Search

Poly-(ADP)-ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) are a class of oral anticancer drugs first developed as "synthetically lethal" in cancers harboring BRCA1/BRCA2 inactivating mutations. In high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancers (HGOC), PARPi demonstrated benefit as maintenance therapy in relapsing BRCA-mutated and non-mutated tumors. Recently, they extended their indications to frontline maintenance therapy. This review summarizes the current place of PARPi (i) as maintenance or single agent in recurrent disease and (ii) frontline maintenance with different settings. We reviewed the course of biomarker identification, the challenge of overcoming resistance to PARPi and future combinations with targeted therapies, including anti-angiogenic, immune checkpoint inhibitors and DNA damage response inhibitors., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The combination of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab has shown efficacy in treatment of advanced endometrial carcinoma (that is not microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair deficient) following prior systemic therapy in any setting in the open-label, single-arm, phase Ib/II Study 111/KEYNOTE-146. With the exception of hypothyroidism, the safety profile of the combination was comparable to that of each monotherapy. Given the medical complexity and fragility of patients with endometrial carcinoma, further characterization of adverse reactions (ARs) associated with treatment will help health care professionals to optimize treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab combination therapy., Patients and Methods: In Study 111/KEYNOTE-146, patients received lenvatinib at a starting dose of 20 mg orally once daily and pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks. Selected ARs (hypertension, fatigue, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, decreased appetite/weight loss, hypothyroidism, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, musculoskeletal pain, stomatitis, and proteinuria) were chosen for detailed post hoc analyses., Results: Median times to first onset of the selected ARs in this analysis all occurred within the first 10 weeks of treatment. Of the selected ARs, grade ≥3 severity of fatigue, hypertension, and nausea occurred in ≥5% of patients. Overall incidence of hypothyroidism was 51%, primarily of grade 2 severity (46%). Most of the ARs assessed were managed with a combination of study drug dose modifications and concomitant medications., Conclusion: No new safety signals were identified and the toxicity profile in this study was manageable with supportive medications, dose interruptions, and/or lenvatinib dose reductions. This analysis provides AR management guidance for patients with endometrial cancer receiving lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab combination therapy., Implications for Practice: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab has shown efficacy in the treatment of patients with advanced endometrial carcinoma (that is, not microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair deficient) following at least one prior systemic therapy in any setting. Patients may experience toxicity associated with this combination, including adverse reactions of hypertension, fatigue, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, decreased appetite/weight loss, hypothyroidism, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, musculoskeletal pain, stomatitis, and proteinuria. These adverse reactions may be managed with a combination of concomitant supportive care medications and judicious lenvatinib dose modifications. This article provides context and guidance for the recognition and management of adverse reactions in patients receiving lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab., (© 2021 The Authors. The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of AlphaMed Press.)

Purpose: Patient selection in phase 1 clinical trials (Ph1t) continues to be a challenge. The aim of this study was to develop a user-friendly prognostic calculator for predicting overall survival (OS) outcomes in patients to be included in Ph1t with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) or targeted agents (TAs) based on clinical parameters assessed at baseline., Methods: Using a training cohort with consecutive patients from the VHIO phase 1 unit, we constructed a prognostic model to predict median OS (mOS) as a primary endpoint and 3-month (3m) OS rate as a secondary endpoint. The model was validated in an internal cohort after temporal data splitting and represented as a web application., Results: We recruited 799 patients (training and validation sets, 558 and 241, respectively). Median follow-up was 21.2 months (m), mOS was 10.2 m (95% CI, 9.3-12.7) for ICIs cohort and 7.7 m (95% CI, 6.6-8.6) for TAs cohort. In the multivariable analysis, six prognostic variables were independently associated with OS - ECOG, number of metastatic sites, presence of liver metastases, derived neutrophils/(leukocytes minus neutrophils) ratio [dNLR], albumin and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels. The phase 1 prognostic online (PIPO) calculator showed adequate discrimination and calibration performance for OS, with C-statistics of 0.71 (95% CI 0.64-0.78) in the validation set. The overall accuracy of the model for 3m OS prediction was 87.2% (95% CI 85%-90%)., Conclusions: PIPO is a user-friendly objective and interactive tool to calculate specific survival probabilities for each patient before enrolment in a Ph1t. The tool is available at https://pipo.vhio.net/., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships that may be considered as potential competing interests: IM reports receiving an ESMO Research Fellowship sponsored by Roche and honoraria for serving as a speaker bureau for MSD. CH reports a grant from Bayer and Merck., personal fees from MSD, Merck and Amgen. JML reports receiving a grant from Sanofi, honoraria for consultancy from Novartis, Roche, BMS, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Highlight Therapeutics and personal fees from Novartis, Roche, MSD, Pfizer, BMS, Astellas Pharma, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi. IB reports honoraria for consultancy from Orion Pharma, BMS, Astrazeneca, Merck Serono, Rakutan Pharma, Roche, Sanofi, MSD eTheRNA Immunotherapies and Achilles Therapeutics Limited. AA reports honoraria for consultancy from AMCURE and research funding from AMCURE. OM reports personal fees from MSD and Janssen. IG reports fees for a speaker for MSD and Roche. AH reports travel grants from Kyowa & Kirin, MSD and Merck and funding from Hold’em for Life Oncology Fellowship, TTCC and SEOM and CRIS Foundations. GA reports no conflict of interest. VG reports no conflict of interest. MO reports fees for consultancy from MSD. JR reports receiving fees for a speaker for Sanofi. EMC reports receiving fees for serving as a member of scientific advisory boards from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, and personal fees from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and participation as principal investigator in clinical trials from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi. EE reports research funding from Array Biopharma, MSD, Abbvie, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Astrazeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hoffman La-Roche and honoraria for consulting from Hoffman La - Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Servier, Amgen, Merck Serono, Array Biopharma, Sanofi. Dr Rodon reports non financial support and reasonable reimbursement for travel from European Journal of Cancer, Vall d’Hebron Institut of Oncology, Chinese University of Hong Kong, SOLTI, Elsevier, GLAXOSMITHKLINE,; receiving consulting and travel fees from Novartis, Eli Lilly, Orion Pharmaceuticals, Servier Pharmaceuticals, Peptomyc, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Kelun Pharmaceutical/Klus Pharma, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals Inc, Pfizer, Roche Pharmaceuticals, Ellipses Pharma, NovellusDx, iOnctura and Molecular Partners (including serving on the scientific advisory board from 2015 to the present), receiving research funding from Blueprint Pharmaceuticals, Bayer and Novartis, and serving as investigator in clinical trials with Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Tocagen, Symphogen, BioAtla, Pfizer, GenMab, CytomX, KELUN-BIOTECH, Takeda-Millennium, GLAXOSMITHKLINE, IPSEN and travel fees from ESMO, US Department of Defense, Louisiana State University, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Cancer Core Europe, Karolinska Cancer Institute and King Abdullah International Medical Research Center (KAIMRC), Molecular Partners. CS reports receiving fees for serving as a member of scientific advisory boards or receiving travel grants from AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, F. Hoffmann - La Roche Ltd, Genomic Health, Merck, Sharp and Dhome España S.A., Novartis, Odonate Therapeutics, Pfizer, Philips Healthwork, Pierre Fabre, prIME Oncology, Puma, Synthon and Sanofi Aventis and paid directly to her Institution: AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly and Company, Genentech, Immunomedics, Macrogenics, Merck, Sharp and Dhome España S.A., Novartis, Pfizer, Piqur Therapeutics, Puma, Roche, Synthon and Zenith Pharma. TM reports receiving fees for consulting Roche, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, Clovis Oncology, Tesaro, Inmunogen, Genmab, Mersana Therapeutic, GSK and Deciphera Pharmaceutical and received support for travel or accommodation from Roche, AstraZeneca, and PharmaMar and institutional personal interest paid directly to her institution: Agios, Aslan, AstraZecena, Bayer, Celgene, Genentech, Hallozyme, Immunomedics, Lilly, Merimarck, Millenim, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharmacyclics and Roche. AO reports receiving fees for consulting from Roche, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, Clovis Oncology, Tesaro, Inmunogen, Genmab, Mersana Therapeutic, GSK and Deciphera Pharmaceutical and received support for travel or accommodation from Roche, AstraZeneca, and PharmaMar, and institutional financial interest paid directly to her institution: Abbvie Deutschland, Ability Pharmaceuticals, Advaxis Inc., Aeterna Zentaris, AMGEM, SA, Aprea Therapeutics AB, Clovis Oncology Inc, EISAI limited LTD, F. Hoffmann – La Roche LTD, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Immunogen Inc., Merck, Sharp & Dohme de España SA, Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Pharma