Search

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

PURPOSEIn SOLO1/GOG 3004 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01844986), maintenance therapy with the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib provided a sustained progression-free survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 (BRCA) mutation. We report overall survival (OS) after a 7-year follow-up, a clinically relevant time point and the longest follow-up for any poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor in the first-line setting.METHODSThis double-blind phase III trial randomly assigned patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation in clinical response to platinum-based chemotherapy to maintenance olaparib (n = 260) or placebo (n = 131) for up to 2 years. A prespecified descriptive analysis of OS, a secondary end point, was conducted after a 7-year follow-up.RESULTSThe median duration of treatment was 24.6 months with olaparib and 13.9 months with placebo, and the median follow-up was 88.9 and 87.4 months, respectively. The hazard ratio for OS was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.40 to 0.76; P =.0004 [P <.0001 required to declare statistical significance]). At 7 years, 67.0% of olaparib patients versus 46.5% of placebo patients were alive, and 45.3% versus 20.6%, respectively, were alive and had not received a first subsequent treatment (Kaplan-Meier estimates). The incidence of myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukemia remained low, and new primary malignancies remained balanced between treatment groups.CONCLUSIONResults indicate a clinically meaningful, albeit not statistically significant according to prespecified criteria, improvement in OS with maintenance olaparib in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation and support the use of maintenance olaparib to achieve long-term remission in this setting; the potential for cure may also be enhanced. No new safety signals were observed during long-term follow-up.

Background: There is a high unmet need for treatment regimens that increase the chance of long-term remission and possibly cure for women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. In the primary analysis of SOLO1/GOG 3004, the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo in patients with a BRCA mutation; median progression-free survival was not reached. Here, we report an updated, post-hoc analysis of progression-free survival from SOLO1, after 5 years of follow-up. Methods: SOLO1 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, done across 118 centres in 15 countries, that enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1 and with BRCA-mutated, newly diagnosed, advanced, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer with a complete or partial clinical response after platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) via a web-based or interactive voice-response system to receive olaparib (300 mg twice daily) or placebo tablets orally as maintenance monotherapy for up to 2 years; randomisation was by blocks and was stratified according to clinical response after platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients, treatment providers, and data assessors were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Efficacy is reported in the intention-to-treat population and safety in patients who received at least one dose of treatment. The data cutoff for this updated, post-hoc analysis was March 5, 2020. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01844986) and is ongoing but closed to new participants. Findings: Between Sept 3, 2013, and March 6, 2015, 260 patients were randomly assigned to olaparib and 131 to placebo. The median treatment duration was 24·6 months (IQR 11·2–24·9) in the olaparib group and 13·9 months (8·0–24·8) in the placebo group; me

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

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

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

PURPOSE To evaluate the addition of the humanized monoclonal antiprogrammed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) antibody, atezolizumab, to platinum-based chemotherapy and bevacizumab in newly diagnosed stage III or IV ovarian cancer (OC). METHODS This multicenter placebo-controlled double-blind randomized phase III trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03038100) enrolled patients with newly diagnosed untreated International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III or IV OC who either had undergone primary cytoreductive surgery with macroscopic residual disease or were planned to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval surgery. Patients were stratified by FIGO stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, tumor immune cell PD-L1 staining, and treatment strategy and randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 3-weekly cycles of atezolizumab 1,200 mg or placebo (day 1, cycles 1-22), with paclitaxel plus carboplatin (day 1, cycles 1-6) plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg (day 1, cycles 2-22), omitting perioperative bevacizumab in neoadjuvant patients. The co-primary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival in the intention-to-treat and PD-L1-positive populations. RESULTS Between March 8, 2017, and March 26, 2019, 1,301 patients were enrolled. The median progression-free survival was 19.5 versus 18.4 months with atezolizumab versus placebo, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.07; stratified log-rank P 5.28), in the intention-to-treat population and 20.8 versus 18.5 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.99; P 5.038), in the PD-L1-positive population. The interim (immature) overall survival results showed no significant benefit from atezolizumab. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (21% with atezolizumab v 21% with placebo), hypertension (18% v 20%, respectively), and anemia (12% v 12%). CONCLUSION Current evidence does not support the use of immune checkpoint

