conducted genomic analyses of intraperitoneal ovarian tumors in which adaptive resistance to anti-VEGF therapy (B20 antibody) developed. We found that expression of the microseminoprotein, prostate-associated (MSMP) gene was substantially upregulated in resistant compared with control tumors. MSMP secretion from cancer cells was induced by hypoxia, triggering MAPK signaling in endothelial cells to promote tube formation in vitro. Recruitment of the transcriptional repressor CCCTC-binding factor (CTCF) to the MSMP enhancer region was decreased by histone acetylation under hypoxic conditions in cancer cells. MSMP siRNA, delivered in vivo using the DOPC nanoliposomes, restored tumor sensitivity to anti-VEGF therapy. In ovarian cancer patients treated with bevacizumab, serum MSMP concentration increased significantly only in non-responders. These findings imply that MSMP inhibition combined with the use of antiangiogenesis drugs may be a new strategy to overcome resistance to antiangiogenesis therapy.

This manuscript reports the consensus statements on designing clinical trials in rare ovarian tumours reached at the fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference (OCCC) held in Tokyo, November 2015. Three important questions were identified concerning rare ovarian tumours (rare epithelial ovarian cancers (eOC), sex-cord stromal tumours (SCST) and germ cell tumours (GCT)): (i) What are the research and trial issues that are unique to rare ovarian tumours? There is a lack of randomised phase III data defining standards of care which makes it difficult to define control arms, but identifies unmet needs that merit investigation. Internationally agreed upon diagnostic criteria, expert pathological review and translational research are crucial. (ii) What should be investigated in rare eOC, GCT and SCST? Trials dedicated to each rare ovarian tumour should be encouraged. Nonetheless, where the question is relevant, rare eOC can be included in eOC trials but with rigorous stratification. Although there is emerging evidence suggesting that rare eOC have different molecular profiles, trials are needed to define new typespecific standards for each rare eOC (clear cell, low grade serous and mucinous). For GCTs, a priority is reducing toxicities from treatment while maintaining cure rates. Both a robust prognostic scoring system and more effective treatments for de novo poor prognosis and relapsed GCTs are needed. For SCSTs, validated prognostic markers as well as alternatives to the current standard of bleomycin/etoposide/cisplatin (BEP) should be identified. (iii) Are randomised trials feasible? Randomised controlled trials (RCT) should be feasible in any of the rare tumours through international collaboration. Ongoing trials have already demonstrated the feasibility of RCT in rare eOC and SCST. Mucinous OC may be considered for inclusion, stratified, into RCTs of nongynaecological mucinous tumours, while RCTs in high risk or relapsed GCT may be carried out as a subset of male and

Background Rucaparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, has anticancer activity in recurrent ovarian carcinoma harbouring a BRCA mutation or high percentage of genome-wide loss of heterozygosity. In this trial we assessed rucaparib versus placebo after response to second-line or later platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with high-grade, recurrent, platinum-sensitive ovarian carcinoma. Methods In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients from 87 hospitals and cancer centres across 11 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had a platinum-sensitive, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma, had received at least two previous platinum-based chemotherapy regimens, had achieved complete or partial response to their last platinum-based regimen, had a cancer antigen 125 concentration of less than the upper limit of normal, had a performance status of 0–1, and had adequate organ function. Patients were ineligible if they had symptomatic or untreated central nervous system metastases, had received anticancer therapy 14 days or fewer before starting the study, or had received previous treatment with a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor. We randomly allocated patients 2:1 to receive oral rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo in 28 day cycles using a computer-generated sequence (block size of six, stratified by homologous recombination repair gene mutation status, progression-free interval after the penultimate platinum-based regimen, and best response to the most recent platinum-based regimen). Patients, investigators, site staff, assessors, and the funder were masked to assignments. The primary outcome was investigator-assessed progression-free survival evaluated with use of an ordered step-down procedure for three nested cohorts: patients with BRCA mutations (carcinoma associated with deleterious germline or somatic BRCA mutations), patients wi