Search

Aims: The Medical Research Council OVO5/EORTC 55955 trial showed that patients in remission after first-line therapy for ovarian cancer did not benefit from routine measurement of CA125 during follow-up. Since the presentation of these results, we have counseled patients about the options for follow-up and provided them with an information leaflet about the trial results and the symptoms that should prompt an early appointment and CA125 measurement. We present an audit of practice after the presentation of those results. Methods: The medical records of 143 consecutive patients completing first-line therapy for epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer in our unit between July 2009 and December 2013 were analyzed. Results: An agreed plan of CA125 follow-up was recorded in 69 (79%) of 87 eligible patients on completion of first-line therapy. No routine CA125 follow-up was selected by 55 (80%) patients, and routine CA125 follow-up was selected by 14 (20%), of whom 3 wished not to be informed of the results. CA125 levels were checked in 28 (51%) patients in the no routine CA125 follow-up group, in 26 cases because of the development of symptoms. Relapse was confirmed in 22. Median follow-up was 360 days (range, 100-836). CA125 levels were checked in all 14 patients who had requested routine CA125 follow-up. Relapse has been confirmed in 2 patients. Median follow-up was 560 days (range, 500-620). Conclusions: If patients are given sufficient information about the role of routine CA125 measurements during follow-up, the majority decide against CA125 monitoring and hence, avoid these blood tests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Maintenance treatment with the oral poly(adenosine diphosphate ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza) in Study 19 (study number, D0810C00019; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00753545) significantly improved progression-free survival in comparison with a placebo for patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed serous ovarian cancer with a BRCA1/2 mutation (BRCAm), but an interim analysis revealed no statistically significant overall survival (OS) benefit. However, 23% of the patients receiving the placebo switched to a PARP inhibitor after progression. To investigate whether this had a confounding effect on OS, this article reports an exploratory post hoc analysis that excluded all patients from sites where 1 or more placebo patients received postprogression PARP inhibitor treatment.Methods: In Study 19, 136 of the 265 patients receiving olaparib or a placebo had a BRCAm. Sixteen patients treated at 11 of the 82 investigational sites received a PARP inhibitor after progression; these sites were excluded from this analysis, and 97 BRCAm patients at 50 sites were included. OS was assessed with a Cox proportional hazards model analogous to the primary study analysis. A supporting rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) model analysis was undertaken for all 136 BRCAm patients.Results: The OS hazard ratio (HR) was 0.52 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.97) for the 97 BRCAm patients, whereas for the interim OS analysis with all 136 BRCAm patients, it was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.45-1.17). The supportive RPSFT analysis HR was approximately 0.66.Conclusions: The numerical improvement in the OS HR suggests that in Study 19, postprogression PARP inhibitor treatment had a confounding influence on the interim OS analysis for BRCAm patients. There is a degree of uncertainty due to the small sample size and the lack of data maturity. Cancer 2016;122:1844-52. © 2016 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Epithelial ovarian cancers (EOCs) are, although still treated as a single disease entity, often classified into type I tumors (low-grade serous, mucinous, endometrioid, clear cell) and type II tumors (high-grade serous, undifferentiated cancers, carcinosarcomas). The aim of our study was to determine the incidence, clinical relevance, and prognostic and predictive impact of somatic mutations in both types I and II EOCs.Two hundred sixty-two evaluable, primary, high-risk stage I (grade 3, or aneuploid grade 1 or 2, or clear cell) and stage II-IV EOCs, collected at the University Hospitals Leuven and within the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 55971 trial, were genotyped for hotspot mutations in KRAS (COSMIC [Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer] coverage >97%), BRAF (>94%), NRAS (>97%), PIK3CA (>79%), PTEN, FBXW7 (>57%), AKT2, AKT3, and FOXL2, using Sequenom MassARRAY.Of the 13% histopathologically classified type I tumors, 49% were KRAS or PIK3CA mutant versus only 2.9% in the type II tumors (87%). Mucinous subtypes harbored significantly more KRAS mutations than all nonmucinous tumors (50% vs 4%, P < 0.001). PIK3CA mutations were predominantly found in clear cell carcinomas (46.2%) and endometrioid carcinoma (20%) and were frequently associated with endometriosis. Moreover, low-grade serous tumors were more frequently KRAS or BRAF mutated (44%) than high-grade serous tumors (0.6%). KRAS or PIK3CA mutation did not correlate with progression-free survival or overall survival. Mutations in