Search

Background: In the phase 3 EMPOWER-Cervical 1/GOG-3016/ENGOT-cx9 study, cemiplimab significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy for patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer who progressed after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. We present a post hoc subgroup analysis of patients enrolled in Japan., Methods: Patients were enrolled regardless of programmed cell death-ligand 1 status and randomized 1:1 to cemiplimab 350 mg intravenously every 3 weeks or investigator's choice  single-agent chemotherapy for up to 96 weeks. Primary endpoint was OS. Key secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR)., Results: Overall, 608 patients were randomized, of whom 56 (9.2%) were in Japan (cemiplimab, n = 29; chemotherapy, n = 27). The median (range) duration of follow-up was 13.6 (6.0-25.3) versus 18.2 (6.0-38.2) months for patients in Japan and for the overall population, respectively. Median OS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 8.4 (7.0-not evaluable) and 9.4 (5.4-14.9) months for cemiplimab versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.43-1.68). Median PFS (95% CI) was 4.0 (1.4-8.2) versus 3.7 (1.8-4.2) months with cemiplimab and chemotherapy (HR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.50-1.61), respectively. ORR was 17.2% for cemiplimab and 7.4% for chemotherapy (odds ratio, 2.47; 95% CI, 0.44-13.99). Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events at any grade was 79.3% for cemiplimab and 100% for chemotherapy. Grade ≥3 adverse events were 37.9% versus 66.7% with cemiplimab and chemotherapy, respectively., Discussion: While acknowledging limitations inherent to a small subgroup analysis, the HR of 0.86 observed in Japanese patients suggests an emerging survival benefit despite a 4.6-month shorter median duration of follow-up versus the overall study population., (© 2024 The Author(s). Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: Stage IVA patients comprise a small proportion of participants in cervical cancer trials, yet survival outcomes are disproportionately poor. We aim to perform a systematic review evaluating stage IVA cervical cancer., Methods: This systematic review was completed via PRISMA 2020 guidelines using two databases. Inclusion criteria comprised Phase III trials (2004-2024) assessing stage IVA cervical cancer including patients by stage. Searches had MeSH terms: ((cervical cancer) AND (stage IVA) AND (locally advanced)). 761 were articles identified, including books, trials, reviews, and meta-analyses. Of the articles identified, 12 met inclusion criteria., Results: A total of 133 (3.8% of study populations) stage IVA and 818 (40% of study populations) stage III-IVA cervical cancer patients were analyzed. Two studies (stage IVA n = 15; 3.1%) established cisplatin as chemoradiotherapy agent of choice, while one study (stage IVA n = 2; 1%) showed no benefit with cisplatin versus radiotherapy alone. Four studies (stage IVA n = 32; 3.6%; stages IIIB-IVA n = 220; 24%) found no benefit with adjuvant chemotherapy, with one analyzing stage IIIB-IVA patients (progression-free survival (PFS) hazard ratio (HR) = 0.84; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.57-1.23). Three studies (stage IVA n = 71; 5%) found no benefit adding immunomodulator (stage IVA overall survival HR = 3.48; 95% CI: 0.52-23.29), hypoxic cell sensitizer, or immunotherapy (stage III-IVA PFS HR = 0.71; 95% CI: 0.49-1.03) to chemoradiotherapy. One study (stages III-IVA n = 598; 56%) found benefit adding immunotherapy to chemoradiotherapy (stage III-IVA PFS HR = 0.58; 95% CI: 0.42-0.8). One study (stage IVA n = 13; 3.5%) showed benefit with induction chemotherapy., Conclusion: Trials have not included substantial IVA patients to draw reasonable conclusions. Despite mixed results for immunotherapy, adjuvant chemotherapy, and induction chemotherapy, the exact benefit for stage IVA patients remains unknown. Future clinical trials should include a greater number of stage IVA cervical cancer patients and analyze them individually., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest There are no conflicts of interest for this systematic review., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Due to limited data on homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) in older patients (≥ 70 years) with advanced stage high grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSC), we aimed to determine the rates of HRD at diagnosis in this age group., Methods: From the Phase 3 trial VELIA the frequency of HRD and BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants (PVs) was compared between younger (< 70 years) and older participants. HRD and somatic(s) BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants (PVs) were determined at diagnosis using Myriad myChoice® CDx and germline(g) BRCA1/2 PVs using Myriad BRACAnalysis CDx®. HRD was defined if a BRCA PV was present, or the genomic instability score (GIS) met threshold (GIS ≥ 33 & ≥ 42 analyzed)., Results: Of 1140 participants, 21% were ≥ 70 years. In total, 26% (n = 298) had a BRCA1/2 PV and HRD, 29% (n = 329) were HRD/BRCA wild-type, 33% (n = 372) non-HRD, and 12% HR-status unknown (n = 141). HRD rates were higher in younger participants, 59% (n = 476/802), compared to 40% (n = 78/197) of older participants (GIS ≥ 42) [p < 0.001]; similar rates demonstrated with GIS ≥ 33, 66% vs 48% [p < 0.001]. gBRCA PVs observed in 24% younger vs 8% of older participants (p < 0.001); sBRCA in 8% vs 10% (p = 0.2559), and HRD (GIS ≥ 42) not due to gBRCA was 35% vs 31% (p = 0.36)., Conclusions: HRD frequency was similar in participants aged < 70 and ≥ 70 years (35% vs 31%) when the contribution of gBRCA was excluded; rates of sBRCA PVs were also similar (8% v 10%), thus underscoring the importance of HRD and BRCA testing at diagnosis in older patients with advanced HGSC given the therapeutic implications., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The following authors have no disclosures relating to this manuscript: Omali Pitiyarachchi, Laura Holman, Paul DiSilvestro, Mark Morgan, William Tew, Christine Lee, Meredith Newton, Babak Edraki, Thomas Reid and Jay Carlson. Peter J. Ansell and Minh H Dinh are AbbVie employees receiving stock or stock options. Robert L. Coleman: has received grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Genelux, Genmab, Merck, Immunogen, Roche/Genentech, Karyopharm; consulting fees from Agenus, Alkermes, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Deciphera, Genelux, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, OncoQuest, Onxerna, Regeneron, Karyopharm, Roche/Genentech, Novocure, Merck, Abbvie, Novocure; royalties or licenses with Up-To-Date; payment or honoraria for speakers bureaus from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Roche/Genentech, Merck; participation in data safety monitoring or advisory boards from NRG Oncology, Elsai/BMS; leadership or fiduciary role in Onxeo/Valerio, Vaniam Group, GOG Foundation, International Gynecologic Cancer Society, OCNA, Ovarcome. Charles A. Leath III: Grant to institution provided by National Institutes of Health (NCI UG1 CA233330). Theresa Werner has received consulting fees from Mersana; and research funding to the institution - AbbVie, Acrivon, Astra Zeneca, BluePrint, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK-Tesaro, Mersana, Repare Therapeutics, Roche-Genentech. Mary Cunningham: funds to institution provided by Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Tesaro, Vascular Biogenics; and spouse is a stockholder of Intuitive Surgical. Peter Lim: has received payment or honoraria for Speakers Bureau from Astra Zeneca and Merck and is on Advisory Boards for Astra Zeneca, Clovis, Mersana, OncoC4, Immunogen. Joyce Barlin: has received payment/honoraria for Speakers Bureaus from Astra Zeneca and Merck and is on Advisory Boards for Astra Zeneca, Clovis, Mersana, OncoC4, Immunogen. Nicola M. Spirtos: has received institutional grants from NRG and the GOG Foundation. Krishnansu S. Tewari: reports grants to institution (UC Irvine) provided by AbbVie; consulting fees from Merck, Astra Zeneca, Eisai, Seagen, GSK; and payment/honoraria for Speakers Bureaus from Merck, Astra Zeneca, Eisai, Seagen, GSK. Mitchell Edelson: has received funding to attend meetings from Intuitive Surgical; received stock options from Merck when employed. Spouse was a salaried employee at Merck until 8/2022 and spouse is a salaried employee at Pfizer since 3/2023. Michael Friedlander: has received consulting fees from Astra Zeneca, Novartis and GSK; has consulted without payment for Incyclix; has received payment or honoraria for Speakers Bureaus from Astra Zeneca, GSK and MSD; has participated on Data Safety Monitoring or Advisory Boards for AGITG IDSMB and ENDO-3; received institutional support in the form of research grants from Astra Zeneca, Beigene and Novartis., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: KST and BJM report consultancy on advisory boards for Merck focused on clinical trial design in cervical cancer.

Purpose of Review: Ovarian cancer ranks fifth in mortality among women with cancer and accounts for more death compared to any other gynecological cancers. This review summarizes the most recent literature on disparities in ovarian cancer as well as within recent clinical trials., Recent Findings: Recent studies have identified a notable disparity in genetic testing utilization, disease stage at the time of diagnosis, and adherence to treatment guidelines between Black women and their White counterparts, ultimately leading to increased mortality rates among Black women from ovarian cancer. Additionally, there is an underreporting of race in clinical trials and those that do report race demonstrate significant racial disparities within trial participants with the majority of participants being White., Summary: It is imperative that we address the significant racial disparities within ovarian cancer and clinical trials to establish a framework of equitable healthcare provision. Multiple determinants, such as implicit bias, provider mistrust, accessibility hurdles, and socioeconomic influences, appear to contribute to the current disparities faced by women of color. Further investigation is warranted, encompassing a deeper understanding of diverse patient perspectives and identifying barriers to receiving optimal care and participating in clinical trials., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: The KEYNOTE-826 randomized clinical trial showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful survival benefits with the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer. Treatment effects in patient subgroups of the study population are unknown., Objective: To assess efficacy outcomes in patient subgroups of KEYNOTE-826., Design, Setting, and Participants: Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted in a global, phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Participants included women with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic adenocarcinoma, adenosquamous carcinoma, or squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix that had not been treated with systemic chemotherapy and was not amenable to curative treatment. This subanalysis was conducted from November 20, 2018, to May 3, 2021., Interventions: Pembrolizumab, 200 mg, every 3 weeks or placebo for up to 35 cycles plus chemotherapy (paclitaxel, 175 mg/m2, plus cisplatin, 50 mg/m2, or carboplatin AUC 5 [area under the free carboplatin plasma concentration vs time curve]) with or without bevacizumab, 15 mg/kg., Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) by investigator assessment per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 in subgroups defined by use of bevacizumab (yes or no), choice of platinum (carboplatin or cisplatin), prior chemoradiotherapy (CRT) exposure only (yes or no), and histologic type (squamous or nonsquamous) in patients with programmed cell death ligand 1-positive tumors (defined as a combined positive score [CPS] ≥1) and in the intention-to-treat population., Results: A total of 617 patients (median age, 51 years; range, 22-82 years) were enrolled in the trial. In the CPS greater than or equal to 1 population, hazard ratios (HRs) for OS favored the pembrolizumab group in all subgroups: with bevacizumab (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.45-0.87) and without bevacizumab (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47-0.96), use of carboplatin (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.50-0.85) and cisplatin (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.27-1.04), with prior CRT only (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.39-0.81) and without prior CRT only (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52-1.00), and squamous (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.46-0.79) and nonsquamous (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.41-1.20) histologic type. In the intention-to-treat population, HRs for OS also favored the pembrolizumab group in all subgroups: with bevacizumab (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47-0.87) and without bevacizumab (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.53-1.04), use of carboplatin (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54-0.89) or cisplatin (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.32-1.09), with prior CRT only (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.45-0.91) and without prior CRT only (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53-0.97), and squamous (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47-0.80) and nonsquamous (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.47-1.23) histologic type. Similar to OS, the addition of pembrolizumab prolonged PFS across all subgroups in the CPS greater than or equal to 1 and intention-to-treat populations., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this trial suggest that adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab improved OS across subgroups of patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03635567.

Purpose: To evaluate the addition of ofranergene obadenovec (ofra-vec, VB-111), a novel gene-based anticancer targeted therapy, to once a week paclitaxel in patients with recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC)., Methods: This placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase III trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03398655) randomly assigned patients with PROC 1:1 to receive intravenous ofra-vec every 8 weeks with once a week IV paclitaxel or placebo with paclitaxel until disease progression. The dual primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) as assessed by Blinded Independent Central Review., Results: Between December 2017 and March 2022, 409 patients were randomly assigned. The median PFS was 5.29 months in the ofra-vec arm and 5.36 months in the control arm, hazard ratio (HR) 1.03 (CI, 0.83 to 1.29; P = .7823). The median OS with ofra-vec was 13.37 months versus 13.14 months, HR 0.97 (CI, 0.75 to 1.27; P = .8440). Objective response rates (ORRs) per RECIST 1.1 were similar in both arms: 28.9% with ofra-vec versus 29.6% with control. In both treatment arms, response to CA-125 was a substantial prognostic factor for both PFS and OS. In the ofra-vec arm, the HR in CA-125 responders compared with that in nonresponders for PFS was 0.2428 (CI, 0.1642 to 0.3588), and for OS, the HR was 0.3343 (CI, 0.2134 to 0.5238). Safety profile was characterized by common transient flu-like symptoms such as fever and chills., Conclusion: The addition of ofra-vec to paclitaxel did not improve PFS or OS. The PFS and ORR in the control arm exceeded the results that were anticipated on the basis of the AURELIA chemotherapy control arm. CA-125 response was a substantial prognostic biomarker for PFS and OS in patients with PROC treated with paclitaxel.

Cervical cancer continues to be a global threat affecting individuals in resource poor communities disproportionately. The treatment paradigm for this disease is ever evolving with recent innovations propelling oncologic outcomes to a new frontier offering survival benefits for patients struggling with locally advanced disease and metastatic/recurrent carcinoma. Immunologic checkpoint inhibitors and anti-body drug conjugates represent two novel drug classes that have demonstrable activity in this disease, particularly in the first-line and second-line treatment paradigm for recurrence. The tolerability of these novel medicines and associated durable responses underscore regulatory approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administrations and their implementation in clinic., Competing Interests: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported., (© 2024. Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology, Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology, and Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology.)

