Search

Background: Recurrent cervical cancer is a life-threatening disease, with limited treatment options available when disease progression occurs after first-line combination therapy., Methods: We conducted a phase 3, multinational, open-label trial of tisotumab vedotin as second- or third-line therapy in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer. Patients were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive tisotumab vedotin monotherapy (2.0 mg per kilogram of body weight every 3 weeks) or the investigator's choice of chemotherapy (topotecan, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, irinotecan, or pemetrexed). The primary end point was overall survival., Results: A total of 502 patients underwent randomization (253 were assigned to the tisotumab vedotin group and 249 to the chemotherapy group); the groups were similar with respect to demographic and disease characteristics. The median overall survival was significantly longer in the tisotumab vedotin group than in the chemotherapy group (11.5 months [95% confidence interval {CI}, 9.8 to 14.9] vs. 9.5 months [95% CI, 7.9 to 10.7]), results that represented a 30% lower risk of death with tisotumab vedotin than with chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.89; two-sided P = 0.004). The median progression-free survival was 4.2 months (95% CI, 4.0 to 4.4) with tisotumab vedotin and 2.9 months (95% CI, 2.6 to 3.1) with chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.82; two-sided P<0.001). The confirmed objective response rate was 17.8% in the tisotumab vedotin group and 5.2% in the chemotherapy group (odds ratio, 4.0; 95% CI, 2.1 to 7.6; two-sided P<0.001). A total of 98.4% of patients in the tisotumab vedotin group and 99.2% in the chemotherapy group had at least one adverse event that occurred during the treatment period (defined as the period from day 1 of dose 1 until 30 days after the last dose); grade 3 or greater events occurred in 52.0% and 62.3%, respectively. A total of 14.8% of patients stopped tisotumab vedotin treatment because of toxic effects., Conclusions: In patients with recurrent cervical cancer, second- or third-line treatment with tisotumab vedotin resulted in significantly greater efficacy than chemotherapy. (Funded by Genmab and Seagen [acquired by Pfizer]; innovaTV 301 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04697628.)., (Copyright © 2024 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Ovarian cancer has the highest mortality among gynecologic cancers, primarily because it typically is diagnosed at a late stage and because of the development of chemoresistance in recurrent disease. Improving outcomes in women with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer is a substantial unmet need. Activation of the glucocorticoid receptor (GR) by cortisol has been shown to suppress the apoptotic pathways used by cytotoxic agents, limiting their efficacy. Selective GR modulation may be able to counteract cortisol's antiapoptotic effects, enhancing chemotherapy's efficacy. A previous phase 2 study has shown that adding intermittently dosed relacorilant, a selective GR modulator, to nab-paclitaxel improved outcomes, including progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), with minimal added toxicity, in women with recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. The ROSELLA study aims to confirm and expand on these findings in a larger population., Methods: ROSELLA is a phase 3, randomized, 2-arm, open-label, global multicenter study in women with recurrent, platinum-resistant, high-grade serous epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer. Eligible participants have received 1 to 3 lines of prior systemic anticancer therapy, including ≥1 prior line of platinum therapy and prior treatment with bevacizumab, with documented progressive disease or intolerance to the most recent therapy. There is no biomarker-based requirement for participant selection. Participants are randomized 1:1 to receive intermittently dosed relacorilant in combination with nab-paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel monotherapy. The study's primary efficacy endpoint is PFS as assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary efficacy endpoints include OS, investigator-assessed PFS, objective response rate, best overall response, duration of response, clinical benefit rate at 24 weeks, and cancer antigen 125 response. The study is also evaluating safety and patient-reported outcomes., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05257408; European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database Identifier: 2022-000662-18., Competing Interests: Alexander B. Olawaiye: Grants/research support, Corcept Therapeutics, AstraZeneca; Honoraria or consultation fees, AstraZeneca, GSK, Merck, Genentech., (© 2024. Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology, Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology, and Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology.)