NRAS, PTEN, FBXW7, AKT2, AKT3, and FOXL2 were rare (<1%).Somatic mutations are rare in type II EOCs, whereas type I EOCs contain distinct diseases with different driver mutations. In general, these tumors respond worse to standard paclitaxel carboplatin therapy. Clinical trials with molecular targeted therapy in the different subtypes of type I tumors are urgently needed using this theragnostic information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is now a greater understanding of the molecular pathways in ovarian cancer, and using this knowledge, a large number of new therapeutic agents can be tested. The success of these drugs will depend on selecting drugs that target known key dysfunctional molecular pathways. To make best use of these compounds, prognostic and predictive biomarkers need to be identified. Novel methods of assessment such as functional imaging need to be developed as additional biological end points to evaluate these therapies. Promising antitumor activity has been observed with some drugs, and careful consideration is needed to determine in what circumstances new agents, such as antiangiogenic compounds, could be considered as a standard therapy. These areas were discussed at the 4th Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Gynecological Cancer Intergroup (GCIG) has previously reached consensus regarding the criteria that should be used in clinical trial protocols to define progression-free survival after first-line therapy as well as the criteria to define response to treatment in recurrent disease using the serum marker CA 125 and has specified the situations where these criteria should be used. However, the publications did not include detailed definitions, nor were they written to accommodate the new version of Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria (version 1.1) now available. Thus, we recommend that the definitions described later in detail are incorporated into clinical trial protocols to maintain consistency. The criteria for defining progression are now acceptable in clinical trials of recurrent disease as they have since been validated (Pujade-Lauraine, personal communication, 2010). The GCIG requests that data from all clinical trials using these definitions are made available to GCIG trial centers so that continual validation and improvement can be accomplished. These definitions were developed from analyzing patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy and have not yet been validated in patients receiving molecular targeting agents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Epithelial ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death from gynecologic malignancies in the United States. Although the prevalence of ovarian cancer when compared with other neoplasms is low, with an estimated 21,550 new cases in 2009, the majority of patients are diagnosed at an advanced stage of disease, with projected 5-year relative survival rates of 31%. Early detection is a clinically relevant goal for the optimal management of patients with ovarian cancer. Attempts to develop valuable screening strategies and incorporate preventive measures are ongoing. Frontline management of ovarian cancer involves primary cytoreductive surgery followed by platinum-based combination chemotherapy and up to 80% of women with advanced disease achieve an objective response and 10%-20% are cured with this regimen; nevertheless, disease recurrence is inevitable in most patients. Multiple strategies including the inclusion of effective targeted therapies upfront and the incorporation of maintenance regimens are being investigated to improve frontline response rates. Currently, the choice of treatment in recurrent ovarian cancer is based on the disease-free interval from completion of first-line platinum-based therapy; several platinum and non-platinum agents are used in the recurrent setting with equivalent efficacy outcomes. The roles of targeted therapies, secondary cytoreductive surgery, and rising cancer antigen 125 levels in the treatment of recurrent disease are being delineated. Clearly, there is a need to identify novel agents and personalized strategies that will improve clinical outcomes in this disease. It is likely that a better understanding of the molecular changes in the pathogenesis of ovarian cancer will pave the way for more effective therapeutic options. This summary highlights current challenges in the management of ovarian cancer and outlines expert perspectives, key questions, and future directions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study which investigated the benefits of early treatment of ovarian cancer on the basis of increased CA125 concentrations compared with delayed treatment on the basis of clinical recurrence. Involved in the randomised trial were 1,442 women with ovarian cancer in complete remission following first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. CA12 results were monitored by coordinating centres. The authors found no significant evidence of a difference in overall survival between early and delayed treatment.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to an article by Robert Morris and Bradley Monk in the October 2, 2010 issue concerning treatment of relapsed ovarian cancer.

