Search

Objective: To evaluate the impact of age on the efficacy and safety of niraparib first-line maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer with a complete/partial response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy., Methods: Post hoc analysis of the phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 study (NCT02655016). Patients in the intent-to-treat population were categorized according to age at baseline (<65 years vs ≥65 years), and progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) were evaluated for each age subgroup (clinical cutoff date, May 17, 2019). Safety findings were also evaluated according to a fixed starting dose (FSD) or an individualized starting dose (ISD)., Results: Of 733 randomized patients, 289 (39.4%) were ≥65 years (190 niraparib, 99 placebo) at baseline. Median PFS (niraparib vs placebo) and hazard ratios (95% CI) were similar in patients aged <65 years (13.9 vs 8.2 months; HR, 0.61 [0.47-0.81]) and ≥65 years (13.7 vs 8.1 months; HR, 0.53 [0.39-0.74]). The incidences of any-grade and grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were similar across age subgroups; in the niraparib arm, TEAEs leading to dose discontinuation occurred in 7.8% of patients <65 years and 18.4% of patients ≥65 years. ISD use lowered the incidence of grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia events in niraparib-treated patients compared with the FSD (<65 years: 42.8% vs 18.0%; ≥65 years 57.0% vs 26.1%). HRQOL was comparable across age subgroups., Conclusion: Niraparib efficacy, safety, and HRQOL were generally comparable across age subgroups, although patients ≥65 years had a higher rate of discontinuations due to TEAEs. ISD use reduced grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia events regardless of age., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. Valabrega reports consulting fees from GSK; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eisai, GSK, and MSD; travel support from AstraZeneca and PharmaMar; and participation in advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Eisai, GSK, and MSD. Dr. Pothuri reports institutional grant support from AstraZeneca, Celsion, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Genentech/Roche, GSK, I-Mab, Immunogen, Incyte, Karyopharm, Merck, Mersana, Onconova, SeaGen, Sutro, and Toray; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GOG Foundation, GSK, Merck, and Seagen; support for attending meetings from GOG Partners; and advisory board fees from Arquer Diagnostics, Atossa, Deciphera, Eisai, Elevar Therapeutics, GOG Foundation, I-Mab, Immunogen, Lily, Merck, Mersana, Natera, Onconova, Regeneron, Sutro Biopharma, Tesaro/GSK, Toray, and VBL Therapeutics. Dr. Oaknin reports institutional grants from AbbVie Deutschland, Advaxis, Aeterna Zentaris, Amgen, Aprea Therapeutics AB, BMS, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, Immunogen, MSD de España SA, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, PharmaMar SA, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Tesaro; consulting fees from Agenus, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Corcept Therapeutics, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Exelixis, EMD Serono, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, Genmab, GSK, ImmunoGen, Iteos, MSD de España SA, Mersana Therapeutics, Novocure, OncXerna Therapeutics, PharmaMar, Regeneron, Shattuck Labs, Seagen, and Sutro Biopharma; honoraria from Asociación Colombiada de Ginecológos Oncólogos, AstraZeneca, ESO, GSK, Medscape, NSGO, Peerview, and Peervoice; individual travel support from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, and Roche; and advisory board participation for Agenus, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Corcept Therapeutics, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Exelixis, EMD Serono, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, Genmab, GSK, ImmunoGen, Iteos, MSD de España SA, Mersana Therapeutics, Novocure, OncXerna Therapeutics, PharmaMar, Regeneron, Seagen, Shattuck Labs, and Sutro Biopharma. Dr. Graybill reports consulting and speaker fees from GSK. Dr. Sánchez reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, and MSD; honoraria from AstraZeneca, GSK, and MSD; and travel support from AstraZeneca, GSK, and MSD. Dr. McCormick reports personal fees for advisory boards for Clovis, GSK, ImmunoGen, and Merck. Dr. Baurain reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, GSK, Immunocore, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Sun Pharma. Dr. Tinker reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eisai, GSK, and Merck and travel support from GSK. Dr. Denys reports an institutional research grant from Gilead; consulting fees from Gilead and GSK; honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Leo Pharma, MSD, and Roche; travel support from AstraZeneca, Gilead, GSK, MSD, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, and Teva; and participation on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Menarini, MSD, and Pfizer. Dr. O'Cearbhaill reports institutional research support from NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant (P30 CA008748) and support grants from AstraZeneca/Merck, Atara Biotherapeutics/Bayer, Genentech, Genmab, GSK, Gynecologic Oncology Group Foundation, Juno Therapeutics, Kite/Gilead, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Regeneron, Sellas Life Sciences, StemcentRx, Syndax, TapImmune, and TCR2 Therapeutics; participating in advisory boards with Bayer, Carina Biotech, Fresenius Kabi, Immunogen, Regeneron, R-Pharm, Seattle Genetics, and Tesaro/GSK; personal fees from GOG Foundation; travel fees from Hitech Health; and service as a noncompensated steering committee member for the DUO-O (olaparib) and PRIMA and Moonstone (niraparib) studies. Dr. Hietanen reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Eisai, GSK, and MSD and honoraria from AstraZeneca and GSK. Dr. Moore reports institutional grants from Angle Plc and Fujirebio Diagnostics and personal fees from Fujirebio Diagnostics. Dr. Knudsen has nothing to disclose. Dr. de La Motte Rouge reports receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Gilead, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD, NetCancer, and Pfizer; and travel support from Gilead, MSD, and Pfizer. Dr. Heitz reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, GSK, Roche, and Tesaro and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Roche, and Tesaro. Dr. Levy has nothing to disclose. Dr. Monk reports consulting fees from Agenus, Akeso Biopharma, Amgen, Aravive, Bayer, Elevar, EMD Merck, Genmab/Seagen, GOG Foundation, Gradalis, ImmunoGen, Iovance, Karyopharm, MacroGenics, Mersana, Myriad, Novartis, Novocure, Pfizer, Puma, Regeneron, Sorrento, US Oncology Research, and VBL and speakers' bureau honoraria from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Eisai, Merck, Roche/Genentech, and Tesaro/GSK. Dr. González-Martín reports for different educational or advisory-related activities from Alkermes, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Genmab, GSK, Hedera Dx, Immunogen, Illumina, Mersana, MSD, Novartis, Novocure, Oncoinvent, PharmaMar, Roche, Seagen, Sotio, Sutro, Takeda, and Tubulis. Ms. York is a current employee of GSK. Dr. Gupta is a former employee of GSK and Mersana Therapeutics and is currently an employee of Cullinan Oncology., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Niraparib is a poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase inhibitor approved for the maintenance treatment of advanced ovarian cancer (OC). Niraparib was originally approved in recurrent OC at a fixed starting dose (FSD) of 300 mg once daily (QD). This analysis characterized the population pharmacokinetics (PK) of niraparib and evaluated the relationships between exposure, efficacy, and safety to support clinical use of an individualized dosing strategy, in which the starting dose of niraparib was adjusted based on patient characteristics to improve the benefit-risk profile., Methods: A population PK model was developed by pooling data from four niraparib clinical trials (PN001 [n = 104], QUADRA [n = 455], NOVA [n = 403], and PRIMA [n = 480]) in patients with solid tumors, including OC. Exposure-response analyses were conducted to explore the relationships of niraparib exposure with progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events