Background: Older patients with ovarian cancer represent a heterogeneous population. The French National Group of Investigators for the Study of Ovarian and Breast Cancer developed the geriatric vulnerability score (GVS) to identify geriatric parameters predictive of poor outcomes. A prospective validation of the GVS was needed., Methods: The EWOC-1 study (NCT02001272) was an international, open-label, phase 2, three-arm trial designed according to a two-step process. Patients aged 70 years or older with newly diagnosed stage III or IV ovarian cancer were identified and the GVS determined. Those with a GVS of 3 or greater were randomly assigned to the EWOC-1 trial, stratified by country and surgical outcome, to receive three different carboplatin with or without paclitaxel regimens; those not included in the EWOC-1 trial were followed up in the EWOC-1 registry. External validation of the GVS was a secondary endpoint of the trial. Three validation cohorts were identified: the total population (validation cohort 1 [V1], n=447), the registry-only population (validation cohort 2 [V2], n=327), and the carboplatin-paclitaxel-treated population (validation cohort 3 [V3], n=320)., Findings: From Dec 11, 2013, to Nov 16, 2018, 447 patients were included in 48 academic centres in six countries; 120 in the EWOC-1 trial and 327 in the EWOC-1 registry. Median follow-up was 19·7 (95% CI 8·5-29·7) months for the total cohort; missing values were low (<2%). According to the maximum likelihood analysis, the hazard ratio (HR) of death in V1 was 1·8 (95% CI 1·1-3·1, p=0·029) for those with a GVS of 1; 2·4 (1·4-4·0, p=0·0009) with a GVS of 2; 4·1 (2·5-7·0, p<0·0001) for a GVS of 3; 5·5 (3·3-9·3, p<0·0001) for a GVS of 4; and 9·1 (4·7-17·5, p<0·0001) for a GVS of 5 compared with a score of 0. Whatever the validation cohort, GVS of 3 or more significantly segregated two groups with different overall survival: V1 (median 13·2 [95% CI: 10·8-18·7] vs 40·8 [32·0-45·6] months; HR 2·8 [95% CI 2·2-3·7]; p<0·0001); V2 (11·9 [95% CI 8·8-18·1] vs 40·8 [32·0-45·6] months, HR 3·5 [2·5-4·9]; p<0·0001); and V3 (18·1 [95% CI 15·8-31·8] vs 43·0 [40·6-49·7] months, HR 2·6 [1·9 to 3·7]; p<0·0001)., Interpretation: The GVS has high prognostic performance for overall survival in patients with advanced ovarian cancer, independently of geographic and historic effect (V1), as well as treatment patterns (V3), validated in an international population. Even though the GVS is time consuming it will allow the stratification of populations for clinical research and might permit the orientation of the geriatric intervention to specific domains., Funding: French National Cancer Institute., Translation: For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests CF reports a grant from the French National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Leo Pharma, Pfizer, MSD Oncology, Teva, AstraZeneca, Baxter, Eisai, Janssen Oncology, Novartis, Chugai Pharma, and Astellas Pharma, outside the submitted work; grants from Chugai Pharma, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, and Astellas Pharma, outside the submitted work; and non-financial support from Janssen Oncology, Pierre Fabre, AstraZeneca, and Leo Pharma, outside the submitted work. FT reports grants from French National Institute (via Hospices Civils de Lyon), during the conduct of the study. DL reports grants from PharmaMar, Merck Serono, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Tesaro, GSK, Roche, Genmab, and Immunogen, during the conduct of the study. AF reports personal fees from MSD, AstraZeneca, GSK, and Clovis Oncology, outside the submitted work. FR reports participation in a specialist advisory board for Bristol Myers Squibb. OT reports grants and personal fees from Roche and MSD, grants from BMS, and personal fees from Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Pierre Fabre, and Seagen, outside the submitted work. EP-L reports personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, Tesaro, and Roche; personal fees from Clovis, Incyte, and Pfizer; and other from Association de Recherche sur les CAncers dont GYnécologiques (ARCAGY) Research, outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Standard therapy for advanced endometrial cancer after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy remains unclear., Methods: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with advanced endometrial cancer who had previously received at least one platinum-based chemotherapy regimen to receive either lenvatinib (20 mg, administered orally once daily) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg, administered intravenously every 3 weeks) or chemotherapy of the treating physician's choice (doxorubicin at 60 mg per square meter of body-surface area, administered intravenously every 3 weeks, or paclitaxel at 80 mg per square meter, administered intravenously weekly [with a cycle of 3 weeks on and 1 week off]). The two primary end points were progression-free survival as assessed on blinded independent central review according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, and overall survival. The end points were evaluated in patients with mismatch repair-proficient (pMMR) disease and in all patients. Safety was also assessed., Results: A total of 827 patients (697 with pMMR disease and 130 with mismatch repair-deficient disease) were randomly assigned to receive lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (411 patients) or chemotherapy (416 patients). The median progression-free survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with chemotherapy (pMMR population: 6.6 vs. 3.8 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50 to 0.72; P<0.001; overall: 7.2 vs. 3.8 months; hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.66; P<0.001). The median overall survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with chemotherapy (pMMR population: 17.4 vs. 12.0 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.84; P<0.001; overall: 18.3 vs. 11.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.75; P<0.001). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 88.9% of the patients who received lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and in 72.7% of those who received chemotherapy., Conclusions: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab led to significantly longer progression-free survival and overall survival than chemotherapy among patients with advanced endometrial cancer. (Funded by Eisai and Merck Sharp and Dohme [a subsidiary of Merck]; Study 309-KEYNOTE-775 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03517449.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: In the absence of randomised head-to-head trials, we conducted a population-adjusted indirect treatment comparison (PA-ITC) of phase III trial data to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of maintenance olaparib and bevacizumab alone and in combination in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation (BRCAm)., Methods: An unanchored PA-ITC was performed on investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) data. Individual patient data from SOLO1 (olaparib versus placebo) and from BRCA-mutated patients in PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 (olaparib plus bevacizumab versus placebo plus bevacizumab) were pooled. Each arm of PAOLA-1 was weighted so that key baseline patient characteristics were similar to the SOLO1 cohort. Analyses were performed in patients with complete baseline data. Weighted Cox regression analysis was used to estimate the comparative efficacy of different maintenance therapy strategies, supplemented by weighted Kaplan-Meier analyses., Results: Data from SOLO1 patients (olaparib, n = 254; placebo, n = 126) were compared with data from BRCA-mutated PAOLA-1 patients (olaparib plus bevacizumab, n = 151; placebo plus bevacizumab, n = 71). Adding bevacizumab to olaparib was associated with a numerical improvement in PFS compared with olaparib alone (hazard ratio [HR] 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-1.09). Statistically significant improvements in PFS were seen with olaparib alone versus placebo plus bevacizumab (HR 0.48; 95% CI 0.30-0.75), olaparib plus bevacizumab versus placebo (0.23; 0.14-0.34), and placebo plus bevacizumab versus placebo (0.65; 0.43-0.95)., Conclusions: Results of this hypothesis-generating PA-ITC analysis support the use of maintenance olaparib alone or with bevacizumab in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCAm., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement Ignace Vergote: reports consulting fees, paid to his institution, from Advaxis, Eisai, MSD Belgium, F. Hoffman-La Roche, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Oncoinvent and Sotio; consulting fees, paid to his institution, and travel support from Roche, Genmab, PharmaMar, Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Tesaro and Immunogen; grant support, paid to his institution, from Amgen, Stichting tegen Kanker and Roche; research support from Oncoinvent and Genmab; and travel support from Takeda Oncology. Isabelle Ray-Coquard: reports consulting fees, grant and travel support from AstraZeneca and Roche, consulting fees and travel support from GlaxoSmithKline, consulting fees from Clovis Oncology, PharmaMar, Mersana Therapeutics, Deciphera Pharmaceutical, Amgen and Chugai Pharmaceutical, grant support from Bristol Myers Squibb, and consulting fees and grant support from Merck Sharp & Dohme. Daniel M. Anderson: reports nothing to disclose. Guilherme Cantuaria: reports nothing to disclose. Nicoletta Colombo: reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, MSD, Roche, Tesaro, GSK, Clovis Oncology, PharmaMar, Pfizer, Amgen, Novartis, Biocad and Immunogen. Claire Garnier-Tixidre: reports personal fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Lilly and non-financial support from MSD and Pfizer. Lucy Gilbert: reports consulting fees from GSK, Merck, Eisai, Astra Zeneca and Alkermes, and grant support from Alkermes, Immunogen, AstraZeneca, Esperas Pharma Inc, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Marsan Therapeutics, Roche, Tesaro, Pfizer and Karyopharm Therapeutics. Philipp Harter: reports consulting fees and grant support from AstraZeneca, Roche, Tesaro, and GlaxoSmithKline, consulting fees from Sotio, Zai Lab, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Clovis Oncology and Immunogen, and grant support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Medac, Genmab, the European Union, Deutsche Krebshilfe and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Robert Hettle: reports full-time employment with AstraZeneca and AstraZeneca stock ownership. Domenica Lorusso: reports consultancy fees from Amgen and PharmaMar; advisory board fees and speaker fees from AstraZeneca; advisory board fees, speaker fees and grant support for academic trials (institutional) from GSK and MSD; speaker fees, grants (institutional) and financial support for trial co-ordination (institutional) from Clovis Oncology; and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Incyte, MSD, Roche and the Gynecological Cancer InterGroup. Johanna Mäenpää: reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis, MSD and Orion Pharma; and consulting fees and travel support from Roche and Tesaro/GSK. Christian Marth: reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, MSD, Roche, Tesaro, GSK, Clovis Oncology, PharmaMar, Pfizer, Amgen, Novartis, Seagen and Biocad. Koji Matsumoto: reports institutional fees for clinical trials from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Chugai, Eisai, Lilly, ICON, MSD and ONO and personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Chugai, Kyowa-Kirin, Lilly and Pfizer. Mario Ouwens: reports full-time employment with AstraZeneca and AstraZeneca stock ownership. Andrés Poveda: reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca and personal fees from PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, Roche, Clovis Oncology and Tesaro. Francesco Raspagliesi: reports grants and travel support from Astra Zeneca, MSD, Clovis, Pharmamar, Roche and GSK. Kirsty Rhodes: reports full-time employment with AstraZeneca and AstraZeneca stock ownership. María Jesus Rubio Pérez: reports nothing to disclose. Ronnie Shapira-Frommer: reports advisory board fees from MSD, VBL Therapeutics, Eisai and Clovis Oncology, research grant from MSD; and speaker honoraria from MSD, BMS, Novartis, Roche, Medison, Neopharm and AstraZeneca. Ayumi Shikama: reports nothing to disclose. Magdalena Sikorska: reports nothing to disclose. Kathleen Moore: reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Aravive, Eisai, GSK/Tesaro, Genentech/Roche, Immunogen, Merck, Myriad, Mersana, VBL Therapeutics, Vavotar and Tarveda, outside the submitted work. Paul DiSilvestro: reports personal fees from AstraZeneca., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Poly-(ADP)-ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) are a class of oral anticancer drugs first developed as "synthetically lethal" in cancers harboring BRCA1/BRCA2 inactivating mutations. In high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancers (HGOC), PARPi demonstrated benefit as maintenance therapy in relapsing BRCA-mutated and non-mutated tumors. Recently, they extended their indications to frontline maintenance therapy. This review summarizes the current place of PARPi (i) as maintenance or single agent in recurrent disease and (ii) frontline maintenance with different settings. We reviewed the course of biomarker identification, the challenge of overcoming resistance to PARPi and future combinations with targeted therapies, including anti-angiogenic, immune checkpoint inhibitors and DNA damage response inhibitors., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To explore the clinical and biological prognostic factors for advanced ovarian cancer patients receiving first-line treatment with carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab., Methods: A multicenter, phase IV, single arm trial was performed. Patients with advanced (FIGO (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics) stage IIIB-IV) or recurrent, previously untreated, ovarian cancer received carboplatin (AUC (area under the curve) 5), paclitaxel (175 mg/m 2 ) plus bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) on day 1 for six 3-weekly cycles followed by bevacizumab single agent (15 mg/kg) until progression or unacceptable toxicity up to a maximum of 22 total cycles. Here we report the final analysis on the role of clinical prognostic factors. The study had 80% power with a two-tailed 0.01 α error to detect a 0.60 hazard ratio with a factor expressed in at least 20% of the population. Both progression-free and overall survival were used as endpoints., Results: From October 2012 to November 2014, 398 eligible patients were treated. After a median follow-up of 32.3 months (IQR 24.1-40.4), median progression-free survival was 20.8 months (95% CI 19.1 to 22.0) and median overall survival was 41.1 months (95% CI 39.1 to 43.5). Clinical factors significantly predicting progression-free and overall survival were performance status, stage, and residual disease after primary surgery. Neither baseline blood pressure/antihypertensive treatment nor the development of hypertension during bevacizumab were prognostic. There were two deaths possibly related to treatment, but no unexpected safety signal was reported., Conclusions: Efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel and as maintenance were comparable to previous data. Hypertension, either at baseline or developed during treatment, was not prognostic. Performance status, stage, and residual disease after primary surgery remain the most important clinical prognostic factors., Trial Registration Number: EudraCT 2012-003043-29; NCT01706120., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Dr Daniele reports travel and accommodations from Roche, outside the submitted work. Dr Raspagliesi reports grants from Roche, grants from GSK, grants from MSD, grants from Pharmamar, outside the submitted work. Dr Colombo reports personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Pharmamar, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Tesaro, personal fees from GSK, personal fees from Clovis, personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Biogen, personal fees from BIOCAD, outside the submitted work. Dr De Giorgi reports personal fees from Astellas - Pharma, personal fees from Bayer, personal fees and non-financial support from Bristol Myers-Squibb, personal fees and non-financial support from Ipsen, personal fees and non-financial support from Janssen, personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer, grants and personal fees from Sanofi, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from MSD, grants and non-financial support from Roche, grants from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Pharmamar, outside the submitted work. Dr Lorusso reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Pharmamar, grants and personal fees from MSD, grants and personal fees from Clovis, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from GSK, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Merck Serono, personal fees from Amgen, non-financial support from Roche, outside the submitted work. Dr Salutari reports personal fees from MSD, personal fees from GSK, personal fees from Tesaro, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Eisai, personal fees from Clovis, outside the submitted work. Dr Piccirillo reports personal fees from Daichii Sankyo, personal fees from GSK, personal fees from MSD, grants from Roche, grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, non-financial support from Bayer, outside the submitted work. Dr Perrone reports grants from Roche, during the conduct of the study; grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Bayer, personal fees from Sandoz, grants and personal fees from Incyte, personal fees from Celgene, grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Pierre Fabre, personal fees from Janssen Cilag, grants from Roche, grants from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Dr Pignata reports grants from Roche, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from AZ, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Clovis, personal fees and non-financial support from Tesaro GSK, personal fees from Roche, outside the submitted work. The other authors do not declare conflicts of interests., (© IGCS and ESGO 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Importance: Single-agent carboplatin is often proposed instead of a conventional carboplatin-paclitaxel doublet in vulnerable older patients with ovarian cancer. Such an approach could have a detrimental effect on outcomes for these patients., Objective: To compare the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of single-agent carboplatin every 3 weeks, weekly carboplatin-paclitaxel, or conventional every-3-weeks carboplatin-paclitaxel in vulnerable older patients with ovarian cancer., Design, Setting, and Participants: This international, open-label, 3-arm randomized clinical trial screened 447 women 70 years and older with newly diagnosed stage III/IV ovarian cancer by determining their Geriatric Vulnerability Score; 120 patients with a Geriatric Vulnerability Score of 3 or higher were stratified by country and surgical outcome. Enrollment took place at 48 academic centers in France, Italy, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, and Canada from December 11, 2013, to April 26, 2017. Final analysis database lock April 2019. Data analysis was performed from February 1 to December 31, 2019., Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive 6 cycles of (1) carboplatin, area under the curve (AUC) 5 mg/mL·min, plus paclitaxel, 175 mg/m2, every 3 weeks; (2) single-agent carboplatin, AUC 5 mg/mL·min or AUC 6 mg/mL·min, every 3 weeks; or (3) weekly carboplatin, AUC 2 mg/mL·min, plus paclitaxel, 60 mg/m2, on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was treatment feasibility, defined as the ability to complete 6 chemotherapy cycles without disease progression, premature toxic effects-related treatment discontinuation, or death., Results: A total of 120 women were randomized. The mean and median age was 80 (interquartile range, 76-83; range, 70-94) years; 43 (36%) had a Geriatric Vulnerability Score of 4 and 13 (11%) had a Geriatric Vulnerability Score of 5; 40 (33%) had stage IV disease. During its third meeting, the independent data monitoring committee's recommendation led to the termination of the trial because single-agent carboplatin was associated with significantly worse survival. Six cycles were completed in 26 of 40 (65%), 19 of 40 (48%), and 24 of 40 (60%) patients in the every-3-weeks combination, single-agent carboplatin, and weekly combination groups, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events were less common with the standard every-3-weeks combination (17 of 40 [43%]) than single-agent carboplatin or weekly combination therapy (both 23 of 40 [58%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in 4 patients (2 of 40 [5%] in each combination group)., Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial shows that compared with every-3-weeks or weekly carboplatin-paclitaxel regimens, single-agent carboplatin was less active with significantly worse survival outcomes in vulnerable older patients with ovarian cancer., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02001272.

