Search

PurposeThis phase III randomized trial (NCT00954174) tested the null hypothesis that paclitaxel and carboplatin (PC) is inferior to paclitaxel and ifosfamide (PI) for treating uterine carcinosarcoma (UCS).Patients and methodsAdults with chemotherapy-naïve UCS or ovarian carcinosarcoma (OCS) were randomly assigned to PC or PI with 3-week cycles for 6-10 cycles. With 264 events in patients with UCS, the power for an overall survival (OS) hybrid noninferiority design was 80% for a null hazard ratio (HR) of 1.2 against a 13% greater death rate on PI with a type I error of 5% for a one-tailed test.ResultsThe study enrolled 536 patients with UCS and 101 patients with OCS, with 449 and 90 eligible, respectively. Primary analysis was on patients with UCS, distributed as follows: 40% stage I, 6% stage II, 31% stage III, 15% stage IV, and 8% recurrent. Among eligible patients with UCS, PC was assigned to 228 and PI to 221. PC was not inferior to PI. The median OS was 37 versus 29 months (HR = 0.87; 90% CI, 0.70 to 1.075; P < .01 for noninferiority, P > .1 for superiority). The median progression-free survival was 16 versus 12 months (HR = 0.73; P = < 0.01 for noninferiority, P < .01 for superiority). Toxicities were similar, except that more patients in the PC arm had hematologic toxicity and more patients in the PI arm had confusion and genitourinary hemorrhage. Among 90 eligible patients with OCS, those in the PC arm had longer OS (30 v 25 months) and progression-free survival (15 v 10 months) than those in the PI arm, but with limited precision, these differences were not statistically significant.ConclusionPC was not inferior to the active regimen PI and should be standard treatment for UCS.

BackgroundLow-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary or peritoneum is characterised by MAPK pathway aberrations and its reduced sensitivity to chemotherapy relative to high-grade serous carcinoma. We compared the MEK inhibitor trametinib to physician's choice standard of care in patients with recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma.MethodsThis international, randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 2/3 trial was done at 84 hospitals in the USA and UK. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma and measurable disease, as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1, had received at least one platinum-based regimen, but not all five standard-of-care drugs, and had received an unlimited number of previous regimens. Patients with serous borderline tumours or tumours containing low-grade serous and high-grade serous carcinoma were excluded. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral trametinib 2 mg once daily (trametinib group) or one of five standard-of-care treatment options (standard-of-care group): intravenous paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 by body surface area on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 28-day cycle; intravenous pegylated liposomal doxorubicin 40-50 mg/m2 by body surface area once every 4 weeks; intravenous topotecan 4 mg/m2 by body surface area on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 28-day cycle; oral letrozole 2·5 mg once daily; or oral tamoxifen 20 mg twice daily. Randomisation was stratified by geographical region (USA or UK), number of previous regimens (1, 2, or ≥3), performance status (0 or 1), and planned standard-of-care regimen. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival while receiving randomised therapy, as assessed by imaging at baseline, once every 8 weeks for 15 months, and then once every 3 months thereafter, in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study therapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02101788, and is active but not recruiting.FindingsBetween Feb 27, 2014, and April 10, 2018, 260 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the trametinib group (n=130) or the standard-of-care group (n=130). At the primary analysis, there were 217 progression-free survival events (101 [78%] in the trametinib group and 116 [89%] in the standard-of-care group). Median progression-free survival in the trametinib group was 13·0 months (95% CI 9·9-15·0) compared with 7·2 months (5·6-9·9) in the standard-of-care group (hazard ratio 0·48 [95% CI 0·36-0·64]; p

