Search

BACKGROUND Niraparib, an inhibitor of po!y(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase (PART), has been associated with significantly increased progression-free survival among patients with recurrent ovarian cancer after platinum-based chemotherapy, regardless of the presence or absence of BRCA mutations. The efficacy of niraparib in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer after a response to firstline platinum-based chemotherapy is unknown. METHODS In this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer in a 2:1 ratio to receive niraparib or placebo once daily after a response to platinum-based chemotherapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival in patients who had tumors with homologousrecombination deficiency and in those in the overall population, as determined on hierarchical testing. A prespecified interim analysis for overall survival was conducted at the time of the primary analysis of progression-free survival. RESULTS Of the 733 patients who underwent randomization, 373 (50.9%) had tumors with homologous-recombination deficiency. Among the patients in this category, the median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the niraparib group than in the placebo group (21.9 months vs. 10.4 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.43; 95% confidence interval [Cl], 0.31 to 0.59; PcO.OOl). In the overall population, the corresponding progression-free survival was 13.8 months and 8.2 months (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% Cl, 0.50 to 0.76; P<0.001). At the 24-month interim analysis, the rate of overall survival was 84% in the niraparib group and 77% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% Cl, 0.44 to 1.11). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or higher were anemia (in 31.0% of the patients), thrombocytopenia (in 28.7%), and neutropenia (in 12.8%). No treatment-related deaths occurred. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer who had a response to platinum-based chemotherapy, those who received niraparib had significantly longer progression-free survival than those who received placebo, regardless of the presence or absence of homologous-recombination deficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.)

Background: The phase III PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial met its primary endpoint. Niraparib first-line maintenance significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) among patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer that responded to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, regardless of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) status. Final overall survival (OS) results are reported., Patients and Methods: Patients were randomized 2:1 to niraparib or placebo, stratified by response to first-line treatment, receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and tumor HRD status. After reaching 60% target maturity, OS was evaluated via a stratified log-rank test using randomization stratification factors and summarized using Kaplan-Meier methodology. OS testing was hierarchical [overall population first, then the homologous recombination-deficient (HRd) population]. Other secondary outcomes and long-term safety were assessed; an updated, ad hoc analysis of investigator-assessed PFS was also conducted (cut-off date, 8 April 2024)., Results: The median follow-up was 73.9 months. In the overall population, the OS hazard ratio was 1.01 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84-1.23; P = 0.8834] for niraparib (n = 487) versus placebo (n = 246). In the HRd (n = 373) and homologous recombination-proficient (n = 249) populations, the OS hazard ratios were 0.95 (95% CI 0.70-1.29) and 0.93 (95% CI 0.69-1.26), respectively. Subsequent poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor therapy was received by 11.7% and 15.8% of niraparib patients and 37.8% and 48.4% of placebo patients in the overall and HRd populations, respectively. The 5-year PFS rate numerically favored niraparib in the overall (niraparib, 22%; placebo, 12%) and HRd populations (niraparib, 35%; placebo, 16%). Myelodysplastic syndromes/acute myeloid leukemia incidence was <2.5% (niraparib, 2.3%; placebo, 1.6%). No new safety signals were observed., Conclusions: In patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer at high risk of recurrence, there was no difference in OS between treatment arms. In the HRd population, patients alive at 5 years were two times as likely to be progression free with niraparib treatment than placebo. Long-term safety remained consistent with the established niraparib safety profile., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Mirvetuximab soravtansine may be a potentially effective therapeutic option for ovarian low-grade serous carcinoma (LGSC), but the prevalence of folate receptor alpha (FRα) overexpression in this tumor type is unknown. We sought to characterize FRα expression in LGSC and its association with clinical and molecular features., Methods: FRα immunohistochemistry was performed on a tissue microarray comprised of 89 LGSCs and 42 ovarian serous borderline tumors (SBTs). Clinical tumor-normal panel-based sequencing was performed on 78 LGSCs. Associations between FRα-high status and clinicopathologic characteristics and survival outcomes were examined., Results: Of 89 LGSCs, 36 (40%) were FRα-high (≥75% of viable tumor cells exhibiting moderate-to-strong membranous expression). Of 9 patients with LGSC and samples from different timepoints, 4 (44%) had discordant results, with conversion from FRα-negative to FRα-high in 3 (33%) cases. There was no association between FRα-high status with age, race, or progression-free/overall survival. A MAPK pathway genetic alteration, most commonly involving KRAS (n = 23), was present in 45 (58%) LGSCs. Those lacking MAPK pathway alterations were more likely to be FRα-high compared to MAPK-altered LGSCs (61% vs 20%, p < 0.001). In SBTs, FRα-high expression was associated with high-risk (micropapillary) histology and/or subsequent LGSC recurrence compared to conventional SBTs without malignant recurrence (53% vs 9%, p = 0.008)., Conclusions: Future studies of FRα-directed therapy in patients with LGSC are warranted. Discordant FRα status at recurrence suggests potential benefit for retesting. A biomarker-driven approach to direct treatment selection in LGSC is recommended. As high FRα expression is more common amongst tumors lacking MAPK pathway genetic alterations, FRα testing to determine eligibility for mirvetuximab soravtansine therapy is particularly recommended for this subgroup., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Y.L. Liu reports research funding from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Repare Therapeutics, outside the submitted work. A. Iasonos reports consulting fees from Mylan. 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. C. 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. R.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 a non-compensated advisor for Carina Biotech. Her institute receives 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. K. Long Roche reports travel support from Intuitive Surgical. R.N. Grisham reports honoraria from GSK, AstraZeneca, Natera, Springworks, Corcept, MJH, and PER, outside the submitted work. M.H. Chui reports consulting fees from Verastem Oncology, outside the submitted work. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to report., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.)

Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. O'Cearbhaill reports honoraria from GSK, Bayer, Regeneron, Immunogen, MJH, SeaGen, Fresenius Kabi, and Curio, all outside the submitted work. Dr. Eskander reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Myriad, personal fees from GOG Partners, grants and personal fees from Clovis Oncology, personal fees from GSK/Tesaro, personal fees from Merck, grants from Genentech Roche, personal fees from Iovance, all outside the submitted work. Dr. Gaillard reports grants from Abbvie, grants from Pfizer, grants from PharmaMar, grants from Iovance, grants from Tesaro, grants from Genentech/Roche, grants from Rigel, grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Immunogen, personal fees from Sermonix, personal fees from Elevar Therapeutics, all outside the submitted work. In addition, Dr. Gaillard has a patent US 16/341,033 licensed, and a patent PCT/US2019/026669 licensed. All other authors have nothing to disclose.

Objective: Antineoplastic agents can cause hypersensitivity reactions that may preclude further treatment, possibly compromising patient outcome if the tumor remains sensitive to such agent. Although desensitization protocols can be used to re-introduce agents after the development of a hypersensitivity reaction, these protocols vary across institutions. Our study evaluated the safety and efficacy of our desensitization protocol., Methods: All patients who underwent desensitization to platinum, taxane, liposomal doxorubicin, or trastuzumab between November 2016 and May 2021 after a prior hypersensitivity reaction to the specific agent were included in a retrospective review. The 12-step, outpatient desensitization protocol included pretreatment with a leukotriene receptor antagonist, antihistamines, and corticosteroids, as well as extended infusion times. Successful desensitization was defined as the completion of ≥3 cycles without discontinuation of the agent due to a hypersensitivity reaction., Results: A total of 186 eligible patients were included. Median age was 59.5 years (range 26-87). 155 (83%) patients were treated with platinum. 55 (30%) patients were treated for colorectal cancer and 52 (28%) for ovarian cancer. 104 (56%) patients completed ≥3 cycles of therapy during desensitization. The median infusion time was 380 min (range 325-360 min). The median number of desensitization cycles was 3, with 694 cycles completed among all patients. A total of 79 (42%) patients had a breakthrough hypersensitivity reaction during desensitization, 4 of whom required epinephrine, and 84 (45%) patients discontinued the agent undergoing desensitization due to progression of disease., Conclusions: Our outpatient 12-step, institutional desensitization protocol for antineoplastic therapy proved safe and efficacious, with 56% of patients successfully completing ≥3 cycles and not requiring an inpatient admission., Competing Interests: Competing interests: REO reports personal fees from Tesaro/GSK, Regeneron, Seattle Genetics, Fresenius Kabi, the Gynecologic Oncology Foundation, Bayer, Immunogen, MJH Sciences and Curio, as well as others from AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals (meal) and Hitech Health (travel). REO is also a non-compensated steering committee member for the PRIMA, Moonstone (Tesaro/GSK), DUO-O (AstraZeneca) studies, and Carina Biotech. Her institute receives funding for clinical research from Bayer/Celgene/Juno, Tesaro/GSK, Ludwig Cancer Institute, Abbvie/StemCentrx, Regeneron, TCR2 Therapeutics, Atara Biotherapeutics, MarkerTherapeutics, Syndax Pharmaceuticals, Genmab/Seagen Therapeutics, Sellas Therapeutics, Genentech, Kite Pharma, and the Gynecologic Oncology Foundation., (© IGCS and ESGO 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

