Search

Background: The nodal positivity rate after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (ypNþ) in patients with clinically node-negative (cN0) breast cancer is low, especially in those with a pathological complete response of the breast. The aim of this study was to identify characteristics known before surgery that are associated with achieving ypN0 in patients with cN0 disease. These characteristics could be used to select patients in whom sentinel lymph node biopsy may be omitted after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Methods: This cohort study included patients with cT1-3 cN0 breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by breast surgery and sentinel node biopsy between 2013 and 2018. cN0 was defined by the absence of suspicious nodes on ultrasound imaging and PET/CT, or absence of tumour cells at fine-needle aspiration. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to determine predictors of ypN0. Results: Overall, 259 of 303 patients (85.5 per cent) achieved ypN0, with high rates among those with a radiological complete response (rCR) on breast MRI (95·5 per cent). Some 82 per cent of patients with hormone receptor-positive disease, 98 per cent of those with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and all patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive disease who had a rCR achieved ypN0. Multivariable regression analysis showed that HER2-positive (odds ratio (OR) 5·77, 95 per cent c.i. 1·91 to 23·13) and TNBC subtype (OR 11·65, 2·86 to 106·89) were associated with ypN0 status. In addition, there was a trend toward ypN0 in patients with a breast rCR (OR 2·39, 0·95 to 6·77). Conclusion: The probability of nodal positivity after neoadjuvant chemotherapy was less than 3 per cent in patients with TNBC or HER2-positive disease who achieved a breast rCR on MRI. These patients could be included in trials investigating the omission of sentinel node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background:Changing the neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimen in insufficiently responding breast cancer is not a standard policy. We analysed a series of patients with 'luminal'-type breast cancer in whom the second half of neoadjuvant chemotherapy was selected based on the response to the first half.Methods:Patients with oestrogen receptor-positive (ER+) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−) breast cancer received three courses of neoadjuvant dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (ddAC). Three further courses of ddAC were administered in case of a 'favourable response' on the interim magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and a switch to docetaxel and capecitabine (DC) was made in case of an 'unfavourable response', using previously published response criteria. The efficacy of this approach was evaluated by tumour size reductions on serial contrast-enhanced MRI, pathologic response and relapse-free survival.Results:Two hundred and forty-six patients received three courses of ddAC. One hundred and sixty-four patients (67%) had a favourable response at the interim MRI, with a mean tumour size reduction of 31% after the first three courses and 34% after the second three courses. Patients with unfavourable responsive tumours had a mean tumour size reduction of 12% after three courses and received three courses of DC rather than ddAC. This led to a mean shrinkage of 27%.Conclusion:The tumour size reduction of initially less responsive tumours after treatment adaptation adds further evidence that a response-adapted strategy may enhance the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Poly (ADP-ribose) Polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are promising novel radiosensitisers. Pre-clinical models have demonstrated potent and tumour-specific radiosensitisation by PARP inhibitors. Olaparib is a PARP inhibitor with a favourable safety profile in comparison to clinically used radiosensitisers including cisplatin when used as single agent. However, data on safety, tolerability and efficacy of olaparib in combination with radiotherapy are limited.Methods: Olaparib is dose escalated in combination with radical (chemo-)radiotherapy regimens for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), breast cancer and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) in three parallel single institution phase 1 trials. All trials investigate a combination treatment of olaparib and radiotherapy, the NSCLC trial also investigates a triple combination of olaparib, radiotherapy and concurrent low dose cisplatin. The primary objective is to identify the maximum tolerated dose of olaparib in these combination treatments, defined as the dose closest to but not exceeding a 15% probability of dose limiting toxicity. Each trial has a separate dose limiting toxicity definition, taking into account incidence, duration and severity of expected toxicities without olaparib. Dose escalation is performed using a time-to-event continual reassessment method (TITE-CRM). TITE-CRM enables the