ObjectiveIn the Phase 3 VELIA trial (NCT02470585), veliparib added to carboplatin plus paclitaxel concomitantly and as maintenance for women with newly-diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus chemotherapy alone. Here we present exploratory analyses by paclitaxel dosing schedule and germline BRCA (gBRCA) status.MethodsWomen with untreated ovarian carcinoma were randomized (1:1:1) to: veliparib during chemotherapy and maintenance (veliparib-throughout), veliparib during chemotherapy followed by placebo maintenance (veliparib-combination only), or placebo during chemotherapy and maintenance (control). Chemotherapy included carboplatin plus dose-dense (DD; weekly) or every-3-week (Q3W) paclitaxel (a stratification factor at randomization), selected at the investigator's discretion pre-randomization. PFS was assessed by paclitaxel dosing schedule using a Cox proportional hazard model adjusted by treatment arm and stratification factors; safety was analyzed based on paclitaxel dosing schedule and gBRCA status.Results1132 patients were analyzed by paclitaxel schedule. Pooled treatment arms demonstrated longer median PFS with DD (n = 586) versus Q3W (n = 546) paclitaxel (ITT: 20.5 vs 15.7 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0.77; homologous recombination proficient cancer: 15.1 vs 11.8 months, HR 0.64; BRCAwt: 18.0 vs 12.9 months, HR 0.70). Comparison between arms favored veliparib-throughout versus control in both DD (PFS, 24.2 vs 18.3 months, hazard ratio 0.67) and Q3W (19.3 vs 14.6, hazard ratio 0.69) subgroups. DD paclitaxel was associated with higher incidence of Grade 3/4 neutropenia, fatigue, and anemia versus Q3W. There were no differences in toxicity between gBRCAm (n = 211) and gBRCAwt (n = 902) subgroups.ConclusionsDD paclitaxel was tolerable and associated with longer PFS in the HR proficient and gBRCAwt groups, versus Q3W. gBRCA status did not impact safety.

Despite having similar histologic features, patients with high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma (HGSC) often experience highly variable outcomes. The underlying determinants for long-term survival (LTS, ≥10 years) versus short-term survival (STS, 2; false discovery rate < 0.01). In the subsequent validation cohort, transmembrane protein 62 (TMEM62) was found to be related to LTS. CIBERSORT analysis showed that T cells (follicular helper) were found at higher levels in tumors from LTS than STS groups. In vitro data using OVCAR5 and OVCAR8 cells showed decreased proliferation with TMEM62 overexpression and positive correlation with a longevity-regulating pathway (KEGG HSA04213) at the RNA level. In vivo analysis using the OVCAR8-TMEM62-TetON model showed decreased tumor burden in mice with high- vs. low-expressing TMEM62 tumors. Our results demonstrate that restoring TMEM62 may be a novel approach for treatment of HGSC. These findings may have implications for biomarker and intervention strategies to help improve patient outcomes

PurposeIncreasing measures of adiposity have been correlated with poor oncologic outcomes and a lack of response to anti-angiogenic therapies. Limited data exists on the impact of subcutaneous fat density (SFD) and visceral fat density (VFD) on oncologic outcomes. This ancillary analysis of GOG-218, evaluates whether imaging markers of adiposity were predictive biomarkers for bevacizumab (bev) use in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).Patients and methodsThere were 1249 patients (67%) from GOG-218 with imaging measurements. SFD and VFD were calculated utilizing Hounsfield units (HU). Proportional hazards models were used to assess the association between SFD and VFD with overall survival (OS).ResultsIncreased SFD and VFD showed an increased HR for death (HR per 1-SD increase 1.12, 95% CI:1.05-1.19 p = 0.0009 and 1.13, 95% CI: 1.05-1.20 p = 0.0006 respectively). In the predictive analysis for response to bev, high VFD showed an increased hazard for death in the placebo group (HR per 1-SD increase 1.22, 95% CI: 1.09-1.37; p = 0.025). However, in the bev group there was no effect seen (HR per 1-SD increase: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.90-1.14) Median OS was 45 vs 47 months in the VFD low groups and 36 vs 42 months in the VFD high groups on placebo versus bev, respectively.ConclusionHigh VFD and SFD have a negative prognostic impact on patients with EOC. High VFD appears to be a predictive marker of bev response and patients with high VFD may be more likely to benefit from initial treatment with bev.

BACKGROUND:Olaparib was approved on December 19, 2014 by the US FDA as 4th-line therapy (and beyond) for patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations; rucaparib was approved on December 19, 2016 as 3rd-line therapy (and beyond) for germline or somatic BRCA1/2-mutated recurrent disease. On October 23, 2019, niraparib was approved for treatment of women with damaging mutations in BRCA1/2 or other homologous recombination repair genes who had been treated with three or more prior regimens. We compared the cost-effectiveness of PARPi(s) with intravenous regimens for platinum-resistant disease. METHODS:Median progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicity data from regulatory trials were incorporated in a model which transitioned patients through response, hematologic complications, non-hematologic complications, progression, and death. Using TreeAge Pro 2017, each PARPi(s) was compared separately to non‑platinum-based and bevacizumab-containing regimens. Costs of IV drugs, managing toxicities, infusions, and supportive care were estimated using 2017 Medicare data. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and PFS was reported in quality adjusted life months for platinum-resistant populations. RESULTS:Non‑platinum-based intravenous chemotherapy was most cost effective ($6,412/PFS-month) compared with bevacizumab-containing regimens ($12,187/PFS-month), niraparib ($18,970/PFS-month), olaparib ($16,327/PFS-month), and rucaparib ($16,637/PFS-month). ICERs for PARPi(s) were 3-3.5× times greater than intravenous non‑platinum-based regimens. CONCLUSION:High costs of orally administered PARPi(s) were not mitigated or balanced by costs of infusion and managing toxicities of intravenous regimens typically associated with lower response and shorter median PFS. Balancing modest clinical benefit with costs of novel therapies remains problematic and could widen disparities among those with limited access to care.

