Search

PURPOSE Single-agent chemotherapies have limited activity and considerable toxicity in patients with platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian cancer (PROC). Mirvetuximab soravtansine (MIRV) is an antibody-drug conjugate targeting folate receptor α (FRα). SORAYA is a single-arm, phase II study evaluating efficacy and safety of MIRV in patients with PROC. METHODS SORAYA enrolled FRα-high patients with PROC who had received one to three prior therapies, including required bevacizumab. The primary end point was confirmed objective response rate (ORR) by investigator; duration of response was the key secondary end point. RESULTS One hundred six patients were enrolled; 105 were evaluable for efficacy. All patients had received prior bevacizumab, 51% had three prior lines of therapy, and 48% received a prior poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitor. Median follow-up was 13.4 months. ORR was 32.4% (95% CI, 23.6 to 42.2), including five complete and 29 partial responses. The median duration of response was 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 9.7). In patients with one to two priors, the ORR by investigator was 35.3% (95% CI, 22.4 to 49.9) and in patients with three priors was 30.2% (95% CI, 18.3 to 44.3). The ORR by investigator was 38.0% (95% CI, 24.7 to 52.8) in patients with prior poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitor exposure and 27.5% (95% CI, 15.9 to 41.7) in those without. The most common treatment-related adverse events (all grade and grade 3-4) were blurred vision (41% and 6%), keratopathy (29% and 9%), and nausea (29% and 0%). Treatment-related adverse events led to dose delays, reductions, and discontinuations in 33%, 20%, and 9% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSION MIRV demonstrated consistent clinically meaningful antitumor activity and favorable tolerability and safety in patients with FRα-high PROC who had received up to three prior therapies, including bevacizumab, representing an important advance for this biomarker-selected population.

BackgroundBevacizumab is an approved treatment after primary debulking surgery for ovarian cancer. However, there is limited information on bevacizumab added to neoadjuvant chemotherapy before interval debulking surgery.ObjectiveTo evaluate neoadjuvant bevacizumab in a randomized phase II trial.MethodsPatients with newly diagnosed stage III/IV high-grade serous/endometrioid ovarian cancer were randomized to receive four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without ≥3 cycles of bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks. After interval debulking surgery, all patients received post-operative chemotherapy (three cycles) and bevacizumab for 15 months. The primary end point was complete macroscopic response rate at interval debulking surgery.ResultsOf 68 patients randomized, 64 completed four neoadjuvant cycles; 22 of 33 (67%) in the chemotherapy-alone arm and 31 of 35 (89%) in the bevacizumab arm (p=0.029) underwent surgery. The complete macroscopic response rate did not differ between treatment arms in either the intention-to-treat population of 68 patients (6.1% vs 5.7%, respectively; p=0.25) or the 55 patients who underwent surgery (8.3% vs 6.5%; p=1.00). There was no difference in complete cytoreduction rate or progression-free survival between the treatment arms. During neoadjuvant therapy, grade ≥3 adverse events were more common with chemotherapy alone than with bevacizumab (61% vs 29%, respectively; p=0.008). Intestinal (sub)occlusion, fatigue/asthenia, abdominal infection, and thrombocytopenia were less frequent with bevacizumab. The incidence of grade ≥3 adverse events was 9% in the control arm versus 16% in the experimental arm in the month after surgery.ConclusionsAdding three to four pre-operative cycles of bevacizumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for unresectable disease did not improve the complete macroscopic response rate or surgical outcome, but improved surgical operability without increasing toxicity. These results support the early integration of bevacizumab in carefully selected high-risk patients requiring neoadjuvant chemotherapy for initially unresectable ovarian cancer.