Background: Bevacizumab is approved in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of ovarian cancer, either in first-line therapy or for patients with recurrent disease not previously treated with the same drug. We aimed to test the value of continuing bevacizumab beyond progression after first-line treatment with the same drug., Methods: In our open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done at 82 sites in four countries, we enrolled women (aged ≥18 years) who had previously received first-line platinum-based therapy including bevacizumab, and had recurrent (≥6 months since last platinum dose), International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics stage IIIB-IV ovarian cancer with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a carboplatin-based doublet intravenously (carboplatin area under the concentration curve [AUC] 5 on day 1 plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m 2 on day 1, every 21 days; carboplatin AUC 4 on day 1 plus gemcitabine 1000 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 8, every 21 days; or carboplatin AUC 5 on day 1 plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin 30 mg/m 2 on day 1, every 28 days), or a carboplatin-based doublet plus bevacizumab (10 mg/kg intravenous every 14 days combined with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin-carboplatin, or 15 mg/kg every 21 days combined with gemcitabine-carboplatin or paclitaxel-carboplatin). Evaluable disease according to RECIST 1.1 guidelines was required before randomisation. Randomisation was done through the trial website with a minimisation procedure, stratified by centre, time of recurrence, performance status, and type of second-line chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01802749 and EudraCT 2012-004362-17., Findings: Between Dec 6, 2013, and Nov 11, 2016, 406 patients were recruited (203 [50%] assigned to the bevacizumab group and 203 [50%] to the standard chemotherapy group). 130 patients (64%) in the bevacizumab group and 131 (65%) in the standard chemotherapy group had progressed after receiving a last dose of platinum more than 12 months before, and 146 patients (72%) in the bevacizumab group and 147 (72%) in the standard chemotherapy group had progressed after completion of first-line bevacizumab maintenance. 161 participants (79%) progressed in the standard chemotherapy group, as did 143 (70%) in the bevacizumab group. Median progression-free survival was 8·8 months (95% CI 8·4-9·3) in the standard chemotherapy group and 11·8 months (10·8-12·9) in the bevacizumab group (hazard ratio 0·51, 95% CI 0·41-0·65; log-rank p<0·0001). Most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (20 [10%] in the standard chemotherapy group vs 58 (29%) in the bevacizumab group), neutrophil count decrease (81 [41%] vs 80 [40%]), and platelet count decrease (43 [22%] vs 61 [30%]). 68 patients (33%) died in the standard chemotherapy group and 79 (39%) died in the bevacizumab group; two deaths (1%) in the standard chemotherapy group and one death (<1%) in the bevacizumab group were deemed to be treatment-related., Interpretation: Continuing bevacizumab beyond progression combined with chemotherapy in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer improves progression-free survival compared with standard chemotherapy alone and might be considered in clinical practice., Funding: Hoffmann-La Roche and Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Following the failure of first-line platinum-based chemotherapy in ovarian cancer, options for further therapy in potentially platinum-responsive patients are: carboplatin doublets with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, gemcitabine or paclitaxel in association with bevacizumab, followed by maintenance with bevacizumab (for nonpretreated patients); or maintenance monotherapy with a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor after a response. The choice of biological therapy depends on a patient's previous treatments and priority for a symptomatic response. In cases of a rapidly growing tumor or need for symptomatic relief, the addition of bevacizumab should be considered. Patients with limited potential sensitivity to platinum, such as those with a platinum treatment-free interval of 6-12 months, may benefit from intercalation with trabectedin and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin to possibly restore platinum sensitivity.

Background: Targeted agents, such as antiangiogenic drugs (e.g., bevacizumab) and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (e.g., rucaparib), have been shown to improve outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed or recurrent ovarian cancer. Evidence suggests that combinations of these two classes of targeted agents may result in synergistic antitumor activity., Objective: The phase I portion of MITO 25 was designed to determine the maximum tolerated dose, pharmacokinetics, and the safety profile of rucaparib when administered in combination with bevacizumab as maintenance treatment for patients with high-grade epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer., Methods: This was a single-arm, phase I dose-escalation study. Cohorts of three patients were recruited to receive increasing rucaparib doses of 400 mg, 500 mg, or 600 mg twice daily for 28 days. Bevacizumab 15 mg/kg was administered at day 1 every 21 days., Results: We enrolled nine patients. Two patients in the rucaparib 600-mg group had four grade 3 treatment-emergent adverse events: increased in alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase levels, depression, and hallucinations. These were deemed to be dose-limiting toxicities related to rucaparib. Because these dose-limiting toxicities occurred in the 600-mg group and affected more than one in three patients, the maximum tolerated dose for rucaparib was considered 500 mg twice daily when combined with bevacizumab 15 mg/kg at day 1 every 21 days. There were no new safety concerns from using the combination. No substantial difference in pharmacokinetic parameters was found between the cohorts or in the pharmacokinetic profiles of rucaparib administered alone or with bevacizumab with respect to historical controls., Conclusions: The maximum tolerated dose of rucaparib is 500 mg twice daily when co-administered with bevacizumab. The plasma concentration-time profiles of rucaparib in combination with bevacizumab suggest no pharmacokinetic interactions between the drugs. The randomized phase II portion of MITO 25 will further investigate rucaparib maintenance treatment with or without bevacizumab in patients with newly diagnosed stage III-IV ovarian cancer who responded to carboplatin-paclitaxel chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03462212; registered March 2018.