in the PRIMA study. A multivariate logistic regression model was also developed to estimate the probability of grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia, using data from patients enrolled in PRIMA and NOVA. The impact of an individualized starting dose (ISD) regimen (200 mg QD in patients with body weight [BW] <77 kg or platelet count [PLT] <150,000/µL, or 300 mg QD in patients with BW ≥77 kg and PLT ≥150,000/µL) on systemic exposure, efficacy, and safety was assessed., Findings: Niraparib disposition was best described by a 3-compartment model with linear elimination. Key covariates included baseline creatinine clearance, BW, albumin, and age, all of which had minor effects on niraparib exposure. Comparable model-predicted exposure up to the time of disease progression/death or censoring in the 300-mg FSD and 200-/300-mg ISD groups was consistent with the lower rate of dose reduction in the ISD groups. No consistent niraparib exposure-response relationship was observed for efficacy in all PRIMA patients (first-line OC), and no statistically significant difference was seen in PFS curves for patients receiving a niraparib dose of 200 mg versus 300 mg. In the multivariate regression model, performed using combined data from PRIMA and NOVA, higher niraparib exposure (area under the concentration-time curve at steady-state [AUC ss ]), lower BW, and lower PLT were associated with an increased risk of grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia., Implications: Population PK and exposure-response analyses support use of an ISD to improve the safety profile of niraparib, including reducing the rate of grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia, without compromising efficacy., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01847274 (NOVA), NCT00749502 (PN001), NCT02655016 (PRIMA), NCT02354586 (QUADRA), www., Clinicaltrials: gov., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Bradley J. Monk is an Associate Editor for Annals of Oncology and was not involved in the editorial review or the decision to publish this article. The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Bradley J. Monk reports consulting fees from Agenus, Akeso Biopharma, Amgen, Aravive, Bayer, Elevar, EMD Merck, Genmab/Seagen, GOG Foundation, Gradalis, ImmunoGen, Iovance, Karyopharm, MacroGenics, Mersana, Myriad, Novartis, Novocure, Pfizer, Puma, Regeneron, Sorrento, US Oncology Research, and VBL and speakers’ bureau honoraria from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Eisai, Merck, Roche/Genentech, and Tesaro/GSK. Ignacio Romero reports consulting or advisory role at AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK, MSD, and Roche; speakers bureau at AstraZeneca, GSK, PharmaMar, and Roche; research funding from AstraZeneca and Roche; and travel expenses from AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK, MSD, PharmaMar, and Roche. Whitney Graybill reports personal fees from GSK. David M. O'Malley reports personal fees from Agenus, Eisai, GSK, and Immunogen; consultant/advisory board for AbbVie, Ambry, Amgen, Array Biopharma, Clovis, EMD Serono, Ergomed, Janssen/J&J, Myriad Genetics, Novocure, Regeneron, Tarveda, and VentiRx; steering committee for Genentech/Roche and Merck; institutional funding from Ajinomoto, BMS, Cerulean Pharma, GOG Foundation, INC Research, InVentiv Health Clinical, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Ludwig Cancer Research, New Mexico Cancer Care Alliance, PRA International, Serono, Stemcentrx, Tracon Pharmaceuticals, and Yale University. Hannelore Denys reports consulting or advisory role at Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, and Seagen; institutional research funding from Gilead; and travel expenses from AstraZeneca, Gilead, GSK, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, and Teva. Sharad Ghamande reports consulting fees from Seattle Genetics; speakers bureau fees from GSK; and institutional grants from AbbVie, Advaxis, BMS, Clovis, Genentech, GSK, Merck, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, and Tesaro. Carmela Pisano reports speakers’ bureau fee and advisory role from AstraZeneca, GSK, and MSD. Michel Fabbro reports honoraria from GSK. Elena Iona Braicu reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Merck; consulting or advisory roles at AstraZeneca and GSK; institutional research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis, Eisai, GSK, Merck, and Resolve; travel support from AstraZeneca; and relationship with medical director of the North Eastern German Society of Gynecological Oncology (NOGGO). Paula M. Calvert reports an educational grant for meeting attendance, flights, and accommodations from MSD. Emily Prendergast reports consulting or advisory role at AstraZeneca and Merck. Adekemi Taylor reports being an employee of Certara (a biosimulation company) and, as a Certara employee, provided consulting services to GSK and Tesaro for this analysis and also provides consulting services to various pharmaceutical and biotech companies. Zhi-Yi Zhang was an employee of GSK when these analyses were undertaken and held shares/stock options in GSK. Stefan Zajic is an employee of GSK and holds shares/stock in GSK. Roxanne C. Jewell is an employee of GSK and holds shares/stock in GSK. Divya Gupta was an employee of GSK when these analyses were undertaken and held shares/stock options in GSK. Antonio González-Martín reports consulting fees from Alkermes, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Daichii ,Genmab, GSK, Hedera DX, Illumina, Immunogen, Incyte, Kartos, Karyopharm, Mersana, MSD, Novartis, Novocure, Oncoinvent, Pharma&, PharmaMar, Roche, Seagen SOTIO, Sutro, Takeda, and Tubulis; grants or contracts from Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer, GSK, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, and Roche; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, or speakers bureau from AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK, Immunogen, Mersana, MSD, Novocure, PharmaMar, Roche, Takeda, Seagen, and Zai Lab; and travel support from AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK, Immunogen, Mersana, MSD, Novocure, PharmaMar, Roche, and Takeda. Peter G. Rose, Amnon Amit, Leila Kheibarshekan, Cristina Churruca, Anja Ør Knudsen, Oi Wah Stephanie Yap, and Jean-François Baurain have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To report the results of OPAL (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03574779) cohort A, a single-arm substudy of niraparib plus dostarlimab and bevacizumab for the treatment of advanced, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC)., Methods: Participants with PROC who received 1-2 previous lines of therapy were treated with niraparib (200 or 300 mg once daily), dostarlimab (500 mg once every 3 weeks for four 21-day cycles, followed by 1,000 mg once every 6 weeks), and bevacizumab (15 mg/kg once every 3 weeks). The primary end point was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1. Safety was also assessed. Exploratory biomarker end points included evaluation of changes in the tumor molecular profile and microenvironment using baseline and on-treatment tumor samples., Results: Of 41 enrolled participants (median age, 66.0 years [range, 37-83 years]), 9.8% had tumors that were BRCA -mutated, 19.5% were homologous recombination (HR)-deficient, and 17.1% were HR repair (HRR)-mutated. As of the cutoff date, all participants discontinued treatment. The ORR was 17.1% (80% CI, 9.8 to 27.0), including one complete response (2.4%); the disease control rate was 73.2% (80% CI, 62.3 to 82.2). Two participants withdrew before first postbaseline scan because of adverse events (AEs). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent AEs were reported in 92.7% of participants, with the most common being hypertension (26.8%). Response was not correlated with BRCA , HRR, HR deficiency (HRD), or PD-L1 status. Changes suggesting immune activation were observed in on-treatment samples after triplet therapy., Conclusion: Results demonstrated modest activity of niraparib, dostarlimab, and bevacizumab in participants with PROC, many of whom had prognostic factors for poor treatment response. Most participants with response were bevacizumab-naïve. No association was found with HRD, BRCA , or PD-L1 status. AEs were consistent with previous monotherapy reports, except that hypertension was reported more frequently.

