Search

Objective: In the PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trial (NCT02477644), adding maintenance olaparib to bevacizumab provided a substantial progression-free survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-positive tumors, irrespective of clinical risk. Subsequently, a clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival was reported with olaparib plus bevacizumab in the HRD-positive subgroup. We report updated progression-free survival and overall survival by clinical risk and HRD status., Methods: Patients in clinical response after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab received maintenance olaparib (up to 24 months) plus bevacizumab (up to 15 months in total) or placebo plus bevacizumab. This post hoc analysis evaluated 5-year progression-free survival and mature overall survival in patients classified by clinical risk and HRD status., Results: Of 806 randomized patients, 74% were higher-risk and 26% were lower-risk. In higher-risk HRD-positive patients, the hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival was 0.46 (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.34 to 0.61), with 5-year progression-free survival of 35% with olaparib plus bevacizumab versus 15% with bevacizumab alone; and the HR for overall survival was 0.70 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.00), with 5-year overall survival of 55% versus 42%, respectively. In lower-risk HRD-positive patients, the HR for progression-free survival was 0.26 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.45), with 5-year progression-free survival of 72% with olaparib plus bevacizumab versus 28% with bevacizumab alone; and the HR for overall survival was 0.31 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.66), with 5-year overall survival of 88% versus 61%, respectively. No benefit was seen in HRD-negative patients regardless of clinical risk., Conclusion: This post hoc analysis indicates that in patients with newly diagnosed advanced HRD-positive ovarian cancer, maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab should not be limited to those considered at higher risk of disease progression. Five-year progression-free survival rates support long-term remission and suggest an increased potential for cure with particular benefit suggested in lower-risk HRD-positive patients., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Domenica Lorusso reports consultancy fees (personal) from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, MSD, PharmaMar, and Seagen; membership on an advisory board (personal) for AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Corcept, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Merck Serono, MSD, Oncoinvest, PharmaMar, Seagen, and Sutro; and research funding (institutional) from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Incyte, MSD, Novartis, PharmaMar, Roche, and Seagen; and travel support from Roche, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, and GSK. Marie-Ange Mouret-Reynier reports board membership (personal and institution) for Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, MSD, and AstraZeneca; and research funding (personal and institution) from Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, MSD, and AstraZeneca. Philipp Harter reports honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, GSK, Roche, Sotio, Stryker, Zai Lab, MSD, Clovis, Eisai, Mersana, and Exscientia; membership on an advisory board for AstraZeneca, Roche, GSK, Clovis, Immunogen, MSD, Miltenyi, Novartis, and Eisai; and research funding (institutional) from AstraZeneca, Roche, GSK, Genmab, Immunogen, Seagen, Clovis, and Novartis. Claire Cropet reports no conflicts of interest. Cristina Caballero reports no conflicts of interest. Pia Wolfrum-Ristau reports no conflicts of interest.Toyomi Satoh reports no conflicts of interest. Ignace Vergote reports consulting fees (personal) from Agenus, Akesobio, AstraZeneca, BMS, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Elevar Therapeutics, Exelixis, Roche, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm, Mersana, Molecular Partners, MSD, Novocure, Novartis, Oncoinvent, OncXerna, Regeneron, Sanofi, Seagen, Sotio, Verastem Oncology, and Zentalis; contracted research (via KULeuven; institution) for Oncoinvent AS; corporate sponsored research (institution) from Amgen and Roche; and travel support (personal) from Karyopharm, Genmab, and Novocure.Gabriella Parma reports no conflicts of interest. Trine Jakobi Nøttrup reports no conflicts of interest. Coriolan Lebreton reports honoraria (personal) from Eisai, Clovis Oncology, MSD, and GSK. Peter A Fasching reports membership on an advisory board (personal) for Agendia, AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Hexal, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, and Seagen; invited speaker fees (personal) from AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, and Seagen; and medical writing support (personal) from Roche. Carmela Pisano reports membership on an advisory board (personal) for AstraZeneca, MSD and GSK; and honoraria (personal) from Clovis Oncology. Luis Manso reports no conflicts of interest. Hugues Bourgeois reports no conflicts of interest. Ingo Runnebaum reports no conflicts of interest. Claudio Zamagni reports reports grants or contract to self from Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli Lilly, GSK, MSD, and PharmaMar; grants or contract to self and institution from AstraZeneca, Instituto Gentili, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Seagen, Tesaro, and Teva; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Celgene, Instituto