Search

Objective: Due to limited data on homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) in older patients (≥ 70 years) with advanced stage high grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSC), we aimed to determine the rates of HRD at diagnosis in this age group., Methods: From the Phase 3 trial VELIA the frequency of HRD and BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants (PVs) was compared between younger (< 70 years) and older participants. HRD and somatic(s) BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants (PVs) were determined at diagnosis using Myriad myChoice® CDx and germline(g) BRCA1/2 PVs using Myriad BRACAnalysis CDx®. HRD was defined if a BRCA PV was present, or the genomic instability score (GIS) met threshold (GIS ≥ 33 & ≥ 42 analyzed)., Results: Of 1140 participants, 21% were ≥ 70 years. In total, 26% (n = 298) had a BRCA1/2 PV and HRD, 29% (n = 329) were HRD/BRCA wild-type, 33% (n = 372) non-HRD, and 12% HR-status unknown (n = 141). HRD rates were higher in younger participants, 59% (n = 476/802), compared to 40% (n = 78/197) of older participants (GIS ≥ 42) [p < 0.001]; similar rates demonstrated with GIS ≥ 33, 66% vs 48% [p < 0.001]. gBRCA PVs observed in 24% younger vs 8% of older participants (p < 0.001); sBRCA in 8% vs 10% (p = 0.2559), and HRD (GIS ≥ 42) not due to gBRCA was 35% vs 31% (p = 0.36)., Conclusions: HRD frequency was similar in participants aged < 70 and ≥ 70 years (35% vs 31%) when the contribution of gBRCA was excluded; rates of sBRCA PVs were also similar (8% v 10%), thus underscoring the importance of HRD and BRCA testing at diagnosis in older patients with advanced HGSC given the therapeutic implications., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The following authors have no disclosures relating to this manuscript: Omali Pitiyarachchi, Laura Holman, Paul DiSilvestro, Mark Morgan, William Tew, Christine Lee, Meredith Newton, Babak Edraki, Thomas Reid and Jay Carlson. Peter J. Ansell and Minh H Dinh are AbbVie employees receiving stock or stock options. Robert L. Coleman: has received grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Genelux, Genmab, Merck, Immunogen, Roche/Genentech, Karyopharm; consulting fees from Agenus, Alkermes, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Deciphera, Genelux, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, OncoQuest, Onxerna, Regeneron, Karyopharm, Roche/Genentech, Novocure, Merck, Abbvie, Novocure; royalties or licenses with Up-To-Date; payment or honoraria for speakers bureaus from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Roche/Genentech, Merck; participation in data safety monitoring or advisory boards from NRG Oncology, Elsai/BMS; leadership or fiduciary role in Onxeo/Valerio, Vaniam Group, GOG Foundation, International Gynecologic Cancer Society, OCNA, Ovarcome. Charles A. Leath III: Grant to institution provided by National Institutes of Health (NCI UG1 CA233330). Theresa Werner has received consulting fees from Mersana; and research funding to the institution - AbbVie, Acrivon, Astra Zeneca, BluePrint, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK-Tesaro, Mersana, Repare Therapeutics, Roche-Genentech. Mary Cunningham: funds to institution provided by Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Tesaro, Vascular Biogenics; and spouse is a stockholder of Intuitive Surgical. Peter Lim: has received payment or honoraria for Speakers Bureau from Astra Zeneca and Merck and is on Advisory Boards for Astra Zeneca, Clovis, Mersana, OncoC4, Immunogen. Joyce Barlin: has received payment/honoraria for Speakers Bureaus from Astra Zeneca and Merck and is on Advisory Boards for Astra Zeneca, Clovis, Mersana, OncoC4, Immunogen. Nicola M. Spirtos: has received institutional grants from NRG and the GOG Foundation. Krishnansu S. Tewari: reports grants to institution (UC Irvine) provided by AbbVie; consulting fees from Merck, Astra Zeneca, Eisai, Seagen, GSK; and payment/honoraria for Speakers Bureaus from Merck, Astra Zeneca, Eisai, Seagen, GSK. Mitchell Edelson: has received funding to attend meetings from Intuitive Surgical; received stock options from Merck when employed. Spouse was a salaried employee at Merck until 8/2022 and spouse is a salaried employee at Pfizer since 3/2023. Michael Friedlander: has received consulting fees from Astra Zeneca, Novartis and GSK; has consulted without payment for Incyclix; has received payment or honoraria for Speakers Bureaus from Astra Zeneca, GSK and MSD; has participated on Data Safety Monitoring or Advisory Boards for AGITG IDSMB and ENDO-3; received institutional support in the form of research grants from Astra Zeneca, Beigene and Novartis., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: Ovarian cancer ranks fifth in mortality among women with cancer and accounts for more death compared to any other gynecological cancers. This review summarizes the most recent literature on disparities in ovarian cancer as well as within recent clinical trials., Recent Findings: Recent studies have identified a notable disparity in genetic testing utilization, disease stage at the time of diagnosis, and adherence to treatment guidelines between Black women and their White counterparts, ultimately leading to increased mortality rates among Black women from ovarian cancer. Additionally, there is an underreporting of race in clinical trials and those that do report race demonstrate significant racial disparities within trial participants with the majority of participants being White., Summary: It is imperative that we address the significant racial disparities within ovarian cancer and clinical trials to establish a framework of equitable healthcare provision. Multiple determinants, such as implicit bias, provider mistrust, accessibility hurdles, and socioeconomic influences, appear to contribute to the current disparities faced by women of color. Further investigation is warranted, encompassing a deeper understanding of diverse patient perspectives and identifying barriers to receiving optimal care and participating in clinical trials., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To evaluate the addition of ofranergene obadenovec (ofra-vec, VB-111), a novel gene-based anticancer targeted therapy, to once a week paclitaxel in patients with recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC)., Methods: This placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase III trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03398655) randomly assigned patients with PROC 1:1 to receive intravenous ofra-vec every 8 weeks with once a week IV paclitaxel or placebo with paclitaxel until disease progression. The dual primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) as assessed by Blinded Independent Central Review., Results: Between December 2017 and March 2022, 409 patients were randomly assigned. The median PFS was 5.29 months in the ofra-vec arm and 5.36 months in the control arm, hazard ratio (HR) 1.03 (CI, 0.83 to 1.29; P = .7823). The median OS with ofra-vec was 13.37 months versus 13.14 months, HR 0.97 (CI, 0.75 to 1.27; P = .8440). Objective response rates (ORRs) per RECIST 1.1 were similar in both arms: 28.9% with ofra-vec versus 29.6% with control. In both treatment arms, response to CA-125 was a substantial prognostic factor for both PFS and OS. In the ofra-vec arm, the HR in CA-125 responders compared with that in nonresponders for PFS was 0.2428 (CI, 0.1642 to 0.3588), and for OS, the HR was 0.3343 (CI, 0.2134 to 0.5238). Safety profile was characterized by common transient flu-like symptoms such as fever and chills., Conclusion: The addition of ofra-vec to paclitaxel did not improve PFS or OS. The PFS and ORR in the control arm exceeded the results that were anticipated on the basis of the AURELIA chemotherapy control arm. CA-125 response was a substantial prognostic biomarker for PFS and OS in patients with PROC treated with paclitaxel.