Objectives: In the phase III SOLO1 trial (NCT01844986), maintenance olaparib provided a substantial progression-free survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation who were in response after platinum-based chemotherapy. We analyzed the timing, duration and grade of the most common hematologic and non-hematologic adverse events in SOLO1. Methods: Eligible patients were randomized to olaparib tablets 300 mg twice daily (N = 260) or placebo (N = 131), with a 2-year treatment cap in most patients. Safety outcomes were analyzed in detail in randomized patients who received at least one dose of study drug (olaparib, n = 260; placebo, n = 130). Results: Median time to first onset of the most common hematologic (anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia) and non-hematologic (nausea, fatigue/asthenia, vomiting) adverse events was <3 months in olaparib-treated patients. The first event of anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, nausea and vomiting lasted a median of <2 months and the first event of fatigue/asthenia lasted a median of 3.48 months in the olaparib group. These adverse events were manageable with supportive treatment and/or olaparib dose modification in most patients, with few patients requiring discontinuation of olaparib. Of 162 patients still receiving olaparib at month 24, 64.2% were receiving the recommended starting dose of olaparib 300 mg twice daily. Conclusions: Maintenance olaparib had a predictable and manageable adverse event profile in the newly diagnosed setting with no new safety signals identified. Adverse events usually occurred early, were largely manageable and led to discontinuation in a minority of patients.

Background: In the phase 3 SOLO1 trial, maintenance olaparib provided a significant progression-free survival benefit versus placebo in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation in response after platinum-based chemotherapy. We analysed health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and patient-centred outcomes in SOLO1, and the effect of radiological disease progression on health status. Methods: SOLO1 is a randomised, double-blind, international trial done in 118 centres and 15 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older; had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0–1; had newly diagnosed, advanced, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer, primary peritoneal cancer, or fallopian tube cancer with a BRCA mutation; and were in clinical complete or partial response to platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to either 300 mg olaparib tablets or placebo twice per day using an interactive voice and web response system and were treated for up to 2 years. Treatment assignment was masked for patients and for clinicians giving the interventions, and those collecting and analysing the data. Randomisation was stratified by response to platinum-based chemotherapy (clinical complete or partial response). HRQOL was a secondary endpoint and the prespecified primary HRQOL endpoint was the change from baseline in the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Ovarian Cancer Trial Outcome Index (TOI) score for the first 24 months. TOI scores range from 0 to 100 (higher scores indicated better HRQOL), with a clinically meaningful difference defined as a difference of at least 10 points. Prespecified exploratory endpoints were quality-adjusted progression-free survival and time without significant symptoms of toxicity (TWiST). HRQOL endpoints were analysed in all randomly assigned patients. The trial is ongoing but closed to new participants. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.go

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

PURPOSE In SOLO1, maintenance olaparib (300 mg twice daily) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with newly diagnosed BRCA1- and/or BRCA2-mutated advanced ovarian cancer compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.30; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.41; median not reached v 13.8 months). We investigated PFS in SOLO1 for subgroups of patients based on preselected baseline factors. PATIENTS AND METHODS Investigator-assessed PFS subgroup analyses of SOLO1 included clinical response after platinum-based chemotherapy (complete [CR] or partial response [PR]), surgery type (upfront or interval surgery), disease status after surgery (residual or no gross residual disease), and BRCA mutation status (BRCA1 or BRCA2). Additionally, we evaluated PFS in patients with stage III disease who underwent upfront surgery and had no gross residual disease. We also report objective response rate. RESULTS The risk of disease progression or death was reduced with olaparib compared with placebo by 69% (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.46) and 63% (HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.58) in patients undergoing upfront or interval surgery; 56% (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.77) and 67% (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.46) in patients with residual or no residual disease after surgery; 66% (HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.47) and 69% in women with clinical CR or PR at baseline (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.52); and 59% (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.56) and 80% (HR 0.20; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.37) in patients with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, respectively. CONCLUSION Patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer achieve substantial benefit from maintenance olaparib treatment regardless of baseline surgery outcome, response to chemotherapy, or BRCA mutation type.