Purpose: Tissue factor is highly expressed in cervical carcinoma and can be targeted by tisotumab vedotin (TV), an antibody-drug conjugate. This phase Ib/II study evaluated TV in combination with bevacizumab, pembrolizumab, or carboplatin for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (r/mCC)., Methods: This open-label, multicenter study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03786081) included dose-escalation arms that assessed dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) and identified the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of TV in combination with bevacizumab (arm A), pembrolizumab (arm B), or carboplatin (arm C). The dose-expansion arms evaluated TV antitumor activity and safety at RP2D in combination with carboplatin as first-line (1L) treatment (arm D) or with pembrolizumab as 1L (arm E) or second-/third-line (2L/3L) treatment (arm F). The primary end point of dose expansion was objective response rate (ORR)., Results: A total of 142 patients were enrolled. In dose escalation (n = 41), no DLTs were observed; the RP2D was TV 2 mg/kg plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg on day 1 once every 3 weeks, pembrolizumab 200 mg on day 1 once every 3 weeks, or carboplatin AUC 5 on day 1 once every 3 weeks. In dose expansion (n = 101), the ORR was 54.5% (n/N, 18/33; 95% CI, 36.4 to 71.9) with 1L TV + carboplatin (arm D), 40.6% (n/N, 13/32; 95% CI, 23.7 to 59.4) with 1L TV + pembrolizumab (arm E), and 35.3% (12/34; 19.7 to 53.5) with 2L/3L TV + pembrolizumab (arm F). The median duration of response was 8.6 months, not reached, and 14.1 months, in arms D, E, and F, respectively. Grade ≥3 adverse events (≥15%) were anemia, diarrhea, nausea, and thrombocytopenia in arm D and anemia in arm F (none ≥15%, arm E)., Conclusion: TV in combination with bevacizumab, carboplatin, or pembrolizumab demonstrated manageable safety and encouraging antitumor activity in treatment-naive and previously treated r/mCC.

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 phase III, double-blind KEYNOTE-826 trial of pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo once every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus platinum-based chemotherapy, with or without bevacizumab, showed statistically significant survival benefits with the addition of pembrolizumab for patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer (primary data cutoff: May 3, 2021). This article reports the protocol-specified final overall survival (OS) results tested in the PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥1, all-comer, and CPS ≥10 populations. At the final data cutoff (October 3, 2022), the median study follow-up duration was 39.1 months (range, 32.1-46.5 months). In the PD-L1 CPS ≥1 (N = 548), all-comer (N = 617), and CPS ≥10 (N = 317) populations, median OS with pembrolizumab-chemotherapy versus placebo-chemotherapy was 28.6 months versus 16.5 months (hazard ratio [HR] for death, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.49 to 0.74]), 26.4 months versus 16.8 months (HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.52 to 0.77]), and 29.6 months versus 17.4 months (HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.78]), respectively. The incidence of grade ≥3 adverse events was 82.4% with pembrolizumab-chemotherapy and 75.4% with placebo-chemotherapy. These results show that pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, with or without bevacizumab, continued to provide clinically meaningful improvements in OS for patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer.

