Search

Purpose: This study assessed the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of adavosertib in combination with four chemotherapy agents commonly used in patients with primary platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. Patients and Methods: Women with histologically or cytologically confirmed epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer with measurable disease were enrolled between January 2015 and January 2018 in this open-label, four-arm, multicenter, phase II study. Patients received adavosertib (oral capsules, 2 days on/5 days off or 3 days on/4 days off) in six cohorts from 175 mg once daily to 225 mg twice daily combined with gemcitabine, paclitaxel, carboplatin, or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin. The primary outcome measurement was overall response rate. Results: Three percent of patients (3/94) had confirmed complete response and 29% (27/94) had confirmed partial response. The response rate was highest with carboplatin plus weekly adavosertib, at 66.7%, with 100% disease control rate, and median progression-free survival of 12.0 months. The longest median duration of response was in the paclitaxel cohort (12.0 months). The most common grade ≥3 adverse events across all cohorts were neutropenia [45/94 (47.9%) patients], anemia [31/94 (33.0%)], thrombocytopenia [30/94 (31.9%)], and diarrhea and vomiting [10/94 (10.6%) each]. Conclusions: Adavosertib showed preliminary efficacy when combined with chemotherapy. The most promising treatment combination was adavosertib 225 mg twice daily on days 1–3, 8–10, and 15–17 plus carboplatin every 21 days. However, hematologic toxicity was more frequent than would be expected for carboplatin monotherapy, and the combination requires further study to optimize the dose, schedule, and supportive medications.

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

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.

Summary Background Most patients with ovarian cancer will relapse after receiving frontline platinum-based chemotherapy and eventually develop platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory disease. We report results of avelumab alone or avelumab plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) compared with PLD alone in patients with platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer. Methods JAVELIN Ovarian 200 was an open-label, parallel-group, three-arm, randomised, phase 3 trial, done at 149 hospitals and cancer treatment centres in 24 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer (maximum of three previous lines for platinum-sensitive disease, none for platinum-resistant disease) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via interactive response technology to avelumab (10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks), avelumab plus PLD (40 mg/m2 intravenously every 4 weeks), or PLD and stratified by disease platinum status, number of previous anticancer regimens, and bulky disease. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival by blinded independent central review and overall survival in all randomly assigned patients, with the objective to show whether avelumab alone or avelumab plus PLD is superior to PLD. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02580058 . The trial is no longer enrolling patients and this is the final analysis of both primary endpoints. Findings Between Jan 5, 2016, and May 16, 2017, 566 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (combination n=188; PLD n=190, avelumab n=188). At data cutoff (Sept 19, 2018), median duration of follow-up for overall survival was 18·4 months (IQR 15·6–21·9) for the combination group, 17·4 months (15·2–21·3) for the PLD group, and 18·2 months (15·8–21·2) for the avelumab group. Median progression-free survival by blinded independent central review was 3·7 months (95% CI 3·3–5·1) in the combination group, 3·5 months (2·1–4·0) in the PLD group, and 1·9 months (1·8–1·9) in the avelumab group (combination vs PLD: stratified HR 0·78 [repeated 93·1% CI 0·59–1·24], one-sided p=0·030; avelumab vs PLD: 1·68 [1·32–2·60], one-sided p>0·99). Median overall survival was 15·7 months (95% CI 12·7–18·7) in the combination group, 13·1 months (11·8–15·5) in the PLD group, and 11·8 months (8·9–14·1) in the avelumab group (combination vs PLD: stratified HR 0·89 [repeated 88·85% CI 0·74–1·24], one-sided p=0·21; avelumab vs PLD: 1·14 [0·95–1·58], one-sided p=0·83]). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (18 [10%] in the combination group vs nine [5%] in the PLD group vs none in the avelumab group), rash (11 [6%] vs three [2%] vs none), fatigue (ten [5%] vs three [2%] vs none), stomatitis (ten [5%] vs five [3%] vs none), anaemia (six [3%] vs nine [5%] vs three [2%]), neutropenia (nine [5%] vs nine [5%] vs none), and neutrophil count decreased (eight [5%] vs seven [4%] vs none). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 32 (18%) patients in the combination group, 19 (11%) in the PLD group, and 14 (7%) in the avelumab group. Treatment-related adverse events resulted in death in one patient each in the PLD group (sepsis) and avelumab group (intestinal obstruction). Interpretation Neither avelumab plus PLD nor avelumab alone significantly improved progression-free survival or overall survival versus PLD. These results provide insights for patient selection in future studies of immune checkpoint inhibitors in platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer. Funding Pfizer and Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.

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.

Solid organ transplant recipients on long-term immunosuppressive medication are at increased risk of developing malignancy, and treatment of advanced cancers with angiogenesis inhibitors in this context has not been widely studied. We present a case of recurrent high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma treated with paclitaxel and bevacizumab in the context of prior renal transplantation where the patient responded well to treatment with controlled toxicities, discussing the potential for increased rates of adverse events and drug interactions in this select population.