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

Purpose: to evaluate the addition of the humanized monoclonal antiprogrammed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) antibody, atezolizumab, to platinum-based chemotherapy and bevacizumab in newly diagnosed stage III or IV ovarian cancer (OC). Methods: this multicenter placebo-controlled double-blind randomized phase III trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03038100) enrolled patients with newly diagnosed untreated International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III or IV OC who either had undergone primary cytoreductive surgery with macroscopic residual disease or were planned to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval surgery. Patients were stratified by FIGO stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, tumor immune cell PD-L1 staining, and treatment strategy and randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 3-weekly cycles of atezolizumab 1,200 mg or placebo (day 1, cycles 1-22), with paclitaxel plus carboplatin (day 1, cycles 1-6) plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg (day 1, cycles 2-22), omitting perioperative bevacizumab in neoadjuvant patients. The co-primary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival in the intention-to-treat and PD-L1-positive populations. Results: between March 8, 2017, and March 26, 2019, 1,301 patients were enrolled. The median progression-free survival was 19.5 versus 18.4 months with atezolizumab versus placebo, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.07; stratified log-rank P = .28), in the intention-to-treat population and 20.8 versus 18.5 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.99; P = .038), in the PD-L1-positive population. The interim (immature) overall survival results showed no significant benefit from atezolizumab. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (21% with atezolizumab v 21% with placebo), hypertension (18% v 20%, respectively), and anemia (12% v 12%). Conclusion: current evidence does not support the use of immune check

ARIEL2 (NCT01891344) is a single-arm, open-label phase 2 study of the PARP inhibitor (PARPi) rucaparib in relapsed high-grade ovarian carcinoma. In this post hoc exploratory biomarker analysis of pre- and post-platinum ARIEL2 samples, RAD51C and RAD51D mutations and high-level BRCA1 promoter methylation predict response to rucaparib, similar to BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations. BRCA1 methylation loss may be a major cross-resistance mechanism to platinum and PARPi. Genomic scars associated with homologous recombination deficiency are irreversible, persisting even as platinum resistance develops, and therefore are predictive of rucaparib response only in platinum-sensitive disease. The RAS, AKT, and cell cycle pathways may be additional modulators of PARPi sensitivity.

Purpose: to evaluate the addition of the humanized monoclonal antiprogrammed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) antibody, atezolizumab, to platinum-based chemotherapy and bevacizumab in newly diagnosed stage III or IV ovarian cancer (OC). Methods: this multicenter placebo-controlled double-blind randomized phase III trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03038100) enrolled patients with newly diagnosed untreated International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III or IV OC who either had undergone primary cytoreductive surgery with macroscopic residual disease or were planned to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval surgery. Patients were stratified by FIGO stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, tumor immune cell PD-L1 staining, and treatment strategy and randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 3-weekly cycles of atezolizumab 1,200 mg or placebo (day 1, cycles 1-22), with paclitaxel plus carboplatin (day 1, cycles 1-6) plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg (day 1, cycles 2-22), omitting perioperative bevacizumab in neoadjuvant patients. The co-primary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival in the intention-to-treat and PD-L1-positive populations. Results: between March 8, 2017, and March 26, 2019, 1,301 patients were enrolled. The median progression-free survival was 19.5 versus 18.4 months with atezolizumab versus placebo, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.07; stratified log-rank P = .28), in the intention-to-treat population and 20.8 versus 18.5 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.99; P = .038), in the PD-L1-positive population. The interim (immature) overall survival results showed no significant benefit from atezolizumab. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (21% with atezolizumab v 21% with placebo), hypertension (18% v 20%, respectively), and anemia (12% v 12%). Conclusion: current evidence does not support the use of immune check, NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant

Background: There is a high unmet need for treatment regimens that increase the chance of long-term remission and possibly cure for women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. In the primary analysis of SOLO1/GOG 3004, the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo in patients with a BRCA mutation; median progression-free survival was not reached. Here, we report an updated, post-hoc analysis of progression-free survival from SOLO1, after 5 years of follow-up. Methods: SOLO1 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, done across 118 centres in 15 countries, that enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1 and with BRCA-mutated, newly diagnosed, advanced, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer with a complete or partial clinical response after platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) via a web-based or interactive voice-response system to receive olaparib (300 mg twice daily) or placebo tablets orally as maintenance monotherapy for up to 2 years; randomisation was by blocks and was stratified according to clinical response after platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients, treatment providers, and data assessors were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Efficacy is reported in the intention-to-treat population and safety in patients who received at least one dose of treatment. The data cutoff for this updated, post-hoc analysis was March 5, 2020. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01844986) and is ongoing but closed to new participants. Findings: Between Sept 3, 2013, and March 6, 2015, 260 patients were randomly assigned to olaparib and 131 to placebo. The median treatment duration was 24·6 months (IQR 11·2–24·9) in the olaparib group and 13·9 months (8·0–24·8) in the placebo group; me