Objective: To determine the effects of using National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines to estimate renal function on carboplatin dosing and explore adverse effects associated with a more accurate estimation of lower creatinine clearance (CrCl)., Methods: Retrospective data were obtained for 3830 of 4312 patients treated on GOG182 (NCT00011986)-a phase III trial of platinum-based chemotherapy for advanced-stage ovarian cancer. Carboplatin dose per patient on GOG182 was determined using the Jelliffe formula. We recalculated CrCl to determine dosing using Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) and Cockcroft-Gault (with/without NCCN recommended modifications) formulas. Associations between baseline CrCl and toxicity were described using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Sensitivity and positive predictive values described the model's ability to discriminate between subjects with/without the adverse event., Results: AUC statistics (range, 0.52-0.64) showed log(CrCl Jelliffe ) was not a good predictor of grade ≥3 adverse events (anemia, thrombocytopenia, febrile neutropenia, auditory, renal, metabolic, neurologic). Of 3830 patients, 628 (16%) had CrCl <60 mL/min. Positive predictive values for adverse events ranged from 1.8%-15%. Using the Cockcroft-Gault, Cockcroft-Gault with NCCN modifications, and MDRD (instead of Jelliffe) formulas to estimate renal function resulted in a >10% decrease in carboplatin dosing in 16%, 32%, and 5.2% of patients, respectively, and a >10% increase in carboplatin dosing in 41%, 9.6% and 12% of patients, respectively., Conclusion: The formula used to estimate CrCl affects carboplatin dosing. Estimated CrCl <60 mL/min (by Jelliffe) did not accurately predict adverse events. Efforts continue to better predict renal function. Endorsing National Cancer Institute initiatives to broaden study eligibility, our data do not support a minimum threshold CrCl <60 mL/min as an exclusion criterion from clinical trials., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. O'Cearbhaill reports support for this study from NCI/NIH P30 CA008748 and grants to Institution from Bayer/Celgene/Juno, Tesaro/GSK, Merck, Ludwig Cancer Institute, AbbVie/Stemkens, Regeneron, TCR2 Therapeutics, Atara Biotherapeutics, Marker Therapeutics, Syndax Pharmaceuticals, Genmab/Seagen Therapeutics, Genentech, Kite Pharma, Acrivon and Gynecologic Oncology Foundation. Outside of the submitted work, Dr. O'Cearbhaill reports honoraria from GSK, Bayer, Regeneron, SeaGen, Fresenius Kabi, Immunogen, MJH Life Sciences and Curio. Dr. O'Cearbhaill reports receiving support to attend meetings and/or travel from Hitech Health, Gathering Around Cancer, Ireland, GOG Foundation and SGO. Dr. O'Cearbhaill participated on Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for each of the following: AstraZeneca (DUO-0), GSK (moonstone, Prima), Acrivon, Carina Biotech, Link therapeutics, Tesaro/GSK, Regeneron, Seattle Genetics/Seagen, Immunogen, Bayer, R-Pharm, 2seventybio, Miltenyi and Fresenius Kabi. Dr. O'Cearbhaill also served as Vice-chair for the CPC, SGO as well a Chair, Developmental Therapeutics Committee for NRG Oncology. Dr. Aghajanian received research grants from AbbVie, Clovis, Genentech and Astra Zeneca and served on advisory boards for AbbVie, AstraZeneca/Merck, Eisai/Merck, Mersana Therapeutics, Repare Therapeutics and Roche/Genentech and received consulting fees for serving. Dr. Aghajanian served on the Blueprint Medicine Advisory Board (uncompensated). Dr. Aghajanian also serves on the GOG Foundation, Board of Directors (travel cost reimbursement for attending meetings) as well as the NRG Oncology Board of Directors (unpaid). Dr. Floor Backes wishes to report research grants from Immunogen, Clovis, Merck, Eisai, Natera and Beigene. Dr. Backes reports receiving consulting fees received from Eisai, Merck, Agenus, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline; Myriad, Clovis Oncology and Immunogen. Dr. Backes received honoraria for serving on advisory boards from Medlearning Group, CEC Oncology, OncLive, i3Health, and Medscape. Dr. Backes serves as Co-Chair of the NRG Oncology Developmental Therapeutics. Dr. Backes is a member of the Uterine Corpus Committee as well as a NCCN Ovary member and serves as an SGO Board Member. Dr. Michael Bookman reports payment to his Institution from Immunogen Data Monitoring Committee (unrelated to this project). Dr. David Cohn reports receiving honoraria from UpToDate as an Author as well as receiving payment for his role with Elsevier, Gynecologic Oncology as an Editor-in-Chief. Dr. Michael Friedlander reports that personally receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Novartis, GSK and Incyclix (Nil). Dr. Friedlander also reports receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca and GSK and also received travel funding from AstraZeneca. Dr. Friedlander reports participating on Data Safety Monitoring Board/Advisory Board for AGITG IDSMB and ENDO-3. Dr. Friedlander reports that his Institution received grants from AstraZeneca, Beigene and Novartis. Dr. David Gershenson reports support from NRG Oncology with regard to this Study. Dr. Gershenson also acknowledges grants to his Institution from Novartis, GOG Foundation, and the NCI. Dr. Gershenson personally received royalties from Elsevier and UpToDate and consulting fees from Genentech (uncompensated) and Verastem. Dr. Gershenson received honoraria from University of Washington OB/GYN Grand Rounds and Yale University OB/GYN Grand Rounds and participating in a data safety monitoring/advisory board for Onconova, Aadi and Springworks. Dr. Gershenson also served on the International Consortium for Low-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer and NCCN Ovarian Cancer Panel (uncompensated). Dr. Gershenson also wishes to disclose having stock in managed accounts for Bristol Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson and Procter & Gamble. Dr. Michael Goodheart reports receiving consulting fees from GlasoSmithKlein GSK/Tesaro, Merck, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, SeaGen and Eisai. Dr. Angeles Alvarez Secord reports clinical trial grants received from the following: AbbVie, Aravive, AstraZeneca, BoehringerIngelheim, Clovis, Eisai, Ellipses, I-MAB Biopharma, Immunogen, Merck, Oncoquest/Canaria Bio, Seagen Inc., TapImmune, Tesaro/GSK, VBL Therapeutics. Dr. Secord also wishes to report receiving clinical trial grant/translational research grant from Roche/Genentech as well as Consulting fee from Myriad. Dr. Secord also received support for attending meetings/travel from GSK, GOG Foundation and NRG. Dr. Secord also served on the Clinical Trial Steering Committees for Aravive, Genentech/Roche, VBL Therapeutics and Oncoquest/Canaria Bio without compensation. Dr. Secord personally received compensation from GOG Foundation and NRG Oncology paid compensation to Institution. Dr. Secord also served in Leadership roles for Society of Gynecologic Oncology and American Association of Obstetrics and Gynecology Foundation (uncompensated). Dr. Judith Smith received honoraria for Speaking at the HOPA Annual Meeting 2016 – Harmonization of Carboplatin Dosing, Dr. Smith serves as Chair on the NRG Oncology Pharmacy Subcommittee. Dr. Tewari also reports receiving honoraria from Eisai, AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK/Tesaro, Merck and Seagen/Genmab. Dr. Krishnansu Tewari reports receiving consulting fees from Regeneron, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK/Tesaro, Merck, Seagen/Genmab. Dr. Andrea Wahner Hendrickson reports receiving Clinical Trial support from Prolynx and Site PI Clinical Trial Support from both Amgen and TORL Biotherapeutics. Dr. Wahner Hendrickson reports serving on Oxcia Advisory Board (uncompensated). Dr. Wahner Hendrickson reports serving on an Advisory Board for the Mayo Clinic Data Safety Monitoring Board (uncompensated). Dr. Wahner Hendrickson also served on the NCCN Ovarian Cancer Committee (uncompensated). Dr. Robert Wenham reports personal and institutional grants received from Merck and Ovation Diagnostics. Dr. Wenham reports receiving consulting fees from Merck, Legend Biotech, Genentech, Ovation Diagnostics, GSK/Tesaro, Clovis, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Legend Biotech, Regeneron, Seagen, Sonic Biotherapeutics, Shattuck Labs, Novacure, Eisai and Immunogen. Dr. Wenham also reports receiving Institutional Clinical Trial Fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Regeneron and Eisai. Dr. Wenham reports serving on Advisory Board for Seagen and GSK/Tesaro. Dr. Wenham would like to disclose personally owning stock in Ovation Diagnostics. Dr. Peter Argenta, Dr. Heidi Gray, Dr. Roger Lee, Dr. Stuart Lichtman, Dr. Austin Miller, Dr. David Mutch, Dr. Aaron Praiss, Dr. Paul Sabbatini and Dr. Linda Van Le have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess the effect of age on overall survival (OS) in women with ovarian cancer receiving chemotherapy. Secondary objectives were to describe the effect of age on treatment compliance, toxicities, progression free survival (PFS), time from surgery to chemotherapy, and rates of optimal cytoreduction., Methods: Women enrolled in GOG 0182-ICON5 with stage III or IV epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) who underwent surgery and chemotherapy between 2001 and 2004 were included. Patients were divided into ages <70 and ≥ 70 years. Baseline characteristics, treatment compliance, toxicities, and clinical outcomes were compared., Results: We included a total of 3686 patients, with 620 patients (16.8%) ≥ 70 years. OS was 37.2 months in older compared to 45.0 months in younger patients (HR 1.21, 95% CI, 1.09-1.34, p < 0.001). Older patients had an increased risk of cancer-specific-death (HR 1.16, 95% CI, 1.04-1.29) as well as non-cancer related deaths (HR 2.78, 95% CI, 2.00-3.87). Median PFS was 15.1 months in older compared to 16.0 months in younger patients (HR 1.10, 95% CI, 1.00-1.20, p = 0.056). In the carboplatin/paclitaxel arm, older patients were just as likely to complete therapy and more likely to develop grade ≥ 2 peripheral neuropathy (35.7 vs 19.7%, p < 0.001). Risk of other toxicities remained equal between groups., Conclusions: In women with advanced EOC receiving chemotherapy, age ≥ 70 was associated with shorter OS and cancer specific survival. Older patients receiving carboplatin and paclitaxel reported higher rates of grade ≥ 2 neuropathy but were not more likely to suffer from other chemotherapy related toxicities. Clintrials.gov: NCT00011986., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Each coauthor must complete an icmje form so that this page can be completed., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the KEYNOTE-826 study, the addition of the anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab improved overall survival and progression-free survival (primary endpoints) versus placebo plus chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab, with manageable toxicity, in patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer. In this Article, we report patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from KEYNOTE-826., Methods: KEYNOTE-826 is a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial in 151 cancer treatment centres in 19 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer not previously treated with systemic chemotherapy (previous radiosensitising chemotherapy was allowed) and not amenable to curative treatment and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by means of an interactive voice response system in a double-blind manner to receive either pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks intravenously for up to 35 cycles plus chemotherapy (paclitaxel 175 mg/m 2 plus cisplatin 50 mg/m 2 or carboplatin area under the curve 5 mg/mL per min, intravenously) with or without bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks intravenously. Randomisation (block size of 4) was stratified by metastatic disease at diagnosis, planned bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 combined positive score. Patients, investigators, and other study personnel involved in study treatment administration or clinical evaluation of patients were unaware of treatment group assignments. PRO instruments were the EORTC Quality-of-Life-Core 30 (QLQ-C30), the EORTC cervical cancer module (QLQ-CX24), and the EuroQol-5 dimension-5 level (EQ-5D-5L) visual analogue scale, each collected before treatment at cycles 1-14 and every other cycle thereafter. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival per RECIST version 1.1 by investigator review. Change from baseline in QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS)-quality of life (QoL) was a prespecified secondary endpoint and was assessed in the PRO full analysis population (all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment and completed at least one post-baseline PRO assessment). Other PRO analyses were protocol-specified exploratory endpoints. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03635567, and is ongoing., Findings: Between Nov 20, 2018, and Jan 31, 2020, of 883 patients screened, 617 were randomly assigned (pembrolizumab group, n=308; placebo group, n=309). 587 (95%) of 617 patients received at least one dose of study treatment and completed at least one post-baseline PRO assessment and were therefore included in the PRO analyses (pembrolizumab group, n=290; placebo group, n=297). Median follow-up was 22·0 months (IQR 19·1-24·4). At week 30, QLQ-C30 completion was 199 (69%) of 290 patients in the pembrolizumab group and 168 (57%) of 297 patients in the placebo group; compliance was 199 (94%) of 211 and 168 (90%) of 186, respectively. The least squares mean change in QLQ-C30 GHS-QoL score from baseline to week 30 was -0·3 points (95% CI -3·1 to 2·6) in the pembrolizumab group and -1·3 points (-4·2 to 1·7) in the placebo group, with a between-group difference in least squares mean change of 1·0 point (95% CI -2·7 to 4·7). Median time to true deterioration in GHS-QoL was not reached (NR; 95% CI 13·4 months-NR) in the pembrolizumab group and 12·9 months (6·6-NR) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·84 [95% CI 0·65-1·09]). 122 (42%) of 290 patients in the pembrolizumab group versus 85 (29%) of 297 in the placebo group had improved GHS-QoL at any time during the study (p=0·0003)., Interpretation: Addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab did not negatively affect health-related quality of life. Along with the efficacy and safety results already reported from KEYNOTE-826, these data support the benefit of pembrolizumab and the value of immunotherapy in patients with recurrent, persistent, or metastatic cervical cancer., Funding: Merck Sharp & Dohme., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests All authors' institutions received research funding from Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck (Rahway, NJ, USA), for the conduct of this study. BJM was a consultant to or received honoraria from AbbVie, Agenus, Akeso Biopharma, Aravive, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Elevar Therapeutics, EMD Serono, Genentech, Genmab–Seattle Genetics, GlaxoSmithKline, GOG Foundation, Gradalis, ImmunoGen, Incyte Corporation, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Janssen Biotech, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Merck, Mersana Therapeutics, Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Novocure, Pfizer, Pfizer International, Puma Biotechnology, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sorrento Therapeutics, Takeda Development Center Americas, US Oncology, and VBL Therapeutics. KST received research grant to institution, and consultant–speaker's bureau fees from Merck. CD was on an endpoint review committee for Merck. KH was a scientific advisory board member and received honoraria, contracted research and study funding to their institution from Merck Sharp & Dohme. RS-F received speaker honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Sanofi, Roche, Medison, and Neopharm; a research grant to their institution from Merck Sharp & Dohme, and was an advisory board member for Merck Sharp and Dohme, VBL Therapeutics, and Clovis Oncology. PS received research support from Merck and participated in advisory boards for BMS, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novartis. MG received speaker's bureau–advisory board fees from Amgen, and received advisory board fees (institutional) from from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Takeda Oncology, and travel fees from F Hoffmann-La Roche. VS was a consultant or advisory board member for GlaxoSmithKline and Merck. VC received a grant to institution from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bayer Healthcare, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Seagen; consultant–advisory board fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals, Merck, Pfizer Canada, and Seagen; and consultant fees from AstraZeneca Canada and Pfizer Canada. CT, KL, AMN, and MJM are employees of Merck Sharp & Dohme and own stock in Merck. NC reports fees for advisory board membership from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunogen, Mersana, Merck Sharp & Dohme–Merck, Nuvation Bio, Onxerna, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Pieris, Roche; fees as an invited speaker for AstraZeneca, Novartis, Clovis Oncology, GlaxoSmithKline, and Merck–Merck Sharp & Dohme; institutional research grants from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, and Roche; and non-remunerated activities as member of the ESMO Guidelines Steering Committee and chairs for of the Scientific Committee of Alleanza contro il tumore ovarico. DL was a consultant for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GlaxoSmithKline, Gynecological Cancer InterGroup, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pharma Mar; received a research grant to institution from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, ImmunoGen, Incyte Corporation, Merck, Merck Sharp and Dohme, PharmaMar; and was a data and safety monitoring board member for Novartis. MVC, EY, MOHdM, and AA declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To determine whether a non‑platinum chemotherapy doublet improves overall survival (OS) among patients with recurrent/metastatic cervical carcinoma., Methods: Gynecologic Oncology Group protocol 240 is a phase 3, randomized, open-label, clinical trial that studied the efficacy of paclitaxel 175 mg/m 2 plus topotecan 0.75 mg/m 2 days 1-3 (n = 223) vs cisplatin 50 mg/m 2 plus paclitaxel 135 or 175 mg/m 2 (n = 229), in 452 patients with recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer. Each chemotherapy doublet was also studied with and without bevacizumab (15 mg/kg). Cycles were repeated every 21 days until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or complete response. The primary endpoints were OS and the frequency and severity of adverse effects. We report the final analysis of OS., Results: At the protocol-specified final analysis, median OS was 16.3 (cisplatin-paclitaxel backbone) and 13.8 months (topotecan-paclitaxel backbone) (HR 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38; p = 0.28). Median OS for cisplatin-paclitaxel and topotecan-paclitaxel was 15 vs 12 months, respectively (HR 1.10; 95% CI,0.82-1.48; p = 0.52), and for cisplatin-paclitaxel-bevacizumab and topotecan-paclitaxel-bevacizumab was 17.5 vs 16.2 months, respectively (HR 1.16; 95% CI, 0.86-1.56; p = 0.34). Among the 75% of patients in the study population previously exposed to platinum, median OS was 14.6 (cisplatin-paclitaxel backbone) vs 12.9 months (topotecan-paclitaxel backbone), respectively (HR 1.09; 95% CI, 0.86-1.38;p = 0.48). Post-progression survival was 7.9 (cisplatin-paclitaxel backbone) vs 8.1 months (topotecan-paclitaxel backbone) (HR 0.95; 95% CI, 0.75-1.19). Grade 4 hematologic toxicity was similar between chemotherapy backbones., Conclusions: Topotecan plus paclitaxel does not confer a survival benefit to women with recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer, even among platinum-exposed patients. Topotecan-paclitaxel should not be routinely recommended in this population. NCT00803062., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. Tewari reports receiving honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus for Merck, Astra Zeneca, Eisai, Seagen, Tesaro and Clovis. He also reports serving on Data Safety Monitoring Board/Advisory Board for Iovance. Dr. Penson reports grants received from Array BioPharma Inc., AstraZeneca, Eisai Inc., Genentech, Inc., Regeneron, Sanofi-Aventis US LLC, Tesaro Inc. and Vascular Biogenics Ltd. Dr. Penson also reports receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Eisai, GSK Inc., ImmunoGen Inc., Merck & Co, Mersana, Novacure, Roche Pharma, Sutro Biopharma, and Vascular Biogenics Ltd. and reports participating on Advisory Boards for AstraZeneca and Roche Pharma. Dr. Oaknin reports grants to her institution from the following: Abbvie Deutschland Gmbh & Co Hg, Ability Pharmaceuticals, Advaxis, Agenus, Aprea Therapeutics AB, AstraZeneca AB, BeiGene USA, Inc., Belgian Gynecological Oncology Group (BGOG), Bristol-Myers Squibb International Corporation (BMSM Clovis Oncology, Corcept Therapeutics, Eisai, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Grupo Española de Investigación en Cáncer de Ovario (GEICO)), Immunogen, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Lilly, Medimmune, Merck Healthcare, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Unipharm Research, Novartis Farmacéutica, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Seagen, Seattle Genetics, Sutro Biopharma, Tesaro, University Health Network, and Werastem, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Seagen, Seattle Genetics, Sutro Biopharma, Tesaro, University Health Network, and Werastem. Dr. Oaknin also reports receiving consulting fees from: Agenus, AstraZeneca Clovis Oncology, Inc., Corcept Therapeutics, Deciphera Pharmaceutical, Eisai Europe Limited, EMD Serono, Inc., F. Hoffmann-La Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunogen, KL Logistics, Medison Pharma, Merck Sharp & Dohme de España, Mersana Therapeutics, Novocure GmbH, Pharma Mar, prIME Oncology, ROCHE FARMA, Sattucklabs, and Sutro Biopharma, Inc., and GEICO. Dr. Oaknin reports personally receiving honoraria for lectures, presentations and Speakers bureaus from ESMO, Edizioni Minerva Medica SpA, Doctaforum Servicios S.L and received support for travel from Roche, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar as well as Clovis. Dr. Oaknin participated on Data Safety Monitoring Board/Advisory Board for Agenus, AstraZeneca Clovis Oncology, Inc., Corcept Therapeutics, Deciphera Pharmaceutical, Eisai Europe Limited, EMD Serono, Inc., F. Hoffmann-La Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, GOG, Immunogen, KL Logistics, Medison Pharma, Merck Sharp & Dohme de España, Mersana Therapeutics, Novocure GmbH, Pharma Mar, prIME Oncology, ROCHE FARMA, Sattucklabs and Sutro Biopharma. Dr. Leitao reports receiving consulting fees from Medtronic, honoraria for lectures from Intuitive Surgical, Inc. as an Ad-hoc Speaker and participating on an Advisory Board for JnJ/Ethicon. Dr. Monk reports receiving consulting fees from the following: Acrivon, Adaptimune, Agenus, Akeso Bio, Amgen, Aravive, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis, Easai, Elevar, EMD Merck, Genmab/Seagen, GOG Foundation, Gradalis, Heng Rui, UmmunoGen, Karyopharm, Iovance, Laekna, Macrogenics, Merck, Mersana, Myriad, Novartis, Novocure, OncoC4, Panavance, Pleris, Pfizer, Puma, Regeneron, Roche/Genentech, Sorrento, Tesaro/GSK, US Oncology Research, VBL, Verastem and Zentalis. He also reports receiving honoraria from: AstraZeneca, Merck, Myriad, Tesaro/GSK, Roche/Genentech, Clovis and Easai. All other authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose with regard to this Study., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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

Purpose of Review: To summarize the latest data in Gynecologic Oncology for the use of sentinel lymphatic mapping in vulvar, uterine, and cervical cancers., Recent Findings: To decrease morbidity and improve detection of lymphatic metastasis, lymphatic mapping with sentinel lymph node biopsy is emerging as standard of care over conventional systemic lymphadenectomy in the surgical management of gynecologic malignancies., Summary: Sentinel lymph node mapping with biopsy is one of the most significant advances in cancer surgery. The presence of nodal metastasis is not only a prognostic factor for recurrence and survival in patients with gynecologic malignancies, but also guides assessment for adjuvant treatment. This review article discusses the most recent clinical updates in sentinel lymph node mapping, dissection, and management in vulvar cancer, endometrial cancer, and cervical cancer., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To evaluate outcomes and cost-effectiveness of targeted therapy sequencing for metastatic and recurrent cervical cancer., Method: Models were simulated based on phase II and III trials on bevacizumab (bev) from GOG-240, cemiplimab (cemi) from GOG 3016, pembrolizumab (pembro) from KEYNOTE-826, and tisotumab vedotin (tiso) from GOG 3023. Costs were based on IBM Micromedex RED BOOK™ and company listed costs., Results: For [chemo + bev → chemo], total cost was $125,918.04, with median overall survival (mOS) of 21.8 months, and cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) of $119,835.79. For [chemo + bev → cemi], total cost was $187,562.99 with mOS of 28.5 months and CER of $162,039.16. For [chemo + bev + pembro → chemo], total cost was $319,963.78 with mOS 32.9 months and CER of $249,930.10. For [chemo + bev + pembro → tiso], total cost was $455,204.45, with mOS 36.5 months and CER of $320,072.99., Conclusion: The combination of immunotherapies and biologics have significantly increased overall survival, but with associated higher costs, primarily related to drug costs.

Purpose: To compare taxane maintenance chemotherapy, paclitaxel (P) and paclitaxel poliglumex (PP), with surveillance (S) in women with ovarian, peritoneal, or fallopian tube (O/PC/FT) cancer who attained clinical complete response after first-line platinum-taxane therapy., Methods: Women diagnosed with O/PC/FT cancer who attained clinical complete response after first-line platinum-taxane-based chemotherapy were randomly allocated 1:1:1 to S or maintenance, P 135 mg/m 2 once every 28 days for 12 cycles, or PP at the same dose and schedule. Overall survival (OS) was the primary efficacy end point., Results: Between March 2005 and January 2014, 1,157 individuals were enrolled. Grade 2 or worse GI adverse events were more frequent among those treated with taxane (PP: 20%, P: 27% v S: 11%). Grade 2 or worse neurologic adverse events occurred more often with taxane treatment (PP: 46%, P: 36% v S: 14%). At the fourth scheduled interim analysis, both taxane regimens passed the OS futility boundary and the Data Monitoring Committee approved an early release of results. With a median follow-up of 8.1 years, 653 deaths were reported; none were attributed to the study treatment. Median survival durations were 58.3, 56.8, and 60.0 months for S, P, and PP, respectively. Relative to S, the hazard of death for P was 1.091 (95% CI, 0.911 to 1.31; P = .343) and for PP, it was 1.033 (95% CI, 0.862 to 1.24; P = .725). The median times to first progression or death (PFS) were 13.4, 18.9, and 16.3 months for S, P, and PP, respectively. Hazard ratio = 0.801; 95% CI, 0.684 to 0.938; P = .006 for P and hazard ratio = 0.854; 95% CI, 0.729 to 1.00; P = .055 for PP., Conclusion: Maintenance therapy with P and PP did not improve OS among patients with newly diagnosed O/tubal/peritoneal cancer, but may modestly increase PFS. GI and neurologic toxicities were more frequent in the taxane treatment arms.

Purpose: In patients with high-grade ovarian cancer, predictors of bevacizumab efficacy in first-line setting are needed. In the ICON-7 trial, a poor tumor intrinsic chemosensitivity (defined by unfavorable modeled cancer antigen-125 [CA-125] ELIMination rate constant K [KELIM] score) was a predictive biomarker. Only the patients with high-risk disease (suboptimally resected stage III, or stage IV) exhibiting unfavorable KELIM score < 1.0 had overall survival (OS) benefit from bevacizumab (median: 29.7 v 20.6 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.78). An external validation study in the GOG-0218 trial was performed., Methods: In GOG-0218, 1,873 patients were treated with carboplatin-paclitaxel ± concurrent-maintenance bevacizumab/placebo. Patient KELIM values were calculated with CA-125 kinetics during the first 100 chemotherapy days by the Lyon University team. The association between KELIM score (favorable ≥ 1.0, or unfavorable < 1.0) and bevacizumab benefit for progression-free survival (PFS)/OS was independently assessed by NGR-GOG using univariate/multivariate analyses., Results: KELIM was assessable in 1,662 patients with ≥ 3 CA-125 available values. An unfavorable KELIM score was associated with bevacizumab benefit compared with placebo (PFS: HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.82; OS: HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.03), whereas a favorable KELIM was not (PFS: HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.17; OS: HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.39). The highest benefit was observed in patients with a high-risk disease exhibiting unfavorable KELIM, for PFS (median: 9.1 v 5.6 months; HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.78), and for OS (median: 35.1 v 29.1 months; HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.97)., Conclusion: This GOG-0218 trial investigation validates ICON-7 findings about the association between poor tumor chemosensitivity and benefit from concurrent-maintenance bevacizumab, suggesting that bevacizumab may mainly be effective in patients with poorly chemosensitive disease. Bevacizumab may be prioritized in patients with a high-risk and poorly chemosensitive disease to improve their PFS/OS (patient KELIM score calculator available on the Biomarker Kinetics website).

Objectives: To determine the clinical and prognostic significance of CA-125 trends prior to, during, and after chemotherapy in high-risk early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer patients., Methods: All patients were enrolled in a phase III randomized trial (GOG 157) following upfront surgery for grade 3 stage IA/IB, stage IC, or stage II disease, and had been treated with either three or six cycles of carboplatin/paclitaxel. Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards model were used to evaluate recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS)., Results: Of 350 patients, the median pre-chemotherapy CA-125 was 65 (IQR: 31-129). 71% of Whites had an elevated CA-125 compared to 47% of non-Whites (p = 0.006). Following the first cycle of chemotherapy, 74% of those with elevated CA-125 had normalization. Those who had normalization of CA-125 after 1 cycle had significantly better 5-year RFS (81% vs. 65%, p = 0.003) and OS (87% vs. 75%, p = 0.009) compared to those who did not normalize (defined as ≤35 U/mL). The pattern of CA-125 change following chemotherapy cycle 1, from normal to normal vs. elevated to normal vs. elevated to elevated had corresponding RFS of 87% vs. 80% vs. 68% (p = 0.013), and OS of 92% vs. 88% vs. 77% (p = 0.009). However, the percent decline (p = 0.993) and absolute nadir normal value of CA-125 (0-10 vs. 11-35 U/mL) were not predictive of outcome (p = 0.4)., Conclusions: Normal baseline CA125 and normalization of this biomarker after the first cycle of chemotherapy were associated with better survival in high-risk early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The following authors reports no conflicts of interests: Drs. Chunqiao Tian, Michael Richardson, Ken Y Lin, Daniel S Kapp, Leah McNally, and Samuel Lentz. The following authors discloses various conflicts of interests: Dr. Robert M Wenham discloses receiving personal and institutional grants, consulting and clinical trial fees from Merck. The consulting fees are also received from Legend Biotech and Novacure as well as Merck. He also received personal and institutional grants and stock options from Ovation Diagnostics. His participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board and personal fees is supported by Seagen and GSK/Tesaro. More personal fees from Clovis, Seagen, Sonnet Biotherapeutics, Shattuck Labs, Novocurem Eisai and Immunogen. Institutional Clinical Trial fees are received from AstraZeneca, Abbvie, Regeneron, and Eisai. Sonnet Biotherapeutics also supported for Scientific Advisory Board. Dr. Nick M Spirtos discloses receiving support from NRG/GOG for manuscript funding and study materials and attending meetings or for institutional travel support as Co-chair of Surgical Oncology Committee. Dr. Thomas J. Herzog discloses receiving personal consulting fees from Aravive, AstraZeneca, Caris, Clovis, Eisai, Epsilogen, Genentech Roche, GSK, and Merck. His participation on a Data Safety and Monitoring Board or Advisory Board is supported by Corcept and Incyte. GOG Foundation also supported for his leadership or fiduciary role in other board. Dr. Bradley J. Monk discloses receiving honorarium as a consultant and investigator from Acrivon, Adaptimune, Agenus, Akeso Bio, Amgen, Aravive, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis, Eisai, 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, Verastern and Zentalis. Dr. Krishnansu S. Tewari discloses receiving sconsulting fees from Abbvie, Genentech, Merch, AstraZeneca, Tesaro/GSK, and Seagen. Dr. Tewari also received honoraria for lectures, presentations, and for manuscript writing from Merck, Astra Zeneca, and Clovis., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The efficacy, safety, and tolerability of cediranib plus olaparib (cedi/ola) were investigated in patients with nongermline-BRCA-mutated (non-gBRCAm) platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer., Patients and Methods: PARP inhibitor-naïve women aged ≥18 years with platinum-resistant non-gBRCAm ovarian cancer, ECOG performance status of 0-2, and ≥3 prior lines of therapy received cediranib 30 mg once daily plus olaparib 200 mg twice daily in this single-arm, multicenter, phase IIb trial. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) by independent central review (ICR) using RECIST 1.1. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety and tolerability were also examined., Results: Sixty patients received cedi/ola, all of whom had confirmed non-gBRCAm status. Patients had received a median of four lines of chemotherapy; most (88.3%) had received prior bevacizumab. ORR by ICR was 15.3%, median PFS was 5.1 months, and median OS was 13.2 months. Forty-four (73.3%) patients reported a grade ≥3 adverse event (AE), with one patient experiencing a grade 5 AE (sepsis), considered unrelated to the study treatment. Dose interruptions, reductions, and discontinuations due to AEs occurred in 55.0%, 18.3%, and 18.3% of patients, respectively. Patients with high global loss of heterozygosity (gLOH) had ORR of 26.7% [4/15; 95% confidence interval (CI), 7.8-55.1], while ORR was 12.5% (4/32; 95% CI, 3.5-29.0) in the low gLOH group., Conclusions: Clinical activity was shown for the cedi/ola combination in heavily pretreated, non-gBRCAm, platinum-resistant patients with ovarian cancer despite failing to meet the target ORR of 20%, highlighting a need for further biomarker studies., (©2022 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: In a phase III, randomised, active-controlled study (EMPOWER-Cervical 1/GOG-3016/ENGOT-cx9; R2810-ONC-1676; NCT03257267) and cemiplimab significantly improved survival versus investigator's choice of chemotherapy among patients with recurrent cervical cancer who had progressed on platinum-based therapy. Here we report patient-reported outcomes in this pivotal study., Methods: Patients were randomised 1:1 to open-label cemiplimab (350 mg intravenously every 3 weeks) or investigator's choice of chemotherapy in 6-week cycles. Patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 during cycles 1-16. Least-squares mean changes from baseline in global health status (GHS)/quality of life (QoL) and physical functioning (PF) were secondary end-points in the statistical hierarchy., Results: Of 608 patients (304/arm), 77.8% patients had squamous cell carcinoma and 22.2% patients had adenocarcinoma. Questionnaire completion rates were ∼90% throughout. In the squamous cell carcinoma population, overall between-group differences statistically significantly favoured cemiplimab in GHS/QoL (8.49; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.77-13.21; P = 0.0003) and PF (8.35; 95% CI: 4.08-12.62; P &lt; 0.0001). Treatment differences favoured cemiplimab in both histologic populations by cycle 2. Overall changes from baseline in most functioning and symptom scales favoured cemiplimab, with clinically meaningful treatment differences in role functioning, appetite loss and pain in both populations. The sensitivity analyses, responder analyses and time to definitive deterioration favoured cemiplimab in both populations., Conclusions: Cemiplimab conferred favourable differences in GHS/QoL and PF compared with chemotherapy among patients with recurrent cervical cancer, with benefits in PF by cycle 2, and clinically meaningful differences favouring cemiplimab in role functioning, appetite loss, and pain., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: A.O. reports serving on advisory boards for Roche, AstraZeneca, MSD/Merck, PharmaMar, Clovis Oncology, Tesaro, Immunogen, Genmab, Mersana Therapeutic, GSK, SUTRO, AGENUS and Deciphera Pharmaceuticals; and support for travel or accommodation from Roche, AstraZeneca and PharmaMar. B.J.M. reports consulting honoraria from Aravive, Asymmetric Therapeutics, Boston Biomedical, ChemoCare, ChemoID, Circulogene, Conjupro Biotherapeutics, Eisai, Geistlich, Genmab/Seattle Genetics, Gynecologic Oncology Group Foundation, Immunogen, Immunomedics, Incyte, Laekna Health Care, Mateon/Oxigene, Merck, Mersana, Myriad, Nucana, Oncomed, Oncoquest, Oncosec, Perthera, Pfizer, Precision Oncology, Puma, Regeneron, Samumed, Takeda, VBL and Vigeo; and consulting or speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Janssen/Johnson & Johnson, Roche/Genentech and Tesaro/GSK. I.V. reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Elevar Therapeutics, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Oncoinvent; and contracted research from Genmab and Hoffmann-La Roche. A.C.M. has served on advisory boards for Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Libbs; has received support for travel or accommodation from AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Roche; and reports institutional research grant support from Clovis Oncology, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Novartis, Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Lilly, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi and Pfizer. Y.M.K. reports ownership of stock at Johnson & Johnson and Genolution for self and spouse; consulting or advisory role at Merck Sharp & Dohme; and research funding from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Roche. A.S.L., V.S., H.S.K., E.A.G., F.D. and C.-L.C. declare no conflict of interest. S.T. reports honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Bayer, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Chugai Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan, Ono Pharmaceutical, Nihonkayaku, Pfizer and Lilly Japan; advisory role at Bayer; research funding from Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi, Eisai, Bayer, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Chugai Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Ono Pharmaceutical, PharmaMar and Pfizer/EMD Serono; and travel, accommodation and expenses from Daiichi Sankyo and Novartis. J.L., M.M., M.G.F., I.L., J.H. and C.C. are employees and shareholders of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. C.I. and M.R. report employment at IQVIA and institutional research funding from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. P.R.L. is an employee of, and may hold shares and stock options in Sanofi. K.T. reports honoraria from Tesaro and Clovis Oncology; consulting or advisory roles for Genentech, Tesaro, Clovis and AstraZeneca; serving on a speaker's bureau for Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck, Tesaro and Clovis; institutional research funding from AbbVie, Genentech, Morphotek, Merck and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and travel, accommodation and expenses from Genentech., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The status of p53 in a tumor can be inferred by next-generation sequencing (NGS) or by immunohistochemistry (IHC). We examined the association between p53 IHC and sequence and whether p53 IHC alone, or integrated with TP53 NGS, predicts the outcome., Methods: From GOG-86P, a randomized phase II study of chemotherapy combined with either bevacizumab or temsirolimus in advanced endometrial cancer, 213 cases had p53 protein expression data measured by IHC and TP53 NGS data. An analysis was designed to integrate p53 expression by IHC with the presence or absence of a TP53 mutation. These variables were further correlated with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab arms versus the chemotherapy plus temsirolimus arm., Results: In the analysis of p53 IHC, the most striking treatment effect favoring bevacizumab was in cases where p53 was overexpressed (PFS hazard ratio [HR]: 0.46, 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.88; OS HR: 0.31, 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.62). On integrated analysis, patients with TP53 missense mutations and p53 protein overexpression had a similar treatment effect on PFS (HR: 0.41, 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.83) and OS (HR: 0.28, 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.59) favoring bevacizumab plus chemotherapy relative to temsirolimus plus chemotherapy. Concordance between TP53 NGS and p53 IHC was 88%. Concordance was 92% when cases with TP53 mutations and POLE mutations or mismatch repair deficiency were removed., Conclusion: IHC for p53 alone or when integrated with sequencing for TP53 identifies a specific, high-risk tumor genotype/phenotype for which bevacizumab is particularly beneficial in improving outcomes when combined with chemotherapy.

Objective: Patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) alive without progression at a landmark time-point of 10 years from diagnosis are likely cured. We report the proportion of patients with Stage III EOC who were long-term disease-free survivors (LTDFS≥10 years) following either intraperitoneal (IP) or intravenous (IV) chemotherapy as well as the predictors of LTDFS., Methods: Data from 3 mature NRG/GOG trials (104, 114, 172) were analyzed and included demographics, clinicopathologic details, route of administration, and survival outcomes of patients living ≥10 years assessed according to the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox regression survival analysis was performed to evaluate independent prognostic predictors of LTDFS., Results: Of 1174 patients randomized, 10-year overall survival (OS) was 26% (95% CI, 23-28%) and LTDFS ≥10 years was 18% (95% CI, 16-20%). Patients with LTDFS ≥10 years had a median age of 54.6 years (p < 0.001). Younger age (p < 0.001) was the only independent prognostic factor for LTDFS≥10 years on multivariate Cox analysis., Conclusions: Approximately 18% of patients were LTDFS ≥10 years. They form the tail end of the survival curve and are likely cured. Our results provide a comparative benchmark to evaluate the impact of PARP inhibitors in 1st line maintenance trials on survival outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest MF reports honoraria from Astra Zeneca;GSK;Novartis;MSD;Takeda;Lilly;Eisei for advisory boards/consulting.Speaker fees from Astra Zeneca;GSK and MSD. Institutional research funding from Astra Zeneca;Novartis and Beigene. Travel expenses for Astra Zeneca. The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure Brittany Davidson reports receiving funding from GSK. Robert Wenham reports money was paid to his institution (Gynecologic Oncology Group Block Grant). Yovanni Casablanca reports receiving funding from AstraZeneca and owns stock in Regeneron and Pfizer. Nick M. Spirtos reports money was paid to his institution from the NRG/GOG Foundation. They receive per-capita reimbursement that does not cover their costs and have received such monies for the last 30 years. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest.

Purpose: This phase III randomized trial (NCT00954174) tested the null hypothesis that paclitaxel and carboplatin (PC) is inferior to paclitaxel and ifosfamide (PI) for treating uterine carcinosarcoma (UCS)., Patients and Methods: Adults with chemotherapy-naïve UCS or ovarian carcinosarcoma (OCS) were randomly assigned to PC or PI with 3-week cycles for 6-10 cycles. With 264 events in patients with UCS, the power for an overall survival (OS) hybrid noninferiority design was 80% for a null hazard ratio (HR) of 1.2 against a 13% greater death rate on PI with a type I error of 5% for a one-tailed test., Results: The study enrolled 536 patients with UCS and 101 patients with OCS, with 449 and 90 eligible, respectively. Primary analysis was on patients with UCS, distributed as follows: 40% stage I, 6% stage II, 31% stage III, 15% stage IV, and 8% recurrent. Among eligible patients with UCS, PC was assigned to 228 and PI to 221. PC was not inferior to PI. The median OS was 37 versus 29 months (HR = 0.87; 90% CI, 0.70 to 1.075; P < .01 for noninferiority, P > .1 for superiority). The median progression-free survival was 16 versus 12 months (HR = 0.73; P = < 0.01 for noninferiority, P < .01 for superiority). Toxicities were similar, except that more patients in the PC arm had hematologic toxicity and more patients in the PI arm had confusion and genitourinary hemorrhage. Among 90 eligible patients with OCS, those in the PC arm had longer OS (30 v 25 months) and progression-free survival (15 v 10 months) than those in the PI arm, but with limited precision, these differences were not statistically significant., Conclusion: PC was not inferior to the active regimen PI and should be standard treatment for UCS., Competing Interests: Matthew A. Powell Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, GOG partners, Seattle Genetics, GlaxoSmithKline/Tesaro Research Funding: GlaxoSmithKline/Tesaro (Inst) Virginia L. Filiaci Other Relationship: GOG Foundation Martee L. Hensley Employment: Sanofi (I) Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Sanofi (I) Consulting or Advisory Role: Lilly, Tesaro, GlaxoSmithKline, Thrive, An Exact Sciences Company Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: author, UpToDate Kathleen N. Moore Honoraria: Research To Practice, Prime Oncology, Physicans' Education Resource, Great Debates and Updates Consulting or Advisory Role: Genentech/Roche, Immunogen, AstraZeneca, TESARO (Inst), VBL Therapeutics, Merck, Aravive, Eisai, Vavotar Life Sciences, Mersana (Inst), Myriad Genetics, Alkermes (Inst), Blueprint Pharmaceuticals (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline/Tesaro (Inst), I-Mab (Inst), InxMed (Inst), Mereo BioPharma (Inst) Research Funding: PTC Therapeutics (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Merck (Inst), Tesaro (Inst), Genentech (Inst), Clovis Oncology (Inst), Lilly Foundation (Inst), Regeneron (Inst), Advaxis (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Verastem (Inst), Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Agenus (Inst), Takeda (Inst), Forty Seven (Inst), Stemcentrx (Inst), Immunogen (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Novogen (Inst), AbbVie/Stemcentrx (Inst) Other Relationship: GOG Partners (Inst) Krishnansu S. Tewari Honoraria: Tesaro, Clovis Oncology, Merck, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Genmab Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, Tesaro, Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca Speakers' Bureau: Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck, Tesaro, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Genmab Research Funding: AbbVie (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst), Morphotek (Inst), Merck (Inst), Regeneron (Inst) Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche/Genentech Larry J. Copeland Consulting or Advisory Role: Tarveda Therapeutics, Tarveda Therapeutics, Myriad Genetics, GlaxoSmithKline, Elevar Therapeutics, Toray Industries, Rubius Therapeutics, Sorrento Therapeutics, Celsion, Corcept Therapeutics Angeles Secord Honoraria: Myriad Genetics Research Funding: Tesaro (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Genentech (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), AbbVie (Inst), Merck (Inst), PharmaMar (Inst), Clovis Oncology (Inst), Eisai (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), Immutep (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), VBL Therapeutics (Inst), OncoQuest Pharmaceuticals (Inst) Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: GlaxoSmithKline Uncompensated Relationships: Roche/Genentech, VBL Therapeutics, GOG Foundation, OncoQuest Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron, Aravive David G. Mutch Consulting or Advisory Role: Lilly Alessandro Santin Consulting or Advisory Role: Merck, Tesaro Research Funding: Tesaro (Inst), Merck (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Gilead Sciences (Inst), Puma Biotechnology (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst), R-Pharm (Inst), Immunomedics (Inst) Nick M. Spirtos Research Funding: AbbVie (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst), Clovis Oncology (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst) Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Application No. PCT/US 2019/19465, Cannabis Based Therapeutic and Method of Use; Application No.: US Patent 0024098766, Compounds Cannabidiol and Flavanones, 63/047550 (July 1, 2020) 63/055458 (July 23, 2020), Title Country Status Filed Date Application No. Patent Ref. No. 199236-701611/EP, Title: Cannabis Based Therapeutic and Method of Use Country, European Patent Status: Published February 25, 2019, 19710540.6; Patent Ref. No. 199236-701691/PCT-BR, Title: Cannabis Based Therapeutic and Method of Use Country Brazil Status: Application February 25, 2019, 1120200170232; Patent Ref. No. 199236-701831/PCT-US, Title: Cannabis Based Therapeutic and Method of Use Country United States of America Status: Published February 25, 2019, 16/971,781; Patent Ref. No. 199236-701891/HK, Title: Cannabis Based Therapeutic and Method of Use Country Hong Kong Status: Published June 25, 2021, 62021033676.9; Patent Ref. No. Title Country Status Filed Date; Application No. Patent Ref. No. 199237-701601/PCT, Title: Compositions Comprising Cannabidiol and Flavanones Country: Patent Cooperation Treaty Status: Application July 1, 2021, PCT/US21/40115; Patent Ref. No. 199237-701691/BR, Title: Compositions Comprising Cannabidiol and Flavanones Country: Brazil Status: Application November 19, 2020, 1020200236644; Patent Ref. No. 199237-7019761/UY, Title: Compositions Comprising and Flavanones Country: Uruguay Status: Application November 20, 2020, 38965, John Wiley and Sons Editor 12th Edition Bonney's Gynaecological Surgery Open Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/8054, https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/8054 Paul A. DiSilvestro Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Agenus Research Funding: Janssen Oncology (Inst), Tesaro (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Genentech (Inst), AbbVie (Inst) David S. Miller Consulting or Advisory Role: Genentech, Tesaro, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Guardant Health, Janssen Oncology, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Incyte, Guardant Health, Janssen, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Clovis Oncology, Merck Sharp & Dohme (Inst), Asymmetric Therapeutics, Boston Biomedical Research Institute, Tarveda Therapeutics, Myriad Genetic Laboratories, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, Incyte, EMD Serono, Seattle Genetics, Clinical Education Alliance, LLC, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, iTeos Belgium SA, Novocure, Novartis, Immunogen, Agenus Speakers' Bureau: Clovis Oncology, Genentech Research Funding: US Biotest (Inst), Advenchen Laboratories (Inst), Tesaro (Inst), Xenetic Biosciences (Inst), Advaxis (Inst), Janssen (Inst), Aeterna Zentaris (Inst), TRACON Pharma (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Immunogen (Inst), Mateon Therapeutics (Inst), Merck Sharp & Dohme (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Millennium Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Aprea AB (Inst), Regeneron (Inst), NVision (Inst), Leap Therapeutics (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Syros Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Karyopharm Therapeutics (Inst), Agenus (Inst), Akesobio (Inst), EMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Incyte (Inst)No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Background: Patients with recurrent cervical cancer have a poor prognosis. Cemiplimab, the fully human programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)-blocking antibody approved to treat lung and skin cancers, has been shown to have preliminary clinical activity in this population., Methods: In this phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients who had disease progression after first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy, regardless of their programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status. Women were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive cemiplimab (350 mg every 3 weeks) or the investigator's choice of single-agent chemotherapy. The primary end point was overall survival. Progression-free survival and safety were also assessed., Results: A total of 608 women were enrolled (304 in each group). In the overall trial population, median overall survival was longer in the cemiplimab group than in the chemotherapy group (12.0 months vs. 8.5 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 0.84; two-sided P<0.001). The overall survival benefit was consistent in both histologic subgroups (squamous-cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma [including adenosquamous carcinoma]). Progression-free survival was also longer in the cemiplimab group than in the chemotherapy group in the overall population (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.89; two-sided P<0.001). In the overall population, an objective response occurred in 16.4% (95% CI, 12.5 to 21.1) of the patients in the cemiplimab group, as compared with 6.3% (95% CI, 3.8 to 9.6) in the chemotherapy group. An objective response occurred in 18% (95% CI, 11 to 28) of the cemiplimab-treated patients with PD-L1 expression greater than or equal to 1% and in 11% (95% CI, 4 to 25) of those with PD-L1 expression of less than 1%. Overall, grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 45.0% of the patients who received cemiplimab and in 53.4% of those who received chemotherapy., Conclusions: Survival was significantly longer with cemiplimab than with single-agent chemotherapy among patients with recurrent cervical cancer after first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy. (Funded by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi; EMPOWER-Cervical 1/GOG-3016/ENGOT-cx9 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03257267.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Objective: In the Phase 3 VELIA trial (NCT02470585), veliparib added to carboplatin plus paclitaxel concomitantly and as maintenance for women with newly-diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus chemotherapy alone. Here we present exploratory analyses by paclitaxel dosing schedule and germline BRCA (gBRCA) status., Methods: Women with untreated ovarian carcinoma were randomized (1:1:1) to: veliparib during chemotherapy and maintenance (veliparib-throughout), veliparib during chemotherapy followed by placebo maintenance (veliparib-combination only), or placebo during chemotherapy and maintenance (control). Chemotherapy included carboplatin plus dose-dense (DD; weekly) or every-3-week (Q3W) paclitaxel (a stratification factor at randomization), selected at the investigator's discretion pre-randomization. PFS was assessed by paclitaxel dosing schedule using a Cox proportional hazard model adjusted by treatment arm and stratification factors; safety was analyzed based on paclitaxel dosing schedule and gBRCA status., Results: 1132 patients were analyzed by paclitaxel schedule. Pooled treatment arms demonstrated longer median PFS with DD (n = 586) versus Q3W (n = 546) paclitaxel (ITT: 20.5 vs 15.7 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0.77; homologous recombination proficient cancer: 15.1 vs 11.8 months, HR 0.64; BRCAwt: 18.0 vs 12.9 months, HR 0.70). Comparison between arms favored veliparib-throughout versus control in both DD (PFS, 24.2 vs 18.3 months, hazard ratio 0.67) and Q3W (19.3 vs 14.6, hazard ratio 0.69) subgroups. DD paclitaxel was associated with higher incidence of Grade 3/4 neutropenia, fatigue, and anemia versus Q3W. There were no differences in toxicity between gBRCAm (n = 211) and gBRCAwt (n = 902) subgroups., Conclusions: DD paclitaxel was tolerable and associated with longer PFS in the HR proficient and gBRCAwt groups, versus Q3W. gBRCA status did not impact safety., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: A mass cervical cancer screening using World Health Organization-endorsed visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) and cryotherapy triage was conducted over 5 days at Nansio District Hospital on Ukerewe Island, Tanzania in Lake Victoria. The aim was to evaluate the feasibility of a pilot screen-and-treat on a lower resource island and compare the results to previously held screen-and-treats in higher resource mainland settings., Recent Findings: Two hundred and eight-two women underwent VIA on Ukerewe Island during July 2017. The frequency of abnormal VIA screens was nearly twice that observed on the mainland in 2016 (18.4% vs 10.7%, respectively; P = 0.0091). Island women had lower rates of grand multiparity (19.8% vs 26.8%, P = 0.02) and more island women did not know their HIV status (80% vs 50%, P < 0.0001). Overall, 31% of abnormal VIA screens occurred among women under 30 years between the two sites. Due to the cost of transporting CO2 tanks, cryotherapy was nearly twice as expensive on the island as compared to the mainland., Summary: Although transfer of an entire pilot screen-and-treat program to Ukerewe Island is feasible and well-received, expenses associated with ferrying equipment may be prohibitive to long-term sustainability. Higher VIA positivity rates were observed on the island., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Age and ethnicity are among several factors that influence overall survival (OS) in ovarian cancer. The study objective was to determine whether ethnicity and age were of prognostic significance in women enrolled in a clinical trial evaluating the addition of bevacizumab to front-line therapy., Methods: Women with advanced stage ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer were enrolled in a phase III clinical trial. All women had surgical staging and received adjuvant chemotherapy with one of three regimens. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the relationship between OS with age and race/ethnicity among the study participants., Results: One-thousand-eight-hundred-seventy-three women were enrolled in the study. There were 280 minority women and 328 women over the age of 70. Women age 70 and older had a 34% increase risk for death when compared to women under 60 (HR = 1.34; 95% CI 1.16-1.54). Non-Hispanic Black women had a 54% decreased risk of death with the addition of maintenance bevacizumab (HR = 0.46, 95% CI:0.26-0.83). Women of Asian descent had more hematologic grade 3 or greater adverse events and a 27% decrease risk of death when compared to non-Hispanic Whites (HR = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.59-0.90)., Conclusions: Non-Hispanic Black women showed a decreased risk of death with the addition of bevacizumab and patients of Asian ancestry had a lower death rate than all other minority groups, but despite these clinically meaningful improvements there was no statistically significant difference in OS among the groups., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Introduction: Chemotherapy plus radiation (Cis-RT + CP) did not demonstrate superiority in prolonging relapse-free survival compared to chemotherapy alone in patients with stage III or IVA endometrial carcinoma. The impact of treatment on quality of life (QOL), neurotoxicity (NTX) and psychometric properties of the gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms subscale during treatment and up to 1 year are described herein., Methods: QOL assessments were scheduled at baseline, 6 weeks (post completion of RT (Cis-RT + CP) or prior to cycle 3 (CP)), then 18 weeks (end of treatment) and 70 weeks (1 year after the end of treatment) after starting treatment. QOL instruments included the FACT-En TOI, FACT/GOG-neurotoxicity (Ntx) subscale (short), and the gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms subscale., Results: At the end of treatment, patients receiving Cis-RT + CP reported a statistically significant decreased QOL when compared to CP. The decline in QOL was reflected in physical well-being, functional well-being, and endometrial cancer specific concerns, but the minimally important differences (MID) were not considered clinically meaningful. Patients in both groups reported increased chemotherapy-induced Ntx symptoms with the CP group having worse scores and reaching peak symptoms at the time of chemotherapy completion. Patients on Cis-RT + CP reported statistically significantly worse GI symptoms after radiation therapy compared to patients on CP, this occurred across assessment intervals, though the MID was not meaningful. Psychometric evaluations indicated that the GI symptom scale is reliable, valid, and responsive to change., Conclusions: PROs indicate that the chemoradiotherapy group experienced worse HRQoL and GI toxicity compared to patients randomized to chemotherapy alone for locally advanced endometrial cancer though based on the MID, these were not clinically meaningful differences. The GI symptom subscale was a reliable and valid scale that has value for future trials., Trial Registration: NCT00942357., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. Matulonis reports receiving consulting fees received from Merck, Novartis, Blueprint Medicine and Next Cure as well as participating on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Symphogen and Advaxis. Ms. Helen Huang, Dr. Marcus Randall, Dr. Paul DiSilvestro, Dr. Fowler, Dr. Powell, Dr. Dr. Spirtos, Dr. Tewari, Dr. Nakayama, Dr. Mutch have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Virginia L. Filiaci reports receiving support for the present manuscript from NCTN and NCORP SDMC grant funding from the NIH/NCI. She also reports grants from GOG Foundation, Inc. for contracts with institution for clinical trial work and NCI/NIH for IOTN, BIQSFP, MP2PRT and miscellaneous other subcontracts. Dr. Filiaci also reports receiving support for attending IDMC meeting from VBL Therapeutics as well as participating on Advisory Board for Tesaro. Monitoring Board. Dr. Katherine Moxley reports P20 grant to University of Oklahoma for Drug Resistance Core from the NIH as well as support for travel to attend NRG Oncology 2019 Winter and Summer meetings. Additionally, Dr. Moxley reports serving in a Leadership role for the SGO Program Committee. Dr. David Miller reports grants received from EMD Serono Research and Development Institute to him as well as grants to his Institution from the following entities: US Biotest, Advenchen Laboratories, Tesaro, Xenetic Biosciences, Advaxis, Janssen, Aeterna Zentaris, TRACON Pharma, Pfizer, Immunogen, Mateon Therapeutics, Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca, Millenium Pharmaceuticals, Aprea AB, Regeneron, NVision, Leap Therapeutics, Novartis, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Agenus and Akesobio. Dr. Miller also personally received consulting fees from the following: Genentech, Tesaro, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Guardant Health, Janssen Oncology, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Incyte, Guardant Health, Janssen, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Clovis Oncology, Asymmetric Therapeutics, LLC, Boston Biomedical Research Institute, Tarveda Therapeutics, Myriad Genetic Laboratories Inc., GlaxoSmithKline LLC, AbbVie Inc., Incyte, EMD Serono Inc. and Seager Inc. as well as consulting fees paid to his Institution from Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Miller also received honoraria from Clovis Oncology and Genentech. He also reports participating on an Advisory Board for Incyte. Dr. Lari Wenzel reports serving as Co-Chair of the NRG Oncology PCOR Committee. Dr. Daniela Matei reports NCI NRG Support grant received. Due to his unfortunate passing before publication, no statement is available for Dr. William Richards., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess the presentation, characteristics, and prognostic significance of symptoms in patients with high-risk early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer., Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed on all patients enrolled in a phase III clinical trial (GOG 157). All patients had surgically staged, high-risk early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (stage IA-IB and grade 3, any clear cell, stage IC or II). Chi-square and Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards models were used for statistical analyses., Results: Of 419 patients evaluated for symptoms, 301 (72%) presented with one or more symptoms, and 118 (28%) were asymptomatic but had a mass found on examination. Forty percent had only one symptom, and 32% had more than one symptom. Among those with at least one symptom, the most common were abdominal and pelvic pain (31%), and increased girth or fullness (26%). Overall, 23% of patients with tumors 10 cm or smaller, 27% of patients with tumors larger than 10 cm to 15 cm, and 46% of patients with tumors larger than 15 cm had multiple symptoms (P<.001). There was no significant difference in presentation of symptoms based on age, stage, or histologic subtype. Symptoms at diagnosis were not associated with recurrence or survival., Conclusion: More than 70% of patients with high-risk early-stage, epithelial ovarian cancer present with one or more symptoms, with the most common being abdominal or pelvic pain. The proportion of women with symptoms and the number of symptoms increase with enlarging tumor size., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure Dr. John K. Chan received funds from NRG/GOG for consortium trial participation and funds for research, consultant, and speaker bureau from AbbVie, Acerta, Aravive, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Myriad, Roche, Seagen. Bradley J. Monk is on the board for the GOG Foundation and is a paid consultant. Brittany Davidson received money from GSK. Joan L. Walker disclosed that Stephenson Cancer Center is an NRG Oncology Laps site and she is NCORP PI, but unrelated to this study. Robert Wenham received GOG funds for consortium trial participation, money from Regeneron, Tesaro/GSK, and Genentech. In the past 3 years, he has received funds from Seagen, Ovation Diagnostics, AbbVie, Clovis, AstraZeneca, Prescient Therapeutics, and Merck. Yovanni Casablanca received funding from AstraZeneca. Nick M. Spirtos received funding from John Wiley and Sons, and NRG Oncology. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Approximately 4290 women in the United States and 311,000 women worldwide died of cervical cancer in 2021. The management of advanced, recurrent, and/or metastatic cervical cancer has been a difficult and frustrating task owing to the paucity of available treatments. The year 2021 proved to be a boon for oncologists and their patients with cervical cancer, however, thanks to the release of data from KEYNOTE-826, which led to the approval of pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy, as well as the full approval of pembrolizumab alone, in the first-line setting. By January of 2022, it is likely that cemiplimab will be approved for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer. With the availability of programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibition in the first-line setting, it becomes important to discuss the future of second-line treatment, given that combination immunotherapy treatment that includes a PD-1 inhibitor after initial PD-1 treatment has been proved effective in the melanoma setting. Proposed and trialed combinations in immunotherapy include PD-1 inhibition with anti-T-cell immunoreceptor with Ig and ITIM domains (TIGIT) agents, anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) agents, and long-peptide vaccine. This review discusses the KEYNOTE-158 and KEYNOTE-826 trials of pembrolizumab, along with the EMPOWER CERVICAL 1 (R2810-ONC-1676/GOG 3016/ENGOT cx9) trial of cemiplimab and a phase 3 trial of balstilimab in cervical cancer. It also discusses the rationale for the use of immunotherapy in the cervical cancer setting, the mechanisms of action of available and currently studied immunotherapies, biomarkers for predicting and assessing response to treatment, and mechanisms of secondary tumoral escape or resistance to immunotherapy.

Aim: To evaluate visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) screening for cervical cancer among human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive patients in an East African community., Methods: During a July 2018 cervical cancer screen-and-treat in Mwanza, Tanzania, participants were offered free cervical VIA screening, cryotherapy when indicated, and HIV testing. Acetowhite lesions and/or abnormal vascularity were designated VIA positive in accordance with current guidelines. The association between VIA results and HIV status was compared using Chi-square and Fisher exact tests., Results: Eight hundred and twenty-four of 921 consented participants underwent VIA screening and 25.0% (n = 206) were VIA positive. VIA-positive nonpregnant women (n = 147) received cryotherapy and 15 (1.8%) with cancerous-appearing lesions were referred to Bugando Hospital. Sixty-six women were HIV-positive and included 25 diagnosed with HIV at the cervical cancer VIA screening and 41 with a prior diagnosis of HIV who were receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) at the time of cervical cancer VIA screening. Sixty-four of these 66 patients, were screened with VIA. HIV infection was not associated with VIA findings. Abnormal VIA positive screening was observed in 20.3% (n = 13) of HIV-positive patients and in 24.4% (n = 145) of HIV-negative patients (p = 0.508). A nonsignificant trend of higher VIA positive screens among newly diagnosed HIV patients of 26.1% (n = 6) versus patients with preexisting HIV on ART of 17.1% (n = 7) was observed (p = 0.580)., Conclusion: The unexpected lack of correlation between HIV infection and VIA positivity in a community with access to ART warrants additional research regarding the previously described role of ART in attenuating HPV-mediated neoplasia., (© 2021 Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology.)

Background: Pembrolizumab has efficacy in programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive metastatic or unresectable cervical cancer that has progressed during chemotherapy. We assessed the relative benefit of adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab., Methods: In a double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer in a 1:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab (200 mg) or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus platinum-based chemotherapy and, per investigator discretion, bevacizumab. The dual primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival, each tested sequentially in patients with a PD-L1 combined positive score of 1 or more, in the intention-to-treat population, and in patients with a PD-L1 combined positive score of 10 or more. The combined positive score is defined as the number of PD-L1-staining cells divided by the total number of viable tumor cells, multiplied by 100. All results are from the protocol-specified first interim analysis., Results: In 548 patients with a PD-L1 combined positive score of 1 or more, median progression-free survival was 10.4 months in the pembrolizumab group and 8.2 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50 to 0.77; P<0.001). In 617 patients in the intention-to-treat population, progression-free survival was 10.4 months and 8.2 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.79; P<0.001). In 317 patients with a PD-L1 combined positive score of 10 or more, progression-free survival was 10.4 months and 8.1 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.77; P<0.001). Overall survival at 24 months was 53.0% in the pembrolizumab group and 41.7% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.81; P<0.001), 50.4% and 40.4% (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.84; P<0.001), and 54.4% and 44.6% (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.84; P = 0.001), respectively. The most common grade 3 to 5 adverse events were anemia (30.3% in the pembrolizumab group and 26.9% in the placebo group) and neutropenia (12.4% and 9.7%, respectively)., Conclusions: Progression-free and overall survival were significantly longer with pembrolizumab than with placebo among patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer who were also receiving chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme; KEYNOTE-826 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03635567.)., (Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Purpose: The Groningen International Study on Sentinel nodes in Vulvar cancer (GROINSS-V)-II investigated whether inguinofemoral radiotherapy is a safe alternative to inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy (IFL) in vulvar cancer patients with a metastatic sentinel node (SN)., Methods: GROINSS-V-II was a prospective multicenter phase-II single-arm treatment trial, including patients with early-stage vulvar cancer (diameter < 4 cm) without signs of lymph node involvement at imaging, who had primary surgical treatment (local excision with SN biopsy). Where the SN was involved (metastasis of any size), inguinofemoral radiotherapy was given (50 Gy). The primary end point was isolated groin recurrence rate at 24 months. Stopping rules were defined for the occurrence of groin recurrences., Results: From December 2005 until October 2016, 1,535 eligible patients were registered. The SN showed metastasis in 322 (21.0%) patients. In June 2010, with 91 SN-positive patients included, the stopping rule was activated because the isolated groin recurrence rate in this group went above our predefined threshold. Among 10 patients with an isolated groin recurrence, nine had SN metastases > 2 mm and/or extracapsular spread. The protocol was amended so that those with SN macrometastases (> 2 mm) underwent standard of care (IFL), whereas patients with SN micrometastases (≤ 2 mm) continued to receive inguinofemoral radiotherapy. Among 160 patients with SN micrometastases, 126 received inguinofemoral radiotherapy, with an ipsilateral isolated groin recurrence rate at 2 years of 1.6%. Among 162 patients with SN macrometastases, the isolated groin recurrence rate at 2 years was 22% in those who underwent radiotherapy, and 6.9% in those who underwent IFL ( P = .011). Treatment-related morbidity after radiotherapy was less frequent compared with IFL., Conclusion: Inguinofemoral radiotherapy is a safe alternative for IFL in patients with SN micrometastases, with minimal morbidity. For patients with SN macrometastasis, radiotherapy with a total dose of 50 Gy resulted in more isolated groin recurrences compared with IFL., Competing Interests: Brian SlomovitzConsulting or Advisory Role: Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Incyte, Agenus, GlaxoSmithKline, GOG Foundation, Myriad Genetics, Merck, Eisai Ignace VergoteConsulting or Advisory Role: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Carrick Therapeutics, Deciphera, Elevar Therapeutics, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunogen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Mersana, MSD, Novocure, OCTIMET Oncology NV, Oncoinvent, Sotio, Verastem, Zentalis, Roche, MillenniumResearch Funding: Roche, Genmab, Amgen, OncoinventTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Amgen, MSD/Merck Mats BrännströmStock and Other Ownership Interests: EUGIN Sweden Martin WidschwendterStock and Other Ownership Interests: Sola Diagnostics, BreOva HealthPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Patents relevant for risk prediction or diagnosis of women's cancers Paul A. DiSilvestroConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, AgenusResearch Funding: Janssen Oncology, Tesaro, AstraZeneca, Genentech, AbbVie Robert MannelConsulting or Advisory Role: Tesaro Dorry BollResearch Funding: AstraZeneca David CibulaConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Sotio, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline Diane ProvencherConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKlineResearch Funding: AstraZeneca, AbbVie Ingo B. RunnebaumConsulting or Advisory Role: AbbVie (I), Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GlaxoSmithKline, Oncgnostics, Tesaro Preben KjølhedeResearch Funding: Leo Pharma AB Katharina E. KieserHonoraria: AstraZenecaConsulting or Advisory Role: MerckResearch Funding: AstraZeneca Nicola M. SpirtosResearch Funding: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Clovis Oncology, Seattle GeneticsPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Application No. PCT/US 2019/19465 Cannabis Based Therapeutic and Method of Use Application No, US Patent 0024098766 Compounds Cannabidiol and Flavanones 63/047550 (July 1, 2020) 63/055458 (July 23, 2020) David M. O'MalleyConsulting or Advisory Role: Janssen Oncology, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Tesaro, Novocure, AbbVie, Genentech/Roche, OncoQuest, Immunogen, GOG Foundation, Translational Genomics Research Institute, Agenus, Marker Therapeutics, Eisai, Genelux, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Tarveda Therapeutics, Leap Therapeutics, Myriad Genetics, GlaxoSmithKline, Regeneron, Sorrento Therapeutics, Rubius Therapeutics, Elevar Therapeutics, Novartis, Seagen, BBI Healthcare, Arquer Diagnostics, Toray Medical, Takeda, InxMed, Celsion, Roche Diagnostics MSAResearch Funding: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Regeneron, Immunogen, Janssen Research & Development, Clovis Oncology, EMD Serono, Ergomed, Ajinomoto, Cerulean Pharma, PharmaMar, Array BioPharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Agenus, Tesaro, TRACON Pharma, Genmab, Seattle Genetics, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Leap Therapeutics, Merck, AbbVie/Stemcentrx, AbbVie, Mersana, Eisai, BBI Healthcare, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Oncology Mario M. LeitaoHonoraria: Intuitive SurgicalConsulting or Advisory Role: Intuitive Surgical, Ethicon/Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, TakedaResearch Funding: KCITravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Intuitive Surgical Melissa A. GellerResearch Funding: Tesaro, Genentech, FATE Therapeutics, Morphotek, Bayer Karl TamussinoOther Relationship: Medtronic Daniel H. TobiasConsulting or Advisory Role: Ethicon Jayanthi S. LeaConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche Brynhildur EyjolfsdottirOther Relationship: Intuitive Surgical Krishnansu S. TewariHonoraria: Tesaro, Clovis OncologyConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, Tesaro, Clovis Oncology, AstraZenecaSpeakers' Bureau: Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck, Tesaro, Clovis OncologyResearch Funding: AbbVie, Genentech/Roche, Morphotek, Merck, RegeneronTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche/Genentech Ranjit ManchandaHonoraria: AstraZeneca Linda Van LeConsulting or Advisory Role: EyePoint Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Advarum, Neurotech, Iveric, Gemini Therapeutics, NaegisResearch Funding: GOG Partners Trial Bradley J. MonkLeadership: US OncologyHonoraria: AbbVie, Advaxis, Agenus, Akeso Biopharma, Amgen, Aravive, AstraZeneca, Asymmetric Therapeutics, Boston Biomedical, ChemoID, Clovis Oncology, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Geistlich Pharma, Genmab/Seattle Genetics, ImmunoGen, Immunomedics, Incyte, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Laekna Health Care, Merck, Mersana, Myriad Pharmaceuticals, Nucana, Oncomed, Oncoquest, Oncosec, Perthera, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, Regeneron, Roche/Genentech, Senti Biosciences, Takeda, Tarveda Therapeutics, Tesaro/GSK, Vavotar Life Sciences, Vascular Biogenics, Vigeo Therapeutics, GOG Foundation, Starton Therapeutics, Elevar Therapeutics, Novocure, Gradalis, Karyopharm TherapeuticsConsulting or Advisory Role: AbbVie, Advaxis, Agenus, Akeso Biopharma, Amgen, Aravive, AstraZeneca, Asymmetric Therapeutics, Boston Biomedical, ChemoCare, ChemoID, Clovis Oncology, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Geistlich Pharma, Genmab/Seattle Genetics, GOG Foundation, ImmunoGen, Immunomedics, Incyte, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Laekna Health Care, Merck, Mersana, Myriad Pharmaceuticals, Nucana, Oncomed, Oncoquest, Oncosec, Perthera, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, Regeneron, Roche/Genentech, Senti Biosciences, Takeda, Tarveda Therapeutics, Tesaro/GSK, Vavotar Life Sciences, Vascular Biogenics, Vigeo Therapeutics, Gradalis, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Sorrento Therapeutics, NovocureSpeakers' Bureau: Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Tesaro/GSK, MerckResearch Funding: Novartis, Amgen, Genentech, Lilly, Janssen, Array BioPharma, Tesaro, Morphotek, Pfizer, Advaxis, AstraZeneca, Immunogen, Regeneron, Nucana Carien L. CreutzbergConsulting or Advisory Role: MerckResearch Funding: Elekta, Varian Medical SystemsNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Objective: Platinum resistance, defined as the lack of response or relapse within six months of platinum-based chemotherapy, is an important determinant of survival in gynecologic cancer. We used quantitative Mass Spectrometry to identify metabolic signatures that predict platinum resistance in patients receiving chemotherapy for gynecologic cancers., Methods: In this study 47 patients with adenocarcinoma of the ovary or uterus who were candidates for carboplatin plus paclitaxel submitted blood for quantitation of metabolites and surgical specimens for the isolation 3-dimensional organoids used to measure individual patient platinum resistance, ex vivo. Results were correlated with response, time to progression and survival., Results: Of 47 patients, 27 (64.3%) achieved complete remission with a mean time to progression of 1.9 years (± 1.5), disease-free survival of 1.7 years (± 1.4) and overall survival of 2.6 years (± 1.6) and a mean cisplatin lethal concentration 50% (LC50) = 1.15 μg/ml (range 0.4-3.1). Cisplatin LC50's correlated with a non-significant decrease in complete remission (RR [95% CI] =0.76 [0.46-1.27]), diminished disease-free survival (median: 1.15 vs. 2.99 years, p = 0.038) and with biochemical signatures of 186 metabolites. Receiver operating curves (ROC) of lipid ratios, branched chain amino acids and the tryptophan to kynurenine ratio identified patients at the highest risk of relapse and death (AUC = 0.933) with a sensitivity of 92.0% and specificity of 86.0% (p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Metabolic signatures in gynecologic cancer identify patients at the highest risk of relapse and death offering new diagnostic and prognostic tools for management of the advanced gynecologic tumors., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Krishnansu S. Tewari, Robert E. Bristow, Fabio Cappuccini, Marcia B. Salzgeber, Anton M. Palma, Dirce M. L. Marchioni, Antonio A.F. Carioca, Kristine R. Penner, Jill Alldredge and Teresa Longoria have no conflicts of interest to declare. Paulo D'Amora (research grants from funding agencies: São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP); financial support for attending symposia and for educational programs: Nagourney Cancer Institute, American Association for Cancer Research, Rivkin Center; consultation: Metabolomycs, Inc.; intellectual property rights: Metabolomycs, Inc.; stockholder: Metabolomycs, Inc.). Steven S. Evans (employment: Nagourney Cancer Institute; stockholder: Metabolomycs, Inc.). Paula J. Addis-Bernard (employment: Nagourney Cancer Institute). Ismael Dale C.G. Silva (board director: Metabolomycs, Inc.; stockholder: Metabolomycs, Inc.). Robert A. Nagourney (board director: Nagourney Cancer Institute and Metabolomycs, Inc.; stockholder: Metabolomycs, Inc.). We certify that the submission is original work and is not under review at any other publication., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: New cervical cancer screening guidelines recommend primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for women age 30-65 years. Healthcare organizations are preparing to de-implement the previous recommended strategies of Pap testing or co-testing (Pap plus HPV test) and substitute primary HPV testing. However, there may be significant challenges to the replacement of this entrenched clinical practice, even with an evidence-based substitution. We sought to identify stakeholder-perceived barriers and facilitators to this substitution within a large healthcare system, Kaiser Permanente Southern California., Methods: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with clinician, administrative, and patient stakeholders regarding (a) acceptability and feasibility of the planned substitution; (b) perceptions of barriers and facilitators, with an emphasis on those related to the de-implementation/implementation cycle of substitution; and (c) perceived readiness to change. Our interview guide was informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Using a team coding approach, we developed an initial coding structure refined during iterative analysis; the data were subsequently organized thematically into domains, key themes, and sub-themes using thematic analysis, followed by framework analysis informed by CFIR., Results: We conducted 23 interviews: 5 patient and 18 clinical/administrative. Clinicians perceived that patients feel more tests equals better care, and clinicians and patients expressed fear of missed cancers ("…it'll be more challenging convincing the patient that only one test is…good enough to detect cancer."). Patients perceived practice changes resulting in "less care" are driven by the desire to cut costs. In contrast, clinicians/administrators viewed changing from two tests to one as acceptable and a workflow efficiency ("…It's very easy and half the work."). Stakeholder-recommended strategies included focusing on the increased efficacy of primary HPV testing and developing clinician talking points incorporating national guidelines to assuage "cost-cutting" fears., Conclusions: Substitution to replace an entrenched clinical practice is complex. Leveraging available facilitators is key to ease the process for clinical and administrative stakeholders-e.g., emphasizing the efficiency of going from two tests to one. Identifying and addressing clinician and patient fears regarding cost-cutting and perceived poorer quality of care is critical for substitution. Multicomponent and multilevel strategies for engagement and education will be required., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, # NCT04371887., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Purpose: The Sedlis criteria define risk factors for recurrence warranting post-hysterectomy radiation for early-stage cervical cancer; however, these factors were defined for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) at an estimated recurrence risk of ≥30%. Our study evaluates and compares risk factors for recurrence for cervical SCC compared with adenocarcinoma (AC) and develops histology-specific nomograms to estimate risk of recurrence and guide adjuvant treatment., Methods: We performed an ancillary analysis of GOG 49, 92, and 141, and included stage I patients who were surgically managed and received no neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate independent risk factors for recurrence by histology and to generate prognostic histology-specific nomograms for 3-year recurrence risk., Results: We identified 715 patients with SCC and 105 with AC; 20% with SCC and 17% with AC recurred. For SCC, lymphvascular space invasion (LVSI: HR 1.58, CI 1.12-2.22), tumor size (TS ≥4 cm: HR 2.67, CI 1.67-4.29), and depth of invasion (DOI; middle 1/3, HR 4.31, CI 1.81-10.26; deep 1/3, HR 7.05, CI 2.99-16.64) were associated with recurrence. For AC, only TS ≥4 cm, was associated with recurrence (HR 4.69, CI 1.25-17.63). For both histologies, there was an interaction effect between TS and LVSI. For those with SCC, DOI was most associated with recurrence (16% risk); for AC, TS conferred a 15% risk with negative LVSI versus a 25% risk with positive LVSI., Conclusions: Current treatment standards are based on the Sedlis criteria, specifically derived from data on SCC. However, risk factors for recurrence differ for squamous cell and adenocarcinoma of the cervix. Histology-specific nomograms accurately and linearly represent risk of recurrence for both SCC and AC tumors and may provide a more contemporary and tailored tool for clinicians to base adjuvant treatment recommendations to their patients with cervical cancer., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. Van Le reports royalties from Wolters Kluwer (as an editor of TeLinde's textbook). Dr. Huh reports money paid to him from consultancy with DYSIS. Dr. Miller reports money paid to him from consultancy with Tesaro, Eisai, Incyte, Karyopharm, and Genentech as well as money paid to his institution from Merck. He also reports money paid to his institution from grants or grants pending with nVision Medical, Advenchen, Forty Seven, Merck, Syros, and US BIOTEST. Dr. Ragab reports money paid to him from Consultancy with Regeneron. Dr. Viswanathan reports employment with money paid to her from Elsevier as the Ediotr in Chief for Seminars in Radiation Oncology. She also has an R01 NIH grant with money to her institution, and she received textbook royalties from Springer. Dr. Tewari has received money paid to him from consultancy with Clovis, Merck, Abbvie, Amgen, GSK, and Astra-Zenega, as well as payment for lectures from Clovis, Merck, Abbvie, Amgen, GSK, Astra-Zenega. Drs. Levinson, Fader, Beavis, Wolfson, Waggoner, Guntupalli, Lee, Kelly, McNally, Casablanca, Rositch, Spirtos, Wilkinson, Holman and Chris Purdy have no financial disclosures., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Balstilimab (anti-programmed death 1) and zalifrelimab (anti-CTLA-4) are two new checkpoint inhibitors that have emerged as promising investigational agents for the treatment of cervical cancer, particularly in the setting of previously-treated, recurrent/metastatic disease. Here we describe the rationale and design of RaPiDS (NCT03894215), a two-arm Phase II study evaluating the safety, tolerability and efficacy of balstilimab administered alone or in combination with zalifrelimab in patients with advanced cervical cancer who progressed after first-line, platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio. The primary end point is objective response rate, and key secondary objectives include safety, duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival and quality of life outcomes.