Background: Improvement in clinical outcomes of patients with platinum-resistant disease is an unmet medical need and trials in this population are urgently needed. Checkpoint-inhibitors have already shown activity in multiple other tumor entities and ovarian cancer, especially in the combination with anti-angiogenic treatment., Primary Objective: To test if the activity of non-platinum-based chemotherapy and bevacizumab could be improved by the addition of atezolizumab., Study Hypothesis: The addition of atezolizumab to standard non-platinum combination of chemotherapy and bevacizumab improves median overall survival from 15 to 20 months., Trial Design: Patients are randomized to chemotherapy (paclitaxel weekly or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin) + bevacizumab + placebo vs chemotherapy + bevacizumab + atezolizumab. Stratification factors are: number of prior lines, planned type of chemotherapy, prior use of bevacizumab, and tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status., Major Inclusion/exclusion Criteria: Recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer with up to three prior therapies and a treatment-free interval after platinum of less than 6 months. Patients with three prior lines of chemotherapy are eligible irrespective of the platinum free-interval. A de novo tumor tissue sample biopsy for determination of PD-L1 status prior to randomization for stratification is mandatory. Major exclusion criteria consider bevacizumab-specific and immunotherapy-specific criteria., Primary Endpoint: Overall survival and progression-free survival are co-primary endpoints., Sample Size: It is planned to randomize 664 patients., Trial Registration: NCT03353831., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PH reports grants and personal fees from Astra Zeneca, grants and personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Sotio, grants and personal fees from Tesaro, personal fees from Stryker, personal fees from Zai Lab, personal fees from MSD, grants and personal fees from public funding (ASCO, DKH, DFG), personal fees from Clovis, personal fees from Immunogen, grants from GSK, grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants from Medac, grants from Genmab, outside the submitted work. PP reports personal fees from Roche Laboratory, other personal fees from MSD laboratory, other from Clovis Oncology, outside the submitted work. AR reports grants and personal fees from Pharmamar, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from Tesaro, grants and personal fees from Roche, grants from Eisai, outside the submitted work. KL reports other personal fees from Astra Zeneca, other from GSK, outside the submitted work. CK reports personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, personal fees and non-financial support from Tessaro, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer, personal fees and non-financial support from Pharmamar, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Genomic Health, outside the submitted work. EP reports personal fees from AGEA, personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from Angelini, personal fees from Celgene, personal fees from Eisai, personal fees from Eli Lilly, personal fees from GSK, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Pharmamar, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Tesaro, personal fees from Clovis, personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, outside the submitted work. FH reports non-financial support from NewOncology; personal fees from Roche, personal fees from AstraZeneca, from Clovis, personal fees from Tesaro, from PharmaMar, outside the submitted work. JS reports grants, non-financial support and other from Roche, grants, non-financial support, and other perdonal fees from PharmaMar, grants, non-financial support and other peredonal fees from Teasaro, grants, non-financial support and other personal fees from Clovis, grants, non-financial support and other peersonal fees from Astra Zeneca, grants and non-financial support from MSD, grants, non-financial support and other personal fees from Novocure, outside the submitted work. ND: Dr. de Gregorio reports personal fees from Roche, personal fees from GSK, personal fees from Pharmamar, personal fees from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from Clovis, personal fees from Ingress, from null, outside the submitted work. PW reports grants and personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from Clovis, personal fees from MSD, grants and personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Pfizer, grants and personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Tesaro, personal fees from Eisai, personal fees from Pharmamar, personal fees from Teva, outside the submitted work. JL reports personal fees and other from Pfizer, grants and other from Merck/MSD, personal fees from Eisai, personal fees from Tesaro/GSK, grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Artios, personal fees from Regeneron, outside the submitted work. DL reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Tesaro, grants and personal fees from Clovis, grants and personal fees from Merck, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Pharmamar, personal fees from Immunogen, personal fees from Genmab, personal fees from Amgen, personal fees and non-financial support from Astra Zeneca, outside the submitted work. FM reports personal fees from Roche, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Tesaro, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from PharmaMar, personal fees from GenomicHealth, personal fees from CureVac, personal fees from EISAI, outside the submitted work., (© IGCS and ESGO 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: Adding bevacizumab to cisplatin-paclitaxel for advanced cervical cancer significantly improves overall and progression-free survival. We evaluated bevacizumab with a widely used carboplatin-paclitaxel backbone., Methods: Patients with metastatic/recurrent/persistent cervical cancer not amenable to curative surgery and/or radiotherapy received 3-weekly bevacizumab 15 mg/kg, paclitaxel 175 mg/m 2 , and carboplatin AUC 5 until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Maintenance bevacizumab was allowed. Patients with ongoing bladder/rectal involvement, prior cobalt radiotherapy, a history of fistula/gastrointestinal perforation, or recent bowel resection/chemoradiation were excluded. The primary objective was to determine incidences of gastrointestinal perforation/fistula, gastrointestinal-vaginal fistula, and genitourinary fistula., Results: Among 150 treated patients, disease at study entry was persistent in 21%, recurrent in 56%, and newly diagnosed metastatic in 23%. After 27.8 months' median follow-up, median bevacizumab duration was 6.7 months; 57% received maintenance bevacizumab. Seventeen patients (11.3%; 95% CI: 6.7-17.5%) experienced ≥1 perforation/fistula event: gastrointestinal perforation/fistula in 4.7% (1.9-9.4%), gastrointestinal-vaginal fistula in 4.0% (1.5-8.5%), and genitourinary fistula in 4.7% (1.9-9.4%). Of these, 16 were previously irradiated, several with ongoing radiation effects. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were neutropenia (25%), anemia (19%), and hypertension (14%). Five patients (3%) had fatal adverse events. Objective response rate was 61% (95% CI: 52-69%), median progression-free survival was 10.9 (10.1-13.7) months, and median overall survival was 25.0 (20.9-30.4) months., Conclusions: Bevacizumab can be combined with carboplatin-paclitaxel in the CECILIA study population. The fistula/gastrointestinal perforation incidence is in line with GOG-0240; efficacy results are encouraging., Trial Registration Number: NCT02467907 (ClinicalTrials.gov)., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest A. Redondo reports honoraria and advisory/consultancy (Astra-Zeneca, Roche, Tesaro-GSK, Clovis, PharmaMar, Lilly), honoraria (Eisai), research grant/funding to institution (Eisai, PharmaMar, Roche), travel/accommodation/expenses (Astra-Zeneca, Tesaro-GSK, PharmaMar, Roche). N. Colombo reports personal fees (Roche, PharmaMar, Astra-Zeneca, Tesaro, GSK, Clovis, Pfizer, MSD, Amgen, Biocad, Takeda, Immunogen). M. McCormack reports honoraria (Astra-Zeneca, Roche). L. Dreosti reports honoraria and advisory/consultancy (Lilly, MSD), honoraria (Pfizer, Novartis), travel/accommodation/expenses/congress sponsorship (Janssen, Merck, Astellas Pharmaceutical). A. Nogueira-Rodrigues reports honoraria and advisory/consultancy (Roche, Astra-Zeneca, MSD, GSK, Eisai), research/grant funding to institution (Roche). D. Lorusso reports participating in advisory boards (Roche, Tesaro, Clovis, Merck, PharmaMar, Immunogen, Genmab, Amgen, Astra-Zeneca), research grants to institution (Tesaro, Merck, Roche, PharmaMar, Clovis), expert testimony (Clovis), principal investigator roles (Roche, PharmaMar, Tesaro, Clovis, Immunogen, Genmab, Astra-Zeneca, Merck), and travel/meeting support (Roche, PharmaMar, Astra-Zeneca, Tesaro). F. Joly reports honoraria (to her institution) from Pfizer, BMS, MSD, Astra-Zeneca, Astellas, Janssen, and Bayer, personal fees for advisory/consultancy from BMS, Pfizer, Astra-Zeneca, Janssen, Sanofi, Ipsen, Bayer, Roche, GSK, MSD, Clovis, and Astellas, and travel/accommodation expenses from BMS, Pfizer, Astra-Zeneca, Janssen, Sanofi, Ipsen, MSD, GSK, and Roche. M. Schenker reports clinical research funding (personal and institution) from Roche, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, GSK, Bayer, Regeneron, Mylan, Astra-Zeneca, AbbVie, Astellas, Merck Serono, and Gilead. P. Ruff reports honoraria and research grant/funding to institution (MSD, Roche, Astra-Zeneca, Novartis, Amgen, Janssen) and travel/accommodation expenses (MSD). N. Irahara is a Roche employee. M. Donica is a Roche employee and holds shares in Novartis. A. Gonzalez-Martín reports personal fees for advisory/consultancy (Roche, Astra-Zeneca, Tesaro/GSK, Clovis, Pfizer/Merck, ImmunoGen, PharmaMar, MSD, Genmab, Oncoinvent, SOTIO), personal fees for speaker bureau (Roche, PharmaMar, Tesaro/GSK, Astra-Zeneca), travel expenses (Astra-Zeneca, Roche, Tesaro/GSK, PharmaMar), and research/grant funding to institution (Roche, Tesaro/GSK). The remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: This randomized phase II study tested the hypothesis that schedule dependent chemo-immunotherapy with oregovomab improves progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in optimally resected, Stage III/IV ovarian cancer., Methods: Patients from both academic centers and private practice in the US and Italy with Stage III/IV optimally cytoreduced ovarian cancer were randomized to standard six cycle IV carboplatin-paclitaxel chemotherapy (CP) versus CP plus four immunizations with oregovomab (CPO). A translational assessment of a cellular immune response was the primary endpoint; PFS and OS were measured as secondary endpoints., Findings: 97 patients at thirteen centers were accrued to the protocol, 47 to CPO and 50 to CP. Technical issues led to inconsistent performance of the primary CA125 ELISPOT leading to unevaluable results. At a median follow up of 42 months, PFS and OS outcomes revealed an unexpectedly large treatment effect for CPO relative to CP alone, with median PFS of 41.8 months (95% C.I.: 21.8 - N.E.) for CPO and 12.2 months (10.4-18.6) for CP (p = 0.0027, HR 0.46, CI 0.28-0.7). For OS, the median for CPO has not yet been reached (NE) (45.2-NE) and for CP was 43.2 months (31.8-NE) (p = 0.043, HR 0.35, CI 0.16-0.74). The oregovomab treatment resulted in no change in toxicity profile from CP., Interpretation: The previously identified potential clinical benefit of IV CP when administered with oregovomab was further refined in this randomized phase II study. Increases of PFS and OS of statistically and clinically significant magnitude were evident in this study of a front line chemo-immunotherapy treatment of ovarian cancer., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Olaparib has shown significant clinical benefit as maintenance therapy in women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer with a BRCA mutation. The effect of combining maintenance olaparib and bevacizumab in patients regardless of BRCA mutation status is unknown., Methods: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, international phase 3 trial. Eligible patients had newly diagnosed, advanced, high-grade ovarian cancer and were having a response after first-line platinum-taxane chemotherapy plus bevacizumab. Patients were eligible regardless of surgical outcome or BRCA mutation status. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive olaparib tablets (300 mg twice daily) or placebo for up to 24 months; all the patients received bevacizumab at a dose of 15 mg per kilogram of body weight every 3 weeks for up to 15 months in total. The primary end point was the time from randomization until investigator-assessed disease progression or death., Results: Of the 806 patients who underwent randomization, 537 were assigned to receive olaparib and 269 to receive placebo. After a median follow-up of 22.9 months, the median progression-free survival was 22.1 months with olaparib plus bevacizumab and 16.6 months with placebo plus bevacizumab (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49 to 0.72; P<0.001). The hazard ratio (olaparib group vs. placebo group) for disease progression or death was 0.33 (95% CI, 0.25 to 0.45) in patients with tumors positive for homologous-recombination deficiency (HRD), including tumors that had BRCA mutations (median progression-free survival, 37.2 vs. 17.7 months), and 0.43 (95% CI, 0.28 to 0.66) in patients with HRD-positive tumors that did not have BRCA mutations (median progression-free survival, 28.1 vs. 16.6 months). Adverse events were consistent with the established safety profiles of olaparib and bevacizumab., Conclusions: In patients with advanced ovarian cancer receiving first-line standard therapy including bevacizumab, the addition of maintenance olaparib provided a significant progression-free survival benefit, which was substantial in patients with HRD-positive tumors, including those without a BRCA mutation. (Funded by ARCAGY Research and others; PAOLA-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02477644.)., (Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Objective: immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors has become one of the standard therapeutic modalities for patients with advanced melanoma. Melanoma of the female lower genital tract is a rare and aggressive disease, with poor long-term clinical outcomes. To date, no study evaluated the role of immunotherapy in metastatic melanoma of the lower genital tract., Methods: Data of women with metastatic melanoma of the lower genital tract were prospectively collected. Survival outcomes over time was assessed using Kaplan-Meier model., Results: Seven cases of metastatic melanoma of the lower genital tract (vulva [n=2], vagina [n=4], and uterine cervix [n=1]) treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors are reviewed. Two patients had metastatic disease at diagnosis, while 5 patients developed metastatic disease at a mean (standard deviation) time of 9.9 (±3.0) months from primary diagnosis. Four patients received an anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA4) (ipilimumab) and 3 received an anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) (pembrolizumab [n=2], nivolumab [n=1]) therapy. The response rate to immunotherapy was 28.5%. Patients receiving an anti-PD-1 experienced a better progression-free survival than patients treated with anti-CTLA4 (p=0.01, log-rank test). Although not reaching statistical significance, overall survival was better in patients having an anti-PD-1 therapy in comparison to anti-CTLA4 (p=0.15, log-rank test)., Conclusion: Results from our series confirm the poor prognosis of women with metastatic melanoma of the lower genital tract, thus supporting the need of exploring new treatment modalities. Further studies are warranted to improve knowledge on the role of immunotherapy in metastatic melanoma of the lower genital tract., Competing Interests: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported., (Copyright © 2019. Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology, Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology.)