Objective: To determine the effects of using National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines to estimate renal function on carboplatin dosing and explore adverse effects associated with a more accurate estimation of lower creatinine clearance (CrCl)., Methods: Retrospective data were obtained for 3830 of 4312 patients treated on GOG182 (NCT00011986)-a phase III trial of platinum-based chemotherapy for advanced-stage ovarian cancer. Carboplatin dose per patient on GOG182 was determined using the Jelliffe formula. We recalculated CrCl to determine dosing using Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) and Cockcroft-Gault (with/without NCCN recommended modifications) formulas. Associations between baseline CrCl and toxicity were described using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Sensitivity and positive predictive values described the model's ability to discriminate between subjects with/without the adverse event., Results: AUC statistics (range, 0.52-0.64) showed log(CrCl Jelliffe ) was not a good predictor of grade ≥3 adverse events (anemia, thrombocytopenia, febrile neutropenia, auditory, renal, metabolic, neurologic). Of 3830 patients, 628 (16%) had CrCl <60 mL/min. Positive predictive values for adverse events ranged from 1.8%-15%. Using the Cockcroft-Gault, Cockcroft-Gault with NCCN modifications, and MDRD (instead of Jelliffe) formulas to estimate renal function resulted in a >10% decrease in carboplatin dosing in 16%, 32%, and 5.2% of patients, respectively, and a >10% increase in carboplatin dosing in 41%, 9.6% and 12% of patients, respectively., Conclusion: The formula used to estimate CrCl affects carboplatin dosing. Estimated CrCl <60 mL/min (by Jelliffe) did not accurately predict adverse events. Efforts continue to better predict renal function. Endorsing National Cancer Institute initiatives to broaden study eligibility, our data do not support a minimum threshold CrCl <60 mL/min as an exclusion criterion from clinical trials., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. O'Cearbhaill reports support for this study from NCI/NIH P30 CA008748 and grants to Institution from Bayer/Celgene/Juno, Tesaro/GSK, Merck, Ludwig Cancer Institute, AbbVie/Stemkens, Regeneron, TCR2 Therapeutics, Atara Biotherapeutics, Marker Therapeutics, Syndax Pharmaceuticals, Genmab/Seagen Therapeutics, Genentech, Kite Pharma, Acrivon and Gynecologic Oncology Foundation. Outside of the submitted work, Dr. O'Cearbhaill reports honoraria from GSK, Bayer, Regeneron, SeaGen, Fresenius Kabi, Immunogen, MJH Life Sciences and Curio. Dr. O'Cearbhaill reports receiving support to attend meetings and/or travel from Hitech Health, Gathering Around Cancer, Ireland, GOG Foundation and SGO. Dr. O'Cearbhaill participated on Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for each of the following: AstraZeneca (DUO-0), GSK (moonstone, Prima), Acrivon, Carina Biotech, Link therapeutics, Tesaro/GSK, Regeneron, Seattle Genetics/Seagen, Immunogen, Bayer, R-Pharm, 2seventybio, Miltenyi and Fresenius Kabi. Dr. O'Cearbhaill also served as Vice-chair for the CPC, SGO as well a Chair, Developmental Therapeutics Committee for NRG Oncology. Dr. Aghajanian received research grants from AbbVie, Clovis, Genentech and Astra Zeneca and served on advisory boards for AbbVie, AstraZeneca/Merck, Eisai/Merck, Mersana Therapeutics, Repare Therapeutics and Roche/Genentech and received consulting fees for serving. Dr. Aghajanian served on the Blueprint Medicine Advisory Board (uncompensated). Dr. Aghajanian also serves on the GOG Foundation, Board of Directors (travel cost reimbursement for attending meetings) as well as the NRG Oncology Board of Directors (unpaid). Dr. Floor Backes wishes to report research grants from Immunogen, Clovis, Merck, Eisai, Natera and Beigene. Dr. Backes reports receiving consulting fees received from Eisai, Merck, Agenus, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline; Myriad, Clovis Oncology and Immunogen. Dr. Backes received honoraria for serving on advisory boards from Medlearning Group, CEC Oncology, OncLive, i3Health, and Medscape. Dr. Backes serves as Co-Chair of the NRG Oncology Developmental Therapeutics. Dr. Backes is a member of the Uterine Corpus Committee as well as a NCCN Ovary member and serves as an SGO Board Member. Dr. Michael Bookman reports payment to his Institution from Immunogen Data Monitoring Committee (unrelated to this project). Dr. David Cohn reports receiving honoraria from UpToDate as an Author as well as receiving payment for his role with Elsevier, Gynecologic Oncology as an Editor-in-Chief. Dr. Michael Friedlander reports that personally receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Novartis, GSK and Incyclix (Nil). Dr. Friedlander also reports receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca and GSK and also received travel funding from AstraZeneca. Dr. Friedlander reports participating on Data Safety Monitoring Board/Advisory Board for AGITG IDSMB and ENDO-3. Dr. Friedlander reports that his Institution received grants from AstraZeneca, Beigene and Novartis. Dr. David Gershenson reports support from NRG Oncology with regard to this Study. Dr. Gershenson also acknowledges grants to his Institution from Novartis, GOG Foundation, and the NCI. Dr. Gershenson personally received royalties from Elsevier and UpToDate and consulting fees from Genentech (uncompensated) and Verastem. Dr. Gershenson received honoraria from University of Washington OB/GYN Grand Rounds and Yale University OB/GYN Grand Rounds and participating in a data safety monitoring/advisory board for Onconova, Aadi and Springworks. Dr. Gershenson also served on the International Consortium for Low-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer and NCCN Ovarian Cancer Panel (uncompensated). Dr. Gershenson also wishes to disclose having stock in managed accounts for Bristol Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson and Procter & Gamble. Dr. Michael Goodheart reports receiving consulting fees from GlasoSmithKlein GSK/Tesaro, Merck, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, SeaGen and Eisai. Dr. Angeles Alvarez Secord reports clinical trial grants received from the following: AbbVie, Aravive, AstraZeneca, BoehringerIngelheim, Clovis, Eisai, Ellipses, I-MAB Biopharma, Immunogen, Merck, Oncoquest/Canaria Bio, Seagen Inc., TapImmune, Tesaro/GSK, VBL Therapeutics. Dr. Secord also wishes to report receiving clinical trial grant/translational research grant from Roche/Genentech as well as Consulting fee from Myriad. Dr. Secord also received support for attending meetings/travel from GSK, GOG Foundation and NRG. Dr. Secord also served on the Clinical Trial Steering Committees for Aravive, Genentech/Roche, VBL Therapeutics and Oncoquest/Canaria Bio without compensation. Dr. Secord personally received compensation from GOG Foundation and NRG Oncology paid compensation to Institution. Dr. Secord also served in Leadership roles for Society of Gynecologic Oncology and American Association of Obstetrics and Gynecology Foundation (uncompensated). Dr. Judith Smith received honoraria for Speaking at the HOPA Annual Meeting 2016 – Harmonization of Carboplatin Dosing, Dr. Smith serves as Chair on the NRG Oncology Pharmacy Subcommittee. Dr. Tewari also reports receiving honoraria from Eisai, AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK/Tesaro, Merck and Seagen/Genmab. Dr. Krishnansu Tewari reports receiving consulting fees from Regeneron, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK/Tesaro, Merck, Seagen/Genmab. Dr. Andrea Wahner Hendrickson reports receiving Clinical Trial support from Prolynx and Site PI Clinical Trial Support from both Amgen and TORL Biotherapeutics. Dr. Wahner Hendrickson reports serving on Oxcia Advisory Board (uncompensated). Dr. Wahner Hendrickson reports serving on an Advisory Board for the Mayo Clinic Data Safety Monitoring Board (uncompensated). Dr. Wahner Hendrickson also served on the NCCN Ovarian Cancer Committee (uncompensated). Dr. Robert Wenham reports personal and institutional grants received from Merck and Ovation Diagnostics. Dr. Wenham reports receiving consulting fees from Merck, Legend Biotech, Genentech, Ovation Diagnostics, GSK/Tesaro, Clovis, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Legend Biotech, Regeneron, Seagen, Sonic Biotherapeutics, Shattuck Labs, Novacure, Eisai and Immunogen. Dr. Wenham also reports receiving Institutional Clinical Trial Fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Regeneron and Eisai. Dr. Wenham reports serving on Advisory Board for Seagen and GSK/Tesaro. Dr. Wenham would like to disclose personally owning stock in Ovation Diagnostics. Dr. Peter Argenta, Dr. Heidi Gray, Dr. Roger Lee, Dr. Stuart Lichtman, Dr. Austin Miller, Dr. David Mutch, Dr. Aaron Praiss, Dr. Paul Sabbatini and Dr. Linda Van Le have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess the effect of age on overall survival (OS) in women with ovarian cancer receiving chemotherapy. Secondary objectives were to describe the effect of age on treatment compliance, toxicities, progression free survival (PFS), time from surgery to chemotherapy, and rates of optimal cytoreduction., Methods: Women enrolled in GOG 0182-ICON5 with stage III or IV epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) who underwent surgery and chemotherapy between 2001 and 2004 were included. Patients were divided into ages <70 and ≥ 70 years. Baseline characteristics, treatment compliance, toxicities, and clinical outcomes were compared., Results: We included a total of 3686 patients, with 620 patients (16.8%) ≥ 70 years. OS was 37.2 months in older compared to 45.0 months in younger patients (HR 1.21, 95% CI, 1.09-1.34, p < 0.001). Older patients had an increased risk of cancer-specific-death (HR 1.16, 95% CI, 1.04-1.29) as well as non-cancer related deaths (HR 2.78, 95% CI, 2.00-3.87). Median PFS was 15.1 months in older compared to 16.0 months in younger patients (HR 1.10, 95% CI, 1.00-1.20, p = 0.056). In the carboplatin/paclitaxel arm, older patients were just as likely to complete therapy and more likely to develop grade ≥ 2 peripheral neuropathy (35.7 vs 19.7%, p < 0.001). Risk of other toxicities remained equal between groups., Conclusions: In women with advanced EOC receiving chemotherapy, age ≥ 70 was associated with shorter OS and cancer specific survival. Older patients receiving carboplatin and paclitaxel reported higher rates of grade ≥ 2 neuropathy but were not more likely to suffer from other chemotherapy related toxicities. Clintrials.gov: NCT00011986., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Each coauthor must complete an icmje form so that this page can be completed., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The primary purpose of this study was to determine if farletuzumab, an antifolate receptor-α monoclonal antibody, improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo when added to standard chemotherapy regimens in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (OC) in first relapse (platinum-free interval: 6-36 months) with low cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) levels., Methods: Eligibility included CA-125 ≤ 3 x upper limit of normal (ULN, 105 U/mL), high-grade serous, platinum-sensitive recurrent OC, previous treatment with debulking surgery, and first-line platinum-based chemotherapy with 1st recurrence between 6 and 36 months since frontline platinum-based treatment. Patients received investigator's choice of either carboplatin (CARBO)/paclitaxel (PTX) every 3 weeks or CARBO/pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) every 4 weeks x6 cycles in combination with either farletuzumab [5 mg/kg weekly] or placebo randomized in a 2:1 ratio. Maintenance treatment with farletuzumab (5 mg/kg weekly) or placebo was given until disease progression or intolerance., Results: 214 patients were randomly assigned to farletuzumab+chemotherapy (142 patients) versus placebo+chemotherapy (72 patients). The primary efficacy endpoint, PFS, was not significantly different between treatment groups (1-sided α = 0.10; p-value = 0.25; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.89, 80% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71, 1.11), a median of 11.7 months (95% CI: 10.2, 13.6) versus 10.8 months (95% CI: 9.5, 13.2) for farletuzumab+chemotherapy and placebo+chemotherapy, respectively. No new safety concerns were identified with the combination of farletuzumab+chemotherapy., Conclusions: Adding farletuzumab to standard chemotherapy does not improve PFS in patients with OC who were platinum-sensitive in first relapse with low CA-125 levels. Folate receptor-α expression was not measured in this study. (Clinical Trial Registry NCT02289950)., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest TH reports medical writing support; consulting fees from Astra Zeneca (AZ), Caris, Clovis, Genentech, Gradalis, Epsilogen, Merck (MSD), Eisai, Seagen; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from AZ, Clovis, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK); participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from Incyte, Corcept; Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid as Treasurer GOG Foundation and Associate Director GOG-P. SP reports no conflicts of interest. SG reports payments for clinical trial conduct from Eisai; grants or contracts for clinical trial conduct from GSK, Merck, Mersana, Jounce, AZ, Seagen, Clovis; consulting fees from Seagen; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Eisai and GSK; Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid as GOG foundation, GASCO, National Cancer Institute Cervix committee. MR reports no conflicts of interest. KF reports grants and contracts from Eisai; consulting fees from Eisai. CV reports medical writing support from Eisai; consulting fees from Janssen-Cilag, Roche, GSK, Atheneum Partners, Astellas Pharma, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Leo-Pharma; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Janssens Cilag, Leo Pharma, Bayer; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Roche and Pfizer. DA reports clinical trial support from Eisai. JS reports consulting fees from Eisai, Roche, Novocure, AZ, GSK, Tesaro, Pfizer, MSD, Merck, Clovis; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Eisai, Roche, Novocure, AZ, GSK, Tesaro, Pfizer, MSD, Merck; payment for expert testimony from Eisai, Roche, Novocure, AZ, GSK, Tesaro, Pfizer, MSD, Merck; support for attending meetings and/or travel from GSK, Roche, AZ; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from Eisai, Roche, Novocure, AZ, GSK, Tesaro, Pfizer, MSD, Merck, Clovis; Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid as ESGO council, NOGGO council, AGO Executive Board, GCIG member; RC reports grants or contracts from AZ, Clovis, Genelux, Genmab, Merck, Immunogen Janssen, Roche/Genentech; consulting fees from Agenus, Alkermes, AZ, Clovis, Deciphera, Genelux, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Janssen, OncoQuest, Onxeo, Onxerna, Regeneron, Roche/Genentech, Novocure, Merck, Abbvie; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from AZ, Clovis, Roche/Genentech, Merck; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from VBL Therapeutics. HG reports no conflicts of interest. GS reports grants or contracts from MSD Italia; consulting fees from Tesaro Bio Italy srl, Johnson and Johnson; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Clovis Oncology Italy srl. BM reports consulting fees from Acrivon, Adaptimune, Agenus, Akeso Bio, Amgen, Aravive, AZ, Bayer, Clovis, Eisai, Elevar, EMD Merck, Genmab/Seagen, GOG Foundation, Gradalis, Heng Rui, ImmunoGen, Karyopharm, Lovance, Laekna, Macrogenics, Merck, Mersana, Myriad, Novartis, Novocure, OncoC4, Panavance, Pieris, Pfizer, Puma, Regeneron, Roche/Genentech, Sorrento, Tesaro/GSK, US Oncology Research, VBL, Verastem, Zentalis; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from AZ, Clovis, Eisai, Merck, Myriad, Roche/Genentech, Tesaro/GSK. JA reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from BMS, Merck, Astellas, Eisai, Ipsen, Pfizer; support for attending meetngs and/or travel from Ipsen. KU reports grants or contracts from Eisai. RH reports grants or contracts from AZ, Clovis, GSK; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from AZ, Clovis, GSK; multiple cases for medicolegal expert witness; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from AZ, Clovis, GSK. CZ reports grants or contracts from Novartis; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, MSD, Eisai, GSK; support for attending meetings or travel from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, MSD, Eisai, GSK, ExactSciences, Clovis; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, MSD, Eisai, GSK, DaichiSankyo. RW reports support for medical writing from Eisai; grants or contracts from OnTarget Labs, Merck, Anixa Bioscience; consulting fees from Novocure, Mersana, AZ, Ovation Diagnostics, Sonnet Biotherapeutics, Shattuck Labs, Clovis, Abbvie, Tesaro/GSK, Seagen, Genentech, Merck, Regeneron, Legend Biotech, Eisai; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from AZ and GSK; support for attending meetngs and/or travel from Sonnet Biotherapeutics and Tapimmune; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from Tesaro, Seagen; stock or stock options from Ovation Diagnostics; AG reports grants or contracts from Roche and Tesaro/GSK; consulting fees from AZ, Genmab, MSD, Oncoinvent, PharmaMar, SOTIO, Clovis, Immunogen, Amgen Merck/Pfizer, Roche, GSK/Tesaro; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Roche, Tesaro/GSK, Clovis, Immunogen, Pfizer, Amgen, SOTIO, Marcrogenics, AZ, MSD, Genmab, Oncoinvent, EMD Serono, Mersana, SUTRO, PharmaMar; support for attending meetngs and/or travel from Roche, PharmaMar, AZ, Tesaro/GSK; BS reports consulting fees from AZ, Clovis, GSK, Merck, Eisai, Lilly, Novartis, Immunogen, Seagen, Genmab, Genentech; YJ reports employment from Eisai; LR reports employment from Eisai. KT reports support for the manuscript from Eisai; consulting fees from Merck, GSK, Clovis, AZ, Regeneron, Eisai, Seagen; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Merck, GSK, Clovis, AZ, Regeneron, Eisai, Seagen; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from Lovance. SW reports employment from Eisai. IV reports grants or contracts from Oncoinvent, AS, Amgen, Roche; consulting fees from Agenus, Akesobio, AZ BMS, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Elevar Therapeutics, Exelixis, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Jazzpharma, Karyopharm, Mersana, MSD, Novocure, Novartis, Oncoinvent, OncXerna, Regeneron, Sanofi, Seagen, Sotio, Verastem Oncology, Zentalis; support for attending meetngs and/or travel from Karyopharm, Genmab, Novocure., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: In patients with high-grade ovarian cancer, predictors of bevacizumab efficacy in first-line setting are needed. In the ICON-7 trial, a poor tumor intrinsic chemosensitivity (defined by unfavorable modeled cancer antigen-125 [CA-125] ELIMination rate constant K [KELIM] score) was a predictive biomarker. Only the patients with high-risk disease (suboptimally resected stage III, or stage IV) exhibiting unfavorable KELIM score < 1.0 had overall survival (OS) benefit from bevacizumab (median: 29.7 v 20.6 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.78). An external validation study in the GOG-0218 trial was performed., Methods: In GOG-0218, 1,873 patients were treated with carboplatin-paclitaxel ± concurrent-maintenance bevacizumab/placebo. Patient KELIM values were calculated with CA-125 kinetics during the first 100 chemotherapy days by the Lyon University team. The association between KELIM score (favorable ≥ 1.0, or unfavorable < 1.0) and bevacizumab benefit for progression-free survival (PFS)/OS was independently assessed by NGR-GOG using univariate/multivariate analyses., Results: KELIM was assessable in 1,662 patients with ≥ 3 CA-125 available values. An unfavorable KELIM score was associated with bevacizumab benefit compared with placebo (PFS: HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.82; OS: HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.03), whereas a favorable KELIM was not (PFS: HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.17; OS: HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.39). The highest benefit was observed in patients with a high-risk disease exhibiting unfavorable KELIM, for PFS (median: 9.1 v 5.6 months; HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.78), and for OS (median: 35.1 v 29.1 months; HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.97)., Conclusion: This GOG-0218 trial investigation validates ICON-7 findings about the association between poor tumor chemosensitivity and benefit from concurrent-maintenance bevacizumab, suggesting that bevacizumab may mainly be effective in patients with poorly chemosensitive disease. Bevacizumab may be prioritized in patients with a high-risk and poorly chemosensitive disease to improve their PFS/OS (patient KELIM score calculator available on the Biomarker Kinetics website).