Purpose: Increasing measures of adiposity have been correlated with poor oncologic outcomes and a lack of response to anti-angiogenic therapies. Limited data exists on the impact of subcutaneous fat density (SFD) and visceral fat density (VFD) on oncologic outcomes. This ancillary analysis of GOG-218, evaluates whether imaging markers of adiposity were predictive biomarkers for bevacizumab (bev) use in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC)., Patients and Methods: There were 1249 patients (67%) from GOG-218 with imaging measurements. SFD and VFD were calculated utilizing Hounsfield units (HU). Proportional hazards models were used to assess the association between SFD and VFD with overall survival (OS)., Results: Increased SFD and VFD showed an increased HR for death (HR per 1-SD increase 1.12, 95% CI:1.05-1.19 p = 0.0009 and 1.13, 95% CI: 1.05-1.20 p = 0.0006 respectively). In the predictive analysis for response to bev, high VFD showed an increased hazard for death in the placebo group (HR per 1-SD increase 1.22, 95% CI: 1.09-1.37; p = 0.025). However, in the bev group there was no effect seen (HR per 1-SD increase: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.90-1.14) Median OS was 45 vs 47 months in the VFD low groups and 36 vs 42 months in the VFD high groups on placebo versus bev, respectively., Conclusion: High VFD and SFD have a negative prognostic impact on patients with EOC. High VFD appears to be a predictive marker of bev response and patients with high VFD may be more likely to benefit from initial treatment with bev., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Megan Buechel: No conflicts of interest. Danielle Enserro: No conflicts of interest. Robert A. Burger: Served as a consultant for Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Tesaro, Clovis Oncology, Genentech, Immunogen, Agenus, Gradalis, Janssen Research & Development, Merck, and VBL Therapeutics. Mark F. Brady: No conflicts of interest. Katrina Wade: No conflicts of interest. Angeles Alvarez Secord: Recieved clinical trial grant funding from AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas Pharma Inc., Astex Pharmaceuticals Inc., Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis, Eisai, Endocyte, Exelixis, Immutep Ltd., Incyte, Merck, PharmaMar, Roche/Genentech, Seattle Genetics, Inc., Tesaro/GSK, and VBL Therapeutics; honoraria for Advisory Boards from Aravive, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Cordgenics, Eisai, Janssen/Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Mersana, Oncoquest, Roche/Genentech, and Tesaro/GSK; participated on Steering Committees for OVAL and AtTend clinical trials (uncompensated); and is a member of GOG Foundation Board of Directors within the past 36 months. Andrew B. Nixon: Receives industry funding from Genentech, MedImmune/AstraZeneca, Medpacto, Seattle Genetics, HTG Molecular Diagnostics, Tracon Pharmaceuticals, Eureka Therapeutics, Leadiant Biosciences, Acceleron Pharma, OncoMed Pharmaceuticals.Does consulting for GSK, Promega, Kanghong Pharma, Eli Lilly. Travel with Powering Precision Health. Seyedehnafiseh Mirniaharikandehei: No conflicts of interest. H. Liu: No conflicts of interest. Bin Zheng: No conflicts of interest. Heidi Gray: No conflicts of interest. Krishnansu S. Tewari: Consultant and Speaker's Bureau with Genentech/Roche, Abbvie, Essai, GSK/Tesaro, Merck, Clovis, Astra Zeneca. David M. O'Malley: Reports personal fees and institutional support for clinical research from AstraZeneca, personal fees and institutional support for clinical research from Clovis, personal fees and institutional support for clinical research from Tesaro, personal fees and institutional support for clinical research from Immunogen, personal fees from Ambry, personal fees and institutional support for clinical research from Janssen/J&J, personal fees and institutional support for clinical research from Abbvie, personal fees and institutional support for clinical research from Regeneron, personal fees and institutional support for clinical research from Amgen, personal fees and institutional support for clinical research from Novocure, personal fees and institutional support for clinical research from Genentech/Roche, institutional support for clinical research from VentiRx, institutional support for clinical research from Array Biopharma, institutional support for clinical research from EMD Serono, institutional support for clinical research from Ergomed, institutional support for clinical research from Ajinomoto Inc., institutional support for clinical research from Ludwig Cancer Research, institutional support or clinical research from Stemcentrx, Inc., institutional support for clinical research from CERULEAN PHARMA, personal fees and institutional support for clinical research from GOG Foundation, institutional support for clinical research from Bristol-Myers Squibb Co, institutional support for clinical research from Serono Inc., institutional support for clinical research from TRACON Pharmaceuticals, institutional support for clinical research from Yale University, institutional support for clinical researchfrom New Mexico Cancer Care Alliance, institutional support for clinical researchfrom INC Research, Inc., institutional support for clinical researchfrom inVentiv Health Clinical, institutional support for clinical researchfrom Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc., institutional support for clinical research from PRA Intl, personal fees from Myriad Genetics, personal fees and institutional support for clinical research from Eisai, personal fees and institiional support from Agenus, personal fees and institutional support for clinical research from GSK, personal fees from Tarveda, personal fees and institutional support for clinical research from Merck. Robert S. Mannel: Has received honorarium from Tesaro for an Advisory Board. Michael J. Birrer: No conflicts of interest. Kathleen N. Moore: Advisory board participation for Abbvie, Aravive, Astra Zeneca, Clovis, Eisai, Genentech/Roche, GSK/Tesaro, Immunogen, Merck, Mersana, Tarveda, VBL Therapeutics, Vavotar. Her institution receives research funding from PTC Therapeutics, Merck, Genentech/Roche., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction : Approximately 300,000 women worldwide are diagnosed each year with ovarian cancer. Frequently diagnosed in late stages with ambiguous symptomatology, ovarian cancer has a low survival rate. Areas covered : Niraparib, a PARP inhibitor, was approved in 2020 for use in the maintenance treatment of ovarian cancer regardless of biomarker status. Included in the review are PRIMA (NCT02655016), NOVA (NCT01847274), AVANOVA2 (NCT02354131), and QUADRA (NCT02354586) trials which herald the advent of using maintenance oral therapies in the treatment of ovarian cancer. Additionally, with new combination drug trials, exciting avenues for treatment are also discussed with the FIRST (NCT03016338) trial. Expert opinion : Maintenance niraparib treatment regardless of genetic profile offers a new modality for the treatment of ovarian cancer with a low side effect profile and importantly oral dosing. New combinations of synergistic immunotherapeutics, and antiangiogenesis therapies with niraparib also offer exciting new frontiers for patients with ovarian cancer.

Objective: Report the results from a preplanned interim analysis of a phase III, double blind, randomized controlled study of ofranergene obadenovec (VB-111), a targeted anti-cancer gene therapy, in combination with paclitaxel in patients with platinum resistant ovarian cancer (PROC)., Methods: The OVAL (NCT03398655) study is an on-going study where patients are randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m 2 with VB-111 or placebo. The protocol specifies a pre-planned unblinded futility interim analysis of CA-125 response per GCIG criteria in the first 60 evaluable patients. The futility rule determined for this analysis was that the response rate of VB-111 must be greater than the response rate of placebo by at least 10% in order to continue the study. Coincident with the interim analysis, the blinded CA-125 response rate was estimated as a proportion of the first 60 evaluable patients with CA-125 response per GCIG criteria. Post-treatment fever is provided as a possible surrogate marker of VB-111 therapy activity., Results: The median age of the evaluable patients was 62 years (range 41-82); 97% had high-grade serous cancer; 58% had been treated with 3 or more previous lines of therapy, 70% received prior anti-angiogenic treatment, 43% received prior PARP inhibitors. CA-125 response in the VB-111 and weekly paclitaxel treated arm met the pre-specified interim criterion of an absolute advantage of 10% or higher compared to the control. Blinded results show a 53% CA-125 response rate (32/60) with 15% complete response (n=9). Assuming balanced randomization and an absolute advantage of 10% or higher to the VB-111 arm, it may be deducted that the response in the VB-111 treatment arm is 58% or higher. Among patients with post-treatment fever, the CA-125 response rate was 69%., Conclusions: At the time of the interim analysis, response rate findings are comparable to the responses seen in a similar patient population in the phase I/II study. The independent data and safety monitoring committee (iDSMC) recommended continuing the OVAL trial as planned. No new safety signals were identified., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Successfully combining targeted agents with chemotherapy is an important future goal for cancer therapy. However, an improvement in patient outcomes requires an enhanced understanding of the tumor biomarkers that predict for drug sensitivity. NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) Study GOG-86P was one of the first attempts to combine targeted agents (bevacizumab or temsirolimus) with chemotherapy in patients with advanced endometrial cancer. Herein we performed exploratory analyses to examine the relationship between mutations in TP53, the most commonly mutated gene in cancer, with outcomes on GOG-86P., Methods: TP53 mutational status was determined and correlated with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) on GOG-86P., Results: Mutations in TP53 were associated with improved PFS and OS for patients that received bevacizumab as compared to temsirolimus (PFS: HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.31, 0.75; OS: HR: 0.61, 95% CI 0.38, 0.98). By contrast, there was no statistically significant difference in PFS or OS between arms for cases with WT TP53., Conclusions: This exploratory study suggests that combining chemotherapy with bevacizumab, but not temsirolimus, may enhance PFS and OS for patients whose tumors harbor mutant p53. These data set the stage for larger clinical studies evaluating the potential of TP53 mutational status as a biomarker to guide choice of treatment for endometrial cancer patients. Clintrials.gov: NCT00977574., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Kimberly K. Leslie: Dr. Leslie attests that she has no conflicts of interest. Virginia L. Filiaci: Dr. Filiaci is supported by institutional grants from NIH during the conduct of the study; Institutional contracts from GOG Foundation, Inc. outside the submitted work. Adrianne R. Mallen: Dr. Mallen reports no conflicts of interest. Kristina W. Thiel: Dr. Thiel is a co-founder of and holds equity in Immortagen, Inc. Eric J. Devor: Dr. Devor reports no conflict of interest. Katherine Moxley: Dr. Moxley attests that she has nothing to declare. Debra Richardson: Dr. Richardson reports that she serves on Advisory Boards for Genentech, Tesaro/GSK, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Deciphera, Mersana and Foundation Medicine. David Mutch: Dr. Mutch attests that he has no conflicts of interest. Angeles Alvarez Secord(:) Dr. Alvarez Secord discloses clinical trial grant funding received from AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas Pharma Inc., Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis, Eisai, Exelixis, Immutep Ltd., Incyte, Merck, PharmaMar, Roche/Genentech, Seattle Genetics, Inc., Tesaro/GSK, VBL Therapeutics and National Cancer Trial Network. Dr. Alvarez Secord has also received honoraria for Advisory Boards from Aravive, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Cordgenics, Eisai, Merck, Myriad, Oncoquest, Roche/Genentech and Tesaro/GSK within the past 24 months. Krishnansu S Tewari: Dr. Tewari served as a consultant and attended advisory boards for the manufacturers of bevacizumab (i.e., Genentech/Roche). Megan E McDonald: Dr. McDonald has no conflicts of interest to disclose. Cara Mathews: Dr. Mathews reports grants from National Institute of Health during the conduct of the study; grants from Syros, grants from Deciphera, grants from Astra Zeneca, grants from Astellas Pharma, grants from Tesaro/GSK, grants from Seattle Genetics and grants from Regeneron outside the submitted work. Casey Cosgrove: Dr. Cosgrove attests that she has no conflicts of interest. Summer Dewdney: Dr. Dewdney attests that she has nothing to declare. Yovanni Casablanca: Dr. Casablanca reports that spouse owns shares in Celsion (biotech company), but not related to this manuscript. Amanda Jackson: Peter G Rose: Dr. Rose attests that he has no conflicts of interest. Xun Clare Zhou: - Dr. Zhou attests that she has no conflicts of interest. Michael McHale: - Dr. McHale has no conflicts of interest to report. Heather Lankes: Dr. Lankes attests that she has no conflicts of interest. Douglas Levine: - Dr. Levine reports serving in a consulting/advisory role for Tesaro/GSK, Merck. Research funding to institution from Merck, Tesaro, Clovis Oncology, Regeneron, Agenus, Takeda, Immunogen, VBL Therapeutics, Genentech, Celsion, Ambry, Splash Pharmaceuticals. Founder Nirova BioSense, Inc. Carol Aghajanian: Dr. Aghajanian reports personal fees from Tesaro, personal fees from Immunogen, grants and personal fees from Clovis, grants from Genentech, grants from AbbVie, grants from Astra Zeneca, grants from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from Eisai/Merck, personal fees from Mersana Therapeutics, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Abbvie, outside the submitted work., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)