Based on the results of the Medical Research Council OVO5/European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 55955 trial, the follow-up plan I recommend for patients in remission after completion of first-line therapy for advanced ovarian cancer is appointments: every 3 months for 2 years, every 4 months on the third year, then every 6 months thereafter, and discharge if no relapse by 10 years. History and examination (not internal) should be performed at each appointment. CA-125 should only be measured if there is a suspicion of relapse or at patient's request. No scans should be performed unless clinical indication or rising CA-125. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Explains the Gynaecologic Cancer Intergroup's stand that definitions for response and progression of ovarian cancer according to serum CA 125 levels should be incorporated into ovarian cancer clinical trial protocols for relapse therapy. Definition of response; Rules for calculating CA 125 levels; Recommendation that CA 125 measurements be taken at specific time intervals.

Vascular co-option is a resistance mechanism to anti-angiogenic agents, but combinations of anti-vascular agents may overcome this resistance. We report a phase 1b and randomised phase 2 trial to determine the safety and efficacy of pazopanib with fosbretabulin. Eligible patients had recurrent, epithelial ovarian cancer with a platinum-free interval (PFI) of 3 to 12 months. Patients were stratified according to PFI (>6 versus ≤6 months) and prior bevacizumab use. Twelve patients were treated in the phase 1b. Commonest grade ≥ 2 adverse events (AEs) were hypertension (100%), neutropenia (50%), fatigue (50%), vomiting (50%). There was one DLT (grade 3 fatigue). The recommended phase 2 dose level was fosbretabulin 54 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15 and pazopanib 600 mg once daily (od), every 28 days, which was then compared to pazopanib 800 mg od in a randomised phase 2 trial. Twenty-one patients were randomised (1:1) in the phase 2 trial. In phase 1b and phase 2, four patients treated with pazopanib and fosbretabulin developed reversible, treatment-related cardiac AEs, leading to premature discontinuation of the study. In the phase 2 trial, the median PFS was 7.6 months (95% CI 4.1-not estimated) versus 3.7 months (95% CI 1.0–8.1) in favour of the experimental arm (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.09–1.03, P =.06). It remains unclear whether pazopanib with with fosbretabulin is an efficacious regimen to treat epithelial ovarian cancer. Effective cardiac risk mitigation is needed to increase the tolerability and maximize patient safety in future trials. • First trial investigating pazopanib plus fosbretabulin in relapsed ovarian cancer. • The median PFS and OS favoured pazopanib plus fosbretabulin versus pazopanib alone. • Pazopanib plus fosbretabulin was associated with reversible cardiac toxicity. • The trial was discontinued due to cardiac toxicity in the experimental arm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Angiogenesis is a validated clinical target in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Cediranib is an oral antiangiogenic vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1-3 inhibitor that has shown antitumour activity in recurrent ovarian cancer. We assessed efficacy and safety of cediranib in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy and as continued maintenance treatment in patients with first relapse of platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer.Methods: In this randomised, three-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients aged 18 years or older with relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer at 63 centres in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Spain, and the UK. Participants received up to six cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy (once every 3 weeks) then entered a maintenance phase. Participants were randomly allocated (2:3:3), with five stratification factors and in alternating blocks, to receive placebo alongside chemotherapy and then placebo only maintenance (arm A; reference), cediranib 20 mg once-daily alongside chemotherapy then placebo only maintenance (arm B; concurrent), or cediranib 20 mg once-daily alongside chemotherapy then cediranib 20 mg once-daily maintenance (arm C; maintenance). Patients continued treatment to progression or excessive toxic effects. The primary efficacy endpoint was progression-free survival between arms A and C. Efficacy analysis was by intention to treat. Safety was assessed in all patients who received the allocated study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00532194; the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN68510403; and ANZ Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN1261000016003.Findings: We randomly assigned 486 [corrected] women between Nov 13, 2007, and Dec 23, 2011; results presented are for 456 patients randomly assigned subsequent to the 30mg safety phase. During a median of 19·5 months (IQR 14-26) follow-up, 113 (96%) of 118 women assigned to arm A and 141 (86%) of 164 assigned to arm C had disease progression. Median progression-free survival was 11·0 months (95% CI 10·4-11·7) in arm C and 8·7 months (7·7-9·4) in arm A (hazard ratio 0·56, 0·44-0·72, p<0·0001). 