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

Purpose: Low-grade serous ovarian carcinomas (LGSOCs) have historically low chemotherapy responses. Alterations affecting the MAPK pathway, most commonly KRAS/BRAF, are present in 30%-60% of LGSOCs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate binimetinib, a potent MEK1/2 inhibitor with demonstrated activity across multiple cancers, in LGSOC. Methods: This was a 2:1 randomized study of binimetinib (45 mg twice daily) versus physician's choice chemotherapy (PCC). Eligible patients had recurrent measurable LGSOC after ≥ 1 prior platinum-based chemotherapy but ≤ 3 prior chemotherapy lines. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review (BICR); additional assessments included overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), clinical-benefit rate, biomarkers, and safety. Results: A total of 303 patients were randomly assigned to an arm of the study at the time of interim analysis (January 20, 2016). Median PFS by BICR was 9.1 months (95% CI, 7.3 to 11.3) for binimetinib and 10.6 months (95% CI, 9.2 to 14.5) for PCC (hazard ratio,1.21; 95%CI, 0.79 to 1.86), resulting in early study closure according to a prespecified futility boundary after 341 patients had enrolled. Secondary efficacy end points were similar in the two groups: ORR 16% (complete response [CR]/partial responses[PRs], 32) versus 13% (CR/PRs, 13); median DOR, 8.1 months (range, 0.03 to ≥ 12.0 months) versus 6.7 months (0.03 to ≥ 9.7 months); and median OS, 25.3 versus 20.8 months for binimetinib and PCC, respectively. Safety results were consistent with the known safety profile of binimetinib; the most common grade ≥ 3 event was increased blood creatine kinase level (26%). Post hoc analysis suggests a possible association between KRAS mutation and response to binimetinib. Results from an updated analysis (n = 341; January 2019) were consistent. Conclusion: Although the MEK Inhibitor in Low-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer Study did not m

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

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

BACKGROUND Most women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer have a relapse within 3 years after standard treatment with surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy. The benefit of the oral poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib in relapsed disease has been well established, but the benefit of olaparib as maintenance therapy in newly diagnosed disease is uncertain. METHODS We conducted an international, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy of olaparib as maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage III or IV) high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer, primary peritoneal cancer, or fallopian-tube cancer (or a combination thereof) with a mutation in BRCA1, BRCA2, or both (BRCA1/2) who had a complete or partial clinical response after platinumbased chemotherapy. The patients were randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive olaparib tablets (300 mg twice daily) or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS Of the 391 patients who underwent randomization, 260 were assigned to receive olaparib and 131 to receive placebo. A total of 388 patients had a centrally confirmed germline BRCA1/2 mutation, and 2 patients had a centrally confirmed somatic BRCA1/2 mutation. After a median follow-up of 41 months, the risk of disease progression or death was 70% lower with olaparib than with placebo (Kaplan-Meier estimate of the rate of freedom from disease progression and from death at 3 years, 60% vs. 27%; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.23 to 0.41; P<0.001). Adverse events were consistent with the known toxic effects of olaparib. CONCLUSIONS The use of maintenance therapy with olaparib provided a substantial benefit with regard to progression-free survival among women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation, with a 70% lower risk of disease

3 years after standard treatment with surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy. The benefit of the oral poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib in relapsed disease has been well established, but the benefit of olaparib as maintenance therapy in newly diagnosed disease is uncertain. METHODS We conducted an international, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy of olaparib as maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage III or IV) high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer, primary peritoneal cancer, or fallopian-Tube cancer (or a combination thereof) with a mutation in BRCA1, BRCA2, or both (BRCA1/2) who had a complete or partial clinical response after platinumbased chemotherapy. The patients were randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive olaparib tablets (300 mg twice daily) or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS Of the 391 patients who underwent randomization, 260 were assigned to receive olaparib and 131 to receive placebo. A total of 388 patients had a centrally confirmed germline BRCA1/2 mutation, and 2 patients had a centrally confirmed somatic BRCA1/2 mutation. After a median follow-up of 41 months, the risk of disease progression or death was 70% lower with olaparib than with placebo (Kaplan-Meier estimate of the rate of freedom from disease progression and from death at 3 years, 60% vs. 27%; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.23 to 0.41; P<0.001). Adverse events were consistent with the known toxic effects of olaparib. CONCLUSIONS The use of maintenance therapy with olaparib provided a substantial benefit with regard to progression-free survival among women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation, with a 70% lower risk of disease progression or death with olaparib than with placebo. (Funded by AstraZeneca and Merck; S