Mar SA, Tesaro Inc., BMS, Bristol Meyers Squibb. JC reports receiving fees for advisory board from Bayer, Johnson & Johnson,Bristol-Myers Squibb, Astellas Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, MSD Oncology, Roche, AstraZéneca and for speakers bureau from Bayer, Johnson & Johnson, Asofarma, Astellas Pharma, travel from BMS, Ipsen, Roche, AstraZéneca, and research grants from AB Science, Aragon Pharmaceuticals, Arog Pharmaceuticals, INC, Astellas Pharma., Astrazeneca AB, Aveo Pharmaceuticals INC, Bayer AG, Blueprint Medicines Corporation, BN Immunotherapeutics INC, Boehringer Ingelheim España, S.A., Bristol-Myers Squibb International Corporation (BMS), Clovis Oncology, INC, Cougar Biotechnology INC, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals LLC, Exelixis INC, F. Hoffmann-La Roche LTD, Genentech INC, Glaxosmithkline, SA, Incyte Corporation, Janssen-Cilag International NV, Karyopharm Therapeutics INC., Laboratoires Leurquin Mediolanum SAS, Lilly, S.A., Medimmune, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, INC., Nanobiotix SA, Novartis Farmacéutica, S.A., Pfizer, S.L.U, Puma Biotechnology, INC, Sanofi-Aventis, S.A., SFJ Pharma LTD. II, Teva Pharma S.L.U. EF reports research funding from Fundacion Merck Salud, personal fees for consulting from ABBVIE, Astrazeneca, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, ELI Lilly, Guardant Health, Jansenn, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Takeda, GSK and Bayer, personal fees for speakers bureao from Astrazeoncology, Roche, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, ELI Lilly, Medsxape, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Prime Oncology, Roche, Takeda, Touchime and in Grifols independent member of the board. Josep Tabernero reports personal financial interest in the form of scientific consultancy role for Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Genentech, Inc., Genmab A/S, Halozyme, Imugene Limited, Inflection Biosciences Limited, Ipsen, Kura Oncology, Lilly, MSD, Menarini, Merck Serono, Merrimack, Merus, Molecular Partners, Novartis, Peptomyc, Pfizer, Pharmacyclics, ProteoDesign SL, Rafael Pharmaceuticals, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Sanofi, SeaGen, Seattle Genetics, Servier, Symphogen, Taiho, VCN Biosciences, Biocartis, Foundation Medicine, HalioDX SAS and Roche Diagnostics. RD declares advisory role for Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, received a speaker’s fee from Roche, Ipsen, Amgen, Servier, Sanofi, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and research grants from Merck and Pierre Fabre. EG reportspersonal financial interest in the form of scientific consultancy role for Roche/Genentech - F.Hoffmann/La Roche, Ellipses Pharma, Neomed Therapeutics1 Inc, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen Global Services, SeaGen, TFS, Alkermes, Thermo Fisher, Bristol-Mayers Squibb, MabDiscovery, Anaveon; fees for speakers bureau from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Thermo Fisher, Roche, Lilly; travel grants from Bristol-Mayers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Menarini, Glycotope; research grants from Novartis, Roche, Thermo Fisher, AstraZeneca, Taiho, BeiGene.The remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Despite the genetic inactivation of SMARCA4, a core component of the SWI/SNF-complex commonly found in cancer, there are no therapies that effectively target SMARCA4-deficient tumours. Here, we show that, unlike the cells with activated MYC oncogene, cells with SMARCA4 inactivation are refractory to the histone deacetylase inhibitor, SAHA, leading to the aberrant accumulation of H3K27me3. SMARCA4-mutant cells also show an impaired transactivation and significantly reduced levels of the histone demethylases KDM6A/UTX and KDM6B/JMJD3, and a strong dependency on these histone demethylases, so that its inhibition compromises cell viability. Administering the KDM6 inhibitor GSK-J4 to mice orthotopically implanted with SMARCA4-mutant lung cancer cells or primary small cell carcinoma of the ovary, hypercalcaemic type (SCCOHT), had strong anti-tumour effects. In this work we highlight the vulnerability of KDM6 inhibitors as a characteristic that could be exploited for treating SMARCA4-mutant cancer patients., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Introduction: In ARIEL3 (NCT01968213), the poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo regardless of biomarker status when used as maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian cancer. The aim of the current analyses was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rucaparib in subgroups based on progression-free interval following penultimate platinum, number of prior chemotherapies, and prior use of bevacizumab., Methods: Patients were randomized 2:1 to rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Within subgroups, progression-free survival was assessed in prespecified, nested cohorts: BRCA -mutant, homologous recombination deficient ( BRCA -mutant or wild-type BRCA /high genomic loss of heterozygosity), and the intent-to-treat population., Results: In the intent-to-treat population, median investigator-assessed progression-free survival was 8.2 months with rucaparib versus 4.1 months with placebo (n=151 vs n=76; HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.46, p<0.0001) for patients with progression-free interval 6 to ≤12 months, and 13.6 versus 5.6 months (n=224 vs n=113; HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.52, p<0.0001) for those with progression-free interval >12 months. Median progression-free survival was 10.4 versus 5.4 months (n=231 vs n=124; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.54, p<0.0001) for patients who had received two prior chemotherapies, and 11.1 versus 5.3 months (n=144 vs n=65; HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.41, p<0.0001) for those who had received ≥3 prior chemotherapies. Median progression-free survival was 10.3 versus 5.4 months (n=83 vs n=43; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.68, p=0.0004) for patients who had received prior bevacizumab, and 10.9 versus 5.4 months (n=292 vs n=146; HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.45, p<0.0001) for those who had not. Across subgroups, median progression-free survival was also significantly longer with rucaparib versus placebo in the BRCA -mutant and homologous recombination deficient cohorts. Safety was consistent across subgroups., Conclusions: Rucaparib maintenance treatment significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo irrespective of progression-free interval following penultimate platinum, number of lines of prior chemotherapy, and previous use of bevacizumab., Competing Interests: Competing interests: ARC has served on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Eisai, and Tesaro/GlaxoSmithKline; has received research funding from Clovis Oncology and AstraZeneca; and has received travel and accommodation support for congress attendance from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, and Roche. DL has served in a consulting or advisory role for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, ImmunoGen, Merck, PharmaMar, Roche, Takeda, and Tesaro/GlaxoSmithKline, Genmab; has received institutional research support from Merck, PharmaMar and Tesaro/GlaxoSmithKline; and received support for travel or accommodation from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, Roche, and Tesaro/GlaxoSmithKline. AMO has served on steering committees for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, and Tesaro (uncompensated). CA has served on a steering committee for AbbVie and Genentech; served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, AbbVie, Eisai/Merck, ImmunoGen, Mersana Therapeutics, Roche, and Tesaro; and received research grants from Clovis Oncology, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Genentech. AO has served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Genmab/Seattle Genetics, ImmunoGen, PharmaMar, Roche, and Tesaro; has received support for travel or accommodation from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, and Roche; and reports institutional research grant support from Clovis Oncology, AbbVie Deutschland, Ability Pharmaceuticals, Advaxis, Aeterna Zentaris, Amgen, Aprea Therapeutics, Eisai, ImmunoGen, Merck/Merck Sharp & Dohme, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, PharmaMar, Roche, and Tesaro. AD has served in a consulting or advisory role for Precision Oncology Australia, Shire Pharmaceuticals, and Specialised Therapeutics Australia. NC has served in a consulting or advisory role for Clovis Oncology, Advaxis, AstraZeneca, BIOCAD, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, Takeda, and Tesaro. JIW has received research support from AbbVie and AstraZeneca and served on advisory boards for AstraZeneca. GS has served in a consulting or advisory role for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, Roche, and Tesaro. AL has served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, Ability Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, BIOCAD, GamaMabs, Genmab/Seattle Genetics, Gritstone, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Tesaro; steering committee for Merck Sharp & Dohme; reports institutional support for clinical trials or academic research from Clovis Oncology, Ability Pharmaceuticals, Agenus, AstraZeneca, Incyte, Inivata, Iovance, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Tesaro; and reports boarding and travel expenses for congress activities from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, and Roche. RWH has served on speakers bureaus for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, and Tesaro, and on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology and AstraZeneca. MAG has served on speakers’ bureaus for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, and Roche. PCF has served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology and AstraZeneca and received honoraria from AstraZeneca. JCG has received honoraria from AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb; served in a consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Tesaro; served on speakers’ bureaus for AstraZeneca, Ipsen, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; and received support for travel and/or accommodation from Astellas and AstraZeneca. DMO has served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Genentech/Roche, Genelux, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Janssen, Novocure, Regeneron, and Tesaro; has served on steering committees for Clovis Oncology, Agenus, Amgen, and Novocure; has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Ambry, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Gynecologic Oncology Group Foundation, and Tesaro; has given a presentation on ovarian cancer at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network; and his institution has received research support from Clovis Oncology, AbbVie, Agenus, Ajinomoto, Amgen, Array BioPharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cerulean Pharma, Eisai, EMD Serono, ERGOMED Clinical Research, Genentech, Gynecologic Oncology Group, INC Research, inVentiv Health Clinical, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Janssen Research and Development, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, New Mexico Cancer Care Alliance, Novocure, PRA International, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Serono, Stemcentrx, Tesaro, TRACON Pharmaceuticals, VentiRx, and Yale University. DKA has served as a scientific advisor for Morphotek and received research funding from Clovis Oncology, Advaxis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Syndax, and Tesaro. SB has served on advisory boards and received honoraria from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunogen, Merck Sereno, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mersana, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle Genetics, and Tesaro; received honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca/Merck Sharp & Dohme, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Roche, and Tesaro; received support for travel or accommodation from NuCana and Tesaro; and reports institutional funding from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Tesaro. JG-D has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Pierre Fabre, and Pfizer; received personal fees from Clovis Oncology, Astellas, Pierre Fabre, and Pfizer; and received nonfinancial support from Astellas, Pierre Fabre, and Pfizer. TC and SG are employees of Clovis Oncology and may own stock or have stock options in that company. RLC reports grants from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Gateway Foundation, Janssen, Judy Reis/Albert Pisani, MD, Ovarian Cancer Research Fund, Merck, National Institutes of Health, Roche/Genentech, and V-Foundation; has served as an advisor to Clovis Oncology, Agenus, AstraZeneca, GamaMabs, Genmab, Janssen, OncoQuest, Pfizer (Medivation), Regeneron, Roche/Genentech, and Tesaro; and has an endowment as the Ann Rife Cox Chair in Gynecology. JAL has received lecture fees from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer; served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, Artios Pharma, AstraZeneca, Cristal Therapeutics, Merck/Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Seattle Genetics, and Tesaro; and received research grants from AstraZeneca and Merck/Merck Sharp & Dohme., (© IGCS and ESGO 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: To determine the state of current practice and to reach a consensus on recommendations for the management of advanced ovarian cancer using a Delphi survey with a group of Spanish gynecologists and medical oncologists specially dedicated to gynecological tumors., Methods: The questionnaire was developed by the byline authors. All questions but one were answered using a 9-item Likert-like scale with three types of answers: frequency, relevance and agreement. We performed two rounds between December 2018 and July 2019. A consensus was considered reached when at least 75% of the answers were located within three consecutive points of the Likert scale., Results: In the first round, 32 oncologists and gynecologists were invited to participate, and 31 (96.9%) completed the online questionnaire. In the second round, 27 (87.1%) completed the online questionnaire. The results for the questions on first-line management of advanced disease, treatment of patients with recurrent disease for whom platinum might be the best option, and treatment of patients with recurrent disease for whom platinum might not be the best option are presented., Conclusions: This survey shows a snapshot of current recommendations by this selected group of physicians. Although the majority of the agreements and recommendations are aligned with the recently published ESMO-ESGO consensus, there are some discrepancies that can be explained by differences in the interpretation of certain clinical trials, reimbursement or accessibility issues.

ARIEL2 (NCT01891344) is a single-arm, open-label phase 2 study of the PARP inhibitor (PARPi) rucaparib in relapsed high-grade ovarian carcinoma. In this post hoc exploratory biomarker analysis of pre- and post-platinum ARIEL2 samples, RAD51C and RAD51D mutations and high-level BRCA1 promoter methylation predict response to rucaparib, similar to BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations. BRCA1 methylation loss may be a major cross-resistance mechanism to platinum and PARPi. Genomic scars associated with homologous recombination deficiency are irreversible, persisting even as platinum resistance develops, and therefore are predictive of rucaparib response only in platinum-sensitive disease. The RAS, AKT, and cell cycle pathways may be additional modulators of PARPi sensitivity.

Background Reliable predictive imaging markers of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors are needed. Purpose To develop and validate a pretreatment CT-based radiomics signature to predict response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced solid tumors. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, a radiomics signature was developed in patients with advanced solid tumors (including breast, cervix, gastrointestinal) treated with anti-programmed cell death-1 or programmed cell death ligand-1 monotherapy from August 2012 to May 2018 (cohort 1). This was tested in patients with bladder and lung cancer (cohorts 2 and 3). Radiomics variables were extracted from all metastases delineated at pretreatment CT and selected by using an elastic-net model. A regression model combined radiomics and clinical variables with response as the end point. Biologic validation of the radiomics score with RNA profiling of cytotoxic cells (cohort 4) was assessed with Mann-Whitney analysis. Results The radiomics signature was developed in 85 patients (cohort 1: mean age, 58 years ± 13 [standard deviation]; 43 men) and tested on 46 patients (cohort 2: mean age, 70 years ± 12; 37 men) and 47 patients (cohort 3: mean age, 64 years ± 11; 40 men). Biologic validation was performed in a further cohort of 20 patients (cohort 4: mean age, 60 years ± 13; 14 men). The radiomics signature was associated with clinical response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (area under the curve [AUC], 0.70; 95% CI: 0.64, 0.77; P < .001). In cohorts 2 and 3, the AUC was 0.67 (95% CI: 0.58, 0.76) and 0.67 (95% CI: 0.56, 0.77; P < .001), respectively. A radiomics-clinical signature (including baseline albumin level and lymphocyte count) improved on radiomics-only performance (AUC, 0.74 [95% CI: 0.63, 0.84; P < .001]; Akaike information criterion, 107.00 and 109.90, respectively). Conclusion A pretreatment CT-based radiomics signature is associated with response to immune checkpoint inhibitors, likely reflecting the tumor immunophenotype. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Summers in this issue.

The poly (ADP-Ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib has shown antitumor activity in patients with ovarian or breast cancer with or without BRCA1/2 mutations. Lurbinectedin is an ecteinascidin that generates DNA double-strand breaks. We hypothesized that the combination of olaparib and lurbinectedin maximizes the DNA damage increasing the efficacy. A 3 + 3 dose-escalation study examined olaparib tablets with lurbinectedin every 21 days. The purpose of this phase I study is to determine the dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) of the combination, to investigate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), the recommended phase II dose (RP2D), efficacy, pharmacokinetics, in addition to genotyping and translational studies. In total, 20 patients with ovarian and endometrial cancers were included. The most common adverse events were asthenia, nausea, vomiting, constipation, abdominal pain, neutropenia, anemia. DLT grade 4 neutropenia was observed in two patients in dose level (DL) 5, DL4 was defined as the MTD, and the RP2D was lurbinectedin 1.5 mg/m 2  + olaparib 250 mg twice a day (BID). Mutational analysis revealed a median of 2 mutations/case, 53% of patients with mutations in the homologous recombination (HR) pathway. None of the patients reached a complete or partial response; however, 60% of stable disease was achieved. In conclusion, olaparib in combination with lurbinectedin was well tolerated with a disease control rate of 60%. These results deserve further evaluation of the combination in a phase II trial.