ObjectivesScalable informatics solutions that provide molecularly tailored treatment recommendations to clinicians are needed to streamline precision oncology in care settings.Materials and methodsWe developed a cloud-based virtual molecular tumor board (VMTB) platform that included a knowledgebase, scoring model, rules engine, an asynchronous virtual chat room and a reporting tool that generated a treatment plan for each of the 1725 patients based on their molecular profile, previous treatment history, structured trial eligibility criteria, clinically relevant cancer gene-variant assertions, biomarker-treatment associations, and current treatment guidelines. The VMTB systematically allows clinician users to combine expert-curated data and structured data from clinical charts along with molecular testing data to develop consensus on treatments, especially those that require off-label and clinical trial considerations.ResultsThe VMTB was used as part of the cancer care process for a focused subset of 1725 patients referred by advocacy organizations wherein resultant personalized reports were successfully delivered to treating oncologists. Median turnaround time from data receipt to report delivery decreased from 14 days to 4 days over 4 years while the volume of cases increased nearly 2-fold each year. Using a novel scoring model for ranking therapy options, oncologists chose to implement the VMTB-derived therapies over others, except when pursuing immunotherapy options without molecular support.DiscussionVMTBs will play an increasingly critical role in precision oncology as the compendium of biomarkers and associated therapy options available to a patient continues to expand.ConclusionFurther development of such clinical augmentation tools that systematically combine patient-derived molecular data, real-world evidence from electronic health records and expert curated knowledgebases on biomarkers with computational tools for ranking best treatments can support care pathways at point of care.

ObjectiveThis study evaluated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with progression free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced stage serous EOC.MethodsPatients enrolled in GOG-172 and 182 who provided specimens for translational research and consent were included. Germline DNA was evaluated with the Illumina's HumanOMNI1-Quad beadchips and scanned using Illumina's iScan optical imaging system. SNPs with allele frequency>0.05 and genotyping rate>0.98 were included. Analysis of SNPs for PFS and OS was done using Cox regression. Statistical significance was determined using Bonferroni corrected p-values with genomic control adjustment.ResultsThe initial GWAS analysis included 1,124,677 markers in 396 patients. To obtain the final data set, quality control checks were performed and limited to serous tumors and self-identified Caucasian race. In total 636,555 SNPs and 289 patients passed all the filters. The pre-specified statistical level of significance was 7.855e-08. No SNPs met this criteria for PFS or OS, however, two SNPs were close to significance (rs10899426 p-2.144e-08) (rs6256 p-9.774e-07) for PFS and 2 different SNPs were identified (rs295315 p-7.536e-07; rs17693104 p-7.734e-07) which were close to significance for OS.ConclusionsUsing the pre-specified level of significance of 1×10-08, we did not identify any SNPs of statistical significance for OS or PFS, however several were close. The SNP's identified in this GWAS study will require validation and these preliminary findings may lead to identification of novel pathways and biomarkers.

PurposeIntraperitoneal (IP) therapy improves survival compared to intravenous (IV) treatment for women with newly diagnosed, optimally cytoreduced, ovarian cancer. However, the role of IP therapy in recurrent disease is unknown. Preclinical data demonstrated IP administration of the proteasome inhibitor, bortezomib prior to IP carboplatin increased tumor platinum accumulation resulting in synergistic cytotoxicity. We conducted this phase I trial of IP bortezomib and carboplatin in women with recurrent disease.MethodsWomen with recurrent ovarian cancer were treated with escalating doses of IP bortezomib - in combination with IP carboplatin (AUC 4 or 5) every 21days for 6cycles. Pharmacokinetics of both agents were evaluated in cycle 1.ResultsThirty-three women participated; 32 were evaluable for safety. Two patients experienced dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) at the first dose level (carboplatin AUC 5, bortezomib 0.5mg/m2), prompting carboplatin reduction to AUC 4 for subsequent dose levels. With carboplatin dose fixed at AUC 4, bortezomib was escalated from 0.5 to 2.5mg/m2 without DLT. Grade 3/4 related toxicities included abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea which were infrequent. The overall response rate in patients with measurable disease (n=21) was 19% (1 complete, 3 partial). Cmax and AUC in peritoneal fluid and plasma increased linearly with dose, with a favorable exposure ratio of the peritoneal cavity relative to peripheral blood plasma.ConclusionIP administration of this novel combination was feasible and showed promising activity in this phase I trial of heavily pre-treated women with ovarian cancer. Further evaluation of this IP combination should be conducted.

ObjectiveTo determine the effect of age on completion of and toxicities following treatment of local regionally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) on Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) Phase I-III trials.MethodsAn ancillary data analysis of GOG protocols 113, 120, 165, 219 data was performed. Wilcoxon, Pearson, and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for univariate and multivariate analysis. Log rank tests were used to compare survival lengths.ResultsOne-thousand-three-hundred-nineteen women were included; 60.7% were Caucasian, 15% were age 60-70years and an additional 5% were >70; 87% had squamous histology, 55% had stage IIB disease and 34% had IIIB disease. Performance status declined with age (p=0.006). Histology and tumor stage did not significantly differ. Number of cycles of chemotherapy received, radiation treatment time, nor dose modifications varied with age. Notably, radiation protocol deviations and failure to complete brachytherapy (BT) did increase with age (p=0.022 and p50 for all-cause mortality (HR 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04) was found, but no association between age and disease specific mortality was found.ConclusionThis represents a large analysis of patients treated for LACC with chemo/radiation, approximately 20% of whom were >60years of age. Older patients, had higher rates of incomplete brachytherapy which is not explained by collected toxicity data. Age did not adversely impact completion of chemotherapy and radiation or toxicities.

ObjectiveHigh-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) generally presents at an advanced stage with poor long-term (LT) survival. Here we describe clinical features found in women surviving HGSC for ten or more years.MethodsA multi-center research consortium was established between five participating academic centers. Patient selection criteria included high-grade serous ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal carcinoma with at least ten years of follow up. Non-serous, borderline tumors and low-grade serous subtypes were excluded.ResultsThe 203 identified LT ten-year survivors with HGSC were diagnosed at a median age of 57years (range 37-84years). The majority of patients had stage IIIC (72.4%) disease at presentation. Of those who underwent primary cytoreductive surgery, optimal cytoreduction was achieved in 143 (85.6%) patients. After a median follow up of 144months, 88 (46.8%) patients did not develop recurrent disease after initial treatment. Unexpected findings from this survey of LT survivors includes 14% of patients having had suboptimal cytoreduction, 11% of patients having an initial platinum free interval of

Background: Little is known about the risks and benefits of cannabis use in the context of cancer care. This study characterized the prevalence, reasons for use, and perceived benefits of cannabis and compared symptoms and perceived risks between those who reported past 30‐day cannabis use and those who did not. Methods: Adults undergoing cancer treatment at a National Cancer Institute–designated cancer center completed measures of sociodemographic characteristics, cannabis use, use modalities, reasons for use, perceived harms/benefits of use, physical and psychological symptoms, and other substance/medication use. Analyses compared patients who used or did not use cannabis in the past 30 days. Results: Participants (N = 267) were 58 years old on average, primarily female (70%), and predominantly White (88%). Over a quarter of respondents (26%) reported past 30‐day cannabis use, and among those, 4.5% screened positive for cannabis use disorder. Participants who used cannabis most often used edibles (65%) or smoked cannabis (51%), and they were younger and more likely to be male, Black, and disabled, and to have lower income and Medicaid insurance than participants who did not use cannabis. Those who used cannabis reported more severe symptoms and perceived cannabis as less harmful than those who did not use cannabis. The most common medical reasons for cannabis use were pain, cancer, sleep problems, anxiety, nausea/vomiting, and poor appetite. Participants reported the greatest cannabis‐related symptom relief from sleep problems, nausea/vomiting, headaches, pain, muscle spasms, and anxiety. Conclusions: Patients with cancer who used cannabis perceived benefits for many symptoms, although they showed worse overall symptomatology. Plain language summary: Among adults undergoing cancer treatment, 26% reported cannabis use in the past 30 days. Those who used cannabis were more likely to be male and disabled and to have lower income and Medicaid insurance than those who did not use cannabis.Participants most commonly reported using cannabis for pain, cancer, sleep, anxiety, and nausea/vomiting and reported the greatest perceived benefits for sleep, nausea/vomiting, headaches, pain, muscle spasms, and anxiety, yet participants who used cannabis also reported feeling worse physically and psychologically compared to those who did not use cannabis.Participants who used cannabis were more likely to report that cannabis was less risky to their health than alcohol, smoking, and opioids than those who did not use cannabis. Among adults undergoing cancer treatment, 26% reported cannabis use in the past 30 days. Participants who used cannabis were younger and more likely to be male and disabled and to have lower income and Medicaid insurance. Although participants who used cannabis perceived benefits for many cancer‐related symptoms, they showed worse overall symptomatology than those who did not use cannabis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) is the current clinical guideline to assess size change of solid tumors after therapeutic treatment, it has a relatively lower association to the clinical outcome of progression free survival (PFS) of the patients. In this paper, we presented a new approach to assess responses of ovarian cancer patients to new chemotherapy drugs in clinical trials. We first developed and applied a multi-resolution B-spline based deformable image registration method to register two sets of computed tomography (CT) image data acquired pre- and post-treatment. The B-spline difference maps generated from the co-registered CT images highlight the regions related to the volumetric growth or shrinkage of the metastatic tumors, and density changes related to variation of necrosis inside the solid tumors. Using a testing dataset involving 19 ovarian cancer patients, we compared patients' response to the treatment using the new image registration method and RECIST guideline. The results demonstrated that using the image registration method yielded higher association with the six-month PFS outcomes of the patients than using RECIST. The image registration results also provided a solid foundation of developing new computerized quantitative image feature analysis schemes in the future studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective. : Primary carcinoma of the fallopian tube (PCFT) is a rare malignancy comprising 1% of genital tract cancers. We sought to compare survival trends between PCFT and ovarian carcinoma (OC) patients (pts) in a matched, case–control comparison. Materials and methods. : Patients with PCFT were identified from five academic centers. Two OC controls were identified for each PCFT pt based on age, stage, and residual disease. All pts were surgically staged and treated with platinum based chemotherapy (CT) if indicated. PFS and OS were then compared with Kaplan–Meier analysis. Results. : 96 PCFT cases and 189 OC controls were identified. 50 early stage PCFT were matched with 97 OC pts. The most common CT regimen was carboplatinum and paclitaxel in 84 and 86% respectively. Median follow-up was 57 and 42 months for the PCFT and OC groups and 5-year overall survival (OS) differed at 95% and 76% (p =0.02). 46 Stage III/IV PCFT pts were matched with 92 OC controls. 88.5% were optimally debulked. Median follow-up was 33 and 35 months for PCFT and OC pts and 3-year overall survival was 59% for both groups. Conclusions. : This is the first study to compare outcomes for PCFT and OC in a matched, case–control comparison. Our study demonstrates that, for advanced stage PCFT, a similar survival outcome is obtained compared to OC patients. This should reassure clinicians that treatment of PCFT should mirror that of OC and that PCFT should be included in clinical trials. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objective To determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) of veliparib combined with PLD and carboplatin (CD) in patients with recurrent, platinum-sensitive epithelial ovarian cancer. To determine the tolerability at the MTD combined with bevacizumab. Methods Patients received PLD (30 mg/m 2 , IV) and carboplatin (AUC 5, IV) on day 1 with veliparib on days 1–7 (intermittent) or days 1–28 (continuous). Standard 3 + 3 design was used in the dose escalation phase with DLTs based on the first cycle. Once the MTDs were determined, cohorts of 6 patients were enrolled to each regimen with bevacizumab (10 mg/kg on days 1 and 15) to assess feasibility. DLTs were based on the first 4 cycles of treatment in the bevacizumab cohorts. Results In the dose-escalation phase, 27 patients were treated at 3 dose levels with DLTs noted in 6 patients including grade 4 thrombocytopenia (n = 4), and prolonged neutropenia > 7 days (n = 3). At the MTD of veliparib (80 mg p.o. b.i.d. for both dosing arms), myelosuppression was the DLT. At MTD, 12 additional patients were treated with bevacizumab with 9 patients experiencing DLTs including grade 4 thrombocytopenia (n = 4), prolonged neutropenia > 7 days (n = 1), grade 3 hypertension (n = 5), and grade 5 sepsis (n = 1). Conclusions The MTD of veliparib combined with CD is 80 mg p.o. b.i.d. in women with recurrent, platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. With bevacizumab, DLTs were noted in 9 out of 12 patients. Lower doses of veliparib will need to be considered when given in combination with platinum-based therapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]