incorporation of late onset toxicity until one year after treatment in the dose limiting toxicity definition while maintaining an acceptable trial duration. Olaparib treatment starts two days before radiotherapy and continues during weekends until two days after radiotherapy. Olaparib will also be given two weeks and one week before radiotherapy in the breast cancer trial and HNSCC trial respectively to allow for translational research. Toxicity is scored using common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) version 4.03. Blood samples, and tumour biopsies in the breast cancer trial, are collected for pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analyses.Discussion: We designed three parallel phase 1 trials to assess the safety and tolerability of the PARP inhibitor olaparib in combination with radical (chemo-)radiotherapy treatment regimens. PARP inhibitors have the potential to improve outcomes in patients treated with radical (chemo-)radiotherapy, by achieving higher locoregional control rates and/or less treatment associated toxicity.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT01562210 (registered March 23, 2012), NCT02227082 (retrospectively registered August 27, 2014), NCT02229656 (registered September 1, 2014). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Advanced recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC) is the leading cause of gynecologic cancer-related death in developed countries and new treatments are needed. Previous studies of immune checkpoint blockade showed low objective response rates (ORR) in ROC with no identified predictive biomarker. Patients and methods This phase II study of pembrolizumab (NCT02674061) examined two patient cohorts with ROC: cohort A received one to three prior lines of treatment with a platinum-free interval (PFI) or treatment-free interval (TFI) between 3 and 12 months and cohort B received four to six prior lines with a PFI/TFI of ≥3 months. Pembrolizumab 200 mg was administered intravenously every 3 weeks until cancer progression, toxicity, or completion of 2 years. Primary end points were ORR by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 per blinded independent central review by cohort and by PD-L1 expression measured as combined positive score (CPS). Secondary end points included duration of response (DOR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Results Cohort A enrolled 285 patients; the first 100 served as the training set for PD-L1 biomarker analysis. Cohort B enrolled 91 patients. ORR was 7.4% for cohort A and 9.9% for cohort B. Median DOR was 8.2 months for cohort A and not reached for cohort B. DCR was 37.2% and 37.4%, respectively, in cohorts A and B. Based on the training set analysis, CPS 1 and 10 were selected for evaluation in the confirmation set. In the confirmation set, ORR was 4.1% for CPS <1, 5.7% CPS ≥1, and 10.0% for CPS ≥10. PFS was 2.1 months for both cohorts. Median OS was not reached for cohort A and was 17.6 months for cohort B. Toxicities were consistent with other single-agent pembrolizumab trials. Conclusions Single-agent pembrolizumab showed modest activity in patients with ROC. Higher PD-L1 expression was correlated with higher response. Clinical Trial Number Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02674061 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 platinum-based 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; SOLO1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844986 .). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The phase III MONALEESA-2 study demonstrated significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and a manageable toxicity profile for first-line ribociclib plus letrozole versus placebo plus letrozole in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer. Here, we report updated efficacy and safety data, together with exploratory biomarker analyses, from the MONALEESA-2 study. Patients and methods: A total of 668 postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- recurrent/metastatic breast cancer were randomized (1 : 1; stratified by presence/absence of liver and/or lung metastases) to ribociclib (600mg/day; 3-weeks-on/1-week-off; 28-day treatment cycles) plus letrozole (2.5mg/day; continuous) or placebo plus letrozole. The primary end point was locally assessed PFS. The key secondary end point was overall survival (OS). Other secondary end points included overall response rate (ORR) and safety. Biomarker analysis was an exploratory end point. Results: At the time of the second interim analysis, the median duration of follow-up was 26.4 months. Median PFS was 25.3 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 23.0-30.3] for ribociclib plus letrozole and 16.0 months (95% CI 13.4-18.2) for placebo plus letrozole (hazard ratio 0.568; 95% CI 0.457-0.704; log-rank P=9.63×10-8). Ribociclib treatment benefit was maintained irrespective of PIK3CA or TP53 mutation status, total Rb, Ki67, or p16 protein expression, and CDKN2A, CCND1, or ESR1 mRNA levels. Ribociclib benefit was more pronounced in patients with wild-type versus altered receptor tyrosine kinase genes. OS data remain immature, with 116 deaths observed; 50 in the ribociclib arm and 66 in the placebo arm (hazard ratio 0.746; 95% CI 0.517-1.078). The ORR was 42.5% versus 28.7% for all patients treated with ribociclib plus letrozole versus placebo plus letrozole, respectively, and 54.5% versus 38.8%, respectively, for patients with measurable disease. Safety results, after a further 11.1 months of follow-up, were comparable with those reported at the first analysis, with no new or unexpected toxicities observed, and no evidence of cumulative toxicity. Conclusions: The improved efficacy outcomes and manageable tolerability observed with first-line ribociclib plus letrozole are maintained with longer follow-up, relative to letrozole monotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Treatment of newly diagnosed advanced-stage ovarian cancer typically involves cytoreductive surgery and systemic chemotherapy. We conducted a trial to investigate whether the addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) to interval cytoreductive surgery would improve outcomes among patients who were receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage III epithelial ovarian cancer.Methods: In a multicenter, open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 245 patients who had at least stable disease after three cycles of carboplatin (area under the curve of 5 to 6 mg per milliliter per minute) and paclitaxel (175 mg per square meter of body-surface area) to undergo interval cytoreductive surgery either with or without administration of HIPEC with cisplatin (100 mg per square meter). Randomization was performed at the time of surgery in cases in which surgery that would result in no visible disease (complete cytoreduction) or surgery after which one or more residual tumors measuring 10 mm or less in diameter remain (optimal cytoreduction) was deemed to be feasible. Three additional cycles of carboplatin and paclitaxel were administered postoperatively. The primary end point was recurrence-free survival. Overall survival and the side-effect profile were key secondary end points.Results: In the intention-to-treat analysis, events of disease recurrence or death occurred in 110 of the 123 patients (89%) who underwent cytoreductive surgery without HIPEC (surgery group) and in 99 of the 122 patients (81%) who underwent cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC (surgery-plus-HIPEC group) (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50 to 0.87; P=0.003). The median recurrence-free survival was 10.7 months in the surgery group and 14.2 months in the surgery-plus-HIPEC group. At a median follow-up of 4.7 years, 76 patients (62%) in the surgery group and 61 patients (50%) in the surgery-plus-HIPEC group had died (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.94; P=0.02). The median overall survival was 33.9 months in the surgery group and 45.7 months in the surgery-plus-HIPEC group. The percentage of patients who had adverse events of grade 3 or 4 was similar in the two groups (25% in the surgery group and 27% in the surgery-plus-HIPEC group, P=0.76).Conclusions: Among patients with stage III epithelial ovarian cancer, the addition of HIPEC to interval cytoreductive surgery resulted in longer recurrence-free survival and overall survival than surgery alone and did not result in higher rates of side effects. (Funded by the Dutch Cancer Society; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00426257 ; EudraCT number, 2006-003466-34 .). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND The inhibition of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) could potentially overcome or delay resistance to endocrine therapy in advanced breast cancer that is positive for hormone receptor (HR) and negative for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). METHODS In this randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of the selective CDK4/6 inhibitor ribociclib combined with letrozole for first-line treatment in 668 postmenopausal women with HR-positive, HER2-negative recurrent or metastatic breast cancer who had not received previous systemic therapy for advanced disease. We randomly assigned the patients to receive either ribociclib (600 mg per day on a 3-weeks-on, 1-week-off schedule) plus letrozole (2.5 mg per day) or placebo plus letrozole. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, overall response rate, and safety. A preplanned interim analysis was performed on January 29, 2016, after 243 patients had disease progression or died. Prespecified criteria for superiority required a hazard ratio of 0.56 or less with P<1.29xl0-5. RESULTS The duration of progression-free survival was significantly longer in the ribociclib group than in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% Cl, 0.43 to 0.72; P=3.29xl0"6 for superiority). The median duration of follow-up was 15.3 months. After 18 months, the progression-free survival rate was 63.0% (95% confidence interval [Cl], 54.6 to 70.3) in the ribociclib group and 42.2% (95% Cl, 34.8 to 49.5) in the placebo group. In patients with measurable disease at baseline, the overall response rate was 52.7% and 37.1%, respectively (P<0.001). Common grade 3 or 4 adverse events that were reported in more than 10% of the patients in either group were neutropenia (59.3% in the ribociclib group vs. 0.9% in the placebo group) and leukopenia (21.0% vs. 0.6%); the rates of discontinuation because of adverse events were 7.5% and 2.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Among patients receiving initial systemic treatment for HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, the duration of progression-free survival was significantly longer among those receiving ribociclib plus letrozole than among those receiving placebo plus letrozole, with a higher rate of myelosuppression in the ribociclib group. (Funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01958021.) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The large majority of patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) will eventually develop resistance to anti-HER2 therapy and die of this disease. Despite, relatively high levels of stromal tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs), PD1-blockade has only shown modest responses. Monalizumab targets the inhibitory immune checkpoint NKG2A, thereby unleashing NK- and CD8 T cells. We hypothesized that monalizumab synergizes with trastuzumab by promoting antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity. In the phase II MIMOSA-trial, HER2-positive MBC patients were treated with trastuzumab and 750 mg monalizumab every two weeks. Following a Simon's two-stage design, 11 patients were included in stage I of the trial. Treatment was well tolerated with no dose-limiting toxicities. No objective responses were observed. Therefore, the MIMOSA-trial did not meet its primary endpoint. In summary, despite the strong preclinical rationale, the novel combination of monalizumab and trastuzumab does not induce objective responses in heavily pre-treated HER2-positive MBC patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest VCM Geurts, L Voorwerk, S Balduzzi, I Kemper, IAM Mandjes, M Heuver-Mes: no disclosures. MGJ van Dongen: advisory role for Relay Therapeutics. R Salgado: Research support from: Merck, Puma Biotechnology and Roche. Non-financial support from Merck and BMS. Advisory roles for: BMS, Exact Sciences and Roche outside the submitted work. K van de Vijver: Advisory roles for/consultancy fee paid to the institute: AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, GSK, outside the submitted work. W Sparreboom: employment: AstraZeneca. JBAG Haanen: advisory roles for Achilles Tx, BioNTech, BMS, GSK, Iovance Bio, Instil Bio, Ipsen, MSD, Molecular Partners, Novartis, Neogene Tx, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofie, Scenic, T-Knife. Received grant support from Amgen, BioNTech, BMS, MSD, Novartis and has stock options in Neogene Tx. GS Sonke: Received funding paid to the institute from: Agendia, AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis and Roche. Advisory roles for: Biovica, Seagen outside the submitted work. HM Horlings: consultancy fee paid to institute: Roche, and is advisor for SlideScore and Ellogon, outside the submitted work. M Kok: Received funding paid to the institute from BMS, Roche, AstraZeneca. Advisory roles for: Daiichi Sankyo, BMS, MSD, Roche outside the submitted work. Speakers’ fee from: Roche, BMS and Gilead., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Physical exercise in cancer patients is a promising intervention to improve cognition and increase brain volume, including hippocampal volume. We investigated whether a 6-month exercise intervention primarily impacts total hippocampal volume and additionally hippocampal subfield volumes, cortical thickness and grey matter volume in previously physically inactive breast cancer patients. Furthermore, we evaluated associations with verbal memory., Methods: Chemotherapy-exposed breast cancer patients (stage I-III, 2-4 years post diagnosis) with cognitive problems were included and randomized in an exercise intervention (n = 70, age = 52.5 ± 9.0 years) or control group (n = 72, age = 53.2 ± 8.6 years). The intervention consisted of 2x1 hours/week of supervised aerobic and strength training and 2x1 hours/week Nordic or power walking. At baseline and at 6-month follow-up, volumetric brain measures were derived from 3D T1-weighted 3T magnetic resonance imaging scans, including hippocampal (subfield) volume (FreeSurfer), cortical thickness (CAT12), and grey matter volume (voxel-based morphometry CAT12). Physical fitness was measured with a cardiopulmonary exercise test. Memory functioning was measured with the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised (HVLT-R total recall) and Wordlist Learning of an online cognitive test battery, the Amsterdam Cognition Scan (ACS Wordlist Learning). An explorative analysis was conducted in highly fatigued patients (score of ≥ 39 on the symptom scale 'fatigue' of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire), as previous research in this dataset has shown that the intervention improved cognition only in these patients., Results: Multiple regression analyses and voxel-based morphometry revealed no significant intervention effects on brain volume, although at baseline increased physical fitness was significantly related to larger brain volume (e.g., total hippocampal volume: R = 0.32, B = 21.7 mm 3 , 95 % CI = 3.0 - 40.4). Subgroup analyses showed an intervention effect in highly fatigued patients. Unexpectedly, these patients had significant reductions in hippocampal volume, compared to the control group (e.g., total hippocampal volume: B = -52.3 mm 3 , 95 % CI = -100.3 - -4.4)), which was related to improved memory functioning (HVLT-R total recall: B = -0.022, 95 % CI = -0.039 - -0.005; ACS Wordlist Learning: B = -0.039, 95 % CI = -0.062 - -0.015)., Conclusions: No exercise intervention effects were found on hippocampal volume, hippocampal subfield volumes, cortical thickness or grey matter volume for the entire intervention group. Contrary to what we expected, in highly fatigued patients a reduction in hippocampal volume was found after the intervention, which was related to improved memory functioning. These results suggest that physical fitness may benefit cognition in specific groups and stress the importance of further research into the biological basis of this finding., 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 © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The randomized, double-blind OlympiA trial compared 1 year of the oral poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, olaparib, to matching placebo as adjuvant therapy for patients with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 (gBRCA1/2pv) and high-risk, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, early breast cancer (EBC). The first pre-specified interim analysis (IA) previously demonstrated statistically significant improvement in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and distant disease-free survival (DDFS). The olaparib group had fewer deaths than the placebo group, but the difference did not reach statistical significance for overall survival (OS). We now report the pre-specified second IA of OS with updates of IDFS, DDFS, and safety., Patients and Methods: One thousand eight hundred and thirty-six patients were randomly assigned to olaparib or placebo following (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation therapy if indicated. Endocrine therapy was given concurrently with study medication for hormone receptor-positive cancers. Statistical significance for OS at this IA required P < 0.015., Results: With a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the second IA of OS demonstrated significant improvement in the olaparib group relative to the placebo group [hazard ratio 0.68; 98.5% confidence interval (CI) 0.47-0.97; P = 0.009]. Four-year OS was 89.8% in the olaparib group and 86.4% in the placebo group (Δ 3.4%, 95% CI -0.1% to 6.8%). Four-year IDFS for the olaparib group versus placebo group was 82.7% versus 75.4% (Δ 7.3%, 95% CI 3.0% to 11.5%) and 4-year DDFS was 86.5% versus 79.1% (Δ 7.4%, 95% CI 3.6% to 11.3%), respectively. Subset analyses for OS, IDFS, and DDFS demonstrated benefit across major subgroups. No new safety signals were identified including no new cases of acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome., Conclusion: With 3.5 years of median follow-up, OlympiA demonstrates statistically significant improvement in OS with adjuvant olaparib compared with placebo for gBRCA1/2pv-associated EBC and maintained improvements in the previously reported, statistically significant endpoints of IDFS and DDFS with no new safety signals., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the SOLO2 trial (ENGOT Ov-21; NCT01874353), maintenance olaparib in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSROC) and BRCA mutation significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and prolonged overall survival (OS). Following disease progression on olaparib, efficacy of subsequent chemotherapy remains unknown., Patients and Methods: We conducted a post-hoc hypothesis-generating analysis of SOLO2 data to determine the efficacy of different chemotherapy regimens following RECIST disease progression in patients who received olaparib or placebo. We evaluated time to second progression (TTSP) calculated from the date of RECIST progression to the next progression/death., Results: The study population comprised 147 patients who received chemotherapy as their first subsequent treatment after RECIST progression. Of these, 69 (47%) and 78 (53%) were originally randomized to placebo and olaparib arms, respectively. In the placebo-treated cohort, 27/69 and 42/69 received non-platinum and platinum-based chemotherapy, respectively, compared with 24/78 and 54/78, respectively, in the olaparib-treated cohort. Among patients treated with chemotherapy (N = 147), TTSP was significantly longer in the placebo than in the olaparib arm: 12.1 versus 6.9 months [hazard ratio (HR) 2.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.47-3.19]. Similar result was obtained on multivariable analysis adjusting for prognostic factors at RECIST progression (HR 2.13, 95% CI 1.41-3.22). Among patients treated with platinum-based chemotherapy (n = 96), TTSP was significantly longer in the placebo arm: 14.3 versus 7.0 months (HR 2.89, 95% CI 1.73-4.82). Conversely, among patients treated with non-platinum-based chemotherapy (n = 51), the TTSP was comparable in the placebo and olaparib arms: 8.3 versus 6.0 months (HR 1.58, 95% CI 0.86-2.90)., Conclusions: Following progression from maintenance olaparib in the recurrent setting, the efficacy of platinum-based subsequent chemotherapy seems to be reduced in BRCA1/2-mutated patients with PSROC compared to patients not previously receiving poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi). The optimal strategy for patients who relapse after PARPi is an area of ongoing research., Competing Interests: Disclosure JSF reports personal fees from Roche Genentech, personal fees and non-financial support from Seattle Genetics, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, GSK, Clovis oncology, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, MSD, Pierre Fabre, and Amgen, outside the submitted work. PP reports non-financial support from GSK, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology outside the submitted work. JAL reports personal fees from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Bristol Myers Squibb, Artios Pharma, VBL Therapeutics, Neopharm, outside the submitted work. RTP reports personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Genentech / Roche, GSK Inc., Merck & Co, Sutro Biopharma, Vascular Biogenics Ltd, outside the submitted work. SP reports personal fees from, AstraZeneca, MSD; ROCHE, Clovis, GSK, Pfizer, PharmaMar, outside the submitted work. NC reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Esai, Genentech, GSK, Merck, Pfizer, Regeneron pharmaceutical, outside the submitted work. TWPS reports personal fee from AstraZeneca, Tesaro, GSK, outside the submitted work. GSS has received grant from Agendia, AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Seagen, outside the submitted work. CKL reports personal fee from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Yuhan, Merck KGA, Roche, MSD, outside the submitted work. EPL reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Merck, GSK, Roche, Incyte, ARCAGY Research, outside the submitted work. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Patients with advanced endometrial cancer have a poor prognosis, and treatment options are limited. The investigator-initiated, multicenter, phase II DOMEC trial (NCT03951415) is the first trial to report data on efficacy and safety of combined treatment with PD-L1 and PARP inhibition for advanced endometrial cancer., Patients and Methods: Patients with metastatic or recurrent endometrial cancer were enrolled. Patients received durvalumab 1500 mg intravenously q4w and olaparib 300 mg 2dd until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient withdrawal. Patients with at least 4 weeks of treatment were evaluable for analysis. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival at 6 months. Evidence for efficacy was defined as progression-free survival at 6 months in ≥50% of patients. Secondary endpoints included safety, objective response and overall survival., Results: From July 2019, through November 2020, 55 patients were enrolled. At data cut-off (September 2021), 4 of the 50 evaluable patients were still on treatment. Seventeen patients (34%) were progression-free at 6 months. Objective response rate was 16% (95% CI, 8.3 to 28.5) with 1 complete and 7 partial responses. With a median follow-up of 17.6 months, median progression-free survival was 3.4 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 6.2) and median overall survival was 8.0 months (95% CI, 7.5 to 14.3). Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 8 patients (16%), predominantly anemia. There were no grade 4 or 5 treatment-related adverse events., Conclusion: The combination of durvalumab and olaparib was well tolerated, but did not meet the prespecified 50% 6-month progression-free survival in this heterogeneous patient population with advanced endometrial cancer., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Study drugs and an unrestricted grant were supplied by AstraZeneca. Outside this work: JRK has received study grants from AstraZeneca and Novartis and is a steering committee member for AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis and Pfizer. GSS reports institutional research support from Agendia, AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, Roche and Seagen. CLC has received research support to institution from Varian, Elekta, and compensation to institution for time spent on IDMC membership from Merck and on invited presentations from GSK., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)