Objectives: The Phase III SOLO2 trial (NCT01874353) showed the significant benefit of maintenance olaparib for patients (pts) with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSROC) and a BRCA mutation (BRCAm), compared with placebo (median progression-free survival [PFS] 19.1 vs 5.5 months [m], respectively); however, no pts had a confirmed somatic (s) BRCAm and data prospectively evaluating efficacy of olaparib in this pt group were limited. ORZORA (NCT02476968), an open-label, single-arm, multicenter trial, was conducted to assess efficacy and safety of maintenance olaparib in PSROC pts with a BRCAm (s or germline [g]) who were in response to their most recent platinum-based chemotherapy after ≥2 lines of treatment. Methods: Pts underwent prospective central screening for tumor BRCAm status (myChoice CDx, Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Inc.), then s or g BRCAm status was determined by central g testing (BRACAnalysis CDx, Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Inc.). Pts received maintenance olaparib (400 mg bid; capsules) until disease progression. Co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed PFS (RECIST v1.1) in BRCAm and s cohorts, conducted at 60% maturity. Secondary endpoints included time to second progression or death (PFS2), health-related quality of life (HRQoL; FACT-O trial outcome index) and tolerability. An additional exploratory cohort comprised pts with predefined homologous recombination repair gene mutations (HRRm) excluding BRCAm (FoundationOne CDx, Foundation Medicine, Inc.). Results: A total of 181 pts were enrolled in ORZORA (BRCAm n=145 [s n=55; g n=87; n=3 s vs g status unknown]; HRRm n=33; unassigned n=3). Pt characteristics were similar between s and g cohorts: ≥3 prior lines of chemotherapy (38% vs 48%, respectively); partial response to prior platinum (45% vs 49%); tumor BRCA1-mutated (65% vs 64%). At the data cut-off (April 17, 2020), median follow-up for PFS was 22.3 months. Median PFS was similar in the BRCAm, s and g cohorts, and exploratory HRRm cohort (Figure). Median PFS2 for BRCAm pts was 30.9 m (95% confidence interval [CI] 24.7–40.0; s 24.7 [21.8–36.1]; g 32.5 [25.3–not calculable]). HRQoL was comparable in BRCAm and s cohorts (best overall change from baseline: improved 22 vs 21%; no change 69 vs 68%; worsened 11 vs 12%, respectively). Most common adverse events (AE; n=177 treated pts) were nausea (54% pts), fatigue (43%), anemia (42%) and vomiting (28%). A total of 25% and 35% pts experienced serious and grade ≥3 (anemia 16% pts) AEs, respectively. 5% had an AE leading to treatment discontinuation. A total of 2 new primary malignancies, two acute myeloid leukemia and no myelodysplastic syndrome cases occurred. Download : Download high-res image (102KB) Download : Download full-size image Conclusions: PFS in pts with PSROC who received maintenance olaparib was similar irrespective of s or g BRCAm status. Activity of maintenance olaparib was also shown in pts with a non-BRCA HRRm. PFS, HRQoL and tolerability were consistent with previous olaparib studies in this population. Results highlight that PSROC pts beyond those with a gBRCAm can benefit from maintenance olaparib.

Introduction/Background PARP inhibitors (PARPi) maintenance after Platinum (Pt) based chemotherapy (CT) significantly improves progression-free survival (PARPi-PFS) and PFS after subsequent (ssq) CT (PARPi-PFS2) in relapsed high grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC). Data regarding ssq CT is scarce, and PARPi/Pt crossed mechanisms of resistance may impact on outcome of ssq Pt. We provide Real-world-data on this issue. Methodology We included HGSOC p treated with ssq CT after progression to maintenance PARPi until 15th Jul 2020 in 3hospitals. Endpoints were related to this ssq CT: objective response rate (ORR), median(m) progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Multivariate Cox and logistic regression models were adjusted by BRCA status and Pt-free interval (PFI) (6–12 months(mo) vs ≥12 mo). Adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) and odds ratios (aOR) of the risk of progression/death and ORR, respectively, were reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results 56p were identified (32p BRCAmut; 1p BRIP1mut). 4p (7.1%) received PARPi after 1st line CT, 26 (46.4%) after 2nd line and 26 (46.4%) after ≥3rd line. 34p (60.7%) received olaparib and 22 (39.3%) niraparib. m-PARPi-PFS in the recurrent setting was 7.5 mo (longer in BRCAmut: 10.1 vs 5.5 mo, p 0.03). m-PARPi-PFS2 was 15.8 mo (longer in BRCAmut: 20.9 vs 15.4 mo, p 0.07). Endpoints regarding ssq CT are shown in table1. ORR to ssq Pt was 33.3% and progression disease without any response 28.6%. ORR in p who received ssq Pt-free CT, ssq Pt with PFI 6–12 mo, and ssq Pt with PFI≥12 mo were 33.3%, 23.8% and 42.8%, respectively. Five complete responses occurred among BRCAmut p that had received PARPi in the recurrent setting. mPFS and mOS were significantly longer in the PFI≥12 subgroup vs the others (figure1). Focusing in p receiving ssq Pt, when adjusting by BRCA status: aOR of ORR in p with PFI≥12 vs 6–12 mo was 0.56 (95% CI: 0.13 – 2.30), aHR of mPFS between these two subgroups was 0.61 (95% CI: 0.30–1.20; p 0.16), and aHR of mOS was 0.20 (95% CI: 0.7–0.61, p 0.005). Results did not change when excluding the 4p who received PARPi as 1st line. Conclusion A trend towards higher benefit from ssq Pt after PARPi was observed in the PFI≥12 subgroup. Benefit from ssq Pt after PARPi in the PFI 6–12 subgroup was similar to benefit from CT in the non-Pt subgroup. The role of ssq Pt after PARPi in the PFI 6–12 subgroup warrants further research. Disclosures Andrea Plaja: travel grant for attending scientific meeting (Roche, Angelini). Marta Gil-Marin: speaking (Roche, Astra Zeneca, Pharmamar) and travel grants (Roche, Pharmamar, MSD). Beatriz Pardo: speaking (Roche, Astra Zeneca, MSD) and travel grants (Roche, MSD, GSK). Josep Maria Piulats: advisory board (Astra Zeneca, MSD, Clovis, BeiGene) and travel grants (Astra Zeneca, MSD, BeiGene). Maria Pilar Barretina: advisory board (Roche, Astra Zeneca, GSK, Clovis Oncology), speaking (Roche, Astra Zeneca, GSK, Clovis Oncology, Pharmamar) and travel grants (Roche, GSK, Astra Zenaca, Pharmamar). Claudia Fina: travel grants (Roche, MSD, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers) Margarita Romeo: advisory boards (AZ, TESARO) and travel grants (Pfizer). Iris Teruel, Anna Esteve and Andrea Gonzalez have nothing to disclosure.