With the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of four CD19- and one BCMA-targeted chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) therapy for B cell malignancies, CAR T cell therapy has finally reached the status of a medicinal product. The successful manufacturing of autologous CAR T cell products is a key requirement for this promising treatment modality. By analyzing the composition of 214 apheresis products from 210 subjects across eight disease indications, we found that high CD14 + cell content poses a challenge for manufacturing CAR T cells, especially in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and multiple myeloma caused by the non-specific phagocytosis of the magnetic beads used to activate CD3 + T cells. We demonstrated that monocyte depletion via rapid plastic surface adhesion significantly reduces the CD14 + monocyte content in the apheresis products and simultaneously boosts the CD3 + content. We established a 40% CD14 + threshold for the stratification of apheresis products across nine clinical trials and demonstrated the effectiveness of this procedure by comparing manufacturing runs in two phase 1 clinical trials. Our study suggests that CD14 + content should be monitored in apheresis products, and that the manufacturing of CAR T cells should incorporate a step that lessens the CD14 + cell content in apheresis products containing more than 40% to maximize the production success., Competing Interests: P.S.A. has received research funding from ATARA Biotherapeutics; has served on the Scientific Advisory Board or as consultant to ATARA Biotherapeutics, Bayer, Carisma Therapeutics, Imugene, and Takeda Therapeutics; and has patents, royalties, and intellectual property on mesothelin-targeted CARs and other T cell therapies, method for detection of cancer cells using virus, and pending patent applications on T cell therapies. E.L.S. has patents, royalties, and intellectual property on BCMA-targeted CARs and serves as consultant for BMS. I.R. has intellectual property rights from Juno Therapeutics., (© 2021.)

It is estimated that 604,127 patients were diagnosed with cervical cancer worldwide in 2020. While a small percentage of patients will have metastatic disease at diagnosis, a large percentage (15-61%) later develop advanced disease. For this cohort, treatment with systemic chemotherapy remains the standard of care, with a static 5-year survival rate over the last thirty years. Data on targetable molecular alterations in cervical cancer have lagged behind other more common tumor types thus stunting the development of targeted agents. In recent years, tumor genomic testing has been increasingly incorporated into our clinical practice, opening the door for a potential new era of personalized treatment for advanced cervical cancer. The interim results from the NCI-MATCH study reported an actionability rate of 28.4% for the cervical cancer cohort, suggesting a subset of patients may harbor mutations which that are targetable. This review sets out to summarize the key targeted agents currently under exploration either alone or in combination with existing treatments for cervical cancer., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)