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.

Purpose: Preclinical studies show that adavosertib, a WEE1 kinase inhibitor, sensitizes TP53-mutant cells to chemotherapy. We hypothesized that adavosertib, plus chemotherapy, would enhance efficacy versus placebo in TP53-mutated ovarian cancer. Patients and Methods: Following safety run-in, this double-blind phase II trial (NCT01357161) randomized women with TP53-mutated, platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer to oral adavosertib (225 mg twice daily for 2.5 days/21-day cycle) or placebo, plus carboplatin (AUC5) and paclitaxel (175 mg/m2), until disease progression or for six cycles. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) by enhanced RECIST v1.1 [ePFS (volumetric)] and safety. Secondary/exploratory objectives included PFS by RECIST v1.1 (single dimension), objective response rate, overall survival, and analysis of tumor gene profile versus sensitivity to adavosertib. Results: A total of 121 patients were randomized to adavosertib (A+C; n = 59) and placebo (P+C; n = 62) plus chemotherapy. Adding adavosertib to chemotherapy improved ePFS [median, 7.9 (95% confidence interval (CI), 6.9–9.9) vs. 7.3 months (5.6–8.2); HR 0.63 (95% CI, 0.38–1.06); two-sided P = 0.080], meeting the predefined significance threshold (P < 0.2). Clinical benefit was observed following A+C for patients with different TP53 mutation subtypes, identifying possible response biomarkers. An increase in adverse events was seen with A+C versus P+C: greatest for diarrhea (adavosertib 75%; placebo 37%), vomiting (63%; 27%), anemia (53%; 32%), and all grade ≥3 adverse events (78%; 65%). Conclusions: Establishing an optimal strategy for managing tolerability and identifying specific patient populations most likely to benefit from treatment may increase clinical benefit. Future studies should consider additional adavosertib doses within the chemotherapy treatment cycle and the potential for maintenance therapy.

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.

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.

Introduction/Background* ARIEL3 is a placebo-controlled randomized trial of the PARP inhibitor rucaparib as maintenance treatment in high-grade ovarian cancer (HGOC) patients who responded to the latest line of platinum therapy (NCT01968213). Rucaparib improved progression-free survival (PFS) across all predefined subgroups. Here, we present an exploratory analysis of characteristics associated with exceptional benefit from rucaparib. Methodology Between 7 April 2014, and 19 July 2016, 564 patients were randomized 2:1 to rucaparib 600 mg BID or placebo. As of 31 December 2019 (data cutoff), 33/375 (9%) and 1/189 (0.5%) patients were still ongoing and receiving rucaparib or placebo. Molecular features (genomic alterations and BRCA1 promoter methylation) and baseline clinical characteristics were compared between patients who derived exceptional benefit (PFS ≥2 years), and those with disease progression on first scan (≈12 weeks; the short-term subgroup) within each treatment arm. Result(s)* Of 564 patients, a greater percentage of rucaparib vs placebo patients showed exceptional benefit: 79/375 (21%) in the rucaparib arm and 4/189 (2%) in the placebo arm (including 26/375 [7%] patients in the rucaparib arm and 1/189 [0.5%] patient in the placebo arm with PFS >4 years as of the data cutoff date). Within the rucaparib arm, exceptional benefit patients had more favourable clinical prognostic factors at baseline versus the short-term subgroup (table 1). Although BRCA (BRCA1 or BRCA2) mutations were enriched in the rucaparib exceptional benefit subgroup, 33/79 (42%) of these patients were BRCA wild type. Patterns of enrichment varied among other biomarkers. Overall trends were similar in the placebo arm. Conclusion* Exceptional benefit in ARIEL3 was more common in, but not exclusive to, patients with favourable clinical characteristics and known mechanisms of sensitivity to a PARP inhibitor. Our results suggest rucaparib can deliver exceptional benefit to a diverse set of patients with HGOC.

Introduction/Background* In the randomized phase 3 JAVELIN Ovarian 200 trial (N=566), avelumab alone or combined with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) did not significantly prolong progression-free survival (PFS; blinded independent central review) or overall survival (OS) vs PLD alone in patients with platinum-resistant/refractory ovarian cancer (PRROC). Here, we report exploratory biomarker analyses associated with outcomes in the avelumab alone arm. Methodology Biomarkers analyzed in tumour tissue or blood were somatic and germline mutations by whole-exome sequencing and whole-transcriptomic profiling by RNAseq. Associations were assessed using the Cox proportional hazards model. For continuous biomarkers, hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were reported using a median cutoff. Result(s)* Within the avelumab alone arm, higher expression of CD8+ T-cell signature correlated with longer PFS (HR, 0.61 [95% CI 0.43-0.87]), and higher tumour mutational burden (>0.6 mut/Mb) and presence of the high-affinity FCGR2A allele correlated with longer OS (HR [95% CI], 0.63 [0.42-0.96] and 0.53 [0.34-0.83], respectively), while presence of APOBEC and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) mutational signatures were associated with shorter OS (HR [95% CI], 2.17 [1.22-3.89] and 1.68 [1.07-2.62], respectively). In patients with PFS of Conclusion* Although JAVELIN Ovarian 200 did not meet its primary endpoints, these analyses indicate potential subgroups of patients who could have improved outcomes with immunotherapy alone and provide insights into the biology of PRROC that may inform future trials.

Introduction/Background* In the randomized phase 3 JAVELIN Ovarian 200 trial (N=566), avelumab alone or combined with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) did not significantly prolong progression-free survival (PFS; blinded independent central review) or overall survival (OS) vs PLD alone in patients with platinum-resistant/refractory ovarian cancer (PRROC). Here, we report exploratory biomarker analyses associated with outcomes in the avelumab alone arm. Methodology Biomarkers analyzed in tumour tissue or blood were somatic and germline mutations by whole-exome sequencing and whole-transcriptomic profiling by RNAseq. Associations were assessed using the Cox proportional hazards model. For continuous biomarkers, hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were reported using a median cutoff. Result(s)* Within the avelumab alone arm, higher expression of CD8+ T-cell signature correlated with longer PFS (HR, 0.61 [95% CI 0.43-0.87]), and higher tumour mutational burden (>0.6 mut/Mb) and presence of the high-affinity FCGR2A allele correlated with longer OS (HR [95% CI], 0.63 [0.42-0.96] and 0.53 [0.34-0.83], respectively), while presence of APOBEC and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) mutational signatures were associated with shorter OS (HR [95% CI], 2.17 [1.22-3.89] and 1.68 [1.07-2.62], respectively). In patients with PFS of Conclusion* Although JAVELIN Ovarian 200 did not meet its primary endpoints, these analyses indicate potential subgroups of patients who could have improved outcomes with immunotherapy alone and provide insights into the biology of PRROC that may inform future trials.

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.

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.

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).

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.

Background: In the phase 3 SOLO1 trial, maintenance olaparib provided a significant progression-free survival benefit versus placebo in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation in response after platinum-based chemotherapy. We analysed health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and patient-centred outcomes in SOLO1, and the effect of radiological disease progression on health status. Methods: SOLO1 is a randomised, double-blind, international trial done in 118 centres and 15 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older; had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0–1; had newly diagnosed, advanced, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer, primary peritoneal cancer, or fallopian tube cancer with a BRCA mutation; and were in clinical complete or partial response to platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to either 300 mg olaparib tablets or placebo twice per day using an interactive voice and web response system and were treated for up to 2 years. Treatment assignment was masked for patients and for clinicians giving the interventions, and those collecting and analysing the data. Randomisation was stratified by response to platinum-based chemotherapy (clinical complete or partial response). HRQOL was a secondary endpoint and the prespecified primary HRQOL endpoint was the change from baseline in the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Ovarian Cancer Trial Outcome Index (TOI) score for the first 24 months. TOI scores range from 0 to 100 (higher scores indicated better HRQOL), with a clinically meaningful difference defined as a difference of at least 10 points. Prespecified exploratory endpoints were quality-adjusted progression-free survival and time without significant symptoms of toxicity (TWiST). HRQOL endpoints were analysed in all randomly assigned patients. The trial is ongoing but closed to new participants. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01844986. Findings: Between Sept 3, 2013, and March 6, 2015, 1084 patients were enrolled. 693 patients were ineligible, leaving 391 eligible patients who were randomly assigned to olaparib (n=260) or placebo (n=131; one placebo patient withdrew before receiving any study treatment), with a median duration of follow-up of 40·7 months (IQR 34·9–42·9) for olaparib and 41·2 months (32·2–41·6) for placebo. There was no clinically meaningful change in TOI score at 24 months within or between the olaparib and placebo groups (adjusted mean change in score from baseline over 24 months was 0·30 points [95% CI −0·72 to 1·32] in the olaparib group vs 3·30 points [1·84 to 4·76] in the placebo group; between-group difference of −3·00, 95% CI −4·78 to −1·22; p=0·0010). Mean quality-adjusted progression-free survival (olaparib 29·75 months [95% CI 28·20–31·63] vs placebo 17·58 [15·05–20·18]; difference 12·17 months [95% CI 9·07–15·11], p