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

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

Objective: The second Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) Endometrial Cancer Clinical Trials Planning Meeting was held on December 1, 2012, and included international multidisciplinary representatives of the 24 member groups. The aims were to review recent advances in molecular pathology of endometrial cancer, focusing on molecular-based therapy, and to identify key hypotheses and issues to be addressed through international collaborative clinical trials. Methods: Reviews and summaries of current knowledge were presented followed by parallelworking group sessions for surgery, adjuvant and systemic therapy, and translational research. Plenary discussions were held to integrate translational and clinical issues, and a final discussion session to agree on key trial concepts. Results and Conclusions: Proposals to take forward on the following trials were agreed: (1) lymphadenectomy to direct adjuvant treatment in women with high-risk endometrial cancer, including a sentinel node substudy; (2) conservative therapy for low-risk endometrial cancers in morbidly obese women with high surgical risks and for fertility-sparing treatment in premenopausal patients; (3) adjuvant therapy for women with early-stage carcinosarcoma. A proposal was made that a GCIG Early Phase Consortium be developed to serve as an international platform for rapid assessment of biomarkers. Copyright © 2013 by IGCS and ESGO.

Background Veliparib is a potent small molecule inhibitor of PARP-1/2, which is cytotoxic in tumor cells with deficiencies in BRCA1 or BRCA2. We studied the clinical activity and toxicity of veliparib in ovarian cancer patients carrying a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation (gBRCA). Methods Eligibility included three or fewer prior chemotherapy regimens, measurable disease and no prior use of a PARP inhibitor. Veliparib was administered at 400 mg orally BID with one cycle being 28 days. The two-stage Simon design was capable of detecting a 25% response probability with 90% power while controlling alpha = 10% (at a 10% assumed null response probability). Results The median age of the 50 eligible patients was 57 years (range 37-94) and 14, 18, and 18 patients had 1, 2, and 3 prior therapies respectively. Thirty patients (60%) were platinum-resistant. The median number of cycles administered was 6 (1-27). There was one grade 4 thrombocytopenia. Grade 3 adverse events were: fatigue (n = 3), nausea (2), leukopenia (1), neutropenia (1), dehydration (1), and ALT (1). Grade 2 events > 10% were: nausea (46%), fatigue (26%), vomiting (18%), and anemia (14%). The proportion responding was 26% (90% CI: 16%-38%, CR: 2, PR: 11); for platinum-resistant and platinum-sensitive patients the proportion responding was 20% and 35%, respectively. The most common reason for treatment discontinuation was progression (62%). Twenty-nine patients are alive; two with SD remain on veliparib. The median PFS is 8.18 months. Conclusions The single agent efficacy and tolerability of veliparib for BRCA mutation-associated recurrent ovarian cancer warrants further investigation.

Background Veliparib is a potent small molecule inhibitor of PARP-1/2, which is cytotoxic in tumor cells with deficiencies in BRCA1 or BRCA2. We studied the clinical activity and toxicity of veliparib in ovarian cancer patients carrying a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation (gBRCA). Methods Eligibility included three or fewer prior chemotherapy regimens, measurable disease and no prior use of a PARP inhibitor. Veliparib was administered at 400 mg orally BID with one cycle being 28 days. The two-stage Simon design was capable of detecting a 25% response probability with 90% power while controlling alpha = 10% (at a 10% assumed null response probability). Results The median age of the 50 eligible patients was 57 years (range 37-94) and 14, 18, and 18 patients had 1, 2, and 3 prior therapies respectively. Thirty patients (60%) were platinum-resistant. The median number of cycles administered was 6 (1-27). There was one grade 4 thrombocytopenia. Grade 3 adverse events were: fatigue (n = 3), nausea (2), leukopenia (1), neutropenia (1), dehydration (1), and ALT (1). Grade 2 events > 10% were: nausea (46%), fatigue (26%), vomiting (18%), and anemia (14%). The proportion responding was 26% (90% CI: 16%-38%, CR: 2, PR: 11); for platinum-resistant and platinum-sensitive patients the proportion responding was 20% and 35%, respectively. The most common reason for treatment discontinuation was progression (62%). Twenty-nine patients are alive; two with SD remain on veliparib. The median PFS is 8.18 months. Conclusions The single agent efficacy and tolerability of veliparib for BRCA mutation-associated recurrent ovarian cancer warrants further investigation.