Introduction: The PENELOPE trial evaluated pertuzumab added to chemotherapy for biomarker-selected platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. As previously reported, pertuzumab did not statistically significantly improve progression-free survival (primary end point: HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.11), although results in the paclitaxel and gemcitabine cohorts suggested activity. Here, we report final overall survival and patient-reported outcomes., Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had ovarian carcinoma that progressed during/within 6 months of completing ≥4 platinum cycles, low tumor human epidermal growth factor receptor 3 (HER3) mRNA expression, and ≤2 prior chemotherapy lines. Investigators selected single-agent topotecan, gemcitabine or weekly paclitaxel before patients were randomized to either placebo or pertuzumab (840→420 mg every 3 weeks), stratified by selected chemotherapy, prior anti-angiogenic therapy, and platinum-free interval. Final overall survival analysis (key secondary end point) was pre-specified after 129 deaths. Patient-reported outcomes (secondary end point) were assessed at baseline and every 9 weeks until disease progression., Results: At database lock (June 9, 2016), 130 (83%) of 156 randomized patients had died. Median follow-up was 27 months in the pertuzumab arm versus 26 months in the control arm. In the intent-to-treat population there was no overall survival difference between treatment arms (stratified HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.32; p=0.60). Results in subgroups defined by stratification factors indicated heterogeneity similar to previous progression-free survival results. Updated safety was similar to previously published results. Compliance with patient-reported outcomes questionnaire completion was >75% for all validated patient-reported outcomes measures. Pertuzumab demonstrated neither beneficial nor detrimental effects on patient-reported outcomes compared with placebo, except for increased diarrhea symptoms., Discussion: Consistent with the primary results, adding pertuzumab to chemotherapy for low tumor HER3 mRNA-expressing platinum-resistant ovarian cancer did not improve overall survival, but showed trends in some cohorts. Except for increased diarrhea symptoms, pertuzumab had no impact on patient-reported outcomes. ClinicalTrials.gov: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01684878., Competing Interests: Competing interests: DL has participated in advisory boards for Roche, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Merck and Tesaro; her institution has received research support from Clovis, PharmaMar and Merck. FH has a consultant and advisory relationship with Roche, AstraZeneca and MSD. AGM has consulting and advisory relationships with Roche, Tesaro, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Clovis, PharmaMar and ImmunoGen. PO has a consulting or advisory role with Novartis, GSK, MSD, Clovis and Tesaro. FS has served as a consultant for Roche and Tesaro. NC has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Tesaro, Roche, PharmaMar, Takeda and Pfizer. BP has participated in advisory boards for Clovis and Tesaro. IV has participated in advisory boards for Advaxis Inc, Eisai Inc, MSD Belgium, Roche NV, Genmab A/S, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, PharmaMar, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Clovis Oncology Inc, AstraZeneca NV, Novocure GMBH, Morphotek Inc, Mateon Therapeutics Inc, Immunogen Inc, Eli Lilly Benelux NV, Amgen Inc, Pfizer Inc, Vifor Pharma België NV, Novartis Pharma AG, Oxigene Inc, Nektar Therapeutics and Bayer Pharma AG, has contract research (via K U Leuven) with Oncoinvent AS and Genmab A/S – Genmab B.V., has received grants for corporate-sponsored research from Amgen and Roche, and has received accommodation/travel expenses from Takeda Oncology, PharmaMar, Genmab, Roche and AstraZeneca. AR has consultant and advisory roles with Roche, Tesaro, AstraZeneca, Clovis, PharmaMar, Amgen, Lilly and Novartis, and research funding from Roche, PharmaMar and Eisai. AC and LB-T are employees of and shareholders in Roche. AdB has a consulting and advisory relationship with AstraZeneca, Roche, Tesaro, Pfizer, Clovis, PharMar and Genmab. CK has a consultant and advisory relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Tesaro and Genomic Health. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (© IGCS and ESGO 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

The vast majority of ovarian cancer relapses on front-line therapy and the optimal treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer remains controversial. This review is based on the relevant published literature indexed in PubMed on pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD), either alone or in combination with other drugs, as one option in relapsed disease. PLD showed an improved pharmacokinetic profile, with a slower plasma clearance and a longer circulation time, compared to other conventional doxorubicin formulations. PLD is considered to have little potential for cardiotoxicity, even at prolonged and high cumulative doses, although there appears to be room for improvement in terms of maximal dose allowed. Notwithstanding, there remain some concerns about cardiac safety, and patient monitoring is generally advocated. No data are available on the possibility to rechallenge PLD treatment in recurrent ovarian cancer, as already known for other drugs. Optimization of treatment regimens with PLD will allow a more rational treatment in advanced ovarian cancers for which few therapeutic options are available.

Background: Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) has been associated with improved prognosis in several cancer conditions. Contrasting data have been produced in ovarian cancer., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cervical cancer cells often express Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR). Cetuximab (CET), an anti-EGFR antibody, can be safely combined with carboplatin (C) and paclitaxel (P), a standard treatment for advanced/recurrent cervical cancer (ARCC) patients., Patients and Methods: ARCC patients, ECOG PS ≤ 1, were randomized to CP for 6 cycles with or without CET (400 mg/m 2 one week before starting CP, then 250 mg/m 2 weekly) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Event-free survival (EFS) was the primary endpoint. With a 4.5 months expected median EFS and a 6.4 months predicted EFS (HR 0.70), 0.20 one-tailed α and 80% power, 89 events were required for the final intent-to-treat analysis., Results: 108 patients were assigned to CP (n = 53) or CP-CET (n = 55). Median age was 50, 69% were PS0, 76% had recurrent disease, 91% had distant metastasis and 57% had received previous chemotherapy. After a median follow-up of 23 months, 102 patients had an event, 97 progressed and 61 died. Median EFS was 4.7 and 6.0 months (one-tail P = 0.43), median PFS was 5.2 and 7.6 months (one-tail P = 0.20) and median OS was 17.7 and 17 months (one-tail P = 0.27), with CP and CP-CET, respectively. There was no difference in the occurrence of severe adverse events, except for skin toxicity. Biomarker analysis, in a small subgroup of patients, suggests that PIK3CA mutation might be predictive of CET resistance., Conclusion: CP-CET was not more active than CP alone in unselected ARCC patients., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by interval debulking surgery (IDS) may be a valuable treatment option in advanced ovarian cancer when primary cytoreduction is not feasible. However, a consensus on the ideal number of NACT cycles is still lacking. In the present investigation, we aimed to evaluate how number of cycles of NACT influenced patients' outcomes., Methods: Data of consecutive patients undergoing NACT and IDS were retrospectively reviewed in 4 Italian centers, and survival outcomes were evaluated., Results: Overall, 193 patients were included. Cycles of NACT were 3, 4, and at least 5 in 77 (40%), 74 (38%), and 43 (22%) patients, respectively. Patients undergoing 3 cycles experienced a similar disease-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89-1.65; P = 0.20) but an improved overall survival (HR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.05-2.4; P = 0.02) in comparison to patients receiving at least 4 cycles. Five-year overall survival was 46% and 31% for patients having 3 and at least 4 cycles. Ten-year overall survival was 26% and 18% for patients having 3 and at least 4 cycles (HR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.13-2.55; P = 0.009). Using multivariate analysis, we observed that only Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status correlated with overall survival (HR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.2-2.49; P = 0.001). In addition, a trend toward worse overall survival was observed for patients with residual disease at IDS (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.98-1.70; P = 0.06) and patients receiving at least 4 cycles (HR, 1.76; 95% CI, 0.95-3.22; P = 0.06)., Conclusion: Our data underline the potential implication of number of cycles of NACT before IDS. Further prospective studies are warranted to assess this correlation.

Purpose Platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) for patients with progressing ovarian cancer (OC) is more effective with a longer time interval from previous platinum treatment (platinum-free interval [PFI]). In 1999, it was hypothesized that prolonging PFI with single-agent non-PBC (NPBC) may offer a strategy to improve overall outcome. MITO-8 aimed to verify this hypothesis commonly used in clinical practice although it has not been prospectively tested. Methods MITO-8 is an open-label, prospective, randomized, superiority trial. Patients with OC who experienced disease progression 6 to 12 months after their last platinum treatment were randomly assigned 1:1 to the experimental sequence of NPBC followed by PBC at subsequent relapse or the standard reverse treatment sequence. Overall survival (OS) was the primary end point. Results Two hundred fifteen patients were enrolled (standard arm [n = 108]; experimental arm [n = 107]). The trial ended before planned because of slow enrollment. PFI was prolonged in the experimental arm (median, 7.8 v 0.01 months). There was no OS benefit in the experimental arm (median, 21.8 v 24.5 months; hazard ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.94; P = .06). Progression-free survival after the sequence was significantly shorter in the experimental arm (median, 12.8 v 16.4 months; hazard ratio, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.92; P = .025). Global quality-of-life change after three cycles was worse in the experimental arm. Slight differences were observed in the incidence of adverse effects. Conclusion MITO-8 supports the recommendation that PBC not be delayed in favor of an NPBC in patients with partially platinum-sensitive OC. PBC should be used as a control arm in future trials of new drugs in this setting.