IMPORTANCE: A total of 1% to 3% of patients treated with a poly(adenosine diphosphate–ribose) polymerase inhibitor for high-grade ovarian cancer (HGOC) develop therapy-related myeloid neoplasms (t-MNs), which are rare but often fatal conditions. Although the cause of these t-MNs is unknown, clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) variants can increase the risk of primary myeloid malignant neoplasms and are more frequent among patients with solid tumors. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether preexisting CHIP variants are associated with the development of t-MNs after rucaparib treatment and how these CHIP variants are affected by treatment. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective genetic association study used peripheral blood cell (PBC) samples collected before rucaparib treatment from patients in the multicenter, single-arm ARIEL2 (Study of Rucaparib in Patients With Platinum-Sensitive, Relapsed, High-Grade Epithelial Ovarian, Fallopian Tube, or Primary Peritoneal Cancer) (n = 491; between October 30, 2013, and August 9, 2016) and the multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind ARIEL3 (Study of Rucaparib as Switch Maintenance Following Platinum-Based Chemotherapy in Patients With Platinum-Sensitive, High-Grade Serous or Endometrioid Epithelial Ovarian, Primary Peritoneal or Fallopian Tube Cancer) (n = 561; between April 7, 2014, and July 19, 2016), which tested rucaparib as HGOC therapy in the treatment and maintenance settings, respectively. The follow-up data cutoff date was September 1, 2019. Of 1052 patients in ARIEL2 and ARIEL3, PBC samples from 20 patients who developed t-MNs (cases) and 44 randomly selected patients who did not (controls) were analyzed for the presence of CHIP variants using targeted next-generation sequencing. Additional longitudinal analysis was performed on available ARIEL2 samples collected during treatment and at the end of treatment. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Enrichment analysis of preexisting variants in 10 predefined CHIP-associated genes in cases relative to controls; association with clinical correlates. RESULTS: Among 1052 patients (mean [SE] age, 61.7 [0.3] years) enrolled and dosed in ARIEL2 and ARIEL3, 22 (2.1%) developed t-MNs. The t-MNs were associated with longer overall exposure to prior platinum therapies (13.2 vs 9.0 months in ARIEL2, P = .04; 12.4 vs 9.6 months in ARIEL3, P = .003). The presence of homologous recombination repair gene variants in the tumor, either germline or somatic, was associated with increased prevalence of t-MNs (15 [4.1%] of 369 patients with HGOC associated with an HRR gene variant vs 7 [1.0%] of 683 patients with wild-type HGOC, P = .002). The prevalence of preexisting CHIP variants in TP53 but not other CHIP-associated genes at a variant allele frequency of 1% or greater was significantly higher in PBCs from cases vs controls (9 [45.0%] of 20 cases vs 6 [13.6%] of 44 controls, P = .009). TP53 CHIP was associated with longer prior exposure to platinum (mean 14.0 months of 15 TP53 CHIP cases vs 11.1 months of 49 non-TP53 CHIP cases; P = .02). Longitudinal analysis showed that preexisting TP53 CHIP variants expanded in patients who developed t-MNs. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The findings of this genetic association study suggest that preexisting TP53 CHIP variants may be associated with t-MNs after rucaparib treatment.

Objectives: The Phase III SOLO2 trial (NCT01874353) showed the significant benefit of maintenance olaparib for patients (pts) with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSROC) and a BRCA mutation (BRCAm), compared with placebo (median progression-free survival [PFS] 19.1 vs 5.5 months [m], respectively); however, no pts had a confirmed somatic (s) BRCAm and data prospectively evaluating efficacy of olaparib in this pt group were limited. ORZORA (NCT02476968), an open-label, single-arm, multicenter trial, was conducted to assess efficacy and safety of maintenance olaparib in PSROC pts with a BRCAm (s or germline [g]) who were in response to their most recent platinum-based chemotherapy after ≥2 lines of treatment. Methods: Pts underwent prospective central screening for tumor BRCAm status (myChoice CDx, Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Inc.), then s or g BRCAm status was determined by central g testing (BRACAnalysis CDx, Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Inc.). Pts received maintenance olaparib (400 mg bid; capsules) until disease progression. Co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed PFS (RECIST v1.1) in BRCAm and s cohorts, conducted at 60% maturity. Secondary endpoints included time to second progression or death (PFS2), health-related quality of life (HRQoL; FACT-O trial outcome index) and tolerability. An additional exploratory cohort comprised pts with predefined homologous recombination repair gene mutations (HRRm) excluding BRCAm (FoundationOne CDx, Foundation Medicine, Inc.). Results: A total of 181 pts were enrolled in ORZORA (BRCAm n=145 [s n=55; g n=87; n=3 s vs g status unknown]; HRRm n=33; unassigned n=3). Pt characteristics were similar between s and g cohorts: ≥3 prior lines of chemotherapy (38% vs 48%, respectively); partial response to prior platinum (45% vs 49%); tumor BRCA1-mutated (65% vs 64%). At the data cut-off (April 17, 2020), median follow-up for PFS was 22.3 months. Median PFS was similar in the BRCAm, s and g cohorts, and exploratory HRRm cohort (Figure). Median PFS2 for BRCAm pts was 30.9 m (95% confidence interval [CI] 24.7–40.0; s 24.7 [21.8–36.1]; g 32.5 [25.3–not calculable]). HRQoL was comparable in BRCAm and s cohorts (best overall change from baseline: improved 22 vs 21%; no change 69 vs 68%; worsened 11 vs 12%, respectively). Most common adverse events (AE; n=177 treated pts) were nausea (54% pts), fatigue (43%), anemia (42%) and vomiting (28%). A total of 25% and 35% pts experienced serious and grade ≥3 (anemia 16% pts) AEs, respectively. 5% had an AE leading to treatment discontinuation. A total of 2 new primary malignancies, two acute myeloid leukemia and no myelodysplastic syndrome cases occurred. Download : Download high-res image (102KB) Download : Download full-size image Conclusions: PFS in pts with PSROC who received maintenance olaparib was similar irrespective of s or g BRCAm status. Activity of maintenance olaparib was also shown in pts with a non-BRCA HRRm. PFS, HRQoL and tolerability were consistent with previous olaparib studies in this population. Results highlight that PSROC pts beyond those with a gBRCAm can benefit from maintenance olaparib.

Introduction/Background The immune checkpoints NKG2A and programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) are expressed on both tumour-infiltrating natural killer (NK) and CD8+ T cells in several cancer types, and are implicated in reducing antitumor immune response. To evaluate whether dual targeting of non-redundant checkpoint pathways (NKG2A/HLA-E and PD-1/PD-L1) may enhance antitumour immunity, the combination of monalizumab and durvalumab is being assessed in a Phase 1b expansion study in multiple solid tumours (NCT02671435). Here we report safety and efficacy results in patients with ovarian, cervical or microsatellite-stable (MSS) endometrial cancer. Methodology Eligible patients had advanced recurrent or metastatic high-grade serous epithelial ovarian cancer or cervical cancer (patients in each cohort could have received up to 2 prior lines of systemic therapy) or MSS endometrial cancer (patients could have received up to 3 prior lines of systemic therapy), with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–1. Patients received monalizumab 750 mg Q2W and durvalumab 1500 mg Q4W for up to 3 years until unacceptable toxicity or confirmed progression. The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability; secondary endpoints included antitumour activity. Results Between March 2017 and March 2019, 40 patients with ovarian cancer (age range, 42–75 years), 16 patients with cervical cancer (age range, 32–79 years) and 40 patients with MSS endometrial cancer (age range, 45–79 years) were enrolled. Rates of treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were generally similar across cohorts (table 1). There were no grade 5 AEs and no events leading to discontinuation of monalizumab or durvalumab. Objective responses were seen only in ovarian cancer (table 2): among the 37 evaluable patients, 2 (5.4%) had confirmed partial responses and 10 (27.0%) had stable disease (SD) including 6 (16.2%) with disease control at 24 weeks (DCR24). Median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 1.8 months and median overall survival (mOS) was 16.7 months. Six (37.5%) of the 16 evaluable patients with cervical cancer had SD; mPFS was 2.0 months and mOS was 8.6 months. Fifteen (38.5%) of the 39 evaluable patients with MSS endometrial cancer had SD, including 5 (12.8%) with DCR24; mPFS was 1.8 months and mOS was 10.7 months. Conclusion Monalizumab plus durvalumab treatment had manageable safety in all cohorts. Modest clinical activity was demonstrated in recurrent ovarian cancer, whereas activity in cervical and MSS endometrial cancers was minimal. Further understanding of dual immune-checkpoint targeting is required. Disclosures Susana Banerjee has received institution research grants from AstraZeneca, Tesaro, and GlaxoSmithKline, and honoraria for advisory boards/lectures from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Clovis, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunogen, Mersana, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle Genetics, and Tesaro. Ana Oaknin has served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Genmab/Seattle Genetics, ImmunoGen, PharmaMar, Roche, GSK/Tesaro, Merck/Merck Sharp & Dohme, Deciphera and Mersana; has received support for travel or accommodation from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, and Roche; and reports institutional research grant support from Clovis Oncology, AbbVie Deutschland, Ability Pharmaceuticals, Advaxis, Aeterna Zentaris, Amgen, Aprea Therapeutics, Eisai, ImmunoGen, Merck/Merck Sharp & Dohme, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, PharmaMar, Roche, and Tesaro. IS-S: No conflicts to disclose ACS: No conflicts to disclose Sandip Pravin Patel receives scientific advisory income from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Illumina, Rakuten, Paradigm and Tempus, and research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Incyte, AstraZeneca, Merck, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Xcovery, Fate Therapeutics, Genocea and Iovance. AOz: No conflicts to disclose Mayukh Das is an employee of and stockholder in AstraZeneca. Panagiotis Kourtesis is an employee of and stockholder in AstraZeneca. Maria Libera Ascierto is an employee of and stockholder in AstraZeneca. Jennifer R. Diamond reports research funding from AstraZeneca, Immunomedics, OnKure, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Deciphera, Bayer, Taiho and Takeda and consulting work for Immunomedics.

Objectives 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 oncologic outcomes between MMRd and MMR-intact (MMRi) endometrioid EC (EEC). Methods Between 2015–2018, we prospectively recruited 668 EC cases from three cancer centers in Ontario, Canada. Tumors were reflexively assessed for MMR protein expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Clinicopathological, treatment and survival data were compared between MMRd and MMRi cases. Results Out of 668, there were 496 EEC (74%), with 347 MMRi (70%) and 149 MMRd (30%) cases treated with surgery and with complete follow-up information. Median follow-up was 16.8 months (6–96 months). MMRd tumors tended to be grade 2 or 3 (56% vs. 29%, p Conclusions MLH1/PMS2 deficient EECs exhibit more aggressive features compared to other MMRd and MMRi cases, with worse RFS. This may indicate an inherent difference in tumor biology, suggesting the importance of individualized management based on tumor’s molecular phenotype.

Objectives The incidence of Lynch syndrome (LS) and the optimal screening strategy has not been determined for women with ovarian cancer (OC). We compared the performance characteristics between immunohistochemistry (IHC) for mismatch repair (MMR) proteins, microsatellite instability (MSI) testing and family history. Methods Women with non-serous/mucinous OC were prospectively recruited from three cancer centers in Ontario, Canada. Tumors were assessed for defects in MMR by IHC and MSI testing. All women completed a family history assessment and underwent germline testing for LS. The performance characteristics were compared between the screening strategies compared to germline result. Results Of 215 women, 185 had OC alone (86%) and 30 had synchronous OC and endometrial cancers (14%). Germline data was available for 189 women (88%). Twenty-eight were MMR deficient (MMRd) by IHC (13%; N = 215), one (0.5%) IHC equivocal and 19 (12%; N=162) were MSI-high (MSI-H). Of those with MMRd, 11 had germline mutation (39%; N=28). In total, thirteen women (7%; N = 189) had germline mutations: 3 MLH1, 7 MSH6, 1 MSH2 and 2 PMS2. Combined IHC and MSI testing after excluding MLH1 hypermethylated cases was the best screening strategy with sensitivity of 92.3%, specificity of 97.7%, PPV of 75% and NPV of 99.4%. Family history had the lowest performance characteristics with sensitivity of 55%. Conclusions The most superior screening strategy to identify women with LS in this population is combined IHC and MSI testing after MLH1 hypermethylation testing and should be considered as standard of care.

Objectives There is no established screening strategy for Lynch syndrome (LS) in synchronous endometrial (EC) and ovarian cancers (OC). Most centers use mismatch repair (MMR) immunohistochemistry (IHC) on endometrium only. We aim to examine the concordance in MMR expression between tumor sites in synchronous EC/OC. Methods Thirty women with newly diagnosed synchronous EC/OC were prospectively recruited from three cancer centers in Ontario, Canada. Tumor sites were assessed for MMR deficiency by IHC and MSI testing. All women underwent germline testing for MMR mutations. Results Out of 30 cases, twelve cases (40%) were either MMRd or MSI-H, with 5 (17%) confirmed to have a pathogenic germline mutation: 3 MSH6, 1 MLH1 and 1 PMS2. MMR testing by IHC took place in both ovary and endometrium in 27 cases and results were discordant between two sites in 2 cases (7%). MSI testing in both sites took place in 24 cases, and results were discordant in 2 cases (8%). Out of the 5 cases with confirmed LS, performing IHC alone on endometrium would have missed the diagnosis in 1 case, and performing MSI testing alone on endometrium would have missed the diagnosis in 3 cases, which all had a MSH6 mutation. One case of LS was missed by both IHC and MSI testing. Conclusions The incidence of LS was high in women with synchronous EC/OC (17%). Given the discordance in IHC and MSI results at the two tumor sites, consideration should be given to direct germline testing in all cases of synchronous EC/OC.

Simple Summary Regarded as the “disease that whispers” ovarian cancer remains difficult to diagnose and treat due to other complex conditions that may occur together. As research into new treatments for ovarian cancer continues, growing efforts to understand how treatments may be impact the day to day lives of women is also growing. Known as Patient Reported Outcomes or PROs and quality of life (QoL), the research community is improving how this important information communicated by women with ovarian cancer is captured across their cancer journey, and importantly, how this information can be used further refine treatments. Understanding the impact treatment has on day to day living is important, as new treatments should not only help control cancer cells, but also help keep women living with ovarian cancer living their lives to the fullest. Abstract Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) remains a lethal disease for the majority of women diagnosed with it worldwide. For the majority of patients, diagnosis occurs late, in the advanced setting. Disease-induced as well as treatment-related adverse events can negatively impact quality of life (QoL). Research to date has captured these data through use of patient-related outcomes (PROs) and, increasingly, has become an area of increased attention and focus in clinical trial reporting. QoL/PRO measurements in EOC clinical trials at different transition points in a patient’s journey are increasingly being recognized by patients, clinicians and regulatory agencies as the key determinants of treatment benefit. Various context-specific PROs and PRO endpoints have been described for clinical trials in EOC. Standardized approaches and checklists for incorporating PRO endpoints in clinical trials have been proposed. In a real-world clinical practice setting, PRO/QoL measures, which are meaningful, valid, reliable, feasible and acceptable to patients and clinicians, need to be implemented and used. These may assist by serving as screening tools; helping with the identification of patient preferences to aid in decision making; improving patient–provider communication; facilitating shared decision making. Importantly, they may also improve quality of care through an increasingly patient-centered approach. Potential areas of future research include assessment of anxiety, depression and other mental health issues. In good prognostic groups, such as maintenance clinical trials, following patients beyond progression will capture possible downstream effects related to delaying the psychological trauma of relapse, symptoms due to disease progression and side-effects of subsequent chemotherapy. Identifying PRO endpoints in next-generation-targeted therapies (including immunotherapies) also warrants investigation.

Summary Background The Wee1 (WEE1hu) inhibitor adavosertib and gemcitabine have shown preclinical synergy and promising activity in early phase clinical trials. We aimed to determine the efficacy of this combination in patients with ovarian cancer. Methods In this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial, women with measurable recurrent platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory high-grade serous ovarian cancer were recruited from 11 academic centres in the USA and Canada. Women were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, a life expectancy of more than 3 months, and normal organ and marrow function. Women with ovarian cancer of non-high-grade serous histology were eligible for enrolment in a non-randomised exploratory cohort. Eligible participants with high-grade serous ovarian cancer were randomly assigned (2:1), using block randomisation (block size of three and six) and no stratification, to receive intravenous gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15) with either oral adavosertib (175 mg) or identical placebo once daily on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16, in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients and the team caring for each patient were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. The safety and efficacy analysis population comprised all patients who received at least one dose of treatment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02151292 , and is closed to accrual. Findings Between Sept 22, 2014, and May 30, 2018, 124 women were enrolled, of whom 99 had high-grade serous ovarian cancer and were randomly assigned to adavosertib plus gemcitabine (65 [66%]) or placebo plus gemcitabine (34 [34%]). 25 women with non-high-grade serous ovarian cancer were enrolled in the exploratory cohort. After randomisation, five patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer were found to be ineligible (four in the experimental group and one in the control group) and did not receive treatment. Median age for all treated patients (n=119) was 62 years (IQR 54–67). Progression-free survival was longer with adavosertib plus gemcitabine (median 4·6 months [95% CI 3·6–6·4] with adavosertib plus gemcitabine vs 3·0 months [1·8–3·8] with placebo plus gemcitabine; hazard ratio 0·55 [95% CI 0·35–0·90]; log-rank p=0·015). The most frequent grade 3 or worse adverse events were haematological (neutropenia in 38 [62%] of 61 participants in the adavosertib plus gemcitabine group vs ten [30%] of 33 in the placebo plus gemcitabine group; thrombocytopenia in 19 [31%] of 61 in the adavosertib plus gemcitabine group vs two [6%] of 33 in the placebo plus gemcitabine group). There were no treatment-related deaths; two patients (one in each group in the high-grade serous ovarian cancer cohort) died while on study medication (from sepsis in the experimental group and from disease progression in the control group). Interpretation The observed clinical efficacy of a Wee1 inhibitor combined with gemcitabine supports ongoing assessment of DNA damage response drugs in high-grade serous ovarian cancer, a TP53-mutated tumour type with high replication stress. This therapeutic approach might be applicable to other tumour types with high replication stress; larger confirmatory studies are required. Funding US National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, US Department of Defense, Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation, and AstraZeneca.

A 47-year-old woman was referred to Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada, in November 2016, with abdominal pain, distension, and weight loss. Baseline serum Ca125 was 1615 U/mL, and prior cytological analysis of ascitic fluid in October 2016 confirmed a diagnosis of high grade serous

