Search

The Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment (MOST) concerns is a validated patient-reported symptom assessment tool for assessing symptom benefit and adverse effects of palliative chemotherapy in women with recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC). We aimed to examine (i) how symptoms within MOST symptom indexes track together (i.e. co-occur) and (ii) the association between MOST symptom indexes and key aspects of health-related quality of life (HRQL).A prospective cohort of women with ROC completed the MOST-T35, EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-OV28 at baseline and before each cycle of chemotherapy. Analyses were conducted on baseline and end-of-treatment data. Exploratory factor analysis and hierarchical cluster analysis identified groups of co-occurring symptoms. Path models examined associations between MOST symptom indexes and HRQL.Data from 762 women at baseline and 681 at treatment-end who completed all 22 symptom-specific MOST items and at least one HRQL measure were analysed. Four symptom clusters emerged at baseline and treatment-end: abdominal symptoms, symptoms associated with peripheral neuropathy, nausea and vomiting, and psychological symptoms. Psychological symptoms (MOST-Psych) and symptoms due to disease (ovarian cancer) or treatment (MOST-DorT) were associated with poorer scores on QLQ-C30 and OV28 functioning domains and worse overall health at both time points.Four MOST symptom clusters were consistent across statistical methods and time points. These findings suggest that routine standardized assessment of psychological and physical symptoms in clinical practice with MOST plus appropriate symptom management referral pathways is an intervention for improving HRQL that warrants further research.

ObjectivesMeasurement of Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) relies on reproducible unidimensional tumor measurements. This study assessed intraobserver and interobserver variability of target lesion selection and measurement, according to RECIST version 1.1 in patients with ovarian cancer.MethodsEight international radiologists independently viewed 47 images demonstrating malignant lesions in patients with ovarian cancer and selected and measured lesions according to RECIST V.1.1 criteria. Thirteen images were viewed twice. Interobserver variability of selection and measurement were calculated for all images. Intraobserver variability of selection and measurement were calculated for images viewed twice. Lesions were classified according to their anatomical site as pulmonary, hepatic, pelvic mass, peritoneal, lymph nodal, or other. Lesion selection variability was assessed by calculating the reproducibility rate. Lesion measurement variability was assessed with the intra-class correlation coefficient.ResultsFrom 47 images, 82 distinct lesions were identified. For lesion selection, the interobserver and intraobserver reproducibility rates were high, at 0.91 and 0.93, respectively. Interobserver selection reproducibility was highest (reproducibility rate 1) for pelvic mass and other lesions. Intraobserver selection reproducibility was highest (reproducibility rate 1) for pelvic mass, hepatic, nodal, and other lesions. Selection reproducibility was lowest for peritoneal lesions (interobserver reproducibility rate 0.76 and intraobserver reproducibility rate 0.69). For lesion measurement, the overall interobserver and intraobserver intraclass correlation coefficients showed very good concordance of 0.84 and 0.94, respectively. Interobserver intraclass correlation coefficient showed very good concordance for hepatic, pulmonary, peritoneal, and other lesions, and ranged from 0.84 to 0.97, but only moderate concordance for lymph node lesions (0.58). Intraobserver intraclass correlation coefficient showed very good concordance for all lesions, ranging from 0.82 to 0.99. In total, 85% of total measurement variability resulted from interobserver measurement difference.ConclusionsOur study showed that while selection and measurement concordance were high, there was significant interobserver and intraobserver variability. Most resulted from interobserver variability. Compared with other lesions, peritoneal lesions had the lowest selection reproducibility, and lymph node lesions had the lowest measurement concordance. These factors need consideration to improve response assessment, especially as progression free survival remains the most common endpoint in phase III trials.

Objective The Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG)-Symptom Benefit Study was designed to evaluate the effects of chemotherapy on symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQL) in women having chemotherapy for platinum resistant/refractory recurrent ovarian cancer (PRR-ROC) and potentially platinum sensitive with >= 3 lines of chemotherapy (PPS-ROC >= 3). Methods Participants completed the Measure of Ovarian Cancer Symptoms and Treatment (MOST) and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire QLQ-C30 questionnaires at baseline and every 3-4 weeks until progression. Participants were classified symptomatic if they rated >= 4 of 10 in at least one-third of symptoms in the MOST index. Improvement in MOST was defined as two consecutive scores of = 10 points above baseline in the QLQ-C30 summary score scale (range 0-100). Results Of 948 participants enrolled, 910 (96%) completed baseline questionnaires: 546 with PRR-ROC and 364 with PPS-ROC >= 3. The proportions of participants symptomatic at baseline as per MOST indexes were: abdominal 54%, psychological 53%, and disease- or treatment-related 35%. Improvement was reported in MOST indexes: abdominal 40%, psychological 35%, and disease- or treatment-related 38%. Median time to improvement in abdominal symptoms occurred earlier for PRR-ROC than for PPS-ROC >= 3 (4 vs 6 weeks, p=0.044); median duration of improvement was also similar (9.0 vs 11.7 weeks, p=0.65). Progression-free survival was longer among those with improvement in abdominal symptoms than in those without (median 7.2 vs 2.5 months, p= 3 (p=0.29), and 102/481 (21%) of those with abdominal symptoms at baseline. Conclusion Over 50% of participants reported abdominal and psychological symptoms at baseline. Of those, 40% reported an improvement within 2 months of starting chemotherapy. Approximately one in six participants reported an improvement in HRQL. Symptom monitoring and supportive care is important as chemotherapy palliated less than half of symptomatic participants. Funding Agencies|NHMRCNational Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [1063012, 570893]; Target Ovarian Cancer [UCL-P001AL]; Cancer Research UKCancer Research UK; UCL Cancer Trials Centre [C444/A15953]; Australian Government through Cancer AustraliaAustralian Government; NHMRC Program grantNational Health and Medical Research Council of Australia; Department of HealthEuropean Commission

ObjectivesWhile ovarian cancer is the third most common Lynch syndrome-associated cancer in women, there is no established screening strategy to identify Lynch syndrome in this population. The objective of this study was to assess whether the 4-item brief Family History Questionnaire can be used as a screening tool to identify women with ovarian cancer at risk of Lynch syndrome.MethodsIn this prospective cohort study, participants with newly diagnosed non-serous, non-mucinous ovarian cancer completed the brief Family History Questionnaire, extended Family History Questionnaire, and had tumors assessed with immunohistochemistry for mismatch repair proteins, MLH1 methylation, and microsatellite instability testing. All underwent universal germline testing for Lynch syndrome. Performance characteristics were compared between the brief Family History Questionnaire, extended Family History Questionnaire, immunohistochemistry±MLH1 methylation, and microsatellite instability testing.ResultsOf 215 participants, 169 (79%) were evaluable with both the brief Family History Questionnaire and germline mutation status; 12 of these 169 were confirmed to have Lynch syndrome (7%). 10 of 12 patients (83%) with Lynch syndrome were correctly identified by the brief Family History Questionnaire, compared with 6 of 11 (55%) by the extended Family History Questionnaire, 11 of 13 (85%) by immunohistochemistry±MLH1 methylation, and 9 of 11 (82%) by microsatellite instability testing. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values of the brief Family History Questionnaire were 83%, 65%, 15%, and 98%, respectively. A combined approach with immunohistochemistry and the brief Family History Questionnaire correctly identified all 12 patients with Lynch syndrome. The brief Family History Questionnaire was more sensitive than the extended Family History Questionnaire and took ConclusionsThe brief Family History Questionnaire alone or combined with immunohistochemistry may serve as an adequate screening strategy, especially in centers without access to universal tumor testing.

Contains fulltext : 283536.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) The Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) sixth Ovarian Cancer Conference on Clinical Research was held virtually in October, 2021, following published consensus guidelines. The goal of the consensus meeting was to achieve harmonisation on the design elements of upcoming trials in ovarian cancer, to select important questions for future study, and to identify unmet needs. All 33 GCIG member groups participated in the development, refinement, and adoption of 20 statements within four topic groups on clinical research in ovarian cancer including first line treatment, recurrent disease, disease subgroups, and future trials. Unanimous consensus was obtained for 14 of 20 statements, with greater than 90% concordance in the remaining six statements. The high acceptance rate following active deliberation among the GCIG groups confirmed that a consensus process could be applied in a virtual setting. Together with detailed categorisation of unmet needs, these consensus statements will promote the harmonisation of international clinical research in ovarian cancer.

Objective. To describe molecular and clinical characteristics of patients with high-grade recurrent ovarian carcinoma (HGOC) who had long-term responses to the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor rucaparib. Methods. This post hoc analysis pooled patients from Study 10 (NCT01482715; Parts 2A and 2B; n = 54) and ARIEL2 (NCT01891344; Parts 1 and 2; n = 491). Patients with investigator-assessed complete or partial response per RECIST were classified based on duration of response (DOR): long (≥1 year), intermediate (6 months to

Summary Targeted therapy largely remains an unmet therapeutic need for low-grade serous ovarian carcinomas. However, recent advances in molecular characterization are beginning to change the landscape. A recent article highlights the association of genetic alterations with clinical outcomes, widening the scope of novel targeted therapies. See related article by Manning-Geist et al., p. 4456

Olaparib; Ovarian cancer; Tolerability Olaparib; Cáncer de ovarios; Tolerabilidad Olaparib; Càncer d'ovaris; Tolerabilitat Objectives In the phase III SOLO1 trial (NCT01844986), maintenance olaparib provided a substantial progression-free survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation who were in response after platinum-based chemotherapy. We analyzed the timing, duration and grade of the most common hematologic and non-hematologic adverse events in SOLO1. Methods Eligible patients were randomized to olaparib tablets 300 mg twice daily (N = 260) or placebo (N = 131), with a 2-year treatment cap in most patients. Safety outcomes were analyzed in detail in randomized patients who received at least one dose of study drug (olaparib, n = 260; placebo, n = 130). Results Median time to first onset of the most common hematologic (anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia) and non-hematologic (nausea, fatigue/asthenia, vomiting) adverse events was

BackgroundThe optimal treatment strategy for women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer has yet to be determined. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have demonstrated substantial improvement in progression-free survival as monotherapy maintenance treatment in the frontline setting versus active surveillance. Furthermore, preclinical and early clinical studies have shown that PARP inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors have synergistic antitumor activity and may provide an additional therapeutic option for patients in this population.Primary ObjectivesIn women with newly diagnosed ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer, we wish to assess the efficacy of frontline maintenance treatment with the PARP inhibitor rucaparib versus placebo following response to platinum-based chemotherapy (ATHENA–MONO), and to assess the combination of rucaparib plus nivolumab (a programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1)–blocking monoclonal antibody) versus rucaparib alone (ATHENA–COMBO).Study Hypothesis(1) Maintenance therapy with rucaparib monotherapy may extend progression-free survival following standard treatment for ovarian cancer in the frontline setting. (2) The combination of nivolumab plus rucaparib may extend progression-free survival following standard treatment for ovarian cancer in the frontline setting compared with rucaparib alone.Trial DesignATHENA is an international, randomized, double-blind, phase III trial consisting of two independent comparisons (ATHENA–MONO and ATHENA–COMBO) in patients with newly diagnosed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Patients are randomized 4:4:1:1 to the following: oral rucaparib+ intravenous nivolumab (arm A); oral rucaparib + intravenous placebo (arm B); oral placebo+ intravenous nivolumab (arm C); and oral placebo + intravenous placebo (arm D). The starting dose of rucaparib is 600 mg orally twice a day and nivolumab 480 mg intravenously every 4 weeks. ATHENA–MONO compares arm B with arm D to evaluate rucaparib monotherapy versus placebo, and ATHENA–COMBO evaluates arm A versus arm B to investigate the effects of rucaparib and nivolumab in combination versus rucaparib monotherapy. ATHENA–MONO and ATHENA–COMBO share a common treatment arm (arm B) but each comparison is independently powered.Major Inclusion/Exclusion CriteriaPatients ≥18 years of age with newly diagnosed advanced, high-grade epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer who have achieved a response after completion of cytoreductive surgery and initial platinum-based chemotherapy are enrolled. No other prior treatment for ovarian cancer, other than the frontline platinum regimen, is permitted.Primary EndpointThe primary endpoint is investigator-assessed progression-free survival by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1.Sample SizeApproximately 1000 patients have been enrolled and randomized.Estimated Dates for Completing Accrual and Presenting ResultsThe trial completed accrual in 2020. While dependent on event rates, primary results of ATHENA–MONO are anticipated in early 2022 and results of ATHENA–COMBO are anticipated to mature at a later date.Trial RegistrationThis trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03522246).

Background The impact of maintenance therapy with PARP inhibitors (PARPi) on progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with BRCA mutations and platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PSROC) varies widely. Individual prognostic factors do not reliably distinguish patients who progress early from those who have durable benefit. We developed and validated a prognostic nomogram to predict PFS in these patients. Methods The nomogram was developed using data from a training patient cohort with BRCA mutations and high-grade serous PSROC on the placebo arm of two maintenance therapy trials, Study 19 and SOLO2/ENGOT-ov21. We performed multivariable Cox regression analysis based on pre-treatment characteristics to develop a nomogram that predicts PFS. We assessed the discrimination and validation of the nomogram in independent validation patient cohorts treated with maintenance olaparib. Results The nomogram includes four PFS predictors: CA-125 at randomisation, platinum-free interval, presence of measurable disease and number of prior lines of platinum therapy. In the training (placebo) cohort (internal validation C-index 0.64), median PFS in the model-predicted good, intermediate and poor-risk groups was: 7.7 (95% CI 5.3–11.3), 5.4 (4.8–5.8) and 2.9 (2.8–4.4) months, respectively. In the validation (olaparib) cohort (C-index 0.71), median PFS in the model-predicted good, intermediate and poor-risk groups was: not reached, 16.6 (13.1–22.4) and 8.3 (7.1–10.8) months, respectively. The nomogram showed good calibration in the validation cohort (calibration plot). Conclusions This nomogram can be used to predict PFS and counsel patients with BRCA mutations and PSROC prior to maintenance olaparib and for stratification of patients in trials of maintenance therapies.

Background: Although most patients with epithelial ovarian cancer respond to frontline platinum-based chemotherapy, around 70% will relapse within 3 years. The phase 3 JAVELIN Ovarian 100 trial compared avelumab (anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody) in combination with chemotherapy followed by avelumab maintenance, or chemotherapy followed by avelumab maintenance, versus chemotherapy alone in patients with treatment-naive epithelial ovarian cancer. Methods: JAVELIN Ovarian 100 was a global, open-label, three-arm, parallel, randomised, phase 3 trial run at 159 hospitals and cancer treatment centres in 25 countries. Eligible women were aged 18 years and older with stage III–IV epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer (following debulking surgery, or candidates for neoadjuvant chemotherapy), and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via interactive response technology to receive chemotherapy (six cycles; carboplatin dosed at an area under the serum-concentration-time curve of 5 or 6 intravenously every 3 weeks plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 every 3 weeks or 80 mg/m2 once a week [investigators' choice]) followed by avelumab maintenance (10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks; avelumab maintenance group); chemotherapy plus avelumab (10 mg/kg intravenously every 3 weeks) followed by avelumab maintenance (avelumab combination group); or chemotherapy followed by observation (control group). Randomisation was in permuted blocks of size six and stratified by paclitaxel regimen and resection status. Patients and investigators were masked to assignment to the two chemotherapy groups without avelumab at the time of randomisation until completion of the chemotherapy phase. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by blinded independent central review in all randomly assigned patients (analysed by intention to treat). Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02718417. The trial was fully enrolled and terminated at interim analysis due to futility, and efficacy is no longer being assessed. Findings: Between May 19, 2016 and Jan 23, 2018, 998 patients were randomly assigned (avelumab maintenance n=332, avelumab combination n=331, and control n=335). At the planned interim analysis (data cutoff Sept 7, 2018), prespecified futility boundaries were crossed for the progression-free survival analysis, and the trial was stopped as recommended by the independent data monitoring committee and endorsed by the protocol steering committee. Median follow-up for progression-free survival for all patients was 10·8 months (IQR 7·1–14·9); 11·1 months (7·0–15·3) for the avelumab maintenance group, 11·0 months (7·4–14·5) for the avelumab combination group, and 10·2 months (6·7–14·0) for the control group. Median progression-free survival was 16·8 months (95% CI 13·5–not estimable [NE]) with avelumab maintenance, 18·1 months (14·8–NE) with avelumab combination treatment, and NE (18·2 months–NE) with control treatment. The stratified hazard ratio for progression-free survival was 1·43 (95% CI 1·05–1·95; one-sided p=0·99) with the avelumab maintenance regimen and 1·14 (0·83–1·56; one-sided p=0·79) with the avelumab combination regimen, versus control treatment. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were anaemia (69 [21%] patients in the avelumab maintenance group, 63 [19%] in the avelumab combination group, and 53 [16%] in the control group), neutropenia (91 [28%], 99 [30%], and 88 [26%]), and neutrophil count decrease (49 [15%], 45 [14%], and 59 [18%]). Serious adverse events of any grade occurred in 92 (28%) patients in the avelumab maintenance group, 118 (36%) in the avelumab combination group, and 64 (19%) in the control group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in one (

Malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) in patients with advanced gynecologic cancer (GyCa) can negatively impact clinical outcomes and quality of life. Oncology nurses can support these patients with adequate tools/processes.Patients with GyCa with/at risk of MBO endure frequent emergency or hospital admissions, impacting patient care.Optimizing oncology nurses' role to improve care for patients with GyCa with/at risk of MBO, the gynecology oncology interprofessional team collaborated to develop a proactive outpatient nurse-led MBO model of care (MOC).The MBO MOC involves a risk-based algorithm engaging interdisciplinary care, utilizing standardized tools, risk-based assessment, management, and education for patients and nurses. The MOC has improved patient-reported confidence level of bowel self-management and decreased hospitalization. Following education, nurses demonstrated increased knowledge in MBO management.An outpatient nurse-led MBO MOC can improve patient care and may be extended to other cancer centers, fostering collaboration and best practice.

Contains fulltext : 241226.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) BACKGROUND: Olaparib, a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, has previously been shown to extend progression-free survival versus placebo when given to patients with relapsed high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer who were platinum sensitive and who had a BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation, as part of the SOLO2/ENGOT-Ov21 trial. The aim of this final analysis is to investigate the effect of olaparib on overall survival. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial was done across 123 medical centres in 16 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at baseline of 0-1, had histologically confirmed, relapsed, high-grade serous or high-grade endometrioid ovarian cancer, including primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer, and had received two or more previous platinum regimens. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive olaparib tablets (300 mg in two 150 mg tablets twice daily) or matching placebo tablets using an interactive web or voice-response system. Stratification was by response to previous chemotherapy and length of platinum-free interval. Treatment assignment was masked to patients, treatment providers, and data assessors. The primary endpoint of progression-free survival has been reported previously. Overall survival was a key secondary endpoint and was analysed in all patients as randomly allocated. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one treatment dose. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01874353, and is no longer recruiting patients. FINDINGS: Between Sept 3, 2013 and Nov 21, 2014, 295 patients were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either olaparib (n=196 [66%]) or placebo (n=99 [34%]). One patient, randomised in error, did not receive olaparib. Median follow-up was 65·7 months (IQR 63·6-69·3) with olaparib and 64·5 months (63·4-68·7) with placebo. Median overall survival was 51·7 months (95% CI 41·5-59·1) with olaparib and 38·8 months (31·4-48·6) with placebo (hazard ratio 0·74 [95% CI 0·54-1·00]; p=0·054), unadjusted for the 38% of patients in the placebo group who received subsequent PARP inhibitor therapy. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse event was anaemia (which occurred in 41 [21%] of 195 patients in the olaparib group and two [2%] of 99 patients in the placebo group). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 50 (26%) of 195 patients receiving olaparib and eight (8%) of 99 patients receiving placebo. Treatment-emergent adverse events with a fatal outcome occurred in eight (4%) of the 195 patients receiving olaparib, six of which were judged to be treatment-related (attributed to myelodysplastic syndrome [n=3] and acute myeloid leukaemia [n=3]). INTERPRETATION: Olaparib provided a median overall survival benefit of 12·9 months compared with placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation. Although statistical significance was not reached, these findings are arguably clinically meaningful and support the use of maintenance olaparib in these patients. FUNDING: AstraZeneca and Merck.

Findings on impact of mismatch repair deficiency (MMRd) on patient outcomes in endometrial cancer (EC) have been inconsistent to date. The objective of this study was to compare the oncologic outcomes and recurrence patterns between MMRd and MMR-intact (MMRi) endometrioid EC (EEC).Between 2015 and 2018, we prospectively recruited 492 EEC cases from three cancer centers in Ontario, Canada. Tumors were reflexively assessed for MMR protein expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Clinicopathological, survival and recurrence patterns were compared between MMRd and MMRi cases.Of 492 EEC, 348 were MMRi (71%) and 144 were MMRd (29%) with median follow-up of 16.8 months (0-69.6). MMRd tumors tended to be grade 2 or 3 (56% vs. 29%, p 0.001), with propensity for lymphovascular space invasion (28% vs. 18%, p = 0.024), lymph node involvement (7% vs. 5%, p 0.001) and received more adjuvant treatment (46% vs. 33%, p = 0.027). This group also had significantly lower 3-year recurrence-free survival (78% vs. 90%, p = 0.014) although there was no difference in OS (p = 0.603). MMRd cases were more likely to recur in retroperitoneal lymph nodes (p = 0.045). Upon subgroup analysis, MLH1 methylated tumors had the worst prognostic features and survival outcomes.MLH1 methylated EECs exhibit more aggressive features compared to other MMRd and MMRi EECs. This may indicate an inherent difference in tumor biology, suggesting the importance of individualized management based on EC molecular phenotype.

Public Health Emergencies of International Concern, such as the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, have a devastating impact on an individual and societal level, and there is an urgent need to learn, understand and bridge the therapeutic gap at a time of extreme stress on the patient, health care systems and staff. Well-designed, controlled clinical trials play a crucial role in the discovery of novel diagnostic and management strategies; however, these catastrophic circumstances pose unique challenges in initiating research studies at institutional, national, and international levels, highlighting the importance of a coordinated, collaborative approach. This review discusses key elements necessary to consider for developing clinical trials within a Public Health Emergency setting.

Objective We sought to evaluate the role of intrinsic chromosomal aberrations in determining favorable outcome to weekly paclitaxel (WP) in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Methods We evaluated the common genomic aberrations of two patients with EOC and exceptional WP response in the GENIUS study ( NCT03740503 ). We then searched for potential markers of unusual outcomes to WP in a validation cohort. We performed shallow whole genome sequencing (sWGS) in the tumor tissue of women with EOC considered as short-responders (SR; progression with ≤3 cycles) and long-responders (LR; response at ≥8 cycles) to WP monotherapy. Results We identified two women with exceptional response to WP, lasting over four years, who shared chromosome 8 gain as a common genomic aberration. In order to validate our findings, we reviewed 188 patients with EOC treated with WP and selected 61 women (39 SR, 22 LR) with unusual responses. By sWGS, there was no differential alterations in the copy number changes in chromosome 8, or in genes related to angiogenesis, tubulin superfamily, cell-cycle, apoptosis and paclitaxel metabolism or transportation pathways. Amongst the LR group, we identified six exceptionally long responders (ExLR), with responses lasting over a year. In an exploratory analysis, there was increased amplification of angiogenesis (VEGFB, MMP9), tubulin superfamily (TSC2) and apoptosis related genes (BCL2L1, BAD) in ExLR compared to SR. We identified one patient with a complete response to WP for over 7 years. Molecular profiling identified unique amplifications in interleukin related genes (CXCR1, CXCR2, IL1A, IL1B), not detected in other patients. Conclusion Intrinsic tumor pathways may impact outcome with weekly paclitaxel monotherapy and further investigations are required.

ObjectivesFor synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancers, most centers rely on mismatch repair testing of the endometrial cancer to identify Lynch syndrome, and neglect the ovarian tumor site completely. We examined the mismatch repair immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability results from the endometrium and ovary to assess discordance between the tumor sites and between tests.Methods30 women with newly diagnosed synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancer were prospectively recruited from three cancer centers in Ontario, Canada. Both tumor sites were assessed for mismatch repair deficiency by immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability test; discordance in results between tumor sites and discordance between test results at each site was examined. Cases with discordant results had tumors sequenced with a targeted panel in order to reconcile the findings. All women underwent mismatch repair gene germline testing.ResultsOf 30 patients, 11 (37%) were mismatch repair deficient or microsatellite instable at either tumor site, with 5 (17%) testing positive for Lynch syndrome. Mismatch repair immunohistochemistry expression was discordant between endometrial and ovarian tumor sites in 2 of 27 patients (7%) while microsatellite instability results were discordant in 2 of 25 patients (8%). Relying on immunohistochemistry or microsatellite instability alone on the endometrial tumor would have missed one and three cases of Lynch syndrome, respectively. One patient with Lynch syndrome with aPMS2pathogenic variant was not detected by either immunohistochemistry or microsatellite instability testing. The rate of discordance between immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability test was 3.8% in the ovary and 12% in the endometrium.ConclusionsThere was discordance in immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability results between tumor sites and between tests within each site. Endometrial tumor testing with mismatch repair immunohistochemistry performed well, but missed one case of Lynch syndrome. Given the high incidence of Lynch syndrome (17%), consideration may be given to germline testing in all patients with synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancers.

BackgroundWith the success of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor therapy in the first-line and second-line treatment settings, a new patient population is emerging with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer, who have previously received a PARP inhibitor in the maintenance setting and for whom no second maintenance standard of care exists. DUETTE (NCT04239014) will evaluate the combination of ceralasertib (a potent, selective inhibitor of the serine/threonine kinase ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related protein (ATR) + olaparib, or olaparib monotherapy, compared with placebo, in this patient population of unmet need.Primary ObjectiveThe primary objective is to assess the efficacy of ceralasertib + olaparib combination, and olaparib monotherapy, compared with placebo, as second maintenance therapy in platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer.Study HypothesisThis study will test the hypothesis that ceralasertib + olaparib, or olaparib monotherapy, is tolerable, and effective at prolonging progression-free survival compared with placebo.Trial DesignThis is a phase II, multicenter study where patients will be randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive either (Arm 1) ceralasertib + olaparib, (Arm 2) olaparib monotherapy, or (Arm 3) placebo. The olaparib and placebo arms will be double-blinded, whereas the ceralasertib + olaparib arm will be open label. Patients will be stratified according to BRCA status, and response to platinum-based chemotherapy.Major Inclusion/Exclusion CriteriaEligible patients will have histologically diagnosed high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer, with platinum-sensitive relapse on, or after, completion of at least 6 months of any prior PARP inhibitor maintenance therapy (a minimum of 12 months is required if the patient received PARP inhibitor maintenance following first-line chemotherapy). If the prior PARP inhibitor used was olaparib then patients must have received treatment without significant toxicity or the need for a permanent dose reduction. Disease relapse in the second-line or third-line setting is allowed. Patients who have received secondary debulking surgery are potentially eligible if they meet all other inclusion criteria.Primary EndpointsThe primary endpoint is progression-free survival determined by blinded independent central review according to RECIST 1.1, with sensitivity analysis of progression-free survival using investigator assessments according to RECIST 1.1.Sample Size192 patients.Estimated Dates for Completing Accrual and Presenting ResultsDecember 2022.Trial RegistrationNCT04239014.

Background For women with ovarian cancer (OC), the optimal screening strategy to identify Lynch syndrome (LS) has not been determined. In the current study, the authors compared the performance characteristics of various strategies combining mismatch repair (MMR) immunohistochemistry (IHC), microsatellite instability testing (MSI), and family history for the detection of LS. Methods Women with nonserous and/or nonmucinous ovarian cancer were recruited prospectively from 3 cancer centers in Ontario, Canada. All underwent germline testing for LS and completed a family history assessment. Tumors were assessed using MMR IHC and MSI. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of screening strategies were compared with the gold standard of a germline result. Results Of 215 women, germline data were available for 189 (88%); 13 women (7%) had pathogenic germline variants with 7 women with mutS homolog 6 (MSH6); 3 women with mutL homolog 1 (MLH1); 2 women with PMS1 homolog 2, mismatch repair system component (PMS2); and 1 woman with mutS homolog 2 (MSH2). A total of 28 women had MMR‐deficient tumors (13%); of these, 11 had pathogenic variants (39%). Sequential IHC (with MLH1 promoter methylation analysis on MLH1‐deficient tumors) followed by MSI for nonmethylated and/or MMR‐intact patients was the most sensitive (92.3%; 95% confidence interval, 64%‐99.8%) and specific (97.7%; 95% confidence interval, 94.2%‐99.4%) approach, missing 1 case of LS. IHC with MLH1 promoter methylation analysis missed 2 patients of LS. Family history was found to have the lowest sensitivity at 55%. Conclusions Sequential IHC (with MLH1 promoter methylation analysis) followed by MSI was found to be most sensitive. However, IHC with MLH1 promoter methylation analysis also performed well and is likely more cost‐effective and efficient in the clinical setting. The pretest probability of LS is high in patients with MMR deficiency and warrants universal screening for LS., Although the incidence of mismatch repair deficiency (MMRd) is low (13%) in patients with nonserous and/or nonmucinous ovarian cancer, the likelihood of having Lynch syndrome is high in patients with MMRd (39%). In the current study, immunohistochemistry for mismatch repair proteins (with MLH1 promoter methylation analysis performed on MLH1‐deficient tumors) is found to be highly sensitive (85%) and specific (98%), missing only 2 patients of Lynch syndrome.

Purpose:PARP inhibitors (PARPi) are standard-of-care therapy for high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC). We investigated combining cediranib (antiangiogenic) with olaparib (PARPi) at emergence of PARPi resistance.Patients and Methods:The proof-of-concept EVOLVE study (NCT02681237) assessed cediranib–olaparib combination therapy after progression on a PARPi. Women with HGSOC and radiographic evidence of disease progression were enrolled into one of three cohorts: platinum sensitive after PARPi; platinum resistant after PARPi; or progression on standard chemotherapy after progression on PARPi (exploratory cohort). Patients received olaparib tablets 300 mg twice daily with cediranib 20 mg once daily until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The coprimary endpoints were objective response rate (RECIST v1.1) and progression-free survival (PFS) at 16 weeks. Archival tissue (PARPi-naïve) and baseline biopsy (post-PARPi) samples were mandatory. Genomic mechanisms of resistance were assessed by whole-exome and RNA sequencing.Results:Among 34 heavily pretreated patients, objective responses were observed in 0 of 11 (0%) platinum-sensitive patients, 2 of 10 (20%) platinum-resistant patients, and 1 of 13 (8%) in the exploratory cohort. Sixteen-week PFS rates were 55%, 50%, and 39%, respectively. The most common grade 3 toxicities were diarrhea (12%) and anemia (9%). Acquired genomic alterations at PARPi progression were reversion mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, or RAD51B (19%); CCNE1 amplification (16%); ABCB1 upregulation (15%); and SLFN11 downregulation (7%). Patients with reversion mutations in homologous recombination genes and/or ABCB1 upregulation had poor outcomes.Conclusions:This is currently the largest post-PARPi study identifying genomic mechanisms of resistance to PARPis. In this setting, the activity of cediranib–olaparib varied according to the PARPi resistance mechanism.

Small-cell carcinoma of the ovary, hypercalcemic type (SCCOHT) is a rare and highly aggressive ovarian malignancy. In almost all cases, it is associated with somatic and often germline pathogenic variants in SMARCA4, which encodes for the SMARCA4 protein (BRG1), a subunit of the SWI/SNF chromatin remodeling complex. Approximately 20% of human cancers possess pathogenic variants in at least one SWI/SNF subunit. Because of their role in regulating many important cellular processes including transcriptional control, DNA repair, differentiation, cell division, and DNA replication, SWI/SNF complexes with mutant subunits are thought to contribute to cancer initiation and progression. Fewer than 500 cases of SCCOHT have been reported in the literature and approximately 60% are associated with hypercalcemia. SCCOHT primarily affects females under 40 years of age who usually present with symptoms related to a pelvic mass. SCCOHT is an aggressive cancer, with long-term survival rates of 30% in early-stage cases. Although various treatment approaches have been proposed, there is no consensus on surveillance and therapeutic strategy. An international group of multidisciplinary clinicians and researchers recently formed the International SCCOHT Consortium to evaluate current knowledge and propose consensus surveillance and therapeutic recommendations, with the aim of improving outcomes. Here, we present an overview of the genetics of this cancer, provide updates on new treatment targets, and propose management guidelines for this challenging cancer.

Objective Women with advanced gynecologic cancer and malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) undergo repeated hospitalizations, experience feelings of isolation and abandonment, and often die in acute settings. Innovative outpatient models of care are needed to address the unmet needs of this population at the end-of-life. We implemented a novel supported self-management (SMS) program focused on increasing patients' skill and confidence in managing MBO proactively in the ambulatory setting. Methods We performed a qualitative descriptive study embedded in a prospective single-arm evaluative trial ( Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT03260647 ) to understand the impact of this program on patients' sense of support, degree of distress, quality of care, and capacity to self-manage. Semi-structured interviews were completed and analysed using the Chronic Care Model as a theoretical framework. Data saturation was confirmed after 15 interviews. Results Fifteen patients (age range: 47–82) with diagnoses of advanced ovarian, endometrial, and cervical cancer were interviewed; 10 had died by end of follow-up, with a median interval from interview to death of 5 months. Patients were able to self-manage the: (i) medical aspects; (ii) psychological consequences, and (iii) changes in life roles and expectations resulting from their condition. Patients felt greatly supported, less isolated, and secure in their knowledge and ability to access care due to SMS. While patients understood their disease was not curative they did not fully appreciate that MBO signalled a significantly poorer prognosis. Conclusion Outpatient SMS interventions can be successfully implemented even for rapidly fatal conditions at the end-of-life and offer significant benefit to gynecologic cancer patients with MBO. Counselling should focus on the specific trajectory of MBO, and early palliative care referrals should be standard practice.

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPi) have transformed the treatment landscape in front-line and recurrent high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Maintenance strategies with PARPi have been assessed in randomized phase III trials in ovarian cancer; switch maintenance in the case of olaparib, niraparib, and rucaparib; and concurrent followed by continuation maintenance with veliparib. These studies have shown progression-free survival advantage with PARPi maintenance, with no major adverse changes in the quality of life; however, overall survival data remain immature to date. PARPi have also been incorporated in clinical practice as a single-agent treatment strategy in high-grade serous ovarian cancer, mainly in women who harbor alterations in the BRCA1/2 genes or have alterations in the homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) pathway. Contemporary studies are looking into potentially synergistic combination strategies with anti-angiogenics and immune checkpoint inhibitors, among others. The expansion of PARPi treatment has not been limited to ovarian cancer; talazoparib is licensed in patients with HER2-negative breast cancer with germline BRCA mutations (BRCAm), and front-line olaparib maintenance in patients with pancreatic cancer with germline BRCAm. Numerous studies assessing PARPi either in monotherapy or in combination with other agents are ongoing in multiple tumors, including prostate, endometrial, brain, and gastric cancers. Many patients are being treated with PARPi, some for prolonged periods of time. As a result, a thorough knowledge of the potential short- and long-term adverse events and their management is warranted to improve patient safety, treatment efficacy, and towards maintaining an appropriate dose intensity.

Background Minimal qualitative data exist on the experiences of cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors or costimulatory antibodies. Understanding the day to day experiences of patients being treated with immune checkpoint modulators, and how these relate to their health‐related quality of life, can inform future research and lead to better clinical decision‐making and care. We report here the first in depth qualitative study to consider patients' diverse and complex experiences with immune checkpoint modulators, with a focus on side effects and how these impact daily life. Methods This single‐center qualitative study was based on focus groups and semistructured interviews. Patients who were being treated or who had been treated with immune checkpoint modulators within the last year for a range of cancer diagnoses were recruited. Interpretive description informed our inductive, iterative approach to analysis. Results Eight themes were identified, characterizing the complexity of these patients' lived experiences: major categories of side effects experienced and how they impacted patient well‐being; the heterogeneous nature of side effects experienced; living with uncertainty; reframing the meaning and severity of SEs; focus on survival, hope, and being positive; acceptance and adaptation; feeling supported; and faith in medical innovation. Throughout their accounts, participants highlighted the profound impact that immune checkpoint modulators had on their daily lives. Conclusion This is the first in‐depth qualitative study into patient accounts of their experiences of treatment with immune checkpoint modulators, related side effects, and how it impacted their daily lives. This research is an integral initial step in developing an instrument that will assess treatment‐related side effects in patients treated with this form of therapy., This is the first report of patients' accounts of their experiences with ICM treatment, related SEs, and its impact on daily life. This research is an integral initial step in the development of an instrument that will measure treatment‐related SEs in patients treated with ICMs.

Purpose: Platinum resistance in ovarian cancer is associated with epigenetic modifications. Hypomethylating agents (HMA) have been studied as carboplatin resensitizing agents in ovarian cancer. This randomized phase II trial compared guadecitabine, a second-generation HMA, and carboplatin (G+C) against second-line chemotherapy in women with measurable or detectable platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. Patients and Methods: Patients received either G+C (guadecitabine 30 mg/m2 s.c. once-daily for 5 days and carboplatin) or treatment of choice (TC; topotecan, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, paclitaxel, or gemcitabine) in 28-day cycles until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints were RECIST v1.1 and CA-125 response rate, 6-month PFS, and overall survival (OS). Results: Of 100 patients treated, 51 received G+C and 49 received TC, of which 27 crossed over to G+C. The study did not meet its primary endpoint as the median PFS was not statistically different between arms (16.3 weeks vs. 9.1 weeks in the G+C and TC groups, respectively; P = 0.07). However, the 6-month PFS rate was significantly higher in the G+C group (37% vs. 11% in TC group; P = 0.003). The incidence of grade 3 or higher toxicity was similar in G+C and TC groups (51% and 49%, respectively), with neutropenia and leukopenia being more frequent in the G+C group. Conclusions: Although this trial did not show superiority for PFS of G+C versus TC, the 6-month PFS increased in G+C treated patients. Further refinement of this strategy should focus on identification of predictive markers for patient selection.

The majority of patients with advanced, high-grade epithelial-tubo ovarian cancer (EOC) respond well to initial treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy; however, up to 80% of patients will experience a recurrence. Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have been established as a standard of care maintenance therapy to prolong remission and prevent relapse following a response to first-line platinum-chemotherapy. Olaparib and niraparib are the PARP inhibitors currently approved for use in the first-line maintenance setting in Canada. Selection of maintenance therapy requires consideration of patient and tumour factors, presence of germline and somatic mutations, expected drug toxicity profile, and treatment access. This paper discusses the current clinical evidence for first-line PARP inhibitor maintenance therapy in patients with advanced, high-grade EOC and presents consensus statements and a treatment algorithm to aid Canadian oncologists on the selection and use of PARP inhibitors within the Canadian EOC treatment landscape.

Cervical cancer is one of the most common cancers in the world both in terms of incidence and mortality, more so important in low- and middle-income countries. Surgery and radiotherapy remain the backbone of treatment for non-metastatic cervical cancer, with significant improvement in survival provided by addition of chemotherapy to radiotherapy. Survival as well as quality of life is improved by chemotherapy in metastatic disease. Platinum-based chemotherapy with/without bevacizumab is the mainstay of treatment for metastatic disease and has shown improvement in survival. The right combinations and sequence of treatment modalities and medicines are still evolving. Data regarding the molecular and genomic biology of cervical cancer have revealed multiple potential targets for treatment, and several new agents are presently under evaluation including targeted therapies, immunotherapies and vaccines. This review discusses briefly the current standards, newer updates as well as future prospective approaches in systemic therapies for cervical cancer.

Up to 20% of high-grade serous ovarian carcinomas (HGSOC) are hereditary; however, historical uptake of genetic testing is low. We used a unique combination of approaches to identify women in Ontario, Canada, with a first-degree relative (FDR) who died from HGSOC without prior genetic testing, and offer them multi-gene panel testing.From May 2015-Sept 2019, genetic counseling and testing was provided to eligible participants. Two recruitment strategies were employed, including self-identification in response to an outreach campaign and direct targeting of FDRs of deceased HGSOC patients treated at our institution. The rate of pathogenic variants (PV) in established/potential ovarian cancer risk genes and the benefits/challenges of each approach were assessed.A total of 564 women enrolled in response to our outreach campaign (n = 473) or direct recruitment (n = 91). Mean age at consent was 52 years and 96% did not meet provincial testing criteria. Genetic results were provided to 528 individuals from 458 families. The rate of PVs in ovarian cancer risk genes was highest when FDRs were diagnosed with HGSOC60 years (9.4% vs. 3.9% ≥ 60y, p = 0.0160). Participants in the outreach vs. direct recruitment cohort had a similar rate of PVs; however, uptake of genetic testing (97% vs. 89%; p = 0.0036) and study completion (95% vs. 87%; p = 0.0062) rates were higher in the former. Eleven participants with pathogenic variants have completed risk-reducing gynecologic surgery, with one stage I HGSOC and two breast cancers identified.Overall PV rates in this large cohort were lower than expected; however, we provide evidence that genetic testing criteria in Ontario should include individuals with a deceased FDR diagnosed with HGSOC60 years of age.

BackgroundUterine serous carcinoma is a distinct histologic subtype of endometrial cancer with an aggressive phenotype, poor prognosis, and limited therapeutic options. A previous proof-of-concept phase II trial of the Wee1 inhibitor adavosertib in uterine serous carcinoma demonstrated evidence of durable clinical activity.Primary ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of adavosertib in women with recurrent or persistent uterine serous carcinoma.Study HypothesisWe hypothesize that adavosertib will demonstrate significant clinical activity, as measured by objective response rate, in women with recurrent or persistent uterine serous carcinoma.Trial DesignEligible participants will receive adavosertib monotherapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, starting at the recommended phase II dosing of adavosertib 300 mg daily days 1 through 5 and 8 through 12 of a 21-day cycle. Participants will have restaging studies every 6 weeks for the first 48 weeks and then every 9 weeks thereafter.Major Inclusion/Exclusion CriteriaPatients with histologically confirmed recurrent or persistent uterine serous carcinoma, including endometrial carcinoma of mixed histology where the serous component comprises at least 10% of the tumor, and who have received at least one prior platinum-based chemotherapy regimen for the management of uterine serous carcinoma, are eligible for inclusion in the trial. Participants must have measurable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 criteria. Participants with carcinosarcoma are not eligible.Primary EndpointThe primary endpoint is the objective response rate by RECIST 1.1 criteria, as determined by blinded independent central review.Sample SizeApproximately 120 patients will be enrolled in this trial.Estimated Dates for Completing and Presenting ResultsStudy completion and presentation of results are projected to be at the end of 2022.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04590248.

Background: Few prospective studies have compared poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors to chemotherapy for the treatment of BRCA1-mutated or BRCA2-mutated ovarian carcinoma. We aimed to assess rucaparib versus platinum-based and non-platinum-based chemotherapy in this setting. Methods: In this open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study (ARIEL4), conducted in 64 hospitals and cancer centres across 12 countries (Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Poland, Russia, Spain, Ukraine, the UK, and the USA), we recruited patients aged 18 years and older with BRCA1-mutated or BRCA2-mutated ovarian carcinoma, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and who had received two or more previous chemotherapy regimens. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (2:1), using an interactive response technology and block randomisation (block size of six) and stratified by progression-free interval after the most recent platinum-containing therapy, to oral rucaparib (600 mg twice daily) or chemotherapy (administered per institutional guidelines). Patients assigned to the chemotherapy group with platinum-resistant or partially platinum-sensitive disease were given paclitaxel (starting dose 60–80 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15); those with fully platinum-sensitive disease received platinum-based chemotherapy (single-agent cisplatin or carboplatin, or platinum-doublet chemotherapy). Patients were treated in 21-day or 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, assessed in the efficacy population (all randomly assigned patients with deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations without reversion mutations), and then in the intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned patients). Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of assigned study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02855944; enrolment is complete, and the study is ongoing. Findings: Between March 1, 2017, and Sept 24, 2020, 930 patients were screened, of whom 349 eligible patients were randomly assigned to rucaparib (n=233) or chemotherapy (n=116). Median age was 58 years (IQR 52–64) and 332 (95%) patients were White. As of data cutoff (Sept 30, 2020), median follow-up was 25·0 months (IQR 13·8–32·5). In the efficacy population (220 patients in the rucaparib group; 105 in the chemotherapy group), median progression-free survival was 7·4 months (95% CI 7·3–9·1) in the rucaparib group versus 5·7 months (5·5–7·3) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·64 [95% CI 0·49–0·84]; p=0·0010). In the intention-to-treat population (233 in the rucaparib group; 116 in the chemotherapy group), median progression-free survival was 7·4 months (95% CI 6·7–7·9) in the rucaparib group versus 5·7 months (5·5–6·7) in the chemotherapy group (HR 0·67 [95% CI 0·52–0·86]; p=0·0017). Most treatment-emergent adverse events were grade 1 or 2. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse event was anaemia or decreased haemoglobin (in 52 [22%] of 232 patients in the rucaparib group vs six [5%] of 113 in the chemotherapy group). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 62 (27%) patients in the rucaparib group versus 13 (12%) in the chemotherapy group; serious adverse events considered related to treatment by the investigator occurred in 32 (14%) patients in the rucaparib group and six (5%) in the chemotherapy group. Three deaths were considered to be potentially related to rucaparib (one due to cardiac disorder, one due to myelodysplastic syndrome, and one with an unconfirmed cause). Interpretation: Results from the ARIEL4 study support rucaparib as an alternative treatment option to chemotherapy for patients with relapsed, BRCA1-mutated or BRCA2-mutated ovarian carcinoma. Funding: Clovis Oncology.

Objective: ARIEL3 (NCT01968213) is a placebo-controlled randomized trial of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib as maintenance treatment in patients with recurrent high-grade ovarian carcinoma who responded to their latest line of platinum therapy. Rucaparib improved progression-free survival across all predefined subgroups. Here, we present an exploratory analysis of clinical and molecular characteristics associated with exceptional benefit from rucaparib. Methods: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Molecular features (genomic alterations, BRCA1 promoter methylation) and baseline clinical characteristics were evaluated for association with exceptional benefit (progression-free survival ≥2 years) versus progression on first scan (short-term subgroup) and other efficacy outcomes. Results: Rucaparib treatment was significantly associated with exceptional benefit compared with placebo: 79/375 (21.1%) vs 4/189 (2.1%), respectively (p < 0.0001). Exceptional benefit was more frequent among patients with favorable baseline clinical characteristics and with carcinomas harboring molecular evidence of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). A comparison between patients who derived exceptional benefit from rucaparib and those in the short-term subgroup revealed both clinical markers (no measurable disease at baseline, complete response to latest platinum, longer penultimate platinum-free interval) and molecular markers (BRCA1, BRCA2, RAD51C, and RAD51D alterations and genome-wide loss of heterozygosity) significantly associated with exceptional benefit. Conclusions: Exceptional benefit in ARIEL3 was more common in, but not exclusive to, patients with favorable clinical characteristics or molecular features associated with HRD. Our results suggest that rucaparib can deliver exceptional benefit to a diverse set of patients with recurrent high-grade ovarian carcinoma.

The use of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies has seen substantial clinical success in oncology therapeutic development. Although multiple agents within these classes have achieved regulatory approval globally-in several malignancies in early and advanced stages-drug resistance remains an issue. Building on preclinical evidence, several early trials and late-phase studies are underway. This review explores the therapeutic potential of combination poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in solid tumors, including the scientific and therapeutic rationale, available clinical evidence, and considerations for future trial and biomarker development across different malignancies using ovarian and other solid cancer subtypes as key examples.

Recent preclinical and clinical research has led to exciting advances related to high-grade serous ovarian cancer, from examining its cellular origins to gaining insight into DNA-damage-repair mechanisms that may be leveraged for therapies. Furthermore, studies have demonstrated clinical benefit for inhibition of the polymerase PARP and modulation of the cell cycle, and have identified molecular features related to therapeutic response.

The modeled Ca125 ELIMination rate constant K (KELIM) can be used as a measure of chemotherapy sensitivity in women with newly diagnosed advanced epithelial ovarian cancer who are being treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This marker may aid in decision-making regarding surgical resection and alternate systemic treatments in this cohort. See related article by You et al., p. 4625

Background Patients with cancer who are treated with immune checkpoint modulators (ICMs) have their health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measured using general patient-reported outcome (PRO) tools. To the authors' knowledge, no instrument has been developed to date specifically for patients treated with ICMs. The objective of the current study was to develop a toxicity subscale PRO instrument for patients treated with ICMs to assess HRQOL. Methods Input was collected from a systematic review as well as patients and physicians experienced with ICM treatment. Descriptive thematic analysis was used to evaluate the qualitative data obtained from patient focus groups and interviews, which informed an initial list of items that described ICM side effects and their impact on HRQOL. These inputs informed item generation and/or reduction to develop a toxicity subscale. Results Focus groups and individual interviews with 37 ICM-treated patients generated an initial list of 176 items. After a first round of item reduction that produced a shortened list of 76 items, 16 physicians who care for patients who are treated with ICMs were surveyed with a list of 49 patient-reported side effects and 11 physicians participated in follow-up interviews. A second round of item reduction was informed by the physician responses to produce a list of 25 items. Conclusions To the authors' knowledge, this 25-item list is the first HRQOL-focused toxicity subscale for patients treated with ICMs and was developed in accordance with US Food and Drug Administration guidelines, which prioritize patient input in developing PRO tools. The subscale will be combined with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) to form the FACT-ICM. Prior to recommending the formal use of this PRO instrument, the authors will evaluate its validity and reliability in longitudinal studies involving substantially more patients.

PURPOSE: Malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) is a common and distressing complication in women with advanced gynecologic cancer. A pilot, interprofessional MBO program was launched in 2016 at a large Canadian tertiary cancer center to integrate these patients’ complex care needs across multiple disciplines and support women with MBO. METHOD: Retrospective analysis to evaluate the outcomes of women with advanced gynecologic cancer who were admitted to hospital because of MBO, before (2014 to 2016: baseline group) and after (2016 to 2018) implementation of the MBO program. RESULTS: Of the 169 women evaluated, 106 and 63 were in the baseline group and MBO program group, respectively. Most had ovarian cancer (n = 124; 73%) and had small-bowel obstruction (n = 131; 78%). There was a significantly shorter cumulative hospital length of stay (LOSsum) within the first 60 days of MBO diagnosis in the MBO program group compared with the baseline group (13 v 22 days, respectively; adjusted P = .006). The median overall survival for women treated in the MBO program was also significantly longer compared with the baseline group (243 v 99 days, respectively; adjusted P = .002). Using the interprofessional MBO care platform, a greater proportion of patients received palliative chemotherapy (83% v 56%) and less surgery (11% v 21%) in the MBO program group than in the baseline group, respectively. A subgroup of women (n = 11) received total parenteral nutrition for longer than 6 months. CONCLUSION: Implementation of a comprehensive, interprofessional MBO program significantly affects patient care and may improve outcomes. Unique to this MBO program is an integrated outpatient model of care and education that empowers patients to recognize MBO symptoms for early intervention.

Epithelial ovarian cancer has a very high rate of relapse after primary therapy; historically approximately 70% of patients with a complete clinical response to surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy will relapse and die of the disease. Although this number has slowly improved, cure rates remain less than 50%. As such, maintenance therapy with the aim of preventing or delaying disease relapse and the goal of improving overall survival has been the subject of intense study. Numerous earlier studies with agents ranging from radioactive phosphorus to extended frontline therapy or to monthly taxol administration demonstrated encouraging improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) only to find, disappointingly, no benefit in overall survival. In addition, the PFS advantage of maintenance therapy was associated with disconcerting side effects such that maintenance therapy was not adapted as standard of care. Studies with bevacizumab and PARP inhibitors have demonstrated a PFS advantage with a manageable side-effect profile. However, an overall survival advantage remains unclear, and the use of these approaches thus remains controversial. Furthermore, in recurrent disease, the length of chemotherapy and benefits of extended chemotherapy is unclear. Thus, additional trials assessing maintenance strategies in ovarian and other gynecologic malignancies are needed.

Objectives Conducting clinical trials in rare malignancies is challenging due to the limited number of patients and differences in biologic behavior. We investigated the feasibility and clinical utility of using genomic profiling for rare gynecologic malignancies. Methods Rare epithelial gynecologic cancer patients were analyzed for somatic variants through an institutional molecular profiling program using the Sequenom MassArray platform or the TruSeq Amplicon Cancer Panel on the MiSeq platform. Clinical trial outcomes by RECIST 1.1, and time on treatment were evaluated. Results From March 2012 to November 2015, 767 gynecologic patients were enrolled and 194 (27%) were classified as rare epithelial malignancies. At least one somatic mutation was identified in 72% of patients, most commonly in TP53 (39%), KRAS (28%) and PIK3CA (27%). A total of 14% of patients were treated on genotype-matched trials. There were no significant differences in overall response rate between genotype-matched versus unmatched trials, nor in median time on treatment between genotype trials and the immediate prior systemic standard treatment. Among 13 evaluable Low Grade Serous ovarian cancer patients treated on genotype-matched trials with MEK inhibitor-based targeted combinations, there were four partial responses. Conclusions Somatic molecular profiling is feasible and enables the identification of patients with rare gynecologic cancers who are candidates for genotype-matched clinical trials. Genotype-matched trials, predominantly MEK-based combinations in KRAS and/or NRAS mutant Low Grade Serous ovarian cancer patients, and genotype-unmatched trials, have shown potential clinical activity. Prospective trials with integrated genotyping are warranted to assess the clinical utility of next generation sequencing tests as a standard clinical application in rare malignancies.

ObjectivesIn response to the COVID-19 pandemic there have been significant developments in research, its conduct and the supporting ethical framework. While many protocols have been delayed, halted or modified, other research efforts have been accelerated, generating controversy. The goal of this paper is to determine the rates of references surrounding the ethical oversight of research as reported in current COVID-19-related research publications.DesignScoping review.SettingPopulation-based observational or interventional studies from December 2019 to May 2020 with sample size of two or more. Studies were searched through electronic databases including Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials.ParticipantsEligibility criteria included participants within published studies who tested positive for COVID-19.Main outcomes and measuresData were extracted and charting methods included taking note of references to ethical frameworks, institutional review board (IRB), ethics committee (EC) or research ethics board (REB) involvement, consent processes, and other variables.Results11 556 articles were screened, with 656 included in the final analysis. References to ethics were present in 530 (80.8%) studies, with 491 (74.8%) involving IRB/ECs/REBs and 126 (19.2%) not referencing ethics. Consent processes were outlined in 201 (30.6%) studies, with 198 (30.2%) reporting that they obtained consent waivers, however, 257 (39.2%) did not mention consent at all. Differences (pConclusionsThe majority of published articles pertaining to COVID-19 research made mention of ethical considerations, however, national and regional variations in research ethics review requirements introduce heterogeneity between studies and raise important questions about the conduct of scientific research during global public emergencies.Trial registration numberOpen Science Framework: https://osfio/z67wb.

Background The efficacy and safety of rucaparib maintenance treatment in ARIEL3 were evaluated in subgroups based on best response to most recent platinum‐based chemotherapy and baseline disease. Methods Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive either oral rucaparib at a dosage of 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Investigator‐assessed PFS was assessed in prespecified, nested cohorts: BRCA‐mutated, homologous recombination deficient (HRD; BRCA mutated or wild‐type BRCA/high loss of heterozygosity), and the intent‐to‐treat (ITT) population. Results Median PFS for patients in the ITT population with a complete response to most recent platinum‐based chemotherapy was 11.1 months in the rucaparib arm (126 patients) versus 5.6 months in the placebo arm (64 patients) (HR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.23–0.48]), and in patients with a partial response (249 vs. 125), it was 9.0 versus 5.3 months (HR, 0.38 [0.30–0.49]). In subgroups of the ITT population based on baseline disease, median PFS was 8.2 versus 5.3 months (HR, 0.40 [0.28–0.57]) in patients with measurable disease (141 rucaparib vs. 66 placebo), 10.4 versus 4.5 months (HR, 0.31 [0.20–0.48]) in those with nonmeasurable but evaluable disease (104 vs. 56), and 14.1 versus 7.3 months (HR, 0.35 [0.24–0.51]) in those with no residual disease (130 vs. 67). Across subgroups, significantly longer median PFS was observed with rucaparib versus placebo in the BRCA‐mutated and HRD cohorts. Objective responses were reported in patients with measurable disease and in patients with nonmeasurable but evaluable baseline disease. Safety was consistent across subgroups. Conclusion Rucaparib maintenance treatment provided clinically meaningful efficacy benefits across subgroups based on response to last platinum‐based chemotherapy or baseline disease., The efficacy and safety of the PARP inhibitor rucaparib as maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian cancer were similar regardless of whether patients had a complete or partial response to their last platinum‐based chemotherapy or according to whether they had measurable, nonmeasurable but evaluable, or no residual disease at baseline. Rucaparib also reduced the disease burden in patients who had measurable or nonmeasurable but evaluable disease at baseline.

High-grade serous tubo-ovarian carcinoma (HGSC) is a major cause of cancer-related death. Treatment is not uniform, with some patients undergoing primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy (PDS) and others being treated directly with chemotherapy and only having surgery after three to four cycles (NACT). Which strategy is optimal remains controversial. We developed a mathematical framework that simulates hierarchical or stochastic models of tumor initiation and reproduces the clinical course of HGSC. After estimating parameter values, we infer that most patients harbor chemoresistant HGSC cells at diagnosis and that, if the tumor burden is not too large and complete debulking can be achieved, PDS is superior to NACT due to better depletion of resistant cells. We further predict that earlier diagnosis of primary HGSC, followed by complete debulking, could improve survival, but its benefit in relapsed patients is likely to be limited. These predictions are supported by primary clinical data from multiple cohorts. Our results have clear implications for these key issues in HGSC management.

IntroductionIn ARIEL3 (NCT01968213), the poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo regardless of biomarker status when used as maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian cancer. The aim of the current analyses was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rucaparib in subgroups based on progression-free interval following penultimate platinum, number of prior chemotherapies, and prior use of bevacizumab.MethodsPatients were randomized 2:1 to rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Within subgroups, progression-free survival was assessed in prespecified, nested cohorts: BRCA-mutant, homologous recombination deficient (BRCA-mutant or wild-type BRCA/high genomic loss of heterozygosity), and the intent-to-treat population.ResultsIn the intent-to-treat population, median investigator-assessed progression-free survival was 8.2 months with rucaparib versus 4.1 months with placebo (n=151 vs n=76; HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.46, p12 months. Median progression-free survival was 10.4 versus 5.4 months (n=231 vs n=124; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.54, pBRCA-mutant and homologous recombination deficient cohorts. Safety was consistent across subgroups.ConclusionsRucaparib maintenance treatment significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo irrespective of progression-free interval following penultimate platinum, number of lines of prior chemotherapy, and previous use of bevacizumab.

Chemotherapy; Mirvetuximab soravtansine; Ovarian cancer Quimioterapia; Mirvetuximab soravtansina; Cáncer de ovarios Quimioteràpia; Mirvetuximab soravtansina; Càncer d'ovaris Background Mirvetuximab soravtansine (MIRV) is an antibody-drug conjugate comprising a folate receptor alpha (FRα)-binding antibody, cleavable linker, and the maytansinoid DM4, a potent tubulin-targeting agent. The randomized, open-label, phase III study FORWARD I compared MIRV and investigator's choice chemotherapy in patients with platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Patients and methods Eligible patients with 1-3 prior lines of therapy and whose tumors were positive for FRα expression were randomly assigned, in a 2 : 1 ratio, to receive MIRV (6 mg/kg, adjusted ideal body weight) or chemotherapy (paclitaxel, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, or topotecan). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival [PFS, Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1, blinded independent central review] in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and in the prespecified FRα high population. Results A total of 366 patients were randomized; 243 received MIRV and 109 received chemotherapy. The primary endpoint, PFS, did not reach statistical significance in either the ITT [hazard ratio (HR), 0.98, P = 0.897] or the FRα high population (HR, 0.69, P = 0.049). Superior outcomes for MIRV over chemotherapy were observed in all secondary endpoints in the FRα high population including improved objective response rate (24% versus 10%), CA-125 responses (53% versus 25%), and patient-reported outcomes (27% versus 13%). Fewer treatment-related grade 3 or higher adverse events (25.1% versus 44.0%), and fewer events leading to dose reduction (19.8% versus 30.3%) and treatment discontinuation (4.5% versus 8.3%) were seen with MIRV compared with chemotherapy. Conclusions In patients with platinum-resistant EOC, MIRV did not result in a significant improvement in PFS compared with chemotherapy. Secondary endpoints consistently favored MIRV, particularly in patients with high FRα expression. MIRV showed a differentiated and more manageable safety profile than chemotherapy. This work was supported by ImmunoGen, Inc (no grant number).

ARIEL2 (NCT01891344) is a single-arm, open-label phase 2 study of the PARP inhibitor (PARPi) rucaparib in relapsed high-grade ovarian carcinoma. In this post hoc exploratory biomarker analysis of pre- and post-platinum ARIEL2 samples, RAD51C and RAD51D mutations and high-level BRCA1 promoter methylation predict response to rucaparib, similar to BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations. BRCA1 methylation loss may be a major cross-resistance mechanism to platinum and PARPi. Genomic scars associated with homologous recombination deficiency are irreversible, persisting even as platinum resistance develops, and therefore are predictive of rucaparib response only in platinum-sensitive disease. The RAS, AKT, and cell cycle pathways may be additional modulators of PARPi sensitivity., The identification of biomarkers of response to PARP inhibitors can enable selection of appropriate ovarian cancer patients for treatment. In this study, the authors report clinical results and exploratory biomarker analyses from the ARIEL2 phase 2 clinical trial on the safety and efficacy of the PARP inhibitor rucaparib in patients with recurrent ovarian cancers

Background Cediranib, an oral anti-angiogenic VEGFR 1-3 inhibitor, was studied at a daily dose of 20 mg in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy and as maintenance in a randomised trial in patients with first relapse of ‘platinum-sensitive’ ovarian cancer and has been shown to improve progression-free survival (PFS). Patients and methods ICON6 (NCT00532194) was an international three-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial. Between December 2007 and December 2011, 456 women were randomised, using stratification, to receive either chemotherapy with placebo throughout (arm A, reference); chemotherapy with concurrent cediranib, followed by maintenance placebo (arm B, concurrent); or chemotherapy with concurrent cediranib, followed by maintenance cediranib (arm C, maintenance). Due to an enforced redesign of the trial in September 2011, the primary endpoint became PFS between arms A and C which we have previously published, and the overall survival (OS) was defined as a secondary endpoint, which is reported here. Results After a median follow-up of 25.6 months, strong evidence of an effect of concurrent plus maintenance cediranib on PFS was observed [hazard ratio (HR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44-0.72, P < 0.0001]. In this final update of the survival analysis, 90% of patients have died. There was a 7.4-month difference in median survival and an HR of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.67-1.11, P = 0.24) in favour of arm C. There was strong evidence of a departure from the assumption of non-proportionality using the Grambsch–Therneau test (P = 0.0031), making the HR difficult to interpret. Consequently, the restricted mean survival time (RMST) was used and the estimated difference over 6 years by the RMST was 4.8 months (95% CI: −0.09 to 9.74 months). Conclusions Although a statistically significant difference in time to progression was seen, the enforced curtailment in recruitment meant that the secondary analysis of OS was underpowered. The relative reduction in the risk of death of 14% risk of death was not conventionally statistically significant, but this improvement and the increase in the mean survival time in this analysis suggest that cediranib may have worthwhile activity in the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer and that further research should be undertaken., Highlights • Cediranib is an oral VEGF receptor kinase inhibitor and ICON6 explored its activity in recurrent ovarian cancer. • In a randomised trial cediranib with chemotherapy and as maintenance significantly prolonged PFS. • Cessation of cediranib supply led to a reduction in sample size and OS was underpowered. • A mature survival analysis showed a non-significant increase in the median and Restricted Mean Survival Time (RMST) with cediranib. • There was a clinical benefit of cediranib but further research is needed to determine its role in recurrent ovarian cancer.

Background Despite the growing integration of mandatory biopsies for correlative endpoints within oncology clinical trials, there are sparse data on patient-reported outcomes, perceptions, and preferences. Objective This study aimed to prospectively assess the impact of research biopsies on the quality of life in patients with gynecologic cancer, evaluate patient-reported outcomes, and determine factors associated with patients’ willingness to undergo sequential biopsies. Study Design We conducted a prospective study in patients with gynecologic malignancies undergoing research biopsies between 2015 and 2019 at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre ( ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02334761 ). Here, we report the results of the paper-based surveys performed before and 1 week after biopsy. Although the questionnaires each assessed the impact of anxiety using a modified version of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the postbiopsy questionnaire specifically assessed the likelihood of future biopsies, postbiopsy symptoms, complications, and perceptions. Results A total of 129 patients were enrolled, of which 91 (70.5%) completed at least 1 questionnaire. These patients had either ovarian (89%; 81 of 91) or endometrial cancer (11%; 10 of 91). Of all biopsies taken, 75% were from the abdomen or pelvis (67 of 89). There was 1 clinician-reported complication, a perihepatic hematoma (1%). Pain during the biopsy and physical discomfort were experienced by 60.3% (41 of 68) and 61.8% (42 of 68), respectively. Embarrassment and loss of dignity were experienced by 13.2% (9 of 68) and 11.8% (8 of 68), respectively. Although the mean Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score was in the normal range before and after biopsy, there was a significant decline in the total score after the biopsy (prebiopsy, 5.3 [standard deviation, 4.7] vs postbiopsy, 3.7 [standard deviation, 4.5]; P=.005); 84% of subjects (58 of 69) stated that they would definitely or likely consent to another biopsy. There was no impact on patients’ willingness for future biopsies based on Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status, biopsy site, age, number of cores, and pain during the biopsy; however, subjects who reported feeling physically uncomfortable (odds ratio, 0.14; P=.005), embarrassed (odds ratio, 0.03; P=.004) or experienced loss of dignity (odds ratio, 0.05; P=.01) during the biopsy and those who experienced flu-like symptoms (odds ratio, 0.2; P=.018) or felt feverish (odds ratio, 0.2; P=.035) 1 week after biopsy, were less likely to undergo a sequential biopsy. Similarly, those with higher Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores before biopsy (odds ratio, 0.83; P=.008) and after biopsy (odds ratio, 0.8; P=.003) were less likely to consent for another biopsy. Conclusion Research biopsies were generally well accepted. Most patients (83%) were willing to undergo serial biopsies if necessary. Addressing the potentially modifiable psychosocial aspects of the procedure may improve the experience with research biopsies for patients with gynecologic cancers.

Background Despite recommendations for reflex immunohistochemistry (IHC) for mismatch repair (MMR) proteins to identify Lynch syndrome (LS), the uptake of genetic assessment by those who meet referral criteria is low. The authors implemented a comprehensive genetic navigation program to increase the uptake of genetic testing for LS in patients with endometrial cancer (EC) or nonserous/nonmucinous ovarian cancer (OC). Methods Participants with newly diagnosed EC or OC were prospectively recruited from 3 cancer centers in Ontario, Canada. Family history questionnaires were used to assess LS‐specific family history. Reflex IHC for MMR proteins was performed with the inclusion of clinical directives in pathology reports. A trained genetic navigator initiated a genetic referral on behalf of the treating physician and facilitated genetic referrals to the closest genetics center. Results A total of 841 participants (642 with EC, 172 with OC, and 27 with synchronous EC/OC) consented to the study; 194 (23%) were MMR‐deficient by IHC. Overall, 170 women (20%) were eligible for a genetic assessment for LS: 35 on the basis of their family history alone, 24 on the basis of their family history and IHC, 82 on the basis of IHC alone, and 29 on the basis of clinical discretion. After adjustments for participants who died (n = 6), 149 of 164 patients (91%) completed a genetic assessment, and 111 were offered and completed genetic testing. Thirty‐four women (4.0% of the total cohort and 30.6% of those with genetic testing) were diagnosed with LS: 5 with mutL homolog 1 (MLH1), 9 with mutS homolog 2 (MSH2), 15 with mutS homolog 6 (MSH6), and 5 with PMS2. Conclusions The introduction of a navigated genetic program resulted in a high rate of genetic assessment (>90%) in patients with gynecologic cancer at risk for LS., A navigated genetic system significantly increases the uptake of genetic assessment for women with endometrial and nonserous/nonmucinous ovarian cancers at high risk of Lynch syndrome.

ObjectiveTo evaluate correlations between rucaparib exposure and selected efficacy and safety endpoints in patients with recurrent ovarian carcinoma using pooled data from Study 10 and ARIEL2.MethodsEfficacy analyses were limited to patients with carcinomas harboring a deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation who had received ≥2 prior lines of chemotherapy. Safety was evaluated in all patients who received ≥1 rucaparib dose. Steady-state daily area under the concentration-time curve (AUCss) and maximum concentration (Cmax,ss) for rucaparib were calculated for each patient and averaged by actual dose received over time (AUCavg,ss and Cmax,avg,ss) using a previously developed population pharmacokinetic model.ResultsRucaparib exposure was dose-proportional and not associated with baseline patient weight. In the exposure-efficacy analyses (n=121), AUCavg,ss was positively associated with independent radiology review-assessed RECIST response in the subgroup of patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent disease (n=75, p=0.017). In the exposure-safety analyses (n=393, 40mg once daily to 840mg twice daily [BID] starting doses), most patients received a 600mg BID rucaparib starting dose, with 27% and 21% receiving 1 or≥2 dose reductions, respectively. Cmax,ss was significantly correlated with grade≥2 serum creatinine increase, grade≥3 alanine transaminase/aspartate transaminase increase, platelet decrease, fatigue/asthenia, and maximal hemoglobin decrease (p&nbsp