1 oktober 2013, Item does not contain fulltext, OBJECTIVE: The second Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) Endometrial Cancer Clinical Trials Planning Meeting was held on December 1, 2012, and included international multidisciplinary representatives of the 24 member groups. The aims were to review recent advances in molecular pathology of endometrial cancer, focusing on molecular-based therapy, and to identify key hypotheses and issues to be addressed through international collaborative clinical trials. METHODS: Reviews and summaries of current knowledge were presented followed by parallel working group sessions for surgery, adjuvant and systemic therapy, and translational research. Plenary discussions were held to integrate translational and clinical issues, and a final discussion session to agree on key trial concepts. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Proposals to take forward on the following trials were agreed: (1) lymphadenectomy to direct adjuvant treatment in women with high-risk endometrial cancer, including a sentinel node substudy; (2) conservative therapy for low-risk endometrial cancers in morbidly obese women with high surgical risks and for fertility-sparing treatment in premenopausal patients; (3) adjuvant therapy for women with early-stage carcinosarcoma. A proposal was made that a GCIG Early Phase Consortium be developed to serve as an international platform for rapid assessment of biomarkers.

01 oktober 2013, Item does not contain fulltext, OBJECTIVE: The second Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) Endometrial Cancer Clinical Trials Planning Meeting was held on December 1, 2012, and included international multidisciplinary representatives of the 24 member groups. The aims were to review recent advances in molecular pathology of endometrial cancer, focusing on molecular-based therapy, and to identify key hypotheses and issues to be addressed through international collaborative clinical trials. METHODS: Reviews and summaries of current knowledge were presented followed by parallel working group sessions for surgery, adjuvant and systemic therapy, and translational research. Plenary discussions were held to integrate translational and clinical issues, and a final discussion session to agree on key trial concepts. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Proposals to take forward on the following trials were agreed: (1) lymphadenectomy to direct adjuvant treatment in women with high-risk endometrial cancer, including a sentinel node substudy; (2) conservative therapy for low-risk endometrial cancers in morbidly obese women with high surgical risks and for fertility-sparing treatment in premenopausal patients; (3) adjuvant therapy for women with early-stage carcinosarcoma. A proposal was made that a GCIG Early Phase Consortium be developed to serve as an international platform for rapid assessment of biomarkers.

01 oktober 2013, Item does not contain fulltext, OBJECTIVE: The second Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) Endometrial Cancer Clinical Trials Planning Meeting was held on December 1, 2012, and included international multidisciplinary representatives of the 24 member groups. The aims were to review recent advances in molecular pathology of endometrial cancer, focusing on molecular-based therapy, and to identify key hypotheses and issues to be addressed through international collaborative clinical trials. METHODS: Reviews and summaries of current knowledge were presented followed by parallel working group sessions for surgery, adjuvant and systemic therapy, and translational research. Plenary discussions were held to integrate translational and clinical issues, and a final discussion session to agree on key trial concepts. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Proposals to take forward on the following trials were agreed: (1) lymphadenectomy to direct adjuvant treatment in women with high-risk endometrial cancer, including a sentinel node substudy; (2) conservative therapy for low-risk endometrial cancers in morbidly obese women with high surgical risks and for fertility-sparing treatment in premenopausal patients; (3) adjuvant therapy for women with early-stage carcinosarcoma. A proposal was made that a GCIG Early Phase Consortium be developed to serve as an international platform for rapid assessment of biomarkers.

Objective: To review the current status of large phase academic clinical trials for women with ovarian cancer, address cross-cutting issues, and identify promising areas for future collaboration.Methods: In May 2009, the Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup, which represents 19 Cooperative Groups conducting trials for women with gynecologic cancer, and the US National Cancer Institute convened a Clinical Trials Planning Meeting.Results: The topics covered included the impact of new developments in cancer biology upon molecular targets and novel agents, pharmacogenomics, advances in imaging, the potential benefit of diet and exercise to reduce the risk of recurrence, academic partnership with industry, statistical considerations for phases 2 and 3 trials, trial end points, and symptom benefit and health-related quality-of-life issues. The clinical trials discussed spanned the spectrum of ovarian cancer from initial diagnosis, staging, and cytoreductive surgery to consolidation chemotherapy, and treatment of recurrent disease.Conclusions: Ongoing and effective collaboration with industry, government, and patients aims to ensure that the most important scientific questions can be answered rapidly. We encourage women with ovarian cancer and their oncologists to consider participation in the academic clinical trials conducted by the member groups of the Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup.