Search

Objective: Underrepresentation of elderly ovarian cancer patients in clinical trials has led to lack of clarity regarding optimal first-line chemotherapy in this cohort. The Elderly Women with Ovarian Cancer (EWOC)-1 trial demonstrated that 3-weekly carboplatin (3wC) resulted in worse survival and feasibility compared with standard 3-weekly carboplatin-paclitaxel (3wCP) in frail, elderly ovarian cancer patients. Our retrospective study compares feasibility, safety, and efficacy of first-line 3wCP and 3wC in a frail ovarian cancer cohort., Methods: Clinical data were retrospectively analyzed for newly-diagnosed, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III/IV, ≥70-year-old epithelial ovarian cancer patients, treated by clinician choice with 3wC or 3wCP at two London cancer centers over a 2 year period. Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status provided surrogate markers of frailty. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0 graded toxicity., Results: A total of 107 patients were treated with 3wC (n=30) and 3wCP (n=77). Age, performance status, and CCI were significantly different between cohorts, with 3wC patients older (84 vs 75 years, p<0.001), with more comorbidities (median CCI 4 vs 3, p<0.001) and worse performance status (47% vs 17% PS ≥2, p=0.015). Surgical outcomes differed significantly between cohorts, with 20 (67%) 3wC patients not undergoing surgery, compared with 22 (29%) 3wCP patients (p<0.001). Median follow-up was 45.8 months (IQR 38.7-56.3 months). While we observed improved progression-free (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.90, p=0.017) and overall survival (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.73, p=0.001, log-rank test) in a univariate cox proportional hazards comparison between 3wCP and 3wC, this was not significant on multivariate analysis. Completion of six planned chemotherapy cycles was achieved by the majority, with similar discontinuation rates between groups (13% 3wC vs 8% 3wCP, p>0.05). Overall grade ≥3 hematological toxicity rates were similar between regimens (33% 3wC vs 44% 3wCP, p=0.37) with grade ≥3 neutropenia (p=0.019) and grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia (p=0.006) more common with 3wCP and 3wC, respectively. No treatment-related deaths occurred., Conclusion: Our data demonstrates that standard 3wCP is a well-tolerated, feasible first-line treatment for frail, elderly ovarian cancer patients. Improved survival with 3wCP was not significant when corrected for established clinical prognostic factors., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© IGCS and ESGO 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Immunotherapy directed at 5T4 tumor antigen may delay the need for further chemotherapy. An attenuated modified vaccinia Ankara virus containing the gene encoding for 5T4 (MVA-5T4) was studied in asymptomatic relapsed ovarian cancer., Objective: To assess the effectiveness and safety of MVA-5T4 as treatment for asymptomatic relapsed ovarian cancer., Methods: TRIOC was a phase II randomized (1:1), placebo-controlled, double-blind multicenter study. The primary aim was to assess the effectiveness and safety of MVA-5T4 as a treatment for asymptomatic patients with relapsed ovarian cancer. Eligible patients had International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IC1-III or IVA epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) 0-1, with relapse defined by a rise in CA-125 to twice the upper limit of normal or low-volume disease on CT scan. The primary endpoint was disease progression (including deaths from ovarian cancer) at 25 weeks. Following a brief suspension, the trial restarted as a single-arm study. The revised single-arm design required 45 evaluable patients treated with MVA-5T4 to detect a 25-week progression rate of 50%, assuming an expected 70% rate without MVA-5T4; 85% power with one-sided 5% significance., Results: A total of 94 eligible patients were recruited, median age was 65 years (range 42-82), median follow-up 34 months (range 2-46). Overall, 59 patients received MVA-5T4 and 35 patients received placebo. The median number of MVA-5T4 injections received was 7 (range 0-9), compared with a median of 6 (range 1-12) for patients receiving placebo. Median progression-free survival was the same in both arms (3.0 months). The 25-week progression rate was similar in both arms: 80.0% for patients treated with MVA-5T4 and 85.7% for those receiving placebo (risk difference -5.7%, 95% CI -21.4% to 10.0%). Median time to clinical intervention was improved with MVA-5T4: 7.6 months (range 6.7-9.5) vs 5.6 (range 4.9-7.6), CONCLUSION: MVA-5T4 vaccination in patients with asymptomatic relapse was well-tolerated but did not improve the progression rate at 25 weeks. The majority of patients who received MVA-5T4 had clinical intervention later than those assigned to placebo., Trial Registration Number: NCT01556841., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© IGCS and ESGO 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) jointly published comprehensive evidence-based guidelines on all relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment in endometrial carcinoma in a multidisciplinary setting. In order to improve their implementation, a free downloadable easy-to-use mobile app was developed.Two interactive decision tools were created for (1) helping users to identify the recommended surgical steps, especially in terms of nodal staging approach based on the pre-operatively assumed risk group (tool #1), and (2) to facilitate prognostic risk group allocation and adjuvant treatment decision-making after primary surgery integrating both clinicopathological and molecular markers (if known) (tool #2). Algorithms and readable guidelines were also incorporated into the mobile app on all relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment. The scientific content presented in the app will be updated and modified in the future based on new evidence and user feedback.This article presents the decision tools and two practical examples of using these calculators to illustrate that the ESGO mobile app (available without the necessity of an internet connection) can provide fast and accurate responses to complex clinical questions that require the evaluation of numerous parameters., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The research activity of XMG is supported by Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer (AECC). TG, RS, ELF, TEN, CLC, JL, FP, and NC have reported no conflicts of interest., (© IGCS and ESGO 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Best of ESGO 2022 includes a selection of best original research presented during the 23rd European Congress on Gynaecological Oncology between October 27 and 30, 2022 in Berlin. Out of 1107 submitted abstracts, authors of studies which obtained the highest scores in a blinded review process were invited to present their results during four oral sessions, young investigators session, and oral poster sessions. By means of this publication, we aim to provide readers with an overview of the best quality research presented at the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) 2022., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© IGCS and ESGO 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

During the COVID-19 pandemic, pressures on clinical services required adaptation to how care was prioritised and delivered for women with gynecological cancer. This document discusses potential 'salvage' measures when treatment has deviated from the usual standard of care. The British Gynaecological Cancer Society convened a multidisciplinary working group to develop recommendations for the onward management and follow-up of women with gynecological cancer who have been impacted by a change in treatment during the pandemic. These recommendations are presented for each tumor type and for healthcare systems, and the impact on gynecological services are discussed. It will be important that patient concerns about the impact of COVID-19 on their cancer pathway are acknowledged and addressed for their ongoing care., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© IGCS and ESGO 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

A European consensus conference on endometrial carcinoma was held in 2014 to produce multi-disciplinary evidence-based guidelines on selected questions. Given the large body of literature on the management of endometrial carcinoma published since 2014, the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) jointly decided to update these evidence-based guidelines and to cover new topics in order to improve the quality of care for women with endometrial carcinoma across Europe and worldwide., Competing Interests: Competing interests: NCon: advisory boards for Seattle Genetics, AstraZeneca and Mersana, education fees from Medscape Oncology, and grants for travelling from Roche, Genmab and Amgen. IV: advisory boards for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Carrick Therapeutics, Debiopharm International, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Millenium Pharmaceuticals, MSD Belgium, Octimet Oncology, Oncoinvent, Pharmamar-Doctaforum Servicios, Roche, Sotio, Tesaro, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals and Verastem Oncology (fees for consulting to his university), contracted research (KU Leuven) for Oncoinvent AS and Genmab, corporate sponsored research for Amgen and Roche, and grants for travelling from Amgen, MSD/Merck, Roche, AstraZeneca and Tesaro. DC: advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Roche, Sotio and Novocure. MRM: personal financial interests for AstraZeneca, Biocard, Clovis Oncology, Geneos, Genmab, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Merck, Mersana, MSD, Oncology Venture, Pfizer, Roche, SeatleGenetics, SeraPrognostics, Sotio, Tesaro-GSK, ZaiLab; leadership role for Karyopharm Therapeutics, Sera Prognostics; institutional financial interests (study grants) for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Clovis Oncology, Pfizer, Tesaro-GSK, Ultimovacs. JL: advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, GSK, Eisai, MSD/Merck, Artios Pharma, Regeneron, Amgen and Clovis Oncology, and grants for travelling from Clovis Oncology. CC: advisory boards for MSD, Takeda and GSK, conducting research for TherAguiX and Roche, and grants for travelling from Takeda. AF: advisory boards for GSK and Johnson & Johnson SpA, and grants for travelling from Pharmmar and MSD Italia. CF: advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Clovis, Ethicon, Roche, MSD, GSK and Tesaro, and grants for travelling from Sequana. AGM: speakers’ bureau activities for AstraZeneca, Pharmamar, Roche and GSK, advisory boards for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Oncoinvent, Pfizer/Merck, Pharmamar, Roche and Sotio, and grants for travelling from AstraZeneca, Pharmamar Roche and Tesaro. DL: advisory boards for Roche, Amgen, MSD, GSK, Clovis, AstraZeneca, Immunogen, Genmab, Pharmamar and Merck, and grants for travelling from Pharmamar, GSK, Roche and AstraZeneca. CM: consulting/advisory boards for Roche, Novartis, Amgen, MSD, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Pharmamar, Cerulean, Vertex and Tesaro, funded research from EU, FWF, AstraZeneca and Roche, and honoraria/expenses from Roche, Novartis, Amgen, MSD, Pharmamar, AstraZeneca and Tesaro. JS: advisory boards for Roche, Eisei, MSD, AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK and Tesaro. AT: advisory boards for Genmab; PW: advisory boards for Amgen, AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharmamar, Lilly, Roche Pharma GmbH, TEVA, Eisai, Clovis and Tesaro, and grants for travelling from Roche Pharma GmbH, AstraZeneca, MSD, Amgen and Pfizer. NC: consulting and advisory services, speaking or writing engagements, public presentations for Roche, AstraZeneca, MSD, Pharmamar, Tesaro, GSK, Clovis, Advaxis, Pfizer, Takeda, Immunogen, Biocad, Amgen, Novartis and Ellipses, institutional financial interests for Roche, Pharmamar and AstraZeneca, and non-financial interests for ESMO clinical Guidelines (subject editor for gynecological cancer). XMG, SM, TB, SL, PM, RN, DOD, DQ, MRR, AS, AW, FP, and CLC: no conflicts of interest., (© IGCS and ESGO 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Two novel biological agents-cediranib targeting angiogenesis, and olaparib targeting DNA repair processes-have individually led to an improvement in ovarian cancer control. The aim of ICON9 is to investigate the combination of cediranib and olaparib maintenance in recurrent ovarian cancer following platinum-based therapy., Primary Objective: To assess the efficacy of maintenance treatment with olaparib in combination with cediranib compared with olaparib alone following a response to platinum-based chemotherapy in women with platinum-sensitive ovarian, fallopian tube or peritoneal cancer during first relapse., Study Hypothesis: Maintenance therapy with cediranib and olaparib in combination is associated with improved patient outcomes compared with olaparib alone., Trial Design: International phase III randomized controlled trial. Following a response to platinum-based chemotherapy patients are randomized 1:1 to either oral olaparib and cediranib (intervention arm) or oral olaparib alone (control arm)., Major Inclusion Criteria: Patients with a known diagnosis of high grade serous or endometrioid carcinoma of the ovary, fallopian tube or peritoneum, progressing more than 6 months after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, who have responded to second-line platinum-based chemotherapy., Primary Endpoints: Progression-free and overall survival. Co-primary endpoints to be assessed using a fixed-sequence gatekeeping approach: (1) progression-free survival, all patients; (2) progression-free survival, BRCA wild type; (3) overall survival, all patients; (4) overall survival, BRCA wild type., Sample Size: 618 patients will be recruited., Estimated Dates for Completing Accrual and Presenting Results: Accrual is expected to be completed in 2024 with presentation of results in 2025., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03278717., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© IGCS and ESGO 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: Pathogenic BRCA variants account for 5.8-24.8% of ovarian cancers. The identification of such a variant can have a significant impact on the affected individual and their relatives, determining eligibility for targeted therapies, predicting treatment response, and granting access to disease prevention strategies. Cancer services are responding to the increased demand for genetic testing with the introduction of mainstreamed genetic testing via oncology clinics. This study aimed to evaluate patient experience of the mainstreamed genetic testing pathway at a tertiary referral center in London, UK., Methods: Study participants were patients diagnosed with high-grade non-mucinous ovarian cancer, tested via a mainstreamed genetic testing pathway at the tertiary referral center between February 2015 and June 2017. Eligible participants were invited to complete the retrospective study questionnaire. Five quantitative measures with additional free-text items were used to evaluate the patient experience of mainstreamed genetic testing., Results: The tertiary referral center tested 170 ovarian cancer patients. Twenty-three pathogenic BRCA mutations were identified (23/170, 13.5%). One-hundred and six patients (106/170, 62.4%) met the study inclusion criteria. Twenty-nine of those invited to participate (29/106, 27.4%) returned the retrospective study questionnaire. Pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants were identified within four respondents (4/29, 13.8%). Motivations for genetic testing related to improved medical management, and the ability to provide relatives with genetic information. Participants did not appear to be adversely affected by result disclosure post-mainstreamed genetic testing. Two individuals with a pathogenic variant reported that the support provided by the tertiary referral center post-result disclosure could have been improved., Conclusion: Results of the current study support further psychosocial research into the expansion of the mainstreamed genetic testing pathway. The results, although promising, have also highlighted the importance of genetic awareness within the multi-disciplinary team and the provision of timely psychological support from genetic specialists., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© IGCS and ESGO 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: The aim of the study was to perform a preliminary comparison of quality of life (QoL) and patient satisfaction in individualized nurse-led follow-up versus conventional medical follow-up in ovarian cancer., Methods: One hundred twelve women who received a diagnosis of ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer, completed primary treatment by surgery alone or with chemotherapy, irrespective of outcome with regard to remission, and expected survival of more than 3 months. Fifty-seven participants were randomized to individualized follow-up and 55 patients to conventional follow-up. Well-being was measured at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after randomization for QoL (QLQ-C30 [European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire], QLQ-Ov28), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and a Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire (PSQ-III). The primary endpoints were the effects of follow-up on each of the scores (via hierarchical mixed-effects model) and on relapse-free time (via Cox model). The total cost of follow-up was compared between each group., Results: There was evidence for a QoL and patient satisfaction benefit for individualized versus standard follow-up (QLQ-C30, P = 0.013; 95% confidence interval, -0.03 to -0.001; PSQ-III P = 0.002; 95% confidence interval, -0.003 to -0.015; QLQ-Ov28, P = 0.14). Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale data provided no evidence in favor of either treatment (P = 0.42). Delivered to protocol individualized follow-up resulted in a delay in the presentation of symptomatic relapse (P = 0.04), although the effect on survival in this study is unknown. Cost was £700 lower on average for the individualized follow-up group, but the difference was not statistically significant at the 5% level (P = 0.07)., Conclusions: Individualized follow-up was superior to conventional follow-up in 3 of the 4 QoL and patient satisfaction surveys in this preliminary study. Further prospective studies are needed in a larger population.Trial registration number is ISRCTN59149551.