Background: Few data are available on the outcome of surgery after a bevacizumab-containing regimen. The MITO 16A- MaNGO OV2A phase 4 trial evaluates the outcomes of first-line CPB in a clinical-practice-like setting. Here we present the results of the subgroup of patients undergoing IDS after neoadjuvant treatment or suboptimal primary surgery., Methods: 400 chemonaïve epithelial ovarian cancer patients, age≥18, ECOG PS 0-2 were eligible to receive C (AUC 5 d1, q21) plus P (175mg/m 2 d1, q21) and B (15mg/kg d1 q21) for 6cycles followed by B maintenance until cycle 22nd., Results: 79 patients (20%) underwent IDS. Overall, 74 patients received at least one administration of B before IDS. Median age was 61.2, 70% of the patients had FIGO IIIC disease. The median number of cycles before IDS was 3 both for chemotherapy and bevacizumab respectively. A residual disease ≤1cm was achieved in 64 patients (86.5%). Four percent of the patients experienced fever and 4% required blood transfusion after surgery. Surgical wound infection and/or dehiscence, pelvic abscess, intestinal sub-occlusion and fistula were experienced by one patient each., Conclusions: In the MITO16A-MaNGO OV2A phase 4 trial, combined chemotherapy and bevacizumab did not hamper IDS and the rate of perioperative complications was similar to what expected without bevacizumab. These data support the hypothesis that adding bevacizumab to first line chemotherapy for ovarian cancer might not be denied to patients for whom IDS is planned., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Trebananib, a peptide-Fc fusion protein, inhibits angiogenesis by inhibiting binding of angiopoietin-1/2 to the receptor tyrosine kinase Tie2. This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study evaluated whether trebananib plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) improved progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer., Methods: Women with recurrent ovarian cancer (platinum-free interval ≤12 months) were randomised to intravenous PLD 50 mg/m 2 once every 4 weeks plus weekly intravenous trebananib 15 mg/kg or placebo. PFS was the primary end-point; key secondary end-points were objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR). Owing to PLD shortages, enrolment was paused for 13 months; the study was subsequently truncated., Results: Two hundred twenty-three patients were enrolled. Median PFS was 7.6 months (95% CI, 7.2-9.0) in the trebananib arm and 7.2 months (95% CI, 4.8-8.2) in the placebo arm, with a hazard ratio of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.68-1.24). However, because the proportional hazards assumption was not fulfilled, the standard Cox model did not provide a reliable estimate of the hazard ratio. ORR in the trebananib arm was 46% versus 21% in the placebo arm (odds ratio, 3.43; 95% CI, 1.78-6.64). Median DOR was improved (trebananib, 7.4 months [95% CI, 5.7-7.6]; placebo, 3.9 months [95% CI, 2.3-6.5]). Adverse events with a greater incidence in the trebananib arm included localised oedema (61% versus 32%), ascites (29% versus 9%) and vomiting (45% versus 33%)., Conclusions: Trebananib demonstrated anticancer activity in this phase 3 study, indicated by improved ORR and DOR. Median PFS was not improved. No new safety signals were identified., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01281254., (Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Brain metastases (BM) from epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) are considered a rare and unfavourable event. There is no consensus regarding the best management of these patients., Methods: A multicenter retrospective analysis of patients with BM from EOC treated between 1997 and 2014 in 18 institutions of the MITO (Multicenter Italian Trials in Ovarian cancer) group was conducted. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed., Results: A total of 174 women were identified as having BM from EOC. The median time interval between primary diagnosis of EOC and occurrence of BM was 26months (range 2-129months). The median overall survival from primary EOC diagnosis was 48months (95% CI 39.5-56.4months) and from diagnosis of BM was 12months (95% CI 9.6-14.3months). The majority of enrolled women (81.7%) were classified as sensitive to platinum-based chemotherapy. Four variables were significantly associated with poor overall survival in multivariate analysis: multiple BM [HR: 1.86 (95% CI: 1.22-2.84)], presence of extracranial disease [HR: 1.77 (95% CI: 1.11-2.83)] age [HR: 1.74 (95% CI: 1.17-2.59)], and monotherapy [HR: 2.57 (95% CI: 1.64-3.86)]. On the contrary, residual tumor at primary surgery, FIGO stage at primary diagnosis and platinum sensitivity were found to have no significant impact on survival from diagnosis of brain lesions., Conclusions: Our results suggest that BM is a rare and late manifestation of EOC, with a 12-month life-span expectation. Multiple approach is a positive independent prognostic factor and should be proposed to carefully selected patients., (Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: No biomarker is available to predict prognosis of patients with advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) and guide the choice of chemotherapy. We performed a prospective-retrospective biomarker study within the MITO2 trial on the treatment of AOC., Patients and Methods: MITO2 is a randomised multicentre phase 3 trial conducted with 820 AOC patients assigned carboplatin/paclitaxel (carboplatin: AUC5, paclitaxel: 175 mg/m², every 3 weeks for 6 cycles) or carboplatin/PLD-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (carboplatin: AUC5, PLD: 30 mg/m², every 3 weeks for 6 cycles) as first line treatment. Sixteen biomarkers (pathways of adhesion/invasion, apoptosis, transcription regulation, metabolism, and DNA repair) were studied in 229 patients, in a tissue microarray. Progression-free and overall survival were analysed with multivariable Cox model., Results: After 72 months median follow-up, 594 progressions and 426 deaths were reported; there was no significant difference between the two arms in the whole trial. No biomarker had significant prognostic value. Statistically significant interactions with treatment were found for DNA-dependent protein kinase (DNA-PK) and phosphorylated acetyl-coenzymeA carboxylase (pACC), both predicting worse outcome for patients receiving carboplatin/paclitaxel., Conclusion: These data show that in presence of DNA-PK or pACC overexpression, carboplatin/paclitaxel might be less effective than carboplatin/PLD as first line treatment of ovarian cancer patients. Further validation of these findings is warranted.

Trabectedin is a marine-derived product that was originally isolated from the Caribbean sea squirt Ecteinascidia turbinata and the first anticancer marine drug to be approved by the European Union. It is currently used as a single agent for the treatment of patients with soft tissue sarcoma after failure of anthracyclines and ifosfamide, or for those patients who are unsuited to receive these agents, and in patients with relapsed, platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer in combination with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin. Trabectedin has a unique multi-faceted mechanism of action that involves transcription regulation and DNA repair systems, including transcription-coupled nucleotide excision repair and homologous recombination repair (HRR) as the main hallmarks of its antiproliferative activity. In addition, trabectedin has shown the ability to modulate the tumor microenvironment. Indeed, the activity of trabectedin is related to altered function and expression of DNA repair genes, such as BRCA1 (BReast-CAncer susceptibility gene 1) and BRCA2. The particular sensitivity of sarcoma, ovarian and breast cancer cells deficient in HRR, previously observed in preclinical models, now has been confirmed in the clinical setting as well, suggesting that BRCA mutations are associated with improved clinical responses to trabectedin. Current efforts are focused on the evaluation of these unique features of trabectedin and on the identification of predictive factors for patients with an objective to determine whether a deficiency of HRR DNA repair pathway could impact the clinical benefit achieved from trabectedin., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The AGO-OVAR 2.29/ENGOT-ov14/PENELOPE prospectively randomized phase III trial evaluated the addition of pertuzumab to chemotherapy in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian carcinoma with low tumor human epidermal growth factor receptor 3 (HER3) mRNA expression. We report the results of the primary efficacy analysis., Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had ovarian carcinoma that progressed during or within 6 months of completing four or more platinum cycles, centrally tested low tumor HER3 mRNA expression (concentration ratio ≤ 2.81 by quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction on cobas z480 [Roche Molecular Diagnostics, Pleasanton, CA]), and no more than two prior lines of chemotherapy. After investigators' selection of the chemotherapy backbone (single-agent topotecan, weekly paclitaxel, or gemcitabine), patients were randomly assigned to also receive either placebo or pertuzumab (840-mg loading dose followed by 420 mg every 3 weeks). Stratification factors were selected chemotherapy, prior antiangiogenic therapy, and platinum-free interval. The primary end point was independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Additional end points included overall survival, investigator-assessed PFS, objective response rate, safety, patient-reported outcomes, and translational research., Results: Overall, 156 patients were randomly assigned. Adding pertuzumab to chemotherapy did not significantly improve independent review committee-assessed PFS for the primary analysis (stratified hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.11; P = .14; median PFS, 4.3 months for pertuzumab plus chemotherapy v 2.6 months for placebo plus chemotherapy). Sensitivity analyses and secondary efficacy end point results were consistent with the primary analysis. The effect on PFS favoring pertuzumab was more pronounced in the gemcitabine and paclitaxel cohorts. No new safety signals were seen., Conclusion: Although the primary objective was not met, subgroup analyses showed trends in PFS favoring pertuzumab in the gemcitabine and paclitaxel cohorts, meriting further exploration of pertuzumab in ovarian cancer., (© 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Background: The aim of this study was to identify clinical variables that may predict the need for adjuvant radiotherapy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and radical surgery in locally advanced cervical cancer patients., Methods: A retrospective series of cervical cancer patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stages IB2-IIB treated with NACT followed by radical surgery was analyzed. Clinical predictors of persistence of intermediate- and/or high-risk factors at final pathological analysis were investigated. Statistical analysis was performed using univariate and multivariate analysis and using a model based on artificial intelligence known as artificial neuronal network (ANN) analysis., Results: Overall, 101 patients were available for the analyses. Fifty-two (51 %) patients were considered at high risk secondary to parametrial, resection margin and/or lymph node involvement. When disease was confined to the cervix, four (4 %) patients were considered at intermediate risk. At univariate analysis, FIGO grade 3, stage IIB disease at diagnosis and the presence of enlarged nodes before NACT predicted the presence of intermediate- and/or high-risk factors at final pathological analysis. At multivariate analysis, only FIGO grade 3 and tumor diameter maintained statistical significance. The specificity of ANN models in evaluating predictive variables was slightly superior to conventional multivariable models., Conclusions: FIGO grade, stage, tumor diameter, and histology are associated with persistence of pathological intermediate- and/or high-risk factors after NACT and radical surgery. This information is useful in counseling patients at the time of treatment planning with regard to the probability of being subjected to pelvic radiotherapy after completion of the initially planned treatment.