Objectives: To determine the clinical and prognostic significance of CA-125 trends prior to, during, and after chemotherapy in high-risk early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer patients., Methods: All patients were enrolled in a phase III randomized trial (GOG 157) following upfront surgery for grade 3 stage IA/IB, stage IC, or stage II disease, and had been treated with either three or six cycles of carboplatin/paclitaxel. Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards model were used to evaluate recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS)., Results: Of 350 patients, the median pre-chemotherapy CA-125 was 65 (IQR: 31-129). 71% of Whites had an elevated CA-125 compared to 47% of non-Whites (p = 0.006). Following the first cycle of chemotherapy, 74% of those with elevated CA-125 had normalization. Those who had normalization of CA-125 after 1 cycle had significantly better 5-year RFS (81% vs. 65%, p = 0.003) and OS (87% vs. 75%, p = 0.009) compared to those who did not normalize (defined as ≤35 U/mL). The pattern of CA-125 change following chemotherapy cycle 1, from normal to normal vs. elevated to normal vs. elevated to elevated had corresponding RFS of 87% vs. 80% vs. 68% (p = 0.013), and OS of 92% vs. 88% vs. 77% (p = 0.009). However, the percent decline (p = 0.993) and absolute nadir normal value of CA-125 (0-10 vs. 11-35 U/mL) were not predictive of outcome (p = 0.4)., Conclusions: Normal baseline CA125 and normalization of this biomarker after the first cycle of chemotherapy were associated with better survival in high-risk early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The following authors reports no conflicts of interests: Drs. Chunqiao Tian, Michael Richardson, Ken Y Lin, Daniel S Kapp, Leah McNally, and Samuel Lentz. The following authors discloses various conflicts of interests: Dr. Robert M Wenham discloses receiving personal and institutional grants, consulting and clinical trial fees from Merck. The consulting fees are also received from Legend Biotech and Novacure as well as Merck. He also received personal and institutional grants and stock options from Ovation Diagnostics. His participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board and personal fees is supported by Seagen and GSK/Tesaro. More personal fees from Clovis, Seagen, Sonnet Biotherapeutics, Shattuck Labs, Novocurem Eisai and Immunogen. Institutional Clinical Trial fees are received from AstraZeneca, Abbvie, Regeneron, and Eisai. Sonnet Biotherapeutics also supported for Scientific Advisory Board. Dr. Nick M Spirtos discloses receiving support from NRG/GOG for manuscript funding and study materials and attending meetings or for institutional travel support as Co-chair of Surgical Oncology Committee. Dr. Thomas J. Herzog discloses receiving personal consulting fees from Aravive, AstraZeneca, Caris, Clovis, Eisai, Epsilogen, Genentech Roche, GSK, and Merck. His participation on a Data Safety and Monitoring Board or Advisory Board is supported by Corcept and Incyte. GOG Foundation also supported for his leadership or fiduciary role in other board. Dr. Bradley J. Monk discloses receiving honorarium as a consultant and investigator from Acrivon, Adaptimune, Agenus, Akeso Bio, Amgen, Aravive, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis, Eisai, Elevar, EMD Merck, Genmab/Seagen, GOG Foundation, Gradalis, Heng Rui, Immunogen, Karyopharm, Iovance, Laekna, Macrogenics, Merck, Mersana, Myriad, Novartis, Novocure, OncoC4, Panavance, Pieris, Pfizer, Puma, Regeneron, Roche/Genentech, Sorrento, Tesaro/GSK, US Oncology Research, VBL, Verastern and Zentalis. Dr. Krishnansu S. Tewari discloses receiving sconsulting fees from Abbvie, Genentech, Merch, AstraZeneca, Tesaro/GSK, and Seagen. Dr. Tewari also received honoraria for lectures, presentations, and for manuscript writing from Merck, Astra Zeneca, and Clovis., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The efficacy, safety, and tolerability of cediranib plus olaparib (cedi/ola) were investigated in patients with nongermline-BRCA-mutated (non-gBRCAm) platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer., Patients and Methods: PARP inhibitor-naïve women aged ≥18 years with platinum-resistant non-gBRCAm ovarian cancer, ECOG performance status of 0-2, and ≥3 prior lines of therapy received cediranib 30 mg once daily plus olaparib 200 mg twice daily in this single-arm, multicenter, phase IIb trial. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) by independent central review (ICR) using RECIST 1.1. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety and tolerability were also examined., Results: Sixty patients received cedi/ola, all of whom had confirmed non-gBRCAm status. Patients had received a median of four lines of chemotherapy; most (88.3%) had received prior bevacizumab. ORR by ICR was 15.3%, median PFS was 5.1 months, and median OS was 13.2 months. Forty-four (73.3%) patients reported a grade ≥3 adverse event (AE), with one patient experiencing a grade 5 AE (sepsis), considered unrelated to the study treatment. Dose interruptions, reductions, and discontinuations due to AEs occurred in 55.0%, 18.3%, and 18.3% of patients, respectively. Patients with high global loss of heterozygosity (gLOH) had ORR of 26.7% [4/15; 95% confidence interval (CI), 7.8-55.1], while ORR was 12.5% (4/32; 95% CI, 3.5-29.0) in the low gLOH group., Conclusions: Clinical activity was shown for the cedi/ola combination in heavily pretreated, non-gBRCAm, platinum-resistant patients with ovarian cancer despite failing to meet the target ORR of 20%, highlighting a need for further biomarker studies., (©2022 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Objective: Patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) alive without progression at a landmark time-point of 10 years from diagnosis are likely cured. We report the proportion of patients with Stage III EOC who were long-term disease-free survivors (LTDFS≥10 years) following either intraperitoneal (IP) or intravenous (IV) chemotherapy as well as the predictors of LTDFS., Methods: Data from 3 mature NRG/GOG trials (104, 114, 172) were analyzed and included demographics, clinicopathologic details, route of administration, and survival outcomes of patients living ≥10 years assessed according to the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox regression survival analysis was performed to evaluate independent prognostic predictors of LTDFS., Results: Of 1174 patients randomized, 10-year overall survival (OS) was 26% (95% CI, 23-28%) and LTDFS ≥10 years was 18% (95% CI, 16-20%). Patients with LTDFS ≥10 years had a median age of 54.6 years (p < 0.001). Younger age (p < 0.001) was the only independent prognostic factor for LTDFS≥10 years on multivariate Cox analysis., Conclusions: Approximately 18% of patients were LTDFS ≥10 years. They form the tail end of the survival curve and are likely cured. Our results provide a comparative benchmark to evaluate the impact of PARP inhibitors in 1st line maintenance trials on survival outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest MF reports honoraria from Astra Zeneca;GSK;Novartis;MSD;Takeda;Lilly;Eisei for advisory boards/consulting.Speaker fees from Astra Zeneca;GSK and MSD. Institutional research funding from Astra Zeneca;Novartis and Beigene. Travel expenses for Astra Zeneca. The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: This phase III randomized trial (NCT00954174) tested the null hypothesis that paclitaxel and carboplatin (PC) is inferior to paclitaxel and ifosfamide (PI) for treating uterine carcinosarcoma (UCS)., Patients and Methods: Adults with chemotherapy-naïve UCS or ovarian carcinosarcoma (OCS) were randomly assigned to PC or PI with 3-week cycles for 6-10 cycles. With 264 events in patients with UCS, the power for an overall survival (OS) hybrid noninferiority design was 80% for a null hazard ratio (HR) of 1.2 against a 13% greater death rate on PI with a type I error of 5% for a one-tailed test., Results: The study enrolled 536 patients with UCS and 101 patients with OCS, with 449 and 90 eligible, respectively. Primary analysis was on patients with UCS, distributed as follows: 40% stage I, 6% stage II, 31% stage III, 15% stage IV, and 8% recurrent. Among eligible patients with UCS, PC was assigned to 228 and PI to 221. PC was not inferior to PI. The median OS was 37 versus 29 months (HR = 0.87; 90% CI, 0.70 to 1.075; P < .01 for noninferiority, P > .1 for superiority). The median progression-free survival was 16 versus 12 months (HR = 0.73; P = < 0.01 for noninferiority, P < .01 for superiority). Toxicities were similar, except that more patients in the PC arm had hematologic toxicity and more patients in the PI arm had confusion and genitourinary hemorrhage. Among 90 eligible patients with OCS, those in the PC arm had longer OS (30 v 25 months) and progression-free survival (15 v 10 months) than those in the PI arm, but with limited precision, these differences were not statistically significant., Conclusion: PC was not inferior to the active regimen PI and should be standard treatment for UCS., Competing Interests: Matthew A. Powell Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, GOG partners, Seattle Genetics, GlaxoSmithKline/Tesaro Research Funding: GlaxoSmithKline/Tesaro (Inst) Virginia L. Filiaci Other Relationship: GOG Foundation Martee L. Hensley Employment: Sanofi (I) Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Sanofi (I) Consulting or Advisory Role: Lilly, Tesaro, GlaxoSmithKline, Thrive, An Exact Sciences Company Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: author, UpToDate Kathleen N. Moore Honoraria: Research To Practice, Prime Oncology, Physicans' Education Resource, Great Debates and Updates Consulting or Advisory Role: Genentech/Roche, Immunogen, AstraZeneca, TESARO (Inst), VBL Therapeutics, Merck, Aravive, Eisai, Vavotar Life Sciences, Mersana (Inst), Myriad Genetics, Alkermes (Inst), Blueprint Pharmaceuticals (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline/Tesaro (Inst), I-Mab (Inst), InxMed (Inst), Mereo BioPharma (Inst) Research Funding: PTC Therapeutics (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Merck (Inst), Tesaro (Inst), Genentech (Inst), Clovis Oncology (Inst), Lilly Foundation (Inst), Regeneron (Inst), Advaxis (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Verastem (Inst), Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Agenus (Inst), Takeda (Inst), Forty Seven (Inst), Stemcentrx (Inst), Immunogen (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Novogen (Inst), AbbVie/Stemcentrx (Inst) Other Relationship: GOG Partners (Inst) Krishnansu S. Tewari Honoraria: Tesaro, Clovis Oncology, Merck, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Genmab Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, Tesaro, Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca Speakers' Bureau: Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck, Tesaro, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Genmab Research Funding: AbbVie (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst), Morphotek (Inst), Merck (Inst), Regeneron (Inst) Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche/Genentech Larry J. Copeland Consulting or Advisory Role: Tarveda Therapeutics, Tarveda Therapeutics, Myriad Genetics, GlaxoSmithKline, Elevar Therapeutics, Toray Industries, Rubius Therapeutics, Sorrento Therapeutics, Celsion, Corcept Therapeutics Angeles Secord Honoraria: Myriad Genetics Research Funding: Tesaro (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Genentech (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), AbbVie (Inst), Merck (Inst), PharmaMar (Inst), Clovis Oncology (Inst), Eisai (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), Immutep (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), VBL Therapeutics (Inst), OncoQuest Pharmaceuticals (Inst) Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: GlaxoSmithKline Uncompensated Relationships: Roche/Genentech, VBL Therapeutics, GOG Foundation, OncoQuest Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron, Aravive David G. Mutch Consulting or Advisory Role: Lilly Alessandro Santin Consulting or Advisory Role: Merck, Tesaro Research Funding: Tesaro (Inst), Merck (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Gilead Sciences (Inst), Puma Biotechnology (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst), R-Pharm (Inst), Immunomedics (Inst) Nick M. Spirtos Research Funding: AbbVie (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst), Clovis Oncology (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst) Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Application No. PCT/US 2019/19465, Cannabis Based Therapeutic and Method of Use; Application No.: US Patent 0024098766, Compounds Cannabidiol and Flavanones, 63/047550 (July 1, 2020) 63/055458 (July 23, 2020), Title Country Status Filed Date Application No. Patent Ref. No. 199236-701611/EP, Title: Cannabis Based Therapeutic and Method of Use Country, European Patent Status: Published February 25, 2019, 19710540.6; Patent Ref. No. 199236-701691/PCT-BR, Title: Cannabis Based Therapeutic and Method of Use Country Brazil Status: Application February 25, 2019, 1120200170232; Patent Ref. No. 199236-701831/PCT-US, Title: Cannabis Based Therapeutic and Method of Use Country United States of America Status: Published February 25, 2019, 16/971,781; Patent Ref. No. 199236-701891/HK, Title: Cannabis Based Therapeutic and Method of Use Country Hong Kong Status: Published June 25, 2021, 62021033676.9; Patent Ref. No. Title Country Status Filed Date; Application No. Patent Ref. No. 199237-701601/PCT, Title: Compositions Comprising Cannabidiol and Flavanones Country: Patent Cooperation Treaty Status: Application July 1, 2021, PCT/US21/40115; Patent Ref. No. 199237-701691/BR, Title: Compositions Comprising Cannabidiol and Flavanones Country: Brazil Status: Application November 19, 2020, 1020200236644; Patent Ref. No. 199237-7019761/UY, Title: Compositions Comprising and Flavanones Country: Uruguay Status: Application November 20, 2020, 38965, John Wiley and Sons Editor 12th Edition Bonney's Gynaecological Surgery Open Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/8054, https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/8054 Paul A. DiSilvestro Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Agenus Research Funding: Janssen Oncology (Inst), Tesaro (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Genentech (Inst), AbbVie (Inst) David S. Miller Consulting or Advisory Role: Genentech, Tesaro, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Guardant Health, Janssen Oncology, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Incyte, Guardant Health, Janssen, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Clovis Oncology, Merck Sharp & Dohme (Inst), Asymmetric Therapeutics, Boston Biomedical Research Institute, Tarveda Therapeutics, Myriad Genetic Laboratories, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, Incyte, EMD Serono, Seattle Genetics, Clinical Education Alliance, LLC, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, iTeos Belgium SA, Novocure, Novartis, Immunogen, Agenus Speakers' Bureau: Clovis Oncology, Genentech Research Funding: US Biotest (Inst), Advenchen Laboratories (Inst), Tesaro (Inst), Xenetic Biosciences (Inst), Advaxis (Inst), Janssen (Inst), Aeterna Zentaris (Inst), TRACON Pharma (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Immunogen (Inst), Mateon Therapeutics (Inst), Merck Sharp & Dohme (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Millennium Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Aprea AB (Inst), Regeneron (Inst), NVision (Inst), Leap Therapeutics (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Syros Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Karyopharm Therapeutics (Inst), Agenus (Inst), Akesobio (Inst), EMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Incyte (Inst)No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Objective: In the Phase 3 VELIA trial (NCT02470585), veliparib added to carboplatin plus paclitaxel concomitantly and as maintenance for women with newly-diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus chemotherapy alone. Here we present exploratory analyses by paclitaxel dosing schedule and germline BRCA (gBRCA) status., Methods: Women with untreated ovarian carcinoma were randomized (1:1:1) to: veliparib during chemotherapy and maintenance (veliparib-throughout), veliparib during chemotherapy followed by placebo maintenance (veliparib-combination only), or placebo during chemotherapy and maintenance (control). Chemotherapy included carboplatin plus dose-dense (DD; weekly) or every-3-week (Q3W) paclitaxel (a stratification factor at randomization), selected at the investigator's discretion pre-randomization. PFS was assessed by paclitaxel dosing schedule using a Cox proportional hazard model adjusted by treatment arm and stratification factors; safety was analyzed based on paclitaxel dosing schedule and gBRCA status., Results: 1132 patients were analyzed by paclitaxel schedule. Pooled treatment arms demonstrated longer median PFS with DD (n = 586) versus Q3W (n = 546) paclitaxel (ITT: 20.5 vs 15.7 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0.77; homologous recombination proficient cancer: 15.1 vs 11.8 months, HR 0.64; BRCAwt: 18.0 vs 12.9 months, HR 0.70). Comparison between arms favored veliparib-throughout versus control in both DD (PFS, 24.2 vs 18.3 months, hazard ratio 0.67) and Q3W (19.3 vs 14.6, hazard ratio 0.69) subgroups. DD paclitaxel was associated with higher incidence of Grade 3/4 neutropenia, fatigue, and anemia versus Q3W. There were no differences in toxicity between gBRCAm (n = 211) and gBRCAwt (n = 902) subgroups., Conclusions: DD paclitaxel was tolerable and associated with longer PFS in the HR proficient and gBRCAwt groups, versus Q3W. gBRCA status did not impact safety., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Age and ethnicity are among several factors that influence overall survival (OS) in ovarian cancer. The study objective was to determine whether ethnicity and age were of prognostic significance in women enrolled in a clinical trial evaluating the addition of bevacizumab to front-line therapy., Methods: Women with advanced stage ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer were enrolled in a phase III clinical trial. All women had surgical staging and received adjuvant chemotherapy with one of three regimens. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the relationship between OS with age and race/ethnicity among the study participants., Results: One-thousand-eight-hundred-seventy-three women were enrolled in the study. There were 280 minority women and 328 women over the age of 70. Women age 70 and older had a 34% increase risk for death when compared to women under 60 (HR = 1.34; 95% CI 1.16-1.54). Non-Hispanic Black women had a 54% decreased risk of death with the addition of maintenance bevacizumab (HR = 0.46, 95% CI:0.26-0.83). Women of Asian descent had more hematologic grade 3 or greater adverse events and a 27% decrease risk of death when compared to non-Hispanic Whites (HR = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.59-0.90)., Conclusions: Non-Hispanic Black women showed a decreased risk of death with the addition of bevacizumab and patients of Asian ancestry had a lower death rate than all other minority groups, but despite these clinically meaningful improvements there was no statistically significant difference in OS among the groups., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: To assess the presentation, characteristics, and prognostic significance of symptoms in patients with high-risk early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer., Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed on all patients enrolled in a phase III clinical trial (GOG 157). All patients had surgically staged, high-risk early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (stage IA-IB and grade 3, any clear cell, stage IC or II). Chi-square and Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards models were used for statistical analyses., Results: Of 419 patients evaluated for symptoms, 301 (72%) presented with one or more symptoms, and 118 (28%) were asymptomatic but had a mass found on examination. Forty percent had only one symptom, and 32% had more than one symptom. Among those with at least one symptom, the most common were abdominal and pelvic pain (31%), and increased girth or fullness (26%). Overall, 23% of patients with tumors 10 cm or smaller, 27% of patients with tumors larger than 10 cm to 15 cm, and 46% of patients with tumors larger than 15 cm had multiple symptoms (P<.001). There was no significant difference in presentation of symptoms based on age, stage, or histologic subtype. Symptoms at diagnosis were not associated with recurrence or survival., Conclusion: More than 70% of patients with high-risk early-stage, epithelial ovarian cancer present with one or more symptoms, with the most common being abdominal or pelvic pain. The proportion of women with symptoms and the number of symptoms increase with enlarging tumor size., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure Dr. John K. Chan received funds from NRG/GOG for consortium trial participation and funds for research, consultant, and speaker bureau from AbbVie, Acerta, Aravive, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Myriad, Roche, Seagen. Bradley J. Monk is on the board for the GOG Foundation and is a paid consultant. Brittany Davidson received money from GSK. Joan L. Walker disclosed that Stephenson Cancer Center is an NRG Oncology Laps site and she is NCORP PI, but unrelated to this study. Robert Wenham received GOG funds for consortium trial participation, money from Regeneron, Tesaro/GSK, and Genentech. In the past 3 years, he has received funds from Seagen, Ovation Diagnostics, AbbVie, Clovis, AstraZeneca, Prescient Therapeutics, and Merck. Yovanni Casablanca received funding from AstraZeneca. Nick M. Spirtos received funding from John Wiley and Sons, and NRG Oncology. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Platinum resistance, defined as the lack of response or relapse within six months of platinum-based chemotherapy, is an important determinant of survival in gynecologic cancer. We used quantitative Mass Spectrometry to identify metabolic signatures that predict platinum resistance in patients receiving chemotherapy for gynecologic cancers., Methods: In this study 47 patients with adenocarcinoma of the ovary or uterus who were candidates for carboplatin plus paclitaxel submitted blood for quantitation of metabolites and surgical specimens for the isolation 3-dimensional organoids used to measure individual patient platinum resistance, ex vivo. Results were correlated with response, time to progression and survival., Results: Of 47 patients, 27 (64.3%) achieved complete remission with a mean time to progression of 1.9 years (± 1.5), disease-free survival of 1.7 years (± 1.4) and overall survival of 2.6 years (± 1.6) and a mean cisplatin lethal concentration 50% (LC50) = 1.15 μg/ml (range 0.4-3.1). Cisplatin LC50's correlated with a non-significant decrease in complete remission (RR [95% CI] =0.76 [0.46-1.27]), diminished disease-free survival (median: 1.15 vs. 2.99 years, p = 0.038) and with biochemical signatures of 186 metabolites. Receiver operating curves (ROC) of lipid ratios, branched chain amino acids and the tryptophan to kynurenine ratio identified patients at the highest risk of relapse and death (AUC = 0.933) with a sensitivity of 92.0% and specificity of 86.0% (p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Metabolic signatures in gynecologic cancer identify patients at the highest risk of relapse and death offering new diagnostic and prognostic tools for management of the advanced gynecologic tumors., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Krishnansu S. Tewari, Robert E. Bristow, Fabio Cappuccini, Marcia B. Salzgeber, Anton M. Palma, Dirce M. L. Marchioni, Antonio A.F. Carioca, Kristine R. Penner, Jill Alldredge and Teresa Longoria have no conflicts of interest to declare. Paulo D'Amora (research grants from funding agencies: São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP); financial support for attending symposia and for educational programs: Nagourney Cancer Institute, American Association for Cancer Research, Rivkin Center; consultation: Metabolomycs, Inc.; intellectual property rights: Metabolomycs, Inc.; stockholder: Metabolomycs, Inc.). Steven S. Evans (employment: Nagourney Cancer Institute; stockholder: Metabolomycs, Inc.). Paula J. Addis-Bernard (employment: Nagourney Cancer Institute). Ismael Dale C.G. Silva (board director: Metabolomycs, Inc.; stockholder: Metabolomycs, Inc.). Robert A. Nagourney (board director: Nagourney Cancer Institute and Metabolomycs, Inc.; stockholder: Metabolomycs, Inc.). We certify that the submission is original work and is not under review at any other publication., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Increasing measures of adiposity have been correlated with poor oncologic outcomes and a lack of response to anti-angiogenic therapies. Limited data exists on the impact of subcutaneous fat density (SFD) and visceral fat density (VFD) on oncologic outcomes. This ancillary analysis of GOG-218, evaluates whether imaging markers of adiposity were predictive biomarkers for bevacizumab (bev) use in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC)., Patients and Methods: There were 1249 patients (67%) from GOG-218 with imaging measurements. SFD and VFD were calculated utilizing Hounsfield units (HU). Proportional hazards models were used to assess the association between SFD and VFD with overall survival (OS)., Results: Increased SFD and VFD showed an increased HR for death (HR per 1-SD increase 1.12, 95% CI:1.05-1.19 p = 0.0009 and 1.13, 95% CI: 1.05-1.20 p = 0.0006 respectively). In the predictive analysis for response to bev, high VFD showed an increased hazard for death in the placebo group (HR per 1-SD increase 1.22, 95% CI: 1.09-1.37; p = 0.025). However, in the bev group there was no effect seen (HR per 1-SD increase: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.90-1.14) Median OS was 45 vs 47 months in the VFD low groups and 36 vs 42 months in the VFD high groups on placebo versus bev, respectively., Conclusion: High VFD and SFD have a negative prognostic impact on patients with EOC. High VFD appears to be a predictive marker of bev response and patients with high VFD may be more likely to benefit from initial treatment with bev., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Megan Buechel: No conflicts of interest. Danielle Enserro: No conflicts of interest. Robert A. Burger: Served as a consultant for Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Tesaro, Clovis Oncology, Genentech, Immunogen, Agenus, Gradalis, Janssen Research & Development, Merck, and VBL Therapeutics. Mark F. Brady: No conflicts of interest. Katrina Wade: No conflicts of interest. Angeles Alvarez Secord: Recieved clinical trial grant funding from AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas Pharma Inc., Astex Pharmaceuticals Inc., Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis, Eisai, Endocyte, Exelixis, Immutep Ltd., Incyte, Merck, PharmaMar, Roche/Genentech, Seattle Genetics, Inc., Tesaro/GSK, and VBL Therapeutics; honoraria for Advisory Boards from Aravive, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Cordgenics, Eisai, Janssen/Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Mersana, Oncoquest, Roche/Genentech, and Tesaro/GSK; participated on Steering Committees for OVAL and AtTend clinical trials (uncompensated); and is a member of GOG Foundation Board of Directors within the past 36 months. Andrew B. Nixon: Receives industry funding from Genentech, MedImmune/AstraZeneca, Medpacto, Seattle Genetics, HTG Molecular Diagnostics, Tracon Pharmaceuticals, Eureka Therapeutics, Leadiant Biosciences, Acceleron Pharma, OncoMed Pharmaceuticals.Does consulting for GSK, Promega, Kanghong Pharma, Eli Lilly. Travel with Powering Precision Health. Seyedehnafiseh Mirniaharikandehei: No conflicts of interest. H. Liu: No conflicts of interest. Bin Zheng: No conflicts of interest. Heidi Gray: No conflicts of interest. Krishnansu S. Tewari: Consultant and Speaker's Bureau with Genentech/Roche, Abbvie, Essai, GSK/Tesaro, Merck, Clovis, Astra Zeneca. David M. O'Malley: Reports personal fees and institutional support for clinical research from AstraZeneca, personal fees and institutional support for clinical research from Clovis, personal fees and institutional support for clinical research from Tesaro, personal fees and institutional support for clinical research from Immunogen, personal fees from Ambry, personal fees and institutional support for clinical research from Janssen/J&J, personal fees and institutional support for clinical research from Abbvie, personal fees and institutional support for clinical research from Regeneron, personal fees and institutional support for clinical research from Amgen, personal fees and institutional support for clinical research from Novocure, personal fees and institutional support for clinical research from Genentech/Roche, institutional support for clinical research from VentiRx, institutional support for clinical research from Array Biopharma, institutional support for clinical research from EMD Serono, institutional support for clinical research from Ergomed, institutional support for clinical research from Ajinomoto Inc., institutional support for clinical research from Ludwig Cancer Research, institutional support or clinical research from Stemcentrx, Inc., institutional support for clinical research from CERULEAN PHARMA, personal fees and institutional support for clinical research from GOG Foundation, institutional support for clinical research from Bristol-Myers Squibb Co, institutional support for clinical research from Serono Inc., institutional support for clinical research from TRACON Pharmaceuticals, institutional support for clinical research from Yale University, institutional support for clinical researchfrom New Mexico Cancer Care Alliance, institutional support for clinical researchfrom INC Research, Inc., institutional support for clinical researchfrom inVentiv Health Clinical, institutional support for clinical researchfrom Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc., institutional support for clinical research from PRA Intl, personal fees from Myriad Genetics, personal fees and institutional support for clinical research from Eisai, personal fees and institiional support from Agenus, personal fees and institutional support for clinical research from GSK, personal fees from Tarveda, personal fees and institutional support for clinical research from Merck. Robert S. Mannel: Has received honorarium from Tesaro for an Advisory Board. Michael J. Birrer: No conflicts of interest. Kathleen N. Moore: Advisory board participation for Abbvie, Aravive, Astra Zeneca, Clovis, Eisai, Genentech/Roche, GSK/Tesaro, Immunogen, Merck, Mersana, Tarveda, VBL Therapeutics, Vavotar. Her institution receives research funding from PTC Therapeutics, Merck, Genentech/Roche., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction : Approximately 300,000 women worldwide are diagnosed each year with ovarian cancer. Frequently diagnosed in late stages with ambiguous symptomatology, ovarian cancer has a low survival rate. Areas covered : Niraparib, a PARP inhibitor, was approved in 2020 for use in the maintenance treatment of ovarian cancer regardless of biomarker status. Included in the review are PRIMA (NCT02655016), NOVA (NCT01847274), AVANOVA2 (NCT02354131), and QUADRA (NCT02354586) trials which herald the advent of using maintenance oral therapies in the treatment of ovarian cancer. Additionally, with new combination drug trials, exciting avenues for treatment are also discussed with the FIRST (NCT03016338) trial. Expert opinion : Maintenance niraparib treatment regardless of genetic profile offers a new modality for the treatment of ovarian cancer with a low side effect profile and importantly oral dosing. New combinations of synergistic immunotherapeutics, and antiangiogenesis therapies with niraparib also offer exciting new frontiers for patients with ovarian cancer.

Objective: Report the results from a preplanned interim analysis of a phase III, double blind, randomized controlled study of ofranergene obadenovec (VB-111), a targeted anti-cancer gene therapy, in combination with paclitaxel in patients with platinum resistant ovarian cancer (PROC)., Methods: The OVAL (NCT03398655) study is an on-going study where patients are randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m 2 with VB-111 or placebo. The protocol specifies a pre-planned unblinded futility interim analysis of CA-125 response per GCIG criteria in the first 60 evaluable patients. The futility rule determined for this analysis was that the response rate of VB-111 must be greater than the response rate of placebo by at least 10% in order to continue the study. Coincident with the interim analysis, the blinded CA-125 response rate was estimated as a proportion of the first 60 evaluable patients with CA-125 response per GCIG criteria. Post-treatment fever is provided as a possible surrogate marker of VB-111 therapy activity., Results: The median age of the evaluable patients was 62 years (range 41-82); 97% had high-grade serous cancer; 58% had been treated with 3 or more previous lines of therapy, 70% received prior anti-angiogenic treatment, 43% received prior PARP inhibitors. CA-125 response in the VB-111 and weekly paclitaxel treated arm met the pre-specified interim criterion of an absolute advantage of 10% or higher compared to the control. Blinded results show a 53% CA-125 response rate (32/60) with 15% complete response (n=9). Assuming balanced randomization and an absolute advantage of 10% or higher to the VB-111 arm, it may be deducted that the response in the VB-111 treatment arm is 58% or higher. Among patients with post-treatment fever, the CA-125 response rate was 69%., Conclusions: At the time of the interim analysis, response rate findings are comparable to the responses seen in a similar patient population in the phase I/II study. The independent data and safety monitoring committee (iDSMC) recommended continuing the OVAL trial as planned. No new safety signals were identified., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Advances in next generation sequencing have allowed for rapid and economical germline and tumor genomic profiling. Targeted therapies based on molecular tumor profiling are now integrated into treatment guidelines for many solid tumors. In epithelial ovarian cancer, 50% of tumors possess damaging mutations in homologous recombination repair genes (aka homologous recombination deficiency or HRD) which includes the BRCA genes. Deleterious BRCA mutations and HRD have recently emerged as predictive biomarkers for the use of PARP inhibitors in ovarian cancer. Every patient with ovarian cancer must be referred for genetic counseling and germline testing for BRCA mutations. Multigene panel genetic testing may be more informative and cost-effective than limited testing of cancer susceptibility genes. Patients without a germline deleterious BRCA mutation must be assessed for a somatic BRCA mutation. Assays for HRD may help guide treatment options in women who do not have a BRCA mutation. Currently, all patients with a germline or somatic BRCA mutation should be offered upfront maintenance therapy with a PARP inhibitor. During May 2020, options for maintenance therapy with a PARP inhibitor were expanded to patients with HRD and HR-proficient tumors., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: To explore the relationship between tumor size and response to combined anti-vascular targeted therapy using the anti-angiogenesis inhibitor, bevacizumab, and the tubulin-binding vascular disrupting agent, fosbretabulin., Methods: An exploratory, post-hoc analysis of the randomized phase II trial, Gynecologic Oncology Group-0186I, was performed. One hundred and seven patients with recurrent ovarian carcinoma, treated with up to 3 prior regimens, were randomized to bevacizumab 15 mg/kg body weight with or without intravenous fosbretabulin 60 mg/m 2 body surface area every 21 days until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary analysis favored the combination (HR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.47-1.00; p = .049) [Monk BJ, et al. J Clin Oncol 2016;34:2279-86]. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the treatment effect in various subpopulations., Results: With extended follow-up, the median PFS for bevacizumab plus fosbretabulin was 7.6  months as compared to 4.8  months with bevacizumab alone (HR 0.74; 90% CI, 0.54-1.02). Overall survival was similar in the experimental and control arms (25.2 vs 24.4 mos, respectively, HR 0.85; 90% CI, 0.59-1.22; p = .461). Eighty-one patients had measurable disease and median tumor size was 5.7  cm. In the ≤5.7  cm subgroup, the HR for progression or death was 0.77 (90% CI 0.45-1.31). Patients with tumors >5.7  cm (n = 40) had a HR for progression or death of 0.55; 90% CI, 0.32-0.96; p = .075)., Conclusions: Although no significant survival benefit was observed, the trend showing a reduced HR for progression or death with increasing tumor size when fosbretabulin is added to bevacizumab compared to bevacizumab alone warrants further study., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. Krishnansu Tewari is a Steering Committee member and Principal Investigator and Study Chair for the FOCUS trial and reports having received an honorarium of $1000 from Mateon for consulting services. He has also attended advisory boards sponsored by Genentech in 2013, 2014, and 2016. Dr. Coleman reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, grants from Merck, personal fees from Tesaro, personal fees from Medivation, grants and personal fees from Clovis, personal fees from Gamamab, grants and personal fees from Genmab, grants and personal fees from Roche/Genentech, grants and personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from Agenus, personal fees from Regeneron, personal fees from OncoQuest, outside the submitted work. Dr. Aghajanian reports personal fees from Tesaro, personal fees from Immunogen, grants and personal fees from Clovis, personal fees from Mateon Therapeutics, grants from Genentech, grants from AbbVie, grants from Astra Zeneca, grants from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from Eisai/Merck, personal fees from Mersana Therapeutics, personal fees from Roche, outside the submitted work. Dr. Mannel reports grants from The GOG/NRG NCI cooperative group system, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Tesaro, outside the submitted work. Dr. Powell reports personal fees from Tesaro, personal fees from Merck, personal fees from Roche/ Genentech, personal fees from Clovis Oncology, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Johnson & Johnson, personal fees from Eisai, outside the submitted work. Dr. Randall reports grants from Gynecologic Oncology Group, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Genentech/Roche, outside the submitted work. Dr. Monk reports personal fees from Abbvie, personal fees from Advaxis, personal fees from Agenus, personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Aravive, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Asymmetric Therapeutics, personal fees from Boston Biomedical, personal fees from ChemoCare, personal fees from ChemoID, personal fees from Circulogene, personal fees from Clovis, personal fees from Conjupro, personal fees from Easai, personal fees from Geistlich, personal fees from Genmab/Seattle Genetics, personal fees from GOG Foundation, personal fees from ImmunoGen, personal fees from Immunomedics, personal fees from Incyte, personal fees from Janssen/Johnson&Johnson, personal fees from Laekna Health Care, personal fees from Mateon (formally Oxigene), personal fees from Merck, personal fees from Mersana, personal fees from Myriad, personal fees from Nucana, personal fees from Oncomed, personal fees from Oncoquest, personal fees from Oncosec, personal fees from Perthera, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Precision Oncology, personal fees from Puma, personal fees from Regeneron, personal fees from Roche/Genentech, personal fees from Samumed, personal fees from Takeda, personal fees from Tesaro/GSK, personal fees from VBL, personal fees from Vigeo, outside the submitted work. All other co-authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Olaparib was approved on December 19, 2014 by the US FDA as 4th-line therapy (and beyond) for patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations; rucaparib was approved on December 19, 2016 as 3rd-line therapy (and beyond) for germline or somatic BRCA1/2-mutated recurrent disease. On October 23, 2019, niraparib was approved for treatment of women with damaging mutations in BRCA1/2 or other homologous recombination repair genes who had been treated with three or more prior regimens. We compared the cost-effectiveness of PARPi(s) with intravenous regimens for platinum-resistant disease., Methods: Median progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicity data from regulatory trials were incorporated in a model which transitioned patients through response, hematologic complications, non-hematologic complications, progression, and death. Using TreeAge Pro 2017, each PARPi(s) was compared separately to non‑platinum-based and bevacizumab-containing regimens. Costs of IV drugs, managing toxicities, infusions, and supportive care were estimated using 2017 Medicare data. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and PFS was reported in quality adjusted life months for platinum-resistant populations., Results: Non‑platinum-based intravenous chemotherapy was most cost effective ($6,412/PFS-month) compared with bevacizumab-containing regimens ($12,187/PFS-month), niraparib ($18,970/PFS-month), olaparib ($16,327/PFS-month), and rucaparib ($16,637/PFS-month). ICERs for PARPi(s) were 3-3.5× times greater than intravenous non‑platinum-based regimens., Conclusion: High costs of orally administered PARPi(s) were not mitigated or balanced by costs of infusion and managing toxicities of intravenous regimens typically associated with lower response and shorter median PFS. Balancing modest clinical benefit with costs of novel therapies remains problematic and could widen disparities among those with limited access to care., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest JW reports personal fees for serving on an advisory board for Tesaro in the past 36 months, not related to the submitted work. JB and RB have nothing to disclose. KM reports personal fees and other from Astra Zeneca, grants, personal fees and other from Genentech/Roche, grants, personal fees and other from Immunogen, grants, personal fees and other from Clovis, grants, personal fees and other from Tesaro, personal fees and other from Pfizer, personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from Aravive, personal fees from VBL Therapeutics, personal fees and other from Onco Med, personal fees from Samumed, grants and other from Lilly, personal fees from Eisai, all outside the submitted work; . BM reports personal fees from Abbvie, personal fees from Advaxis, personal fees from Agenus, personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Aravive, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Asymmetric Therapeutics, from Boston Biomedical, personal fees from ChemoCare, personal fees from ChemoID, personal fees from Circulogene, personal fees from Clovis, personal fees from Conjupro, personal fees from Easai, personal fees from Geistlich, personal fees from Genmab/Seattle Genetics, personal fees from GOG Foundation, personal fees from ImmunoGen, personal fees from Immunomedics, personal fees from Incyte, personal fees from Janssen/Johnson&Johnson, personal fees from Laekna Health Care, personal fees from Mateon (formally Oxigene), personal fees from Merck, personal fees from Mersana, personal fees from Myriad, personal fees from Nucana, personal fees from Oncomed, personal fees from Oncoquest, personal fees from Oncosec, personal fees from Perthera, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Precision Oncology, personal fees from Puma, personal fees from Regeneron, personal fees from Roche/Genentech, personal fees from Samumed, personal fees from Takeda, personal fees from Tesaro/GSK, personal fees from VBL, personal fees from Vigeo, all outside the submitted work. KT reports personal fees and non-financial support from Genentech, personal fees and non-financial support from Merck, personal fees and non-financial support from Clovis, personal fees and non-financial support from Tesaro, non-financial support from Abbie, personal fees and non-financial support from Astra-Zeneca, non-financial support from Morphotek, personal fees and non-financial support from Genmab, all outside the submitted work., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: GOG-0218, a double-blind placebo-controlled phase III trial, compared carboplatin and paclitaxel with placebo, bevacizumab followed by placebo, or bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Results demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), but no overall survival (OS) benefit with bevacizumab. Blood samples were collected for biomarker analyses., Experimental Design: Plasma samples were analyzed via multiplex ELISA technology for seven prespecified biomarkers [IL6, Ang-2, osteopontin (OPN), stromal cell-derived factor-1 (SDF-1), VEGF-D, IL6 receptor (IL6R), and GP130]. The predictive value of each biomarker with respect to PFS and OS was assessed using a protein marker by treatment interaction term within the framework of a Cox proportional hazards model. Prognostic markers were identified using Cox models adjusted for baseline covariates., Results: Baseline samples were available from 751 patients. According to our prespecified analysis plan, IL6 was predictive of a therapeutic advantage with bevacizumab for PFS ( P = 0.007) and OS ( P = 0.003). IL6 and OPN were found to be negative prognostic markers for both PFS and OS ( P < 0.001). Patients with high median IL6 levels (dichotomized at the median) treated with bevacizumab had longer PFS (14.2 vs. 8.7 months) and OS (39.6 vs. 33.1 months) compared with placebo., Conclusions: The inflammatory cytokine IL6 may be predictive of therapeutic benefit from bevacizumab when combined with carboplatin and paclitaxel. Aligning with results observed in patients with renal cancer treated with antiangiogenic therapies, it appears plasma IL6 may also define those patients with EOC more or less likely to benefit from the addition of bevacizumab to standard chemotherapy., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

On 13 June 2018, Genentech, Inc. issued a press release announcing that the US FDA had approved the antiangiogenesis drug, bevacizumab, in combination with chemotherapy for frontline and maintenance therapy for women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer. Regulatory approval was based on the National Cancer Institute-sponsored Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) protocol 0218, the Phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multi-center and multi-national clinical trial that met its primary end point, progression-free survival. Bevacizumab is now approved in the frontline, platinum-sensitive recurrent and platinum-resistant recurrent settings for epithelial ovarian cancer. This review will address the broad range of clinical trials addressing the efficacy of bevacizumab use in ovarian cancer.

Objective: Early-phase data have demonstrated induction of antibody responses to a polyvalent vaccine conjugate (Globo-H, GM2, MUC1-TN, TF) with adjuvant OPT-821. We sought to determine if this combination decreases the hazard of progression or death compared to OPT-821 alone in patients with ovarian cancer in second/third clinical complete remission following chemotherapy. Secondary and translational objectives were overall survival (OS), safety, and immunogenicity., Methods: From 2010-2013, patients were randomized (1:1) to receive OPT-821±vaccine-KLH conjugate subcutaneously at weeks 1, 2, 3, 7, 11, and then every 12 weeks (total 11). Dose delay or reduction was not permitted. Patients were removed for pre-defined dose-limiting toxicity., Results: Of 171 patients randomized, 170 were treated. Most had disease of serous histology (85%), stage 3 disease at diagnosis (77%), and had received 2 prior regimens (68%). 32% received >6 treatment cycles [median 6, each arm (p = 0.33)]. 77% discontinued due to progression, 4% due to toxicity, and 1 due to myeloid dysplastic syndrome (MDS). Maximum toxicities included grade 4 MDS and depression/personality change (1 each, unlikely related), as well as grade 3 gastrointestinal disorders and others (n = 21, 4 related). Lesser adverse events were injection site reactions (82%) and fever (11%). Estimated HR for progression-free survival (PFS) of the vaccine + OPT-821 to OPT-821 arm was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.71-1.36). At a median follow-up of 60 months, median OS was 47 and 46 months, respectively., Conclusions: Vaccine + OPT-821 compared to OPT-821 alone was modestly immunogenic and did not prolong PFS or OS. Multi-remission patients are a viable, well-defined population for exploring innovative consolidation and maintenance approaches., Trial Registration: NCT00857545., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Secondary surgical cytoreduction in women with platinum-sensitive, recurrent epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian-tube ("ovarian") cancer is widely practiced but has not been evaluated in phase 3 investigation., Methods: We randomly assigned patients with recurrent ovarian cancer who had received one previous therapy, had an interval during which no platinum-based chemotherapy was used (platinum-free interval) of 6 months or more, and had investigator-determined resectable disease (to no macroscopic residual disease) to undergo secondary surgical cytoreduction and then receive platinum-based chemotherapy or to receive platinum-based chemotherapy alone. Adjuvant chemotherapy (paclitaxel-carboplatin or gemcitabine-carboplatin) and use of bevacizumab were at the discretion of the investigator. The primary end point was overall survival., Results: A total of 485 patients underwent randomization, 240 to secondary cytoreduction before chemotherapy and 245 to chemotherapy alone. The median follow-up was 48.1 months. Complete gross resection was achieved in 67% of the patients assigned to surgery who underwent the procedure. Platinum-based chemotherapy with bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab maintenance was administered to 84% of the patients overall and was equally distributed between the two groups. The hazard ratio for death (surgery vs. no surgery) was 1.29 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 1.72; P = 0.08), which corresponded to a median overall survival of 50.6 months and 64.7 months, respectively. Adjustment for platinum-free interval and chemotherapy choice did not alter the effect. The hazard ratio for disease progression or death (surgery vs. no surgery) was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.66 to 1.01; median progression-free survival, 18.9 months and 16.2 months, respectively). Surgical morbidity at 30 days was 9%; 1 patient (0.4%) died from postoperative complications. Patient-reported quality of life decreased significantly after surgery but did not differ significantly between the two groups after recovery., Conclusions: In this trial involving patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer, secondary surgical cytoreduction followed by chemotherapy did not result in longer overall survival than chemotherapy alone. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; GOG-0213 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00565851.)., (Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Purpose: We report the final, protocol-specified analysis of overall survival (OS) in GOG-0218, a phase III, randomized trial of bevacizumab in women with newly diagnosed ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma., Methods: A total of 1,873 women with incompletely resected stage III to IV disease were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to six 21-day cycles of intravenous carboplatin (area under the concentration v time curve 6) and paclitaxel (175 mg/m 2 ) versus chemotherapy plus concurrent bevacizumab (15 mg/kg, cycles 2 to 6) versus chemotherapy plus concurrent and maintenance bevacizumab (cycles 2 to 22). Inclusion criteria included a Gynecologic Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2 and no history of clinically significant vascular events or evidence of intestinal obstruction. OS was analyzed in the intention-to-treat population. A total of 1,195 serum and/or tumor specimens were sequenced for BRCA1/2 and damaging mutations in homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes. Intratumoral microvessel density was studied using CD31 immunohistochemistry., Results: Median follow-up was 102.9 months. Relative to control (n = 625), for patients receiving bevacizumab-concurrent (n = 625), the hazard ratio (HR) of death was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.94 to 1.20); for bevacizumab-concurrent plus maintenance (n = 623), the HR was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.85 to 1.09). Disease-specific survival was not improved in any arm. No survival advantage was observed after censoring patients who received bevacizumab at crossover or as second line. Median OS for stage IV bevacizumab-concurrent plus maintenance was 42.8 v 32.6 months for stage IV control (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.95). Relative to wild type, the HR for death for BRCA1/2 mutated carcinomas was 0.62 (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.73), and for non- BRCA1/2 HRR, the HR was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.51 to 0.85). BRCA1/2 , HRR, and CD31 were not predictive of bevacizumab activity., Conclusion: No survival differences were observed for patients who received bevacizumab compared with chemotherapy alone. Testing for BRCA1/2 mutations and homologous recombination deficiency is essential.

Purpose: To evaluate the impact of two different intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy regimens on progression-free survival (PFS) among women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian carcinoma., Methods: Eligible patients were randomly assigned to six cycles of IV paclitaxel 80 mg/m 2 once per week with intravenous (IV) carboplatin area under the curve 6 (IV carboplatin) versus IV paclitaxel 80 mg/m 2 once per week with IP carboplatin area under the curve 6 (IP carboplatin) versus once every 3 weeks IV paclitaxel 135 mg/m 2 over 3 hours day 1, IP cisplatin 75 mg/m 2 day 2, and IP paclitaxel 60 mg/m 2 day 8 (IP cisplatin). All participants received bevacizumab 15 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks in cycles 2 to 22., Results: A total of 1,560 participants were enrolled and had 84.8 months of follow-up. The median PFS duration was 24.9 months in the IV carboplatin arm, 27.4 months in the IP carboplatin arm, and 26.2 months in the IP cisplatin arm. For the subgroup of 1,380 patients with stage II/III and residual disease of 1 cm or less, median PFS was 26.9 (IV-carboplatin), 28.7 (IP-carboplatin), and 27.8 months (IP cisplatin), respectively. Median PFS for patients with stage II/III and no residual disease was 35.9, 38.8, and 35.5 months, respectively. Median overall survival for all enrolled was 75.5, 78.9, and 72.9 months, respectively, and median overall survival for stage II/III with no gross residual disease was 98.8 months, 104.8 months, and not reached. Mean patient-reported Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy neurotoxicity scores (Gynecologic Oncology Group) were similar for all arms, but the mean Trial Outcome Index of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovary scores during chemotherapy were statistically worse in the IP cisplatin arm., Conclusion: Compared with the IV carboplatin reference arm, the duration of PFS was not significantly increased with either IP regimen when combined with bevacizumab and was better tolerated than IP cisplatin.

Objective: To analyze clinical prognostic factors for survival after recurrence of high-grade, advanced-stage ovarian-peritoneal-tubal carcinoma and to develop a nomogram to predict individual survival after recurrence., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients treated in multicenter Gynecologic Oncology Group protocols for stage III and IV ovarian-peritoneal-tubal carcinoma who underwent primary debulking surgery, received chemotherapy with paclitaxel and a platinum compound, and subsequently developed recurrence. Prognostic factors affecting survival were identified and used to develop a nomogram, which was both internally and externally validated., Results: There were 4,739 patients included in this analysis, of whom, 84% had stage III and 16% had stage IV ovarian carcinoma. At a median follow-up of 88.8 months (95% CI 86.2-92.0 months), the vast majority of patients (89.4%) had died. The median survival after recurrence was 21.4 months (95% CI 20.5-21.9 months). Time to recurrence after initial chemotherapy, clear cell or mucinous histology, performance status, stage IV disease, and age were significant variables used to develop a nomogram for survival after recurrence, which had a concordance index of 0.67. The time to recurrence alone accounted for 85% of the prognostic information. Similar results were found for patients who underwent second look laparotomy and had a complete pathologic response or received intraperitoneal chemotherapy., Conclusion: For individuals with advanced-stage ovarian carcinoma who recur after standard first-line therapy, estimated survivals after recurrence are closely related to the time to recurrence after chemotherapy and prognostic variables can be used to predict subsequent survival., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinialTrials.gov, NCT00002568, NCT00837993, NCT00002717, NCT01074398, and NCT00011986.

Purpose: Bevacizumab (BV) monotherapy leads to compensatory upregulation of multiple signaling pathways, resulting in mTOR activation. We evaluated combining BV and everolimus (EV), an mTOR kinase inhibitor, to circumvent BV-resistance in women with recurrent or persistent ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer (OC)., Patients and Methods: Eligible OC patients had measurable (RECIST1.1) or detectable disease, 1-3 prior regimens, performance status (PS) 0-2, and no prior m-TOR inhibitor. All patients received BV 10 mg/kg IV every 2wks. Patients were randomized (1:1) to oral EV (10 mg daily) or placebo stratified by platinum-free interval (PFI), measurable disease and prior BV. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included safety and response., Results: 150 patients were randomized to BV with (n = 75) and without (n = 75) EV. Arms were well-balanced for age (median 63: range 28-92), PS (0: 73%, 1-2: 27%), prior regimens (1: 37%, 2: 47%, 3: 16%), prior BV (11%), PFI (<6mos: 65%) and measurable disease (81%). The BV + EV vs BV median PFS was 5.9 vs 4.5 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.95 (95% CI, 0.66-1.37, p = 0.39)). Median OS was 16.6 vs 17.3 months (HR 1.16 (95% CI, 0.72-1.87, p = 0.55). Objective measurable responses were higher with BV + EV (22% vs 12%). Study removal due to toxicity was higher with BV + EV (29% vs 12%). Toxicity (≥grade 3) from BV + EV were "other GI (mucositis)" (23 vs 1%) and "metabolic/nutrition" (19 vs. 7%); common ≥ grade 2 toxicities with BV + EV were cytopenia, nausea, fatigue and rash., Conclusion: The combination regimen (BV + EV) did not significantly reduce the hazard of progression or death relative to BV and was associated with higher rates of adverse events and study discontinuation when compared to BV alone., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: We sought to determine the level of concordance among surgeons' assessment of residual disease (RD) and pre-treatment computed tomography (CT) findings among women who underwent optimal surgical cytoreduction for advanced stage ovarian cancer., Methods: This is a post-trial ad hoc analysis of a phase 3 randomized clinical trial evaluating the impact of bevacizumab in primary and maintenance therapy for patients with advanced stage ovarian cancer following surgical cytoreduction. All subjects underwent imaging of the chest/abdomen/pelvis to establish a post-surgical baseline prior to the initiation of chemotherapy. Information collected on trial was utilized to compare surgeon's operative assessment of RD, to pre-treatment imaging., Results: Of 1873 enrolled patients, surgical outcome was described as optimal (RD≤1cm) in 639 subjects. Twelve patients were excluded as they did not have a baseline, pretreatment imaging, leaving 627 participants for analysis. The average interval from surgery to baseline scan was 26days (range: 1-109). In 251 cases (40%), the post-operative scan was discordant with surgeon assessment, demonstrating RD>1cm in size. RD>1cm was most commonly identified in the right upper quadrant (28.4%), retroperitoneal para-aortic lymph nodes (RD>1.5cm; 28.2%) and the left upper quadrant (10.7%). Patients with RD>1cm on pre-treatment CT (discordant) exhibited a significantly greater risk of disease progression (HR 1.30; 95% CI 1.08-1.56; p=0.0059)., Conclusions: Among patients reported to have undergone optimal cytoreduction, 40% were found to have lesions >1cm on postoperative, pretreatment imaging. Although inflammatory changes and/or rapid tumor regrowth could account for the discordance, the impact on PFS and distribution of RD may suggest underestimation by the operating surgeon., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Introduction: Ovarian cancer is a disease with a propensity to recur despite dramatic responses to initial treatment, which typically consists of a combination of cytoreductive surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy. A maintenance therapy, which may prevent or delay relapse while not negatively impacting quality of life, is critical to improving outcomes. Areas covered: This review discusses the pharmacologic properties, clinical efficacy, and safety profile of niraparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor indicated for the maintenance treatment of patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer who are in a complete or partial response to platinum-based chemotherapy. Expert opinion: Following presentation of ENGOT-OV16/NOVA at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2016 Congress, niraparib became the first PARP inhibitor to receive full approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the maintenance treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer, regardless of a patient's germline or somatic mutational status. This approval has had a sweeping impact on treatment strategies, moving the indication for a PARP inhibitor earlier in the treatment course and greatly expanding the population of patients who may benefit from this class of drugs. Active clinical trials suggest that new indications and novel treatment combinations are eagerly sought.