To isolate circulating tumor cells (CTC) from women with advanced cervical cancer and estimate the impact of CTCs and treatment on overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS). A total of 7.5 mL of whole blood was drawn pre-cycle 1 and 36 days post-cycle 1 from patients enrolled on Gynecologic Oncology Group 0240, the phase III randomized trial that led directly to regulatory approval of the antiangiogenesis drug, bevacizumab, in women with recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer. CTCs (defined as anti-cytokeratin + /anti-CD45 - cells) were isolated from the buffy coat layer using an anti-EpCAM antibody-conjugated ferrofluid and rare earth magnet, and counted using a semiautomated fluorescence microscope. The median pre-cycle 1 CTC count was 7 CTCs/7.5 mL whole blood (range, 0-18) and, at 36 days posttreatment, was 4 (range, 0-17). The greater the declination in CTCs between time points studied, the lower the risk of death [HR, 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.79-0.95)]. Among patients with high (≥ median) pretreatment CTCs, bevacizumab treatment was associated with a reduction in the hazard of death (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.32-1.03) and PFS (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.36-0.96). This effect was not observed with low (< median) CTCs. CTCs can be isolated from women with advanced cervical cancer and may have prognostic significance. A survival benefit conferred by bevacizumab among patients with high pretreatment CTCs may reflect increased tumor neovascularization and concomitant vulnerability to VEGF inhibition. These data support studying CTC capture as a potential predictive biomarker., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor maintenance therapy is the latest breakthrough in the management of newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. The results of the SOLO-1 trial in 2018 led to European Medicines Agency and Food and Drug Administration approval of olaparib as first-line maintenance therapy in patients with BRCA1/2 mutation, establishing a new standard of care. Subsequently, the results of three phase III trials (PRIMA, PAOLA-1, VELIA) evaluating the use of first-line PARP inhibitors beyond patients with BRCA1/2 mutations and as combination strategies were presented in 2019, leading to the recent approval of maintenance niraparib irrespective of biomarker status and olaparib in combination with bevacizumab in homologous recombination deficiency-positive-associated advanced ovarian cancer. An ESMO Open - Cancer Horizons round-table expert panel discussed the four phase III trials of first-line PARP inhibitor therapy and how they are changing the clinical management of advanced ovarian cancer., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SB: Institution research grants: Astrazeneca, Tesaro, GSK. Received honoraria for advisory boards Astrazeneca, Amgen, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Merck Sereno, MSD, Mersana, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro. Support for travel or accommodation: Nucana, Tesaro. AGM: has served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Genmab/Seattle Genetics, Immunogen, MSD, Mersana, PharmaMar, Roche, and Tesaro/GSK, AMGEN, Merck, Novartis, Oncoinvent, received support for travel or accommodation from AstraZeneca, Pharmamar, GSK and Roche and institutional research funding from Roche and GSK/Tesaro. Lead Investigator PRIMA. PH: has served on advisory boards for Astra Zeneca, Roche, Tesaro, GSK, Lilly, Clovis, Immunogen, MSD/Merck, received honoraria (e.g. for lectures) from Astra Zeneca, Roche, Sotio, Tesaro, Stryker, ASCO, Zai Lab, MSD and institutional research funding from Astra Zeneca, Roche, Tesaro, Genmab, DFG, European Union, DKH, Genmab. DL: has served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Genmab/Seattle Genetics, MSD, ImmunoGen, PharmaMar, Roche, MSD, Merck Serono, Amgen and Tesaro/GSK, received support for travel or accommodation from AstraZeneca, GSK and Roche and institutional research funding from Merck, GSK, Clovis, Pharmamar KM: has served on advisory boards for Aravive, Astra Zeneca, Abbvie, Eisai, Genentech/Roche, GSK/Tesaro, Immunogen, Merck, Myriad, Mersana, Tarveda, VBL Therapeutics. Lead Investigator SOLO-1. AO: has served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Genmab/Seattle Genetics, MSD, Mersana, PharmaMar, Roche, Deciphera, Merck and Tesaro/GSK, received support for travel or accommodation from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, Tesaro and Roche. IRC: has served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Genmab/Seattle Genetics, MSD, Mersana, PharmaMar, Roche, and Tesaro/GSK, received support for travel or accommodation from AstraZeneca, GSK and Roche and institutional research funding from MSD, GSK. Lead Investigator PAOLA-1., (© Author (s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

Importance: Deficient mismatch mutation repair mechanisms may sensitize endometrial cancers to anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1) therapies. Dostarlimab (TSR-042) is an investigational anti-PD-1 antibody that binds with high affinity to the PD-1 receptor., Objective: To assess the antitumor activity and safety of dostarlimab for patients with deficient mismatch repair endometrial cancer., Design, Setting, and Participants: This ongoing, open-label, single-group, multicenter study began part 1 on March 7, 2016, and began enrolling patients with deficient mismatch mutation repair endometrial cancer on May 8, 2017. Median follow-up was 11.2 months (range, 0.03 [ongoing] to 22.11 [ongoing] months; based on radiological assessments). Statistical analysis was performed July 8 to August 9, 2019., Interventions: Patients received 500 mg of dostarlimab intravenously every 3 weeks for 4 doses, then 1000 mg every 6 weeks until disease progression, treatment discontinuation, or withdrawal., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was objective response rate and duration of response by blinded independent central review using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1., Results: As of the data cutoff, 104 women (median age, 64.0 years [range, 38-80 years]) with deficient mismatch mutation repair endometrial cancers were enrolled and treated with dostarlimab. Of these, 71 had measurable disease at baseline and at 6 months or more of follow-up and were included in the analysis. There was a confirmed response in 30 patients (objective response rate, 42.3%; 95% CI, 30.6%-54.6%); 9 patients (12.7%) had a confirmed complete response, and 21 patients (29.6%) had a confirmed partial response. Responses were durable; the median duration of response was not reached (median follow-up was 11.2 months). The estimated likelihood of maintaining a response was 96.4% at 6 months and 76.8% at 12 months. Anemia (3 of 104 [2.9%]), colitis (2 of 104 [1.9%]), and diarrhea (2 of 104 [1.9%]) were the most common grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events., Conclusions and Relevance: In this nonrandomized trial, dostarlimab was associated with clinically meaningful and durable antitumor activity with an acceptable safety profile for patients with deficient mismatch mutation repair endometrial cancers after prior platinum-based chemotherapy., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02715284.

Purpose: In SOLO1, maintenance olaparib (300 mg twice daily) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with newly diagnosed BRCA1 - and/or BRCA2 -mutated advanced ovarian cancer compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.30; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.41; median not reached v 13.8 months). We investigated PFS in SOLO1 for subgroups of patients based on preselected baseline factors., Patients and Methods: Investigator-assessed PFS subgroup analyses of SOLO1 included clinical response after platinum-based chemotherapy (complete [CR] or partial response [PR]), surgery type (upfront or interval surgery), disease status after surgery (residual or no gross residual disease), and BRCA mutation status ( BRCA1 or BRCA2 ). Additionally, we evaluated PFS in patients with stage III disease who underwent upfront surgery and had no gross residual disease. We also report objective response rate., Results: The risk of disease progression or death was reduced with olaparib compared with placebo by 69% (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.46) and 63% (HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.58) in patients undergoing upfront or interval surgery; 56% (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.77) and 67% (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.46) in patients with residual or no residual disease after surgery; 66% (HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.47) and 69% in women with clinical CR or PR at baseline (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.52); and 59% (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.56) and 80% (HR 0.20; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.37) in patients with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, respectively., Conclusion: Patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer achieve substantial benefit from maintenance olaparib treatment regardless of baseline surgery outcome, response to chemotherapy, or BRCA mutation type.

Purpose: To investigate quality-adjusted progression-free survival (QA-PFS) and quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) in a post hoc exploratory analysis of the phase III ARIEL3 study of rucaparib maintenance treatment versus placebo., Patients and Methods: Patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian carcinoma were randomly assigned to rucaparib (600 mg twice per day) or placebo. QA-PFS was calculated as progression-free survival function × the 3-level version of the EQ-5D questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) index score function. Q-TWiST analyses were performed defining TOX as the mean duration in which a patient experienced grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) or the mean duration in which a patient experienced grade ≥ 2 TEAEs of nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and asthenia. Q-TWiST was calculated as μTOX × TOX + TWiST, with μTOX calculated using EQ-5D-3L data., Results: The visit cutoff was Apr 15, 2017. Mean QA-PFS was significantly longer with rucaparib versus placebo in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (375 randomly assigned to rucaparib v 189 randomly assigned to placebo; difference, 6.28 months [95% CI, 4.85 to 7.47 months]); BRCA -mutant cohort (130 rucaparib v 66 placebo; 9.37 months [95% CI, 6.65 to 11.85 months]); homologous recombination deficient (HRD) cohort (236 rucaparib v 118 placebo; 7.93 months [95% CI, 5.93 to 9.53 months]); and BRCA wild-type/loss of heterozygosity (LOH) low patient subgroup (107 rucaparib v 54 placebo; 2.71 months [95% CI, 0.31 to 4.44 months]). With TOX defined using grade ≥ 3 TEAEs, the difference in mean Q-TWiST (rucaparib v placebo) was 6.88 months (95% CI, 5.71 to 8.23 months), 9.73 months (95% CI, 7.10 to 11.94 months), 8.11 months (95% CI, 6.36 to 9.49 months), and 3.35 months (95% CI, 1.66 to 5.40 months) in the ITT population, BRCA -mutant cohort, HRD cohort, and BRCA wild-type/LOH low patient subgroup, respectively. Q-TWiST with TOX defined using select grade ≥ 2 TEAEs also