Background: Activating FGFR2 mutations are found in 10-16% of primary endometrial cancers and provide an opportunity for targeted therapy. We assessed the safety and activity of dovitinib, a potent tyrosine-kinase inhibitor of fibroblast growth factor receptors, VEGF receptors, PDGFR-β, and c-KIT, as second-line therapy both in patients with FGFR2-mutated (FGFR2(mut)) endometrial cancer and in those with FGFR2-non-mutated (FGFR2(non-mut)) endometrial cancer., Methods: In this phase 2, non-randomised, two-group, two-stage study, we enrolled adult women who had progressive disease after first-line chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic endometrial cancer from 46 clinical sites in seven countries. We grouped women according to FGFR2 mutation status and gave all women dovitinib (500 mg per day, orally, on a 5-days-on and 2-days-off schedule) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, death, or study discontinuation for any other reason. The primary endpoint was proportion of patients in each group who were progression-free at 18 weeks. For each group, the second stage of the trial (enrolment of 20 additional patients) could proceed if at least eight of the first 20 treated patients were progression free at 18 weeks. Activity was assessed in all enrolled patients and safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of dovitinib. The completed study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01379534., Findings: Of 248 patients with FGFR2 prescreening results, 27 (11%) had FGFR2(mut) endometrial cancer. Between Feb 17, 2012, and Dec 13, 2013, we enrolled 22 patients in the FGFR2(mut) group and 31 patients in the FGFR2(non-mut) group. Seven (31·8%, 95% CI 13·9-54·9) patients in the FGFR2(mut) group and nine (29·0%, 14·2-48·0) in the FGFR2(non-mut) group were progression-free at 18 weeks. On the basis of predefined criteria, neither group continued to stage two: seven (35%) of the first 20 patients in the FGFR2(mut) group were progression free at 18 weeks, as were five (25%) of the first 20 in the FGFR2(mut) population. Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between groups and events were most frequently gastrointestinal. Overall, the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events suspected to be related to the study drug were hypertension (nine patients; 17%) and diarrhoea (five; 9%). The most frequently reported serious adverse events suspected to be related to study drug were pulmonary embolism (four patients; 8%), vomiting (four; 8%), dehydration (three; 6%), and diarrhoea (three; 6%). Only one death was deemed to be treatment-related: one patient in the FGFR2(non-mut) group died from cardiac arrest with contributing reason of pulmonary embolism (grade 4, suspected to be study drug related) 4 days previously., Interpretation: Second-line dovitinib in FGFR2(mut) and FGFR2(non-mut) advanced or metastatic endometrial cancer had single-agent activity, although it did not reach the prespecified study criteria. Observed treatment effects seemed independent of FGFR2 mutation status. These data should be considered exploratory and additional studies are needed., Funding: Novartis Pharmaceuticals., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Uterine carcinosarcoma (CS) is a rare neoplasm whose adjuvant treatment has not been yet defined. We report on the activity and toxicity of cisplatin-ifosfamide and carboplatin-paclitaxel as adjuvant treatments for patients with uterine CS., Methods: Data of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage I to IV uterine CS patients treated between 2006 and 2012 with adjuvant chemotherapy (cisplatin 20 mg/mq and ifosfamide 1500 mg/mq day 1 to 4 every 3 weeks plus prophylactic Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) support [group A] or carboplatin area under the curve -5 (AUC-5) and paclitaxel 175 mg/mq d1q21 [group B]) were retrospectively reviewed. Progression-free survival, overall survival, and chemotherapy-related toxicities were compared between the 2 groups. A subanalysis of oncologic outcomes according to the sarcomatous component (homologous vs heterologous) was performed., Results: Forty-six women were evaluated-21 in group A and 25 in group B. At a median follow-up of 30 months, the median progression-free survival was 11.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.3-16.9) and 16.6 months (95% CI, 14.7-18.5) for group A and B, respectively (P = 0.20). The median overall survival was 17.1 months (95% CI, 12.6-21.5) and 35.1 months (95% CI, 26.3-43.7) for group A and B, respectively (P = 0.14). No differences were identified among heterologous or homologous components according to chemotherapy treatment. Toxicity profiles widely differ between treatment arms., Conclusions: Because of the super imposable activity and the better toxicity profile, carboplatin-paclitaxel may be a suitable alternative to cisplatin-ifosfamide in the treatment of uterine CS.

Background: Treatment with weekly cisplatin (CDDP) plus radiotherapy (RT) is the standard regimen for stage IB to stage IVA cervical carcinoma (CC). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies to evaluate whether CDDP-based doublet therapy improves survival compared to weekly CDDP plus RT in patients with CC., Materials and Methods: We conducted a systematic search for randomized and nonrandomized studies in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials. We then carried out a meta-analysis by using the fixed- or random-effects models. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), reported as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs)., Results: Four randomized trials and 4 retrospective studies that included a total of 1500 patients matched our selection criteria. Meta-analysis showed that for locally advanced CC, concurrent RT and with CDDP-based doublet chemotherapy significantly improved the OS (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.81; p=0.0002), PFS (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.55-0.91; p=0.006), and rate of locoregional relapse (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.47-0.89; p=0.008), compared to RT with concurrent weekly CDDP alone., Conclusions: In patients with CC, platinum-based doublet chemotherapy plus concurrent RT was associated with improvements in the OS and PFS of 35% and 30% patients, respectively, compared to RT plus weekly CDDP. Therefore, platinum-based combination therapy plus RT should be the preferred treatment over weekly CDDP plus RT for stage IB-IVA CC., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by surgery is a different therapeutic approach to locally advanced cervical adenocarcinoma (LACA) and seems to offer specific advantages over chemoradiation. This phase II trial was designed to evaluate the toxicity and activity of NACT with cisplatin-adriamycin-paclitaxel (TAP) in patients with LACA., Methods: Patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IB2-IIB uterine adenocarcinoma were treated with NACT TAP for 3 cycles. After the last cycle, patients underwent radical surgery with lymph node dissection. Pathological response was classified as no residual tumor (pCR), residual disease with less than 3-mm stromal invasion (pR1), or residual disease with more than 3-mm stromal invasion (pR2)., Results: Between 2003 and 2010, 30 women were enrolled. Fourteen complete clinical responses, 10 partial responses, and 6 stabilizations of disease were registered. Three patients achieved a pCR, 6 a pR1 response, and 21 a pR2 response. At a median follow-up of 45 months, progression-free survival and overall survival were 37 and 48 months, respectively. Hematologic toxicity was the most relevant adverse effect., Conclusions: The TAP combination seems to be feasible with an acceptable toxicity profile and a promising response rate for the treatment of LACA.