Purpose: We hypothesized that mutations in homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes beyond BRCA1 and BRCA2 improve outcomes for ovarian carcinoma patients treated with platinum therapy and would impact the relative benefit of adding prolonged bevacizumab. Experimental Design: We sequenced DNA from blood and/or neoplasm from 1,195 women enrolled in GOG-0218, a randomized phase III trial in advanced ovarian carcinoma of bevacizumab added to carboplatin and paclitaxel. Defects in HRR were defined as damaging mutations in 16 genes. Proportional hazards models were used to estimate relative hazards for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: Of 1,195 women with ovarian carcinoma, HRR mutations were identified in 307 (25.7%). Adjusted hazards for progression and death compared with those without mutations were lower for women with non- BRCA HRR mutations [HR = 0.73; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.57-0.94; P = 0.01 for PFS; HR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.50-0.90; P = 0.007 for OS] and BRCA1 mutations (HR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66-0.97; P = 0.02 for PFS; HR = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59-0.94; P = 0.01 for OS) and were lowest for BRCA2 mutations (HR = 0.52; 95% CI, 0.40-0.67; P < 0.0001 for PFS; HR = 0.36; 95% CI, 0.25-0.53; P < 0.0001 for OS). A test of interaction showed no difference in the effect of bevacizumab on PFS between cases with and without mutations. Conclusions: HRR mutations, including non- BRCA genes, significantly prolong PFS and OS in ovarian carcinoma and should be stratified for in clinical trials. The benefit of adding bevacizumab was not significantly modified by mutation status. Clin Cancer Res; 24(4); 777-83. ©2017 AACR ., (©2017 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Objective: Microscopic residual disease following complete cytoreduction (R0) is associated with a significant survival benefit for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Our objective was to develop a prediction model for R0 to support surgeons in their clinical care decisions., Methods: Demographic, pathologic, surgical, and CA125 data were collected from GOG 182 records. Patients enrolled prior to September 1, 2003 were used for the training model while those enrolled after constituted the validation data set. Univariate analysis was performed to identify significant predictors of R0 and these variables were subsequently analyzed using multivariable regression. The regression model was reduced using backward selection and predictive accuracy was quantified using area under the receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC) in both the training and the validation data sets., Results: Of the 3882 patients enrolled in GOG 182, 1480 had complete clinical data available for the analysis. The training data set consisted of 1007 patients (234 with R0) while the validation set was comprised of 473 patients (122 with R0). The reduced multivariable regression model demonstrated several variables predictive of R0 at cytoreduction: Disease Score (DS) (p<0.001), stage (p=0.009), CA125 (p<0.001), ascites (p<0.001), and stage-age interaction (p=0.01). Applying the prediction model to the validation data resulted in an AUC of 0.73 (0.67 to 0.78, 95% CI). Inclusion of DS enhanced the model performance to an AUC of 0.83 (0.79 to 0.88, 95% CI)., Conclusions: We developed and validated a prediction model for R0 that offers improved performance over previously reported models for prediction of residual disease. The performance of the prediction model suggests additional factors (i.e. imaging, molecular profiling, etc.) should be explored in the future for a more clinically actionable tool., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: This study evaluated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with progression free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced stage serous EOC., Methods: Patients enrolled in GOG-172 and 182 who provided specimens for translational research and consent were included. Germline DNA was evaluated with the Illumina's HumanOMNI1-Quad beadchips and scanned using Illumina's iScan optical imaging system. SNPs with allele frequency>0.05 and genotyping rate>0.98 were included. Analysis of SNPs for PFS and OS was done using Cox regression. Statistical significance was determined using Bonferroni corrected p-values with genomic control adjustment., Results: The initial GWAS analysis included 1,124,677 markers in 396 patients. To obtain the final data set, quality control checks were performed and limited to serous tumors and self-identified Caucasian race. In total 636,555 SNPs and 289 patients passed all the filters. The pre-specified statistical level of significance was 7.855e -08 . No SNPs met this criteria for PFS or OS, however, two SNPs were close to significance (rs10899426 p-2.144e - 08 ) (rs6256 p-9.774e -07 ) for PFS and 2 different SNPs were identified (rs295315 p-7.536e - 07 ; rs17693104 p-7.734e - 07 ) which were close to significance for OS., Conclusions: Using the pre-specified level of significance of 1×10 -08 , we did not identify any SNPs of statistical significance for OS or PFS, however several were close. The SNP's identified in this GWAS study will require validation and these preliminary findings may lead to identification of novel pathways and biomarkers., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Platinum-based chemotherapy doublets are a standard of care for women with ovarian cancer recurring 6 months after completion of initial therapy. In this study, we aimed to explore the roles of secondary surgical cytoreduction and bevacizumab in this population, and report the results of the bevacizumab component here., Methods: The multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 GOG-0213 trial was done in 67 predominantly academic centres in the USA (65 centres), Japan (one centre), and South Korea (one centre). Eligible patients were adult women (aged ≥18 years) with recurrent measurable or evaluable epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer, and a clinical complete response to primary platinum-based chemotherapy, who had been disease-free for at least 6 months following last infused cycle of platinum. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to standard chemotherapy (six 3-weekly cycles of paclitaxel [175 mg/m 2 of body surface area] and carboplatin [area under the curve 5]) or the same chemotherapy regimen plus bevacizumab (15 mg/kg of bodyweight) every 3 weeks and continued as maintenance every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Individuals who participated in both the bevacizumab objective and surgical objective (which is ongoing) were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to receive either of these two chemotherapy regimens with or without prior secondary cytoreductive surgery. Randomisation for the bevacizumab objective was stratified by treatment-free interval and participation in the surgical objective. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00565851., Findings: Between Dec 10, 2007, and Aug 26, 2011, 674 women were enrolled and randomly assigned to standard chemotherapy (n=337) or chemotherapy plus bevacizumab (n=377). Median follow-up at the end of the trial on Nov 5, 2014, was 49·6 months in each treatment group (IQR 41·5-62·2 for chemotherapy plus bevacizumab; IQR 40·8-59·3 for chemotherapy), at which point 415 patients had died (214 in the chemotherapy group and 201 in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group). Based on pretreatment stratification data, median overall survival in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group was 42·2 months (95% CI 37·7-46·2) versus 37·3 months (32·6-39·7) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·829; 95% CI 0·683-1·005; p=0·056). We identified incorrect treatment-free interval stratification data for 45 (7%) patients (equally balanced between treatment groups); a sensitivity analysis of overall survival based on the audited treatment-free interval stratification data gave an adjusted HR of 0·823 (95% CI 0·680-0·996; p=0·0447). In the safety population (all patients who initiated treatment), 317 (96%) of 325 patients in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group had at least one grade 3 or worse adverse event compared with 282 (86%) of 332 in the chemotherapy group; the most frequently reported of these in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group compared with the chemotherapy group were hypertension (39 [12%] vs two [1%]), fatigue (27 [8%] vs eight [2%]), and proteinuria (27 [8%] vs none). Two (1%) treatment-related deaths occurred in the chemotherapy group (infection [n=1] and myelodysplastic syndrome [n=1]) compared with nine (3%) in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group (infection [n=1], febrile neutropenia [n=1], myelodysplastic syndrome [n=1], secondary malignancy [n=1]; deaths not classified with CTCAE terms: disease progression [n=3], sudden death [n=1], and not specified [n=1])., Interpretation: The addition of bevacizumab to standard chemotherapy, followed by maintenance therapy until progression, improved the median overall survival in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer. Although the intention-to-treat analysis for overall survival was not significant, our sensitivity analysis based on corrected treatment-free interval stratification indicates that this strategy might be an important addition to the therapeutic armamentarium in these patients., Funding: National Cancer Institute and Genentech., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of retroperitoneal (RP) exploration on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients with stage IIIC disease who underwent optimal debulking surgery., Methods: Data were collected from records of the Gynecologic Oncology Group 182 (GOG-182) study of stage IIIC EOC patients cytoreduced to no gross residual disease (R0) or minimal gross residual (<1 cm) disease (MGRD) at primary surgery. Patients with stage IIIC disease by intraperitoneal (IP) tumor were included and divided into 3 groups: 1) > 2 cm IP tumor without lymph node involvement (IP/RP-), 2) > 2 cm IP tumor with lymph node involvement (IP/RP+), and 3) > 2 cm IP tumor with no RP exploration (IP/RP?). The effects of disease distribution and RP exploration on PFS and OS were assessed using Kaplan-Meier and proportional hazards methods., Results: There were 1871 stage IIIC patients in GOG-182 who underwent optimal primary debulking surgery. Of these, 689 (36.8%) underwent RP exploration with removal of lymph nodes from at least 1 para-aortic site, and 1182 (63.2%) did not. There were 269 patients in the IP/RP- group, 420 patients in the IP/RP + group, and 1182 patients in the IP/RP? group. Improved PFS (18.5 vs 16.0 months; P < .0001) and OS (53.3 vs 42.8 months; P < .0001) were associated with RP exploration versus no exploration. Patients with MGRD had improved PFS (16.8 vs 15.1 months, P = 0.0108) and OS (44.9 vs 40.5 months, P = 0.0076) versus no exploration., Conclusions: RP exploration at the time of primary surgery in patients with optimally debulked stage IIIC EOC is associated with a survival benefit. Cancer 2017;123:985-93. © 2016 American Cancer Society., (© 2016 American Cancer Society.)

Objectives: To determine the relationship of the time from surgery to intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy (TSIC) initiation with survival of patients with stage III epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients using ancillary data from cooperative group clinical trials., Methods: Data from 420 patients with stage III EOC treated with IP chemotherapy under GOG-0114 and 172 were reviewed. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate independent prognostic factors and estimate their covariate-adjusted effects on PFS and OS., Results: The median TSIC was 62.5days (interquartile range 28-83). The median TSIC was longer for patients in GOG-0114 vs those in GOG-172 (83 vs 26days, p<0.001). TSIC was significantly associated (p=0.049) with PFS: each 10% increase in TSIC (days) decreases the risk of progression by 3%. TSIC was not significantly associated with OS in this model. In a linear regression model, gross residual disease was significantly associated with shorter TSIC (R 2 -0.141, 95%CI -0.217, -0.064, p<0.001). When only data from GOG-172 were considered, no statistical significant association was found between TSIC and PFS or OS., Conclusions: In this ancillary data study, TSIC was not associated with improved OS in patients with stage III epithelial ovarian cancer. TSIC was significantly associated with PFS for the entire cohort, suggesting increase in PFS with longer TSIC. However, this was not found when only data from GOG 172 or GOG 114 were analyzed separately. Hence, the relationship between IP chemotherapy initiation and time from surgery needs to be studied further., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest with the exception of Dr. Angeles Alvarez Secord who wishes to acknowledge that she received funds from Janssen, Clovis Oncology, Genentech and AstraZeneca. Additionally, Dr. Alvarez Secord reports research grant funding from Astellas Pharma Inc, Genentech, Amgen, Endocyte, Exelixis, Boehringher Ingelheim, Astex Pharmaceuticals Inc., Prima Biomed, Tesaro, Astra Zeneca, Eisai Morphotek, Bristol Myers Squibb and Incyte. These funds were distributed to Duke University Medical Center to support research including salary support for Dr. Secord. In the last 36 months, she has served on Advisory Boards for Janssen, Clovis Oncology, Genentech and AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The vascular disrupting agent fosbretabulin tromethamine selectively targets pre-existing tumor vasculature, which causes vascular shutdown and leads to cancer cell death and necrosis. Antiangiogenesis agents such as bevacizumab, a humanized antivascular endothelial growth factor monoclonal antibody, might prevent revascularization during and after treatment with a vascular disrupting agent., Patients and Methods: Patients with recurrent or persistent epithelial ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal carcinoma, measurable or detectable disease, and three or fewer prior regimens were randomly assigned to bevacizumab (15 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks) or the combination of bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) plus fosbretabulin (60 mg/m(2)) intravenously once every 3 weeks until disease progression or toxicity. Randomization was stratified by disease status (measurable v nonmeasurable), prior bevacizumab, and platinum-free interval. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). The study was designed with 80% power for a one-sided alternative at a 10% level of significance to detect a reduction in the hazard by 37.5%., Results: The study enrolled 107 patients. Median PFS was 4.8 months for bevacizumab and 7.3 months for bevacizumab plus fosbretabulin (hazard ratio, 0.69; 90% two-sided CI, 0.47 to 1.00; one-sided P = .05). The proportion responding (overall response rate) to bevacizumab was 28.2% among 39 patients with measurable disease and 35.7% among 42 patients treated with the combination. The relative probability of responding was 1.27 (90% CI, 0.74 to 2.17; one-sided P = .24). Adverse events greater than grade 3 were more common in the combination regimen than in bevacizumab only for hypertension (35% v 20%). There was one grade 3 thromboembolic event in the combination arm and one intestinal fistula in the bevacizumab only arm., Conclusion: On the basis of the PFS, overall response rate, and tolerability of these two antivascular therapies, further evaluation is warranted for this chemotherapy-free regimen. Fosbretabulin in combination with bevacizumab increases the risk of hypertension., (© 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Opinion Statement: Inhibitors of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) have emerged as a new class of anti-cancer drugs, specifically for malignancies bearing aberrations of the homologous recombination pathway, like those with mutations in the BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 genes. Olaparib, a potent PARP1 and PARP2 inhibitor, has been shown to significantly increase progression-free survival (PFS) in women with recurrent ovarian cancer related to a germline BRCA mutation and is currently approved fourth-line treatment in these patients. PARP inhibitors (PARPi) target the genetic phenomenon known as synthetic lethality to exploit faulty DNA repair mechanisms. While ovarian cancer is enriched with a population of tumors with known homologous recombination defects, investigations are underway to help identify pathways in other gynecologic cancers that may demonstrate susceptibility to PARPi through synthetically lethal mechanisms. The ARIEL2 trial prospectively determined a predictive assay to identify patients with HRD. The future of cancer therapeutics will likely incorporate these HRD assays to determine the best treatment plan for patients. While the role of PARPi is less clear in non-ovarian gynecologic cancers, the discovery of a predictive assay for HRD may open the door for clinical trials in these other gynecologic cancers enriched with patients with HRD. Identification of patients with tumors deficient in homologous repair or have HRD-like behavior moves cancer treatment towards individualized therapies in order to maximize treatment effect and quality of life for women living with gynecologic cancers.

Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is responsible for more cancer-related deaths than any other malignancy of the female reproductive system. The standard of care for advanced EOC involves a combination of cytoreductive surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy. Although a majority of patients respond to a platinum-containing regimen, many fail to respond to first-line treatment (platinum-refractory disease) or experience disease progression within 6 months of completing treatment (platinum-resistant disease). Even in patients who initially respond to platinum-based therapy, secondary development of platinum resistance is common. Many chemotherapeutic regimens with comparable efficacy and toxicities are available, leaving the determination of optimal therapy to the physician's discretion. There have been many efforts over the years to develop accurate predictors of outcomes in patients treated with chemotherapy to help inform treatment decisions. Predictive treatment markers are particularly relevant in a disease such as EOC, where a large number of similarly efficacious chemotherapy regimens are available. Chemosensitivity and resistance assays (CSRAs) are attractive approaches to interrogate the efficacy and complex biology of EOC. Some early predictive cellular tests, such as the early clonogenic assays, were limited by technical and logistical issues. Over time, changes in these assays have improved their prognostic and predictive value, but there is still a lack of widespread adoption due to methodological difficulties or limited clinical validation. Herein, we provide an overview of the evolution of CSRAs used to predict outcomes in patients treated with chemotherapy that have been evaluated for use in EOC, with a focus on the latest generation chemoresponse assay.

Ovarian cancer continues to present a significant health challenge with little progress being made over the past two decades in reducing the incidence and mortality. More recently, novel therapeutics have emerged as a potential way of improving outcomes for women with advanced ovarian cancer who harbor mutations in genes involved in homologous recombination (HR), most notably BRCA1 and BRCA2. In the United States, Olaparib, a PARP inhibitor, has been recently approved for ovarian cancer patients treated with three or more lines of prior chemotherapy who harbor germline mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2. As a caveat to Olaparib's FDA approval, BRACAnalysis CDx(®) was approved as a companion diagnostic test for women with ovarian cancer to determine their BRCA1/2 mutation status and eligibility for treatment. This review article will provide essential background information on hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC), describe the therapeutic mechanism of PARP inhibitors, and will chronicle the current and emerging homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) assays and their associated patents.

The FDA approval of the PARP inhibitor olaparib for fourth-line therapy of germline BRCA1/2-mutated ovarian cancer represents the first registered indication for this class of drugs in any disease. PARP is a family of proteins involved in the repair of single-strand DNA breaks. High-grade serous ovarian carcinomas with BRCA deficiencies may be particularly vulnerable to both direct and indirect effects of PARP inhibition. This phenotype frequently arises as a consequence of defects in the repair of damaged DNA, rendering cancer cells susceptible to DNA-damaging platinum compounds and targeted therapies affecting homologous recombination repair (HRR). When cells already deficient in HRR are exposed to PARP inhibitors, apoptosis occurs by way of synthetic lethality. In this review, we trace the clinical development of olaparib for women with recurrent epithelial ovarian carcinoma harboring germline BRCA mutations, a biomarker for HRR deficiency present in 15% to 20% of cases. Clinical trials highlighted include not only those pivotal studies that have led to regulatory approval in the United States and in Europe, but also those in which olaparib was studied in novel combinations, including chemotherapy and antiangiogenesis agents., (©2015 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Veliparib is a potent small molecule inhibitor of PARP-1/2, which is cytotoxic in tumor cells with deficiencies in BRCA1 or BRCA2. We studied the clinical activity and toxicity of veliparib in ovarian cancer patients carrying a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation (gBRCA)., Methods: Eligibility included three or fewer prior chemotherapy regimens, measurable disease and no prior use of a PARP inhibitor. Veliparib was administered at 400mg orally BID with one cycle being 28days. The two-stage Simon design was capable of detecting a 25% response probability with 90% power while controlling alpha=10% (at a 10% assumed null response probability)., Results: The median age of the 50 eligible patients was 57years (range 37-94) and 14, 18, and 18 patients had 1, 2, and 3 prior therapies respectively. Thirty patients (60%) were platinum-resistant. The median number of cycles administered was 6 (1-27). There was one grade 4 thrombocytopenia. Grade 3 adverse events were: fatigue (n=3), nausea (2), leukopenia (1), neutropenia (1), dehydration (1), and ALT (1). Grade 2 events >10% were: nausea (46%), fatigue (26%), vomiting (18%), and anemia (14%). The proportion responding was 26% (90% CI: 16%-38%, CR: 2, PR: 11); for platinum-resistant and platinum-sensitive patients the proportion responding was 20% and 35%, respectively. The most common reason for treatment discontinuation was progression (62%). Twenty-nine patients are alive; two with SD remain on veliparib. The median PFS is 8.18months., Conclusions: The single agent efficacy and tolerability of veliparib for BRCA mutation-associated recurrent ovarian cancer warrants further investigation., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: We sought to investigate the impact of race, socioeconomic status (SES), and health care system characteristics on receipt of specific components of National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline care for stage IIIC/IV ovarian cancer., Study Design: Patients diagnosed with stage IIIC/IV epithelial ovarian cancer between Jan. 1, 1996, through Dec. 31, 2006, were identified from the California Cancer Registry. Multivariate logistic regression analyses evaluated differences in surgery, chemotherapy, and treatment sequence according to race, increasing SES (SES-1 to SES-5), and provider annual case volume., Results: A total of 11,865 patients were identified. Median age at diagnosis was 65.0 years. The overall median cancer-specific survival was 28.2 months. African American race (odds ratio [OR], 2.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45-2.87) and care by a low-volume physician (OR, 19.72; 95% CI, 11.87-32.77) predicted an increased risk of not undergoing surgery. Patients with SES-1 (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.60-0.85) and those treated at low-volume hospitals (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77-0.99) or by low-volume physicians (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.92) were less likely to undergo debulking surgery. African American race (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.24-1.93) and SES-1 (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.35-2.39) were both significant predictors of not receiving chemotherapy. African American patients were also more likely than whites to receive no treatment (OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.45-2.99) or only chemotherapy (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.10-2.18). Patients with low SES were more likely to receive no treatment (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.44-2.64) or surgery without chemotherapy (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.38-2.03)., Conclusion: Among patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer, African American race, low SES, and treatment by low-volume providers are significant and independent predictors of receiving no surgery, no debulking surgery, no chemotherapy, and nonstandard treatment sequences., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Although breast and ovarian cancer have notable distinctions, there may exist parallel pathways that can be exploited for therapeutic gain. For example, the therapeutic arena in breast cancer has benefited greatly from available endocrine therapies as well as novel drugs designed to target the HER2 receptor, including trastuzumab, lapatinib, T-DM1 and pertuzumab. CLEOPATRA, a Phase III randomized clinical trial studying pertuzumab in women with HER2-amplified metastatic breast cancer, was practice-changing in 2014. Its counterpart, the Phase III randomized PENELOPE trial, was activated following promising Phase II data and studied pertuzumab in an enriched ovarian cancer patient population with low HER3 mRNA. This review will trace the development of anti-HER2 therapies in breast and ovarian cancer.

Purpose: Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) lowers mortality from ovarian/tubal and breast cancers among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Uncertainties persist regarding potential benefits of RRSO among high-risk noncarriers, optimal surgical age, and anatomic origin of clinically occult cancers detected at surgery. To address these topics, we analyzed surgical treatment arm results from Gynecologic Oncology Group Protocol-0199 (GOG-0199), the National Ovarian Cancer Prevention and Early Detection Study., Participants and Methods: This analysis included asymptomatic high-risk women age ≥ 30 years who elected RRSO at enrollment. Women provided risk factor data and underwent preoperative cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) serum testing and transvaginal ultrasound (TVU). RRSO specimens were processed according to a standardized tissue processing protocol and underwent central pathology panel review. Research-based BRCA1/2 mutation testing was performed when a participant's mutation status was unknown at enrollment. Relationships between participant characteristics and diagnostic findings were assessed using univariable statistics and multivariable logistic regression., Results: Invasive or intraepithelial ovarian/tubal/peritoneal neoplasms were detected in 25 (2.6%) of 966 RRSOs (BRCA1 mutation carriers, 4.6%; BRCA2 carriers, 3.5%; and noncarriers, 0.5%; P < .001). In multivariable models, positive BRCA1/2 mutation status (P = .0056), postmenopausal status (P = .0023), and abnormal CA-125 levels and/or TVU examinations (P < .001) were associated with detection of clinically occult neoplasms at RRSO. For 387 women with negative BRCA1/2 mutation testing and normal CA-125 levels, findings at RRSO were benign., Conclusion: Clinically occult cancer was detected among 2.6% of high-risk women undergoing RRSO. BRCA1/2 mutation, postmenopausal status, and abnormal preoperative CA-125 and/or TVU were associated with cancer detection at RRSO. These data can inform management decisions among women at high risk of ovarian/tubal cancer., (© 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Objective: To determine whether chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (C-iN) is associated with improved survival in a population of primary advanced ovarian cancer and peritoneal carcinoma patients treated with a carboplatin plus paclitaxel chemotherapy backbone., Methods: A post-hoc exploratory analysis of Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) protocol 182 was performed. Landmark analysis was conducted on all patients with progression-free survival >18weeks from the time of study entry. Neutropenia was defined as the absolute neutrophil count <1000mm(3). The occurrence of C-iN was analyzed according to demographic, clinicopathologic, and therapeutic intent, including age, body surface area, and treatment arm. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate independent prognostic factors and to estimate their effects on PFS and OS., Results: Neutropenic data was available for 3447 patients. Neutropenic (n=3196) and non-neutropenic groups (n=251) were similar in demographic and clinicopathologic characteristics. Neutropenic patients experienced significantly improved survival compared to non-neutropenic patients with the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for death being 0.86 (95% confidence interval 0.74-0.99; p=0.041). There was no survival benefit associated with any of the treatment arms among patients with C-iN., Conclusion: These data suggest that C-iN may represent a clinical biomarker associated with a survival advantage for patients with untreated advanced ovarian cancer. The absence of C-iN may indicate under-dosing and ultimately attenuated anti-neoplastic effect in vulnerable populations., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Despite survival gains achieved nearly two decades ago with combination platinum- and taxane-based intravenous chemotherapy, overall survival curves have remained relatively unchanged during the 21st century using newer cytotoxic agents. Although combined intravenous-intraperitoneal (IV-IP) chemotherapy is promising, tolerability remains a significant issue. An emphasis has been placed on exploring dose dense schedules and targeted agents. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) has emerged as an important therapeutic target in several solid tumors including ovarian carcinoma. The monoclonal antibody, bevacizumab, binds VEGF, thus preventing activation of the VEGF receptor (VEGFR) leading to inhibition of tumor angiogenesis. To date eight phase 3 randomized controlled trials incorporating anti-angiogenesis therapy in the treatment of newly diagnosed and recurrent ovarian carcinoma have met their primary endpoints. Four of these trials included bevacizumab and were reported from 2010 to 2012. During 2013, the other four studies were reported, each studying one of the following novel anti-angiogenesis agents: pazopanib, cediranib, trebananib, and nintedanib. Importantly, none of these drugs have been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) for the treatment of ovarian cancer. The purpose of this review will be to highlight both VEGF-dependent and non-VEGF dependent angiogenic pathways in ovarian cancer and discuss the phase 3 experiences and regulatory implications of targeting the tumor microenviroment with anti-angiogenesis therapy., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)