Gentili, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Tesaro; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli Lilly, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, QuintilesIMS, Roche, and Tesaro; and other financial or non-interests for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, QuintilesIMS, Roche, and Tesaro. Anne-Claire Hardy-Bessard reports membership on an advisory board (personal) for MSD, AstraZeneca, GSK, Pfizer, and Novartis. Andreas Schnelzer reports no conflicts of interest. Michel Fabbro reports honoraria from GSK. Barbara Schmalfeldt reports honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Clovis, GSK, and MSD; consultancy or advisory roles from Roche, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Clovis, GSK, and MSD; membership of a speaker’s bureau for Roche, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Clovis, GSK, and MSD; research funding from Roche, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Clovis, GSK, and MSD; and funding for travel or accommodation expenses from Roche, AstraZeneca, and Tesaro. Dominique Berton reports no conflicts of interest. Antje Belau reports honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, Clovis, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo Company, Lilly, and Seagen; advisory roles for Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, MSD, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo Company, and Seagen; and funding for travel or accommodation expenses from Roche, AstraZeneca, and Daiichi Sankyo Company. Jean-Pierre Lotz reports no conflicts of interest. Martina Gropp-Meier reports no conflicts of interest. Laurence Gladieff reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Eisai, GSK, and MSD; and participation on an advisory board for AstraZeneca, GSK, and MSD. Hans-Joachim Lück reports participation on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GSK, Seagen, Gilead, Novartis, and Lilly and speaker roles for AstraZeneca, Lilly, Gilead, Pfizer, and Novartis. Sophie Abadie-Lacourtoisie reports no conflicts of interest. Eric Pujade-Lauraine reports membership on an advisory board (personal) for Roche, GSK, and AstraZeneca; Independent Data Monitoring Committee board membership (personal) for Agenus and Incyte; and employment (personal) at ARCAGY Research. Isabelle Ray-Coquard reports honoraria (personal) from Abbvie, Agenus, Advaxis, BMS, PharmaMar, Genmab, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Roche, GSK, MSD, Deciphera, Mersena, Merck Sereno, Novartis, Amgen, Tesaro, and Clovis Oncology; honoraria (institution) from GSK, MSD, Roche, and BMS; advisory/consulting fees from Abbvie, Agenus, Advaxis, BMS, PharmaMar, Genmab, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, GSK, MSD, Deciphera, Mersena, Merck Sereno, Novartis, Amgen, Tesaro, and Clovis Oncology; research grant/funding (personal) from MSD, Roche, and BMS; research grant/funding (institution) from MSD, Roche, BMS, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Merck Sereno; and travel support from Roche, AstraZeneca, and GSK., (© IGCS and ESGO 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To evaluate the role of dose-dense neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical hysterectomy in reducing adjuvant radiotherapy in International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2018 stage IB1-IB2/IIA1 cervical cancer with disrupted stromal ring and as an alternative to concurrent chemoradiotherapy in FIGO 2018 stages IB3/IIA2., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study including patients with FIGO 2018 stage IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer undergoing dose-dense neoadjuvant chemotherapy at the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, Italy between July 2014 and December 2022. Weekly carboplatin (AUC2 or AUC2.7) plus paclitaxel (80 or 60 mg/m 2 , respectively) was administered for six to nine cycles. Radiological response was assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) v1.1 criteria. The optimal pathological response was defined as residual tumor ≤3 mm. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate survival rates. A systematic literature review on dose-dense neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery for cervical cancer was also performed., Results: A total of 63 patients with a median age of 42.8 years (IQR 35.3-47.9) were included: 39.7% stage IB-IB2/IIA1 and 60.3% stage IB3/IIA2. The radiological response was as follows: 81% objective response rate (17.5% complete and 63.5% partial), 17.5% stable disease, and 1.6% progressive disease. The operability rate was 92.1%. The optimal pathological response rate was 27.6%. Adjuvant radiotherapy was administered in 25.8% of cases. The median follow-up for patients who underwent radical hysterectomy was 49.7 months (IQR 16.8-67.7). The 5-year progression-free survival and overall survival were 79% (95% CI 0.63 to 0.88) and 92% (95% CI 0.80 to 0.97), respectively. Fifteen studies including 697 patients met the eligibility criteria for the systematic review. The objective response rate, operability rate, and adjuvant radiotherapy rate across studies ranged between 52.6% and 100%, 64% and 100%, and 4% and 70.6%, respectively., Conclusions: Dose-dense neoadjuvant chemotherapy before radical surgery could be a valid strategy to avoid radiotherapy in stage IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer, especially in young patients desiring to preserve overall quality of life. Prospective research is warranted to provide robust, high-quality