PURPOSE Low-grade serous ovarian carcinomas (LGSOCs) have historically low chemotherapy responses. Alterations affecting the MAPK pathway, most commonly KRAS/BRAF, are present in 30%-60% of LGSOCs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate binimetinib, a potent MEK1/2 inhibitor with demonstrated activity across multiple cancers, in LGSOC. METHODS This was a 2:1 randomized study of binimetinib (45 mg twice daily) versus physician’s choice chemotherapy (PCC). Eligible patients had recurrent measurable LGSOC after ≥ 1 prior platinum-based chemotherapy but ≤ 3 prior chemotherapy lines. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review (BICR); additional assessments included overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), clinical-benefit rate, biomarkers, and safety. RESULTS A total of 303 patients were randomly assigned to an arm of the study at the time of interim analysis (January 20, 2016). Median PFS by BICR was 9.1 months (95% CI, 7.3 to 11.3) for binimetinib and 10.6 months (95% CI, 9.2 to 14.5) for PCC (hazard ratio,1.21; 95%CI, 0.79 to 1.86), resulting in early study closure according to a prespecified futility boundary after 341 patients had enrolled. Secondary efficacy end points were similar in the two groups: ORR 16% (complete response [CR]/partial responses[PRs], 32) versus 13% (CR/PRs, 13); median DOR, 8.1 months (range, 0.03 to ≥ 12.0 months) versus 6.7 months (0.03 to ≥ 9.7 months); and median OS, 25.3 versus 20.8 months for binimetinib and PCC, respectively. Safety results were consistent with the known safety profile of binimetinib; the most common grade ≥ 3 event was increased blood creatine kinase level (26%). Post hoc analysis suggests a possible association between KRAS mutation and response to binimetinib. Results from an updated analysis (n = 341; January 2019) were consistent. CONCLUSION Although the MEK Inhibitor in Low-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer Study did not meet its primary end point, binimetinib showed activity in LGSOC across the efficacy end points evaluated. A higher response to chemotherapy than expected was observed and KRAS mutation might predict response to binimetinib.

PURPOSE: Gene-expression-based molecular subtypes of high-grade serous tubo-ovarian cancer (HGSOC), demonstrated across multiple studies, may provide improved stratification for molecularly targeted trials. However, evaluation of clinical utility has been hindered by non-standardized methods which are not applicable in a clinical setting. We sought to generate a clinical-grade minimal gene-set assay for classification of individual tumor specimens into HGSOC subtypes and confirm previously reported subtype-associated features. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Adopting two independent approaches, we derived and internally validated algorithms for subtype prediction using published gene-expression data from 1650 tumors. We applied resulting models to NanoString data on 3829 HGSOCs from the Ovarian Tumor Tissue Analysis Consortium. We further developed, confirmed, and validated a reduced, minimal gene-set predictor, with methods suitable for a single patient setting. RESULTS: Gene-expression data was used to derive the Predictor of high-grade-serous Ovarian carcinoma molecular subTYPE (PrOTYPE) assay. We established a de facto standard as a consensus of two parallel approaches. PrOTYPE subtypes are significantly associated with age, stage, residual disease, tumor infiltrating lymphocytes, and outcome. The locked-down clinical-grade PrOTYPE test includes a model with 55 genes that predicted gene-expression subtype with >95% accuracy that was maintained in all analytical and biological validations. CONCLUSIONS: We validated the PrOTYPE assay following the Institute of Medicine guidelines for the development of omics-based tests. This fully defined and locked-down clinical-grade assay will enable trial design with molecular subtype stratification and allow for objective assessment of the predictive value of HGSOC molecular subtypes in precision medicine applications.

PurposeTo evaluate whether administration of the oral DNA hypomethylating agent CC-486 enhances the poor response rate of immunologically ‘cold’ solid tumors to immune checkpoint inhibitor durvalumab.Experimental designPD-L1/PD-1 inhibitor naïve patients with advanced microsatellite stable colorectal cancer; platinum resistant ovarian cancer; and estrogen receptor positive, HER2 negative breast cancer were enrolled in this single-institution, investigator-initiated trial. Two 28 day regimens, regimen A (CC-486 300 mg QD Days 1–14 (cycles 1–3 only) in combination with durvalumab 1500 mg intravenous day 15) and regimen B (CC-486 100 mg QD days 1–21 (cycle 1 and beyond), vitamin C 500 mg once a day continuously and durvalumab 1500 mg intravenous day 15) were investigated. Patients underwent paired tumor biopsies and serial peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) collection for immune-profiling, transcriptomic and epigenomic analyzes.ResultsA total of 28 patients were enrolled, 19 patients treated on regimen A and 9 on regimen B. The combination of CC-486 and durvalumab was tolerable. Regimen B, with a lower dose of CC-486 extended over a longer treatment course, showed less grade 3/4 adverse effects. Global LINE-1 methylation assessment of serial PBMCs and genome-wide DNA methylation profile in paired tumor biopsies demonstrated minimal changes in global methylation in both regimens. The lack of robust tumor DNA demethylation was accompanied by an absence of the expected ‘viral mimicry’ inflammatory response, and consequently, no clinical responses were observed. The disease control rate was 7.1%. The median progression-free survival was 1.9 months (95% CI 1.5 to 2.3) and median overall survival was 5 months (95% CI 4.5 to 10).ConclusionsThe evaluated treatment schedules of CC-486 in combination with durvalumab did not demonstrate robust pharmacodynamic or clinical activity in selected immunologically cold solid tumors. Lessons learned from this biomarker-rich study should inform continued drug development efforts using these agents.Trial registration numberNCT02811497.