Background: Carboplatin plus paclitaxel administered every 3 weeks is standard first-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. A weekly paclitaxel schedule combined with carboplatin every 3 weeks prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival in a Japanese phase 3 trial. The aim of our study was to assess whether a weekly schedule of carboplatin plus paclitaxel is more effective than the same drugs given every 3 weeks., Methods: We did a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 study at 67 institutions in Italy and France. Women with FIGO stage IC-IV ovarian cancer, an ECOG performance status of 2 or lower, and who had never received chemotherapy were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive either carboplatin (AUC 6 mg/mL per min) plus paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2)) every 3 weeks for six cycles or carboplatin (AUC 2 mg/mL per min) plus paclitaxel (60 mg/m(2)) every week for 18 weeks. Randomisation was done by computer-based minimisation, stratified by centre, residual disease after surgery, and ECOG performance status. The study was not blinded. Coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival and quality of life (assessed by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Ovarian Trial Outcome Index [FACT-O/TOI] score), and analysis was by modified intention to treat. This report presents the final analysis. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00660842., Findings: 822 patients were enrolled into the study between Nov 20, 2008, and March 1, 2012; 12 withdrew their consent immediately after randomisation and were excluded, and 810 were eligible for analysis. 404 women were allocated treatment every 3 weeks and 406 were assigned to the weekly schedule. After median follow-up of 22·3 months (IQR 16·2-30·9), 449 progression-free survival events were recorded. Median progression-free survival was 17·3 months (95% CI 15·2-20·2) in patients assigned to treatment every 3 weeks, versus 18·3 months (16·8-20·9) in women allocated to the weekly schedule (hazard ratio 0·96, 95% CI 0·80-1·16; p=0·66). FACT-O/TOI scores differed significantly between the two schedules (treatment-by-time interaction p<0·0001); with treatment every 3 weeks, FACT-O/TOI scores worsened at every cycle (weeks 1, 4, and 7), whereas for the weekly schedule, after transient worsening at week 1, FACT-O/TOI scores remained stable. Fewer patients assigned to the weekly group than those allocated treatment every 3 weeks had grade 3-4 neutropenia (167 [42%] of 399 patients vs 200 [50%] of 400 patients), febrile neutropenia (two [0·5%] vs 11 [3%]), grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia (four [1%] vs 27 [7%]), and grade 2 or worse neuropathy (24 [6%] vs 68 [17%]). Three deaths during the study were attributed to chemotherapy; two women died who were allocated treatment every 3 weeks and one death was recorded in the group assigned the weekly regimen., Interpretation: A weekly regimen of carboplatin and paclitaxel might be a reasonable option for first-line treatment of women with advanced ovarian cancer., Funding: None., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The prognosis of advanced/recurrent cervical cancer patients is generally poor with 1-year survival ranging between 15 and 20%. Cisplatin (CDDP) based treatments are considered the most effective regimens; unfortunately toxicity is an issue in a population in which the treatment remains palliative in the finality. Carboplatin (CBDCA), with its more favorable non toxicity profile and the convenience of outpatient administration, may be a suitable alternative to CDDP in combination regimens., Materials and Methods: We performed a systematic review of the literature comparing CDDP and CBDCA based chemotherapy for advanced cervical cancer (recurrent, persistent or metastatic disease). Only studies that met the following criteria were considered for the present review: 1) patients treated with CDDP/paclitaxel or CBDCA/paclitaxel combinations as first line chemotherapy for metastatic disease; 2) one or more of the following data available: overall response rate (RR), progression free survival (PFS) or time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS); 3) single-arm retrospective or prospective study; and 4) at least 20 patients enrolled., Results: 17 eligible studies comprehensive of 1181 patients were included in the final analysis. The objective RR was 48.5% for CBDCA and 49.3% for CDDP-based chemotherapy. Median PFS for CDDP and CBDCA-based treatments was 6.9months and 5months respectively (p=0.03); the corresponding figures for median OS were 12.87 and 10months respectively (p=0.17)., Discussion: Our study indicates that CBDCA may represent an attractive and valid alternative to the more toxic and equally effective CDDP in the treatment of advanced or recurrent cervical cancer., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Despite improvements in surgery and chemotherapy treatments, the 5-year survival of ovarian cancer patients is far below 50%. As angiogenesis contributes to tumor growth and metastasis, bevacizumab, an antiangiogenetic monoclonal antibody, was studied in many solid cancers for which evidence of efficacy has been shown in several trials. The ICON7 randomized Phase III trial was designed to evaluate the addition of bevacizumab to standard chemotherapy in ovarian cancer. The ICON7 study demonstrated for patients receiving bevacizumab: a progression-free survival advantage of 2.4 months; an overall survival benefit of 8 months in patients with high risk of progression; and a less than 10-point difference in quality of life (QoL) between the two groups. A detailed assessment of ICON7 QoL confirmed that bevacizumab continuation treatment seems to be associated with a small but clinically significant decrement in QoL. As development of existing and new antiangiogenesis drugs is mainly based on continuation schedules, studies taking into account the evolving interpretation of QoL data are needed.

Purpose: Carboplatin/paclitaxel is the standard first-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Multicentre Italian Trials in Ovarian Cancer-2 (MITO-2), an academic multicenter phase III trial, tested whether carboplatin/pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) was more effective than standard chemotherapy., Patients and Methods: Chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IC to IV ovarian cancer (age ≤ 75 years; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 2) were randomly assigned to carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) 5 plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) or to carboplatin AUC 5 plus PLD 30 mg/m(2), every 3 weeks for six cycles. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). With 632 events in 820 enrolled patients, the study would have 80% power to detect a 0.80 hazard ratio (HR) of PFS., Results: Eight hundred twenty patients were randomly assigned. Disease stages III and IV were prevalent. Occurrence of PFS events substantially slowed before obtaining the planned number. Therefore, in concert with the Independent Data Monitoring Committee, final analysis was performed with 556 events, after a median follow-up of 40 months. Median PFS times were 19.0 and 16.8 months with carboplatin/PLD and carboplatin/paclitaxel, respectively (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.13; P = .58). Median overall survival times were 61.6 and 53.2 months with carboplatin/PLD and carboplatin/paclitaxel, respectively (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.12; P = .32). Carboplatin/PLD produced a similar response rate but different toxicity (less neurotoxicity and alopecia but more hematologic adverse effects). There was no relevant difference in global quality of life after three and six cycles., Conclusion: Carboplatin/PLD was not superior to carboplatin/paclitaxel, which remains the standard first-line chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer. However, given the observed CIs and the different toxicity, carboplatin/PLD could be considered an alternative to standard therapy.

Introduction: The aim of this phase II study was to evaluate response and toxicity of a prolonged chemoradiation regimen in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer., Patients and Methods: Three cycles of concomitant chemotherapy were used with cisplatin (20 mg/m², 2-hour intravenous infusion, days 1-4) and 5-fluorouracil (1000 mg/m², 24-hour continuous intravenous infusion, days 1-4) administered at weeks 1, 5, and 9 of radiotherapy. In combination, radiotherapy was delivered to a planning target volume (PTV) defined as the CTV (clinical target volume) plus 8 mm. The CTV was defined as follows: gross tumor volume, upper half of the vagina (if not involved) or the whole vagina (if clinically involved), uterus, obturator nodes, external iliac nodes, internal iliac nodes, and the presacral nodes (cranial to S2). The prescribed dose to the PTV was 50 Gy, 2 Gy/fraction (ICRU 62) delivered in 25 fractions with a 2-week break at 20Gy and 40 Gy (split-course technique). Early and late toxicity was assessed according to the RTOG and RTOG/EORTC toxicity scales. Perioperative toxicity was evaluated according to the Chassagne classification of surgical complications., Results: A total of 25 patients were included in this study. Median age was 52 years (range, 28-69). Clinical stage was: IB2-II: 19 patients (76%), III-IVA: 6 patients (24%). All patients completed the prescribed dose of chemoradiation and were evaluated 4 weeks after the end of treatment. Complete and partial clinical local response was observed in 4 and 19 patients, respectively (totaling 92% of clinical responses). About 32% of patients experienced grade 3 to 4 toxicity, in particular, grade 3 or 4 hematological toxicity was observed in 7 patients and 1 patient developed grade 3 genitourinary toxicity. No patients developed grade 3 gastrointestinal toxicity or skin toxicity. Of total, 22 patients (88%) underwent radical hysterectomy. Seven patients (28%) showed a complete response (CR) to treatment, and 7 patients (28%) showed microscopic residual disease (μPR), totaling 14 patients (56%) complete/partial microscopic responses. Perioperative morbidity was higher than reported in historical controls especially in terms of tissue fibrosis (64%) and perioperative urinary toxicity (14%). Actuarial 2-year local control, disease-free survival, and overall survival were 65.5%, 61.8%, and 80.8%, respectively., Conclusion: A prolonged treatment with more chemotherapy courses does not improve tumor response and increases the risk of perioperative complication. This treatment regimen, considering the low incidence of acute gastrointestinal toxicity, might be tested in the adjuvant setting.

Background: Carboplatin/paclitaxel every 3 weeks is the standard for patients with ovarian cancer, but elderly patients frequently receive modified schedules or single agent chemotherapy to avoid toxicity. A phase II study was conducted to describe tolerability of a weekly schedule of both drugs in elderly patients., Methods: Patients aged>or=70 years with stage IC-IV ovarian cancer, performance status

Objective: The combination of GEM/PLD has been tested for its efficacy on survival of recurrent ovarian cancer patients., Methods: This is a multicenter phase II study of GEM/PLD regimen in recurrent ovarian cancer patients previously treated with at least one platinum/paclitaxel regimen, and with evidence of measurable disease. PLD, 30 mg m(-2), was administered on day 1 followed by GEM, 1000 mg m(-2), on days 1 and 8, every 21 days., Results: 106 patients were available for response evaluation. 9 complete responses (8.5%) and 27 partial responses (25.5%) have been registered. 36 patients (34.0%) experienced stabilization of disease, while 34 (32.1%) cases progressed during treatment. OS was significantly shorter in platinum-resistant (median OS = 50 weeks) than in platinum-sensitive patients (median OS = 92 weeks) (P value = 0.0016). In the group of platinum-sensitive patients, cases responsive to GEM/PLD combination showed a better OS with respect to patients unresponsive to GEM/PLD (median OS = 120 weeks versus median OS = 60 weeks, P value = 0.019). The same trend was observed in platinum-resistant patients. Grade 4 hematological toxicity affected 20 patients (18%). Grade 3 palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE) was registered in 16 patients (14.4%). Grades 3 and 4 mucositis was documented in 16 (14.4%) and 2 (1.8%) patients, respectively., Conclusions: GEM/PLD combination represents a valid approach in recurrent ovarian cancer patients. The hematological toxicity was easily managed, and the incidence and severity of PPE was low.

Twenty-three patients were enrolled in a phase I study conducted to determine the maximum tolerated doses (MTD) of combined liposomal doxorubicin (CAE) and gemcitabine (GEM) in relapsed ovarian cancer patients. A total of 82 courses are evaluable, with a median number of three cycles administered per patient (range 2-8). GEM was administered on days 1 and 8 by 30-min intravenous infusion immediately after CAE given by 60-min intravenous infusion on day 1; cycles were repeated every 21 days. The starting doses were CAE 20 mg/m(2) and GEM 600 mg/m(2). Following dose levels were 20/800; 20/1,000; 30/800; 30/1,000; 35/800, and 35/1,000 for CAE and GEM, respectively. The MTD was reached at dose level 5, with febrile neutropenia and thrombocytopenia as dose-limiting toxicities. After the MTD, granulocyte-colony stimulating factor was administered in 15% of cycles. Non-hematological toxicity was mild and manageable. All patients are so far evaluable for response. Among them, 5 partial responses (21.7%; 95% confidence interval, CI: 4.9-38.5), 5 disease stabilizations (21.7%, 95% CI: 4.9-38.5) and 13 progressions (56.6%, 95% CI: 36.4-76.8) have been registered. These results warrant further research in a phase II study., (Copyright 2002 S. Karger AG, Basel)

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