Search

Ovarian cancer is the fifth leading cause of female cancer deaths in the Western world. Significant progress has been made in the treatment of patients with ovarian cancer, however, the majority of patients experience disease recurrence and new therapies are being sought for such patients. Clinical investigation of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors for ovarian cancer treatment has demonstrated promising activity in this disease. Here, we review the development of PARP inhibitors and their future role in the treatment of patients with ovarian cancer. Studies of olaparib, the first PARP inhibitor to be approved in Europe and the USA, in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer have demonstrated clinical efficacy with improvements in progression-free survival. In maintenance therapy of platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer there is supporting evidence of clinical benefit from exploratory endpoints that include time to first subsequent treatment and time to second subsequent treatment. Adverse events that should be monitored following treatment with PARP inhibitors include nausea, vomiting, fatigue and anaemia. Based on the evidence presented, patients who will receive the greatest benefit from PARP inhibition are those with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Multigene testing in ovarian cancer has received increased support due to its' applicability for cancer treatment and the impact it has on cancer prevention in families. This study shows that multi-gene germline and somatic testing uptake after counselling by a member of the multidisciplinary cancer clinical team in women with ovarian cancer, was high (97%). A total of 15.5% of women were identified to have germline BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants and 7.8% had somatic BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants. A total of 2.3% patients had RAD51C/RAD51D/BRIP1 pathogenic variants. We found that 11% of germline pathogenic variants were large-genomic-rearrangements and were missed by somatic testing. Our findings support prospective parallel somatic-&-germline panel testing to maximize variant identification. We present findings of a cancer multidisciplinary-team (MDT) coordinated mainstreaming pathway of unselected 5-panel germline BRCA1/BRCA2/RAD51C/RAD51D/BRIP1 and parallel somatic BRCA1/BRCA2 testing in all women with epithelial-OC and highlight the discordance between germline and somatic testing strategies across two cancer centres. Patients were counselled and consented by a cancer MDT member. The uptake of parallel multi-gene germline and somatic testing was 97.7%. Counselling by clinical-nurse-specialist more frequently needed >1 consultation (53.6% (30/56)) compared to a medical (15.0% (21/137)) or surgical oncologist (15.3% (17/110)) (p < 0.001). The median age was 54 (IQR = 51–62) years in germline pathogenic-variant (PV) versus 61 (IQR = 51–71) in BRCA wild-type (p = 0.001). There was no significant difference in distribution of PVs by ethnicity, stage, surgery timing or resection status. A total of 15.5% germline and 7.8% somatic BRCA1/BRCA2 PVs were identified. A total of 2.3% patients had RAD51C/RAD51D/BRIP1 PVs. A total of 11% germline PVs were large-genomic-rearrangements and missed by somatic testing. A total of 20% germline PVs are missed by somatic first BRCA-testing approach and 55.6% germline PVs missed by family history ascertainment. The somatic testing failure rate is higher (23%) for patients undergoing diagnostic biopsies. Our findings favour a prospective parallel somatic and germline panel testing approach as a clinically efficient strategy to maximise variant identification. UK Genomics test-directory criteria should be expanded to include a panel of OC genes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase-1 (IDO1) is a key regulator of immune tolerance in ovarian cancer. This study investigated efficacy and safety of the IDO1 enzyme inhibitor epacadostat versus tamoxifen in patients with biochemical-only recurrence (CA-125 elevation) following complete remission after first-line chemotherapy for advanced epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer. Methods In this open-label, phase 2 study (NCT01685255), patients were randomised 1:1 to epacadostat 600 mg or tamoxifen 20 mg twice daily for successive 28-day cycles and stratified by time since completion of first-line chemotherapy to first CA-125 elevation (3 to < 12 or ≥ 12 months). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS; RECIST v1.1). Secondary endpoints included CA-125 response (Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup criteria), overall survival, safety, and tolerability. Results The study was terminated primarily due to slow accrual and lack of evidence of superiority. Median PFS was 3.75 months for epacadostat ( n = 22) versus 5.56 months for tamoxifen ( n = 20; HR, 1.34 [95% CI, 0.58–3.14]; P = 0.54). Of evaluable patients, 1 (5.0%) epacadostat and 3 (15.8%) tamoxifen patients had confirmed CA-125 responses. The most common treatment-emergent adverse event was fatigue (epacadostat, 36.4%; tamoxifen, 40.0%). Immune-related adverse events, observed with epacadostat only, were primarily rash (18.2%) and pruritus (9.1%). Epacadostat pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics were consistent with its known mechanism of action. IDO1 expression was observed in 94% of archival tumour samples. Conclusions This first report of immunotherapy evaluation in biochemical-only relapse ovarian cancer and of IDO1 inhibitor monotherapy in ovarian cancer found no significant difference in efficacy between epacadostat and tamoxifen. Epacadostat was generally well tolerated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]