156 (90%) of 174 patients in arm B had disease progression, and median progression-free survival was 9·9 months (95% CI 9·4-10·5). Diarrhoea, neutropenia, hypertension, and voice changes were significantly more common, during chemotherapy with cediranib, and diarrhoea, hypothyroidism and voice changes were more common during maintenance. Poor compliance with cediranib was noted during maintenance treatment with toxic effects being the most common cause for discontinuation.Interpretation: Cediranib, when given orally with chemotherapy and continued as maintenance, yielded a meaningful improvement [corrected] in progression-free survival in women with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer, albeit with added toxic effects. The positive results in ICON6 could provide women with a new therapeutic option for recurrent ovarian cancer. Assessment of the secondary endpoint of overall survival will need longer follow-up.Funding: Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, Cancer Australia, National Gynecological Cancer Centre, and AstraZeneca. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: The EORTC 55971 trial compared primary debulking surgery (PDS) versus neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by interval debulking surgery (IDS). The impact of both treatment arms on quality of life (QOL) is reported. Methods: Patients with stages IIIc or IV ovarian cancer completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 before treatment, at the third and sixth cycle of chemotherapy, and at 6- and 12-month follow-up. Results: Data of 404 patients (N =201 PDS arm; N =203 IDS arm) were included in the QOL analysis. Between treatment arms no statistically significant differences were found in any of the QOL functioning scales. Patients showed a clinically relevant improvement (>10 points) on the global health/QOL, role functioning, emotional functioning and social functioning scales during and after treatment independent of the type of treatment. Clinically relevant differences from baseline to the follow-up assessments were noted for fatigue, pain, insomnia, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea indicating symptom control in both treatment arms. Institutions with good QOL compliance were associated with better outcomes. There was a statistical significant difference in the overall debulking status with 39.9% optimal debulking surgery in institutions with good QOL compliance compared to 19.9% in institutions with poor QOL compliance (p =0.0011). Overall survival (median 32.30 versus 23.29months; p =0.0006) and progression free survival (median 12.35 versus 9.92months; p =0.0002) were also significantly better. Conclusions: Survival and QOL after NACT followed by surgery was similar to survival and QOL after PDS followed by chemotherapy. However, institutions with good QOL compliance had better survival outcomes. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: We have conducted a series of four feasibility studies in stage Ic–IV ovarian cancer exploring six sequential first-line schedules with the same entry criteria in a total of 339 patients. Here we present the results of the sixth study, and an analysis of the overall series. Methods: In this trial patients received 4 cycles of carboplatin AUC 7 every 3 weeks, followed by 4 cycles of concurrent paclitaxel 175mg/m2 (day 1) and gemcitabine 1000mg/m2 (days 1 and 8) every 3 weeks. The primary end-point of the trial was feasibility of administering all cycles of planned chemotherapy to >60% of patients. Results: Fifty-four patients were recruited to the trial between June 05 and June 06. A total of 40 (74.1%) patients received all 8 cycles of treatment. Reasons for early discontinuation included toxicity (n =8) and disease progression (n =4). The overall response rate was 73.7%, and the median progression free survival (PFS) was 14.2 months with a median follow-up of 24 months. A comparative analysis of all six regimens from the SCOTROC series suggests that the sequential schedule in which paclitaxel was given weekly (median PFS 19.5m) is most effective. Conclusion: The sequential schedule explored in this trial is feasible, but comparative efficacy analysis suggests that trials involving weekly paclitaxel should be prioritised for further study. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]