BACKGROUND: Angiopoietin 1 and 2 regulate angiogenesis and vascular remodelling by interacting with the tyrosine kinase receptor Tie2, and inhibition of angiogenesis has shown promise in the treatment of ovarian cancer. We aimed to assess whether trebananib, a peptibody that inhibits binding of angiopoietin 1 and 2 to Tie2, improved progression-free survival when added to carboplatin and paclitaxel as first-line therapy in advanced epithelial ovarian, primary fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer in a phase 3 clinical trial. METHODS: TRINOVA-3, a multicentre, multinational, phase 3, double-blind study, was done at 206 investigational sites (hospitals and cancer centres) in 14 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with biopsy-confirmed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III to IV epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancers, and an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (2:1) using a permuted block method (block size of six patients) to receive six cycles of paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) and carboplatin (area under the serum concentration-time curve 5 or 6) every 3 weeks, plus weekly intravenous trebananib 15 mg/kg or placebo. Maintenance therapy with trebananib or placebo continued for up to 18 additional months. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, as assessed by the investigators, in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses included patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01493505, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Jan 30, 2012, and Feb 25, 2014, 1164 patients were screened and 1015 eligible patients were randomly allocated to treatment (678 to trebananib and 337 to placebo). After a median follow-up of 27·4 months (IQR 17·7-34·2), 626 patients had progression-free survival events (405 [60%] of 678 in the trebananib group and 221 [66%] of 337 in the placebo group). Median progression-free survival did not differ between the trebananib group (15·9 months [15·0-17·6]) and the placebo group (15·0 months [12·6-16·1]) groups (hazard ratio 0·93 [95% CI 0·79-1·09]; p=0·36). 512 (76%) of 675 patients in the trebananib group and 237 (71%) of 336 in the placebo group had grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events; of which the most common events were neutropenia (trebananib 238 [35%] vs placebo 126 [38%]) anaemia (76 [11%] vs 40 [12%]), and leucopenia (81 [12%] vs 35 [10%]). 269 (40%) patients in the trebananib group and 104 (31%) in the placebo group had serious adverse events. Two fatal adverse events in the trebananib group were considered related to trebananib, paclitaxel, and carboplatin (lung infection and neutropenic colitis); two were considered to be related to paclitaxel and carboplatin (general physical health deterioration and platelet count decreased). No treatment-related fatal adverse events occurred in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Trebananib plus carboplatin and paclitaxel did not improve progression-free survival as first-line treatment for advanced ovarian cancer. The combination of trebananib plus carboplatin and paclitaxel did not produce new safety signals. These results show that trebananib in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel is minimally effective in this patient population. FUNDING: Amgen. ispartof: LANCET ONCOLOGY vol:20 issue:6 pages:862-876 ispartof: location:England status: published