evidence., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© IGCS and ESGO 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: Adult granulosa cell tumors represent less than 5% of all ovarian malignancies. The aim of this study was to analyze the clinicopathological parameters and their impact on progression-free and overall survival., Methods: Patients with primary adult granulosa cell tumors treated in three international referral centers between July 1999 and December 2018 were included. The following data were anonymously exported from the prospective database: age at diagnosis, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage, adjuvant therapy, surgical procedures, progression-free survival, and overall survival. Descriptive statistical analysis regarding tumor and treatment characteristics was performed. Survival analyses included Kaplan-Meier functions and Cox proportional hazard ratios (HR)., Results: A total of 168 patients with primary adult granulosa cell tumors were included. Median age was 50 years (range 13-82). With regard to stage distribution, 54.2% (n=91) of patients were FIGO stage IA, 1.2% (n=2) were stage IB, 26.8% (n=45) were stage IC, and 17.9% (n=30) were FIGO stage II-IV. 66.7% (n=112) of patients underwent surgical restaging, of whom 17.9% (n=20) were moved to a higher stage. In addition, 36 (21.4%) patients underwent fertility-sparing surgery. After a median follow-up of 61 months (range 0-209), 10.7% of patients (n=18) had recurrent disease and 4.8% (n=8) died of disease. Five-year progression-free survival was 86.1% and estimated overall survival was 95.7%. Five-year progression-free survival was worse for patients with advanced stages (FIGO stage IA/B vs IC: HR 5.09 (95% CI 1.53 to 16.9); FIGO stage IA/B vs II-IV: HR 5.62 (95% CI 1.58 to 19.9)). Nineteen patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy had lower estimated 5-year progression-free survival compared with patients not receiving chemotherapy (49.7% vs 91.1%, p<0.001; HR 9.15 (95% CI 3.62 to 23.1))., Conclusion: The prognosis of patients with primary adult granulosa cell tumors is mainly determined by FIGO stage. The outcome of patients with FIGO stage IC is comparable to those with advanced stages. Fertility-sparing surgery seems to be a safe procedure in stage IA. Our data do not support the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in early and advanced stages of adult granulosa cell tumors., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© IGCS and ESGO 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) represent a new standard of care in the upfront treatment of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer to the point that the vast majority of patients now receive a PARPi, alone or in combination with the anti-angiogenic bevacizumab, as part of their first-line maintenance therapy. The clinical benefit of PARPi is well established; however, much has changed since their introduction and several relevant questions have been raised and remain unresolved in the post-PARPi era. The decision-making process regarding the most appropriate first-line maintenance therapy could be challenging in clinical practice, especially in the homologous recombination-proficient setting, and several other factors need to be considered apart from the mutational status. Concerns regarding post-PARPi progression treatment have emerged, highlighting an unmet need to define a valid algorithm strategy. PARPi may not only compromise the response to further platinum due to cross-resistance mechanisms but the impact on subsequent non-platinum chemotherapy and surgery also remains unclear. Definitive results on the role of PARPi rechallenge are awaited, especially in the case of oligoprogression managed with locoregional treatment. Moreover, the updated overall survival data from the recurrent setting warrant caution in using PARPi as single agents for unselected patients. Several PARPi combination regimens are emerging for overcoming PARPi resistance and may become our new therapeutic armamentarium. This review discusses a set of clinically relevant issues in the PARPi era and provides a glimpse of future challenges and opportunities in ovarian cancer treatment., Competing Interests: Competing interests: NC reports fees for advisory board membership for AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, GSK, Immunogen, Mersana, MSD/Merck, Nuvation Bio, Onxerna, Pfizer, Pieris, and Roche; fees as an invited speaker for AstraZeneca, Novartis, Clovis Oncology, GSK, and MSD/Merck; and institutional research grants from AstraZeneca and Roche. She has also reported non-remunerated activities as a member of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Guidelines Steering Committee and chair of the Scientific Committee of ACTO (Alleanza Contro il Tumore Ovarico). All the other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (© IGCS and ESGO 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

The incidence of myeloid neoplasms following treatment with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) in patients with ovarian cancer has been gradually increasing over the last few years. The cumulative exposure to PARPi and the improved overall survival of patients with ovarian cancer may represent key underlying explanations behind such trend. Fortunately, the earlier introduction of PARPi in the frontline setting reduces the risk of developing secondary myeloid neoplasms. The etiopathogenesis is still unclear but is likely to be multifactorial. The first 2 years of PARPi exposure seem to be the critical window for the onset of myeloid neoplasms post PARPi, with persistent cytopenia recognized as an early warning sign. Despite intensive treatment strategies, the outcome remains poor. There is an unmet clinical need to learn how to minimize risk, make an early diagnosis, and manage myeloid neoplasms post PARPi. First, decision making regarding the optimal maintenance treatment should avoid a 'PARPi-for-all' strategy. PARPi should be used cautiously in cases of high baseline risk for myeloid neoplasms and/or patients who are less likely to have a benefit. Active surveillance, accurate differential diagnosis, and prompt hematological referral are key management pillars. This review discusses what is known on this emerging issue as well as unresolved questions., Competing Interests: Competing interests: NC reports fees for advisory board membership for AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, GSK, Immunogen, Mersana, MSD/Merck, Nuvation Bio, Onxerna, Pfizer, Pieris, Roche; fees as an invited speaker for AstraZeneca, Novartis, Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD/Merck; institutional research grants from AstraZeneca, and Roche. She has also reported non-remunerated activities as a member of the ESMO Guidelines Steering Committee and chair of the Scientific Committee of ACTO (Alleanza Contro il Tumore Ovarico). All other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (© IGCS and ESGO 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) is an established treatment for relapsed ovarian cancer. Preclinical and clinical evidences in other tumor types suggest that the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib can act synergistically with PLD., Methods: Patients with relapsed ovarian cancer (N = 58), previously treated with platinum (100%) and taxane (95%), received bortezomib, 1.3 mg/m intravenous (days 1, 4, 8, and 11), and PLD, 30 mg/m intravenous (day 1), every 3 weeks. Tumor responses were assessed using Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors and Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup criteria. An optimal 2-stage design was implemented. Gene expression profiling in peripheral blood was characterized before and during treatment in 10 platinum-sensitive patients enrolled in stage 2 of the study., Results: Median number of bortezomib-PLD cycles was 3.5. Of 38 patients in the platinum-sensitive group, 9 responses were observed (median duration, 4.8 months). The platinum-resistant group was closed at stage 1 owing to lack of response. Toxicity was moderate and mainly consisted of hematologic, gastrointestinal, and mucositis events. Of the total 58 patients, peripheral neuropathy was reported in 9 patients (none were grade 3). Transcription profiling identified the prevalence of genes associated with ribonucleoprotein complexes, RNA processing, and protein translation. The gene expression changes were more robust in patients who responded or had stable disease compared with patients who had progressive disease., Conclusions: The combination of bortezomib and PLD was well tolerated, but the antitumor activity is insufficient to warrant further investigation in ovarian cancer.

Although less frequently than in older women, about 15% of invasive epithelial ovarian cancer may occur in young women, for whom preservation of fertility potential is an important clinical goal. We reviewed the published evidences from the European literature on the role of conservative surgery in women with invasive epithelial ovarian cancer. Three reports were identified from the Italian and French literature; the data were analyzed together with our own experience in terms of relapse rate, relapse in the preserved ovary, survival, and fertility outcome. A total of 152 conservative surgeries were reported: 88 patients with stage IA, 2 with stage IB, 51 with stage IC, 2 with stage II, 3 with stage IIIA, and 6 with stage IIIC. Relapses occurred in 18/152 patients (11.8%) and involved the preserved ovary in 11 cases (7%). Fifty-three pregnancies were recorded with 38 uneventful term deliveries, 2 ectopic pregnancies, 6 spontaneous abortions, 4 terminations, and 2 with unknown outcome. Nine patients (5.9%) have died of disease. These findings confirm that young women with stage I invasive epithelial ovarian cancer may receive a successful treatment of their disease without sacrificing fertility.

The present retrospective study assessed the prognostic value of serum CA125 assay at relapse in 73 patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer. At the time of relapse, serum CA125 levels ranged from 7 to 7000 U ml-1. The 25%, 50% and 75% quantiles of CA125 levels were 76, 178 and 339 U ml-1, respectively. Antigen values were >35 U ml-1 in 67 (91.8%) of the 73 patients. Median time to recurrence was 16 months (range, 4-62 months). Serum CA125 levels at relapse were not related to site of recurrence, time to recurrence, FIGO stage, histologic type, tumor grade and residual disease after initial surgery. Sixty patients received salvage chemotherapy at relapse. In these patients survival after recurrence was significantly related to time to recurrence (< or = 6 months vs < 6 months, P = 0.0371; < or =12 months vs >12 months, P = 0.0014; < or =16 months vs >16 months, P = 0.0001), but not to CA125 level at relapse (at any cut-off value for the antigen: 35, 76, 178 and 339 U ml-1), site of recurrence, FIGO stage, histologic type, tumor grade and residual disease after initial surgery. In conclusion, time to recurrence was the only variable predictive of further survival in patients undergoing salvage chemotherapy for recurrent ovarian cancer, whereas serum CA125 level at relapse had no prognostic relevance.