Objective: To assess patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with ovarian cancer (OC) who received niraparib as first-line maintenance therapy., Methods: PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 (NCT02655016) enrolled patients with newly diagnosed advanced OC who responded to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomized (2:1) to niraparib or placebo once daily in 28-day cycles until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or death. HRQoL was assessed as a prespecified secondary end point using patient-reported responses to the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QOL Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), the EORTC QLQ Ovarian Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-OV28), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovarian Symptom Index (FOSI), and EQ-5D-5L questionnaires. Assessments were collected at baseline and every 8 weeks (±7 days) for 56 weeks, beginning on cycle 1/day 1, then every 12 weeks (±7 days) thereafter while the patient received study treatment., Results: Among trial participants (niraparib, n = 487; placebo, n = 246), PRO adherence exceeded 80% for all instruments across all cycles. Patients reported no decline over time in HRQoL measured via EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/QoL and FOSI overall scores. Scores for abdominal/gastrointestinal symptoms (EORTC QLQ-OV28) and nausea and vomiting, appetite loss, and constipation (EORTC QLQ-C30) were higher (worse symptoms) in niraparib-treated patients than placebo-treated patients; except for constipation, these differences resolved over time. Patients did not self-report any worsening from baseline of fatigue, headache, insomnia, or abdominal pain on questionnaires., Conclusions: Despite some early, largely transient increases in gastrointestinal symptoms, patients with OC treated with niraparib first-line maintenance therapy reported no worsening in overall HRQoL., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. Pothuri reports institutional grant support from AstraZeneca, Celsion, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Genentech/Roche, GSK, I-Mab, Immunogen, Incyte, Karyopharm, Merck, Mersana, Onconova, Seagen, Sutro Biopharma, and Toray; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, GOG Foundation, Merck, and Seagen; support for attending meetings from GOG Partners; advisory board fees from Arquer Diagnostics, Atossa, Clovis Oncology, Deciphera, Eisai, Elevar Therapeutics, GOG Foundation, I-Mab, Immunogen, Lily, Merck, Mersana, Natera, Onconova, Regeneron, Sutro Biopharma, Tesaro/GSK, Toray, and VBL Therapeutic. Dr. Han has nothing to disclose. Dr. Chase reports consultant fees from AstraZeneca and GSK, and honoraria from AstraZeneca, GSK, Immunogen, and Seagen/Genmab. Dr. Heitz reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, GSK, Roche, and Tesaro; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Roche, and Tesaro. Dr. Burger reports receiving travel support from Genentech and Mersana Therapeutics, stock from Genentech and Mersana Therapeutics, and is an employee of Genentech and Mersana Therapeutics. Dr. Gaba reports consulting fees, advisory board, and honoraria fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD, and PharmaMar, and support for attending meetings from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, and MSD. Dr. Van Le has nothing to disclose. Dr. Guerra reports AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, Merck, Pharmamar, Roche, and Tesaro; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK/Tesaro, and Merck; payment for expert testimony from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, Merck, Tesaro; travel support from GSK, Roche, and Tesaro; advisory board participation for AstraZeneca, GSK, Merck, and Tesaro. Dr. Bender reports institutional grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology Inc., Genentech, MSD, and Tesaro. Dr. Korach serves in a leadership role for ISGO. Dr. Cloven reports advisory board fees from Aadii, GSK, Kartos 2022, Novita Pharmaceuticals 2023, Tarveda Therapeutics, Toray, Umoja 2022, and Zentalis. Dr. Churruca reports payment for expert testimony from PharmaMar and support for attending meetings from GSK, and MSD. Dr. Follana reports payment for expert testimony from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Daiichi, GSK, and Novartis; and support for attending meetings from AstraZeneca, Daiichi, GSK, and Novartis. Dr. DiSilvestro reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Immunogen; travel support from AstraZeneca; and leadership roles in the GOG Foundation Board of Directors and NRG Oncology Board of Directors. Dr. Baurain reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GSK, Immunocore, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Sun Pharma. Dr. Jardon has nothing to disclose (deceased). Dr. Pisano has nothing to disclose. Dr. Peen has nothing to disclose. Dr. Mäenpää reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eisai, and GSK. Dr. Gupta was an employee of GSK at the time the analysis was conducted; currently an employee of Mersana Therapeutics. Dr. Bacqué was an employee of GSK at the time the analysis was conducted; currently an employee of Repare Therapeutics. Dr. Li was an employee of GSK at the time the analysis was conducted and reports GSK stock ownership; currently an employee of Adagio Therapeutics. Ms. Compton is a former employee of GSK and currently receiving consulting fees from GSK. Dr. Antonova is a former employee of GSK. Dr. Monk reports consulting fees from Agenus, Akeso Biopharma, Amgen, Aravive, Bayer, Elevar, EMD Merck, Genmab/Seagen, GOG Foundation, Gradalis, ImmunoGen, Iovance, Karyopharm, MacroGenics, Mersana, Myriad, Novartis, Novocure, Pfizer, Puma, Regeneron, Sorrento, US Oncology Research, and VBL; and speakers' bureau honoraria from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Eisai, Merck, Roche/Genentech, and Tesaro/GSK. Dr. González-Martín reports manuscript funding from GSK; research/grant funding from Roche and Tesaro/GSK; advisory/consulting fees from Alkermes, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, HederaDx, ImmunoGen, Illunina, MacroGenics, Mersana, MSD, Novartis, Novocure, Oncoinvent, Pfizer/Merck, PharmaMar, Roche, Seagen, Sotio, Sutro, Takeda, and Tubuli; speaker bureau fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, PharmaMar, and Roche; and support for attending meetings from AstraZeneca, GSK, PharmaMar, and Roche., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Progression-free survival is an established clinically meaningful endpoint in ovarian cancer trials, but it may be susceptible to bias; therefore, blinded independent centralized radiological review is often included in trial designs. We compared blinded independent centralized review and investigator-assessed progressive disease performance in the PRIMA/ENGOT-ov26/GOG-3012 trial examining niraparib monotherapy., Methods: PRIMA/ENGOT-ov26/GOG-3012 was a randomized, double-blind phase 3 trial; patients with newly diagnosed stage III/IV ovarian cancer received niraparib or placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST] v1.1), determined by two independent radiologists, an arbiter if required, and by blinded central clinician review. Discordance rates between blinded independent centralized review and investigator assessment of progressive disease and non-progressive disease were routinely assessed. To optimize disease assessment, a training intervention was developed for blinded independent centralized radiological reviewers, and RECIST refresher training was provided for investigators. Discordance rates were determined post-intervention., Results: There was a 39% discordance rate between blinded independent centralized review and investigator-assessed progressive disease/non-progressive disease in an initial patient subset (n=80); peritoneal carcinomatosis was the most common source of discordance. All reviewers underwent training, and as a result, changes were implemented, including removal of two original reviewers and identification of 10 best practices for reading imaging data. Post-hoc analysis indicated final discordance rates between blinded independent centralized review and investigator improved to 12% in the overall population. Median progression-free survival and hazard ratios were similar between blinded independent centralized review and investigators in the overall population and across subgroups., Conclusion: PRIMA/ENGOT-ov26/GOG-3012 highlights the need to optimize blinded independent centralized review and investigator concordance using early, specialized, ovarian-cancer-specific radiology training to maximize validity of outcome data., Competing Interests: Competing interests: TJH has served on advisory boards (Aravive, AstraZeneca, Caris, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Epsilogen, GSK, Immunogen, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Roche Genentech, Seagen) and as a consultant for Abbvie. SAW reports consulting fees (GSK and BioClinica). MRM reports personal fees and other (Karyopharm Therapeutics, Sera Prognostics, Roche); institutional grants and no financial interest (Apexigen, AstraZeneca, Deciphera, GSK, Ultimovacs); personal fees and invited speaker (AstraZeneca, GSK); personal fees and advisory boards (AstraZeneca, Biocad, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Karyopharm, Merck, Mersana, ImmunoGen, Clovis Oncology, Roche, Zailab); personal fees, stocks and a member of board of directors (Karyopharm). BP reports research funding (AstraZeneca, Celgene, Celsion, Clovis, Genentech, SeaGen, GSK, Merck, Mersana, SeaGen, Takada, Toray) and consulting fees (AstraZeneca, Celsion, Eisai, GSK, GOG Foundation, Immunogen, Inxmed, Lily, Merck, Mersana, SeaGen, Toray). IV reports consulting fees (Agenus, Akesobio, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Elevar Therapeutics, Exelixis, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Jazzpharma, Karyopharm, Mersana, MSD, Novocure, Novartis, Oncoinvent, OncoXerna, Regeneron, Sanofi, Seagen, Sotio, Verastem Oncology, Zentalis), travel grants (Karyopharm, Genmab, Novocure), and contracted research grants (Amgen, Roche, Oncoinvent AS). WSG reports advisory board and speaker fees (GSK). IAM, WY, and DG are employees of GSK. JAH is an employee of GSK and reports stocks in GSK. AGM reports personal fees for educational/advisory-related activities (Alkermes, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Mersana, MSD, Novocure, Oncoinvent, PharmaMar, Roche, SOTIO, Takeda). BJM reports consulting fees (Acrivon, Adaptimmune, Agenus, Akeso Bio, Amgen, Aravive, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis, Eisai, Elevar, EMD Merck, Genmab/Seagen, GOG Foundation, Gradalis, Heng Rui, ImmunoGen, Karyoparm, Iovance, Laekna, Macrogenics, Merck, Mersana, Myriad, Novartis, Novocure, OncoC4, Panavance, Pieris, Pfizer, Puma, Regeneron, Roche/Genentech, Sorrento, GSK, US Oncology Research, VBL, Verstem, Zentalis); speakers honoraria (AstraZeneca, Clovis, Eisai, Merck, Myriad, Roche/Genentech, GSK); investigator honoraria (Gradalis)., (© IGCS and ESGO 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 (NCT02655016) trial was amended to prospectively evaluate the safety and efficacy of an individualized starting dose (ISD) regimen of niraparib for first-line maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer., Methods: In the phase 3 PRIMA trial, patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer with a complete/partial response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy (N = 733) were initially treated with a fixed starting dose (FSD) regimen of 300 mg once daily. Subsequently, the protocol was amended so newly enrolled patients received an ISD: 200 mg once daily in patients with baseline body weight < 77 kg or baseline platelet count < 150,000/µL, and 300 mg once daily in all other patients. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed by starting dose., Results: Overall, 475 (64.8%) patients were assigned to an FSD (niraparib, n = 317; placebo, n = 158) and 258 (35.2%) were assigned to an ISD (niraparib, n = 170; placebo, n = 88). Efficacy in patients who received FSD or ISD was similar for the overall (FSD hazard ratio [HR], 0.59 [95% CI, 0.46-0.76] vs. ISD HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.48-0.98]) and the homologous recombination-deficient (FSD HR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.30-0.64] vs. ISD HR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.22-0.72]) populations. In patients with low body weight/platelet count, rates of grades ≥3 and 4 hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events, dose interruptions, and dose reductions were lower for those who received ISD than for those who received FSD., Conclusions: In PRIMA, similar dose intensity, similar efficacy, and improved safety were observed with the ISD compared with the FSD regimen., (© 2023 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Cancer Society.)

Purpose: To identify risk factors for disease progression or death and assess outcomes by risk categories in real-world patients with advanced ovarian cancer., Methods: This retrospective study included adult patients from a nationwide electronic health record-derived deidentified database with stage III/IV ovarian cancer who received first-line therapy and had ≥12 weeks of follow-up after index date (end of first-line therapy). Factors predictive of time to next treatment and overall survival (OS) were assessed. Patients were grouped according to the cumulative number of high-risk factors present (stage IV disease, no debulking surgery or neoadjuvant therapy and interval debulking surgery, visible residual disease after surgery, and breast cancer gene [ BRCA ] wild-type disease/unknown BRCA status), and time to next treatment and OS were assessed., Results: Region of residence, disease stage, histology, BRCA status, surgery modality, and visible residual disease were significant predictors of time to next treatment; age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, disease stage, BRCA status, surgery modality, visible residual disease, and platelet levels were significant predictors of OS (N = 1,920). Overall, 96.4%, 74.1%, and 40.3% of patients had at least 1, 2, or 3 high-risk factors, respectively; 15.7% of patients had all four high-risk factors. Observed median time to next treatment was 26.4 months (95% CI, 17.1 to 49.2) in patients with no high-risk factors and 4.6 months (95% CI, 4.1 to 5.7) in patients with four high-risk factors. Observed median OS was shorter among patients with more high-risk factors., Conclusion: These results underscore the complexity of risk assessment and demonstrate the importance of assessing a patient's cumulative risk profile rather than the impact of individual high-risk factors. They also highlight the potential for bias in cross-trial comparisons of median progression-free survival because of differences in risk-factor distribution among patient populations.

In this analysis, we examined the relationship between progression-free survival (PFS) and mutation status of 18 homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes in patients in the non-germline BRCA -mutated (non-g BRCA m) cohort of the ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial (NCT01847274), which evaluated niraparib maintenance therapy for patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. This post hoc exploratory biomarker analysis was performed using tumor samples collected from 331 patients enrolled in the phase III ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial's non-g BRCA m cohort. Niraparib demonstrated PFS benefit in patients with either somatic BRCA- mutated (s BRCA m; HR, 0.27; 95% confidence interval, CI, 0.08-0.88) or BRCA wild-type ( BRCA wt; HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.34-0.64) tumors. Patients with BRCA wt tumors with other non- BRCA HRR mutations also derived benefit from niraparib (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.13-0.77), as did patients with BRCA wt/HRRwt (HRR wild-type) tumors (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.35-0.70). When patients with BRCA wt/HRRwt tumors were further categorized by genomic instability score (GIS), clinical benefit was observed in patients with homologous recombination-deficient (GIS ≥ 42; HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.18-0.61) and in patients with homologous recombination-proficient (HRp; GIS < 42; HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.36-0.99) disease. Although patients with s BRCA m, other non- BRCA HRR mutations, or GIS ≥ 42 benefited the most from niraparib treatment, PFS benefit was also seen in HRp (GIS < 42) patients without HRR mutations. These results support the use of niraparib in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer regardless of BRCA /HRR mutation status or myChoice CDx GIS., Significance: We retrospectively evaluated the mutational profile of HRR genes in tumor samples from 331 patients from the non-germline BRCA -mutated cohort of the phase III NOVA trial of patients with platinum-sensitive high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Patients with non- BRCA HRR mutations generally benefited from second-line maintenance treatment with niraparib compared with placebo., Competing Interests: G. Lindahl reports personal fees from Honoraria for lectures outside the submitted work. S. Mahner reports grants, personal fees, and other from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Eisai, GSK, Hubro, Medac, MSD, Novartis, Nykode, Olympus, PharmaMar, Pfizer, Roche, Sensor Kinesis, Teva, and Tesaro outside the submitted work. A. Redondo reports personal fees from GSK, MSD; personal fees and other from AstraZeneca; other from Clovis; grants and personal fees from Pharmamar; and grants from Eisai outside the submitted work. M. Fabbro reports personal fees from GSK and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. B.J. Rimel reports other from GSK, Merck, Immunogen, and personal fees from Deep6AI outside the submitted work. A.M. Oza reports PI and Steering Committees with AstraZeneca, GSK, and Clovis; advisory Board member with AstraZeneca and Morphosys. U. Canzler reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Roche outside the submitted work. J.S. Berek reports grants from Tesaro during the conduct of the study. A. González-Martín reports personal fees from Alkermes, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, ImmunoGen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, MacroGenics, Novartis, Oncoinvent, Pfizer/Merck, PharmaMar, Roche, Sotio, Sutro and grants from GSK and Roche outside the submitted work. P. Follana reports personal fees from GSK, AstraZeneca, and Clovis outside the submitted work. R. Lord reports personal fees from GSK outside the submitted work. Z. Wang reports other from GSK during the conduct of the study; other from GSK outside the submitted work. D. Gupta reports other from GSK during the conduct of the study; other from GSK outside the submitted work; and D. Gupta is an employee of GSK which sponsored the NOVA trial. U. Matulonis reports personal fees from GSK, AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, Next Cure, Agenus, 2X oncology, Symphogen, Alkermes, and Morphosys during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Clearity Foundation and Ovarian Cancer Research Alliance outside the submitted work. B. Feng is an employee of GSK. No disclosures were reported by the other authors., (© 2022 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Aim: To review safety and efficacy outcomes in studies of first-line maintenance therapies for advanced ovarian cancer. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed (27 February 2020) to identify clinical outcomes including progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and Grade ≥3 adverse events. Results: Overall 50 references met prespecified criteria; 18 studies evaluated 10 different agents, including PARP inhibitors. PFS was an end point in 16 trials and OS in 12 trials. PARP inhibitors reported better PFS hazard ratios (HRs: 0.59-0.68) compared with other classes; no mature OS data were identified. Safety reporting was inconsistent. Conclusion: Reported PFS HRs were better for PARP inhibitors than for other ovarian cancer maintenance therapies; overall survival data remain immature.

Objective: To assess safety and efficacy of niraparib + bevacizumab as a first-line maintenance therapy for patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer., Methods: This multicenter, phase II, single-arm, open-label study enrolled adult patients with stage IIIB to IV ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer (NCT03326193). Patients were required to have an attempt at debulking surgery and have a complete response, partial response, or no evidence of disease following first-line, platinum-based chemotherapy with ≥3 cycles of bevacizumab. The primary endpoint was the progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 18 months. Secondary endpoints included PFS, overall survival, and safety., Results: Among the 105 evaluable patients, the PFS rate at 18 months was 62% (95% CI 52-71%) in the overall population and 76% (95% CI 61-87) in the homologous recombination deficient (HRd), 47% (95% CI 31-64%) in the HR proficient (HRp), and 56% (95% CI 31-79%) in the HR not determined (HRnd) subgroups (December 24, 2020, cutoff). After a median follow-up time of 28.7 months (IQR, 23.9-32.5 months), median PFS was 19.6 months (95% CI 16.5-25.1) in the overall population (N = 105) and 28.3 months (95% CI 19.9-NE), 14.2 months (95% CI 8.6-16.8), and 12.1 months (95% CI 8.0-NE) in the HRd, HRp, and HRnd subgroups, respectively (June 16, 2021, cutoff). The most common any-grade treatment-related adverse events (related to niraparib and/or bevacizumab) were thrombocytopenia (74/105), fatigue (60/105), and anemia (55/105; December 24, 2020, cutoff)., Conclusion: Niraparib + bevacizumab first-line maintenance therapy displayed promising PFS results. Safety was consistent with the known safety profiles of niraparib and bevacizumab as monotherapy., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest MMH reports honoraria from Clinical Care Operations and GlaxoSmithKline; and advisory board fees from AstraZeneca-Merck, Immunogen and GlaxoSmithKline. TCK reports consulting and speakers' bureau fees from GlaxoSmithKline. GSW reports she served as PI for a clinical trial for which the institute received payment for conducting the trial from Abbvie, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cascadian Therapeutics, Celgene, Celldex Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo Pharma, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, G1Therapeutics, Genentech, H3BioMedicine Inc., Hoffmann-LaRoche, ImmunoGen, Incyte, Innocrin Pharm, Jansen, Lilly, Macrogenics, Medivation, Merrimack, NanoString Technologies, Novartis, Nucana, Odonate Therapeutics, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Sermonix Pharm, Taiho Oncology, and Tesaro. EH reports institutional research grant from Tesaro/GSK, Abbvie, Acerta Pharma, ADC Therapeutics, AKESOBIO Australia, Amgen, Aravive, ArQule, Arvinas, AtlasMedX, Black Diamond, Boehringer Ingelheim, Clovis, Compugen, Curis, CytomX, Dana Farber Cancer Inst, Deciphera, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Ellipses Pharma, EMD Serono, Fochon, FujiFilm, G1 Therapeutics, H3 Biomedicine, Harpoon, Hutchinson MediPharma, Immunogen, Immunomedics, Incyte, InvestisBio, Jacobio, Karyopharm, Leap Therapeutics, Lilly, Lycera, Mabspace Biosciences, Macrogenics, MedImmune, Merck, Mersana, Merus, Millenium, Molecular Templates, Myraid Genetic Labs, Novartis, Nucana, Olema, OncoMed, Onconova Therapeutics, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Orinove, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Pionyr Immunotherapeutics, Plexxikon, Radius Health, Regeneron, Repertoire Immune Medicine, Rgenix, Roche/Genentech, SeaGen, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, Shattuck Labs, Silverback, StemCentRx, Sutro, Syndax, Syros, Taiho, TapImmune, Treadwell Therapeutics, Verastem, Vincerx Pharma, Zenith Epigenetics, Zymeworks and institional consulting fees from Arcus, Arvinas, Black Diamond, Boehringer Ingelheim, CytomX, Dantari, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, H3 Biomedicine, iTeos, Janssen, Lilly, Loxo, Merck, Mersana, Novartis, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, Relay Therapeutics, Roche/Genentech, SeaGen, Silverback Therapeutics. ELF has nothing to disclose. JB is an employee of GlaxoSmithKline. EKK is a former employee of GlaxoSmithKline and reports stock and stock option ownership at the time of GSK employment. PW is an employee of GlaxoSmithKline. DG is an employee of GlaxoSmithKline. AC reports consulting fees from Tempus and advisory board fees from GlaxoSmithKline. HJG has nothing to disclose. GEK reports speaker bureau fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis, GlaxoSmithKline/Tesaro, and Myriad Genetics. RGM reports personal fees from Fujirebio Diagnostics Inc., and Humphries Pharmaceutical; and institutional grants from Angle Plc. DLR reports research contracts paid to her institution from Aravive, Arch Oncology, Celsion, Clovis, Deciphera, Fujifilm, GlaxoSmithKline, Harpoon, Karyopharm, Mersana, Plexxikon, Roche, Shattuck Labs, Syros, and Tesaro; honoraria fees from GOG Foundation; travel support from Tesaro; advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Deciphera, Foundation Medicine, Genentech, Mersana, and Tesaro/GlaxoSmithKline; and unpaid leadership as the vice chair of board of directors for National Ovarian Cancer Coalition., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the association between surgical timing and postoperative residual disease status on the efficacy of niraparib first-line maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer at high risk of recurrence., Methods: Post hoc analysis of the phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 (NCT02655016) study of niraparib in patients with newly diagnosed primary advanced ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer with a complete/partial response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Progression-free survival (PFS) was assessed by surgical status (primary debulking surgery [PDS] vs neoadjuvant chemotherapy/interval debulking surgery [NACT/IDS]) and postoperative residual disease status (no visible residual disease [NVRD] vs visible residual disease [VRD]) in the intent-to-treat population., Results: In PRIMA (N = 733), 236 (32.2%) patients underwent PDS, and 481 (65.6%) received NACT/IDS before enrollment. Median PFS (niraparib vs placebo) and hazard ratios (95% CI) for progression were similar in PDS (13.7 vs 8.2 months; HR, 0.67 [0.47-0.96]) and NACT/IDS (14.2 vs 8.2 months; HR, 0.57 [0.44-0.73]) subgroups. In patients who received NACT/IDS and had NVRD (n = 304), the hazard ratio (95% CI) for progression was 0.65 (0.46-0.91). In patients with VRD following PDS (n = 183) or NACT/IDS (n = 149), the hazard ratios (95% CI) for progression were 0.58 (0.39-0.86) and 0.41 (0.27-0.62), respectively. PFS was not evaluable for patients with PDS and NVRD because of sample size (n = 37)., Conclusions: In this post hoc analysis, niraparib efficacy was similar across PDS and NACT/IDS subgroups. Patients who had NACT/IDS and VRD had the highest reduction in the risk of progression with niraparib maintenance., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest REO reports participating in advisory boards with Bayer, Fresenius Kabi, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunogen, Regeneron, and Seattle Genetics; personal fees from GOG Foundation; and service as a noncompensated steering committee member for the PRIMA (niraparib) and DUO-O (olaparib) studies; institutional research support grants from AstraZeneca/Merck, Atara Biotherapeutics/Bayer, Genentech, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, Gynecologic Oncology Group Foundation, Juno Therapeutics, Kite/Gilead, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Regeneron, Sellas Life Sciences, Stem CentRx, Syndax, TapImmune Inc., and TCR2 Therapeutics. JAPF reports personal fees from Abilify Pharma, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clinigen, Clovis, GlaxoSmithKline, and Roche; and institutional grants from GlaxoSmithKline. BJM reports consulting fees from Agenus, Akeso Bio, Amgen, Aravive, Bayer, Elevar, EMD Merck, Genmab/Seagen, GOG Foundation, Gradalis, ImmunoGen, Iovance, Karyopharm, Macrogenics, Mersana, Myriad, Novartis, Novocure, Regeneron, Sorrento, Pfizer, Puma, US Oncology Research, and VBL; speaker's bureau honoraria from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Eisai, Merck, Roche/Genentech, TESARO/GSK; and is an investigator for US Oncology Research. IT reports personal fees from Celgene and Roche Pharma AG; institutional grants from Roche; and travel support from Roche. RGM reports personal fees from Abcodia Inc., Fujirebio Diagnostics Inc., and Humphries Pharmaceutical; and institutional grants from Angle Plc. MSS reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Pacira Pharmaceuticals Inc.; and institutional grants from GlaxoSmithKline. DO reports personal fees from Agenus, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, and Immunogen; consultant/advisory board for Abbvie, Ambry, Amgen, Array Biopharma, Clovis, EMD Serono, Ergomed, Janssen/J&J, INC Research Inc., inVentiv Health Clinical, Iovance Biotherapeutics Inc., Myriad Genetics, Novacure, Regeneron, Tarveda, and VentiRx; steering committee for Genentech/Roche and Merck; institutional funding from Ajinomoto Inc., Bristol Myers Squibb, Cerulean Pharma, GOG Foundation, Ludwig Cancer Research, New Mexico Cancer Care Alliance, PRA International, Stemcentrx Inc., Serono Inc., Tracon Pharmaceuticals, and Yale University. BMS reports consulting/advisory fees from Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Eisai, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, GOG Foundation, Merck, and Myriad. FS reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD, PharmaMar, and Roche; and travel support from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD, PharmaMar, and Roche. AK reports personal fees from AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline. AGM reports consulting or advisory roles at Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck & Co., Mersana, Immunogen, Roche, Sotio, and Takeda; speaker's bureau compensation from AstraZeneca, Clovis, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck & Co., and Roche; institutional research funding from Roche and GlaxoSmithKline; and travel support from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Roche. CM, CV, JF, FF, WHB, SH, AD, KB, PMC, GA, and TL have nothing to disclose. IAM and DG are employees of GlaxoSmithKline. YL was an employee at GlaxoSmithKline at the time of the analysis; currently an employee of Adagio Therapeutics Inc., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

We reviewed clinical data for niraparib monotherapy in BRCA -mutated ( BRCA m) epithelial ovarian cancer (OC), contextualizing results with data from other poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis). Niraparib reduced the likelihood of progression or death by 60% as first-line maintenance therapy and by 73-78% in recurrent disease. In heavily pretreated OC, efficacy was greater in the BRCA m versus non- BRCA m cohort. Quality-of-life (QoL) was maintained throughout treatment. Adverse events were consistent with the known niraparib safety profile. Cumulative efficacy, safety and QoL evidence demonstrate niraparib maintenance monotherapy has a positive benefit:risk ratio in BRCA m OC. Niraparib significantly improved progression-free survival as first-line maintenance therapy in all patients with OC (i.e., of any biomarker status).

Aim: Patient chart data from the USA during the period of January 2011 through October 2018 were used to assess risk factors for progression in advanced ovarian cancer after response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients & methods: Patients with stage III/IV ovarian cancer who completed first-line platinum-based chemotherapy after primary or interval debulking surgery were identified from the Flatiron Health database. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to assess associations between baseline factors and time to next treatment (TTNT) or overall survival (OS). Results: Patients at stage IV or who received interval debulking surgery had shorter TTNT and OS than patients at stage III or who received primary debulking surgery, respectively. OS was worse in patients with residual disease and in BRCA wild-type. Conclusion: Multiple factors were associated with shorter TTNT or OS in this retrospective real-world analysis.

Background: Niraparib, an inhibitor of poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase (PARP), has been associated with significantly increased progression-free survival among patients with recurrent ovarian cancer after platinum-based chemotherapy, regardless of the presence or absence of BRCA mutations. The efficacy of niraparib in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer after a response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy is unknown., Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer in a 2:1 ratio to receive niraparib or placebo once daily after a response to platinum-based chemotherapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival in patients who had tumors with homologous-recombination deficiency and in those in the overall population, as determined on hierarchical testing. A prespecified interim analysis for overall survival was conducted at the time of the primary analysis of progression-free survival., Results: Of the 733 patients who underwent randomization, 373 (50.9%) had tumors with homologous-recombination deficiency. Among the patients in this category, the median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the niraparib group than in the placebo group (21.9 months vs. 10.4 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31 to 0.59; P<0.001). In the overall population, the corresponding progression-free survival was 13.8 months and 8.2 months (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.76; P<0.001). At the 24-month interim analysis, the rate of overall survival was 84% in the niraparib group and 77% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.44 to 1.11). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or higher were anemia (in 31.0% of the patients), thrombocytopenia (in 28.7%), and neutropenia (in 12.8%). No treatment-related deaths occurred., Conclusions: Among patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer who had a response to platinum-based chemotherapy, those who received niraparib had significantly longer progression-free survival than those who received placebo, regardless of the presence or absence of homologous-recombination deficiency. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02655016.)., (Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Ovarian cancers diagnosed between 2000 and 2013 were examined and cases with and without endometriosis compared. Among 139 epithelial ovarian, there were 49 (35%) with endometriosis and 90 (65%) without endometriosis. Endometriosis associated ovarian cancers were more likely to be confined to the pelvis (54% vs. 9%, p < 0.0001) and lower grade (51% vs. 29%, p = 0.014). Younger age and earlier stage independently predicted the presence of endometriosis (p = 0.0011 and p < 0.0001, respectively). Ovarian cancer patients with endometriosis had improved PFS and OS [(HR = 0.20; 95% CI, 0.09-0.43), (HR = 0.18; 95% CI, 0.04-0.81)], compared to patients without endometriosis; however, endometriosis had no independent prognostic significance.

Dendritic cells (DCs) are required to initiate and sustain T cell-dependent anti-cancer immunity. However, tumors often evade immune control by crippling normal DC function. The endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress response factor XBP1 promotes intrinsic tumor growth directly, but whether it also regulates the host anti-tumor immune response is not known. Here we show that constitutive activation of XBP1 in tumor-associated DCs (tDCs) drives ovarian cancer (OvCa) progression by blunting anti-tumor immunity. XBP1 activation, fueled by lipid peroxidation byproducts, induced a triglyceride biosynthetic program in tDCs leading to abnormal lipid accumulation and subsequent inhibition of tDC capacity to support anti-tumor T cells. Accordingly, DC-specific XBP1 deletion or selective nanoparticle-mediated XBP1 silencing in tDCs restored their immunostimulatory activity in situ and extended survival by evoking protective type 1 anti-tumor responses. Targeting the ER stress response should concomitantly inhibit tumor growth and enhance anti-cancer immunity, thus offering a unique approach to cancer immunotherapy., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: A phase II trial designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of weekly topotecan and docetaxel in heavily treated patients with recurrent uterine or epithelial ovarian cancers., Methods: Eligible patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian or uterine cancers were treated with weekly topotecan 3.5 mg/m(2) and docetaxel 30 mg/m(2) for 3 consecutive weeks. Cycles were repeated every 4 weeks for 6 cycles or until evidence of disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or death. Response was assessed as per RECIST or Rustin's criteria. Time to best response and overall survival were calculated using Kaplan-Meier statistical methods., Results: Twenty-seven patients registered, of which 24 were evaluable for response. The majority of patients had received 2 prior chemotherapy regimens. Of the total 86 cycles of chemotherapy that were administered, there were three grade 4 (all neutropenia) and ten grade 3 toxicities. Six of the grade 3 non-hematologic toxicities were unrelated to treatment. There were 8 dose delays and 4 dose reductions. The overall response rate was 25% (95% CI: 7.7%-42.3%, 8% CR, 17% PR), and 38% of the patients had clinical benefit (95% CI: 18.1%-56.9%; CR+PR+13% SD). The median duration of response was 8.5 months (range 3-19 months). The median overall survival was 18.5 months (range 1.8-50.7 months)., Conclusion: The combination of weekly topotecan and docetaxel has clinical benefit and is well tolerated in this heavily treated patient population. Patients with platinum-resistant tumors had clinical benefit and should be considered for further study with this regimen.

Purpose: We examined the presence of the pregnane X receptor (PXR) and its effects on ovarian cancer cells after activation by its cognate ligand., Experimental Design: SKOV-3 and OVCAR-8 ovarian carcinoma cells were analyzed for expression of PXR by quantitative reverse transcription-PCR and Western blot. Human ovarian cancer tissue was also analyzed for PXR expression by immunochemistry. Ligand (agonist)-induced PXR target genes were analyzed in SKOV-3 cells by quantitative reverse transcription-PCR. SKOV-3 cell proliferation was assessed by MTT assay. In vivo confirmation of in vitro effects of PXR ligands were done in NOD.SCID mice carrying SKOV-3 xenografts., Results: PXR is expressed in ovarian cancer cells. In SKOV-3 cells, PXR is functional and its activation by cognate ligands induces PXR target genes (CYP2B6, CYP3A4, and UGT1A1) but not MDR1 and MRP2. PXR activation in SKOV-3 cells induces cell proliferation and drug resistance. In mice harboring SKOV-3 xenografts, rifampicin (PXR agonist) induces cell proliferation and tumor growth., Conclusion: PXR activation, regardless of the type of ligand agonist present, promotes the "malignant" phenotype of cancer cells. These data serve as the basis for finding novel nontoxic inhibitors of PXR activation as a method to control cell growth and prevent induction of drug resistance.

Background: Ovarian granulosa cell tumors are often associated with endometrial hyperplasia or carcinoma. The endometrial carcinoma is thought to occur under the influence of the estrogen receptor pathway and is typically a low-grade, low-stage endometrioid adenocarcinoma., Case: We present a case of a woman with a granulosa cell tumor of the ovary and a synchronous serous carcinoma of the endometrium. Immunohistochemical stains for estrogen receptors, progesterone receptors, and p53 protein were performed on both tumors., Conclusions: Not all uterine tumors associated with ovarian granulosa cell tumors have low-risk histology. Preoperative evaluation of the uterus with attention to tumor subtyping is important for optimum staging and therapy.

PURPOSE: To report the results of OPAL (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03574779) cohort A, a single-arm substudy of niraparib plus dostarlimab and bevacizumab for the treatment of advanced, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC). METHODS: Participants with PROC who received 1-2 previous lines of therapy were treated with niraparib (200 or 300 mg once daily), dostarlimab (500 mg once every 3 weeks for four 21-day cycles, followed by 1,000 mg once every 6 weeks), and bevacizumab (15 mg/kg once every 3 weeks). The primary end point was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1. Safety was also assessed. Exploratory biomarker end points included evaluation of changes in the tumor molecular profile and microenvironment using baseline and on-treatment tumor samples. RESULTS: Of 41 enrolled participants (median age, 66.0 years [range, 37-83 years]), 9.8% had tumors that were BRCA-mutated, 19.5% were homologous recombination (HR)-deficient, and 17.1% were HR repair (HRR)-mutated. As of the cutoff date, all participants discontinued treatment. The ORR was 17.1% (80% CI, 9.8 to 27.0), including one complete response (2.4%); the disease control rate was 73.2% (80% CI, 62.3 to 82.2). Two participants withdrew before first postbaseline scan because of adverse events (AEs). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent AEs were reported in 92.7% of participants, with the most common being hypertension (26.8%). Response was not correlated with BRCA, HRR, HR deficiency (HRD), or PD-L1 status. Changes suggesting immune activation were observed in on-treatment samples after triplet therapy. CONCLUSION: Results demonstrated modest activity of niraparib, dostarlimab, and bevacizumab in participants with PROC, many of whom had prognostic factors for poor treatment response. Most participants with response were bevacizumab-naïve. No association was found with HRD, BRCA, or PD-L1 status. AEs were consistent with previous monotherapy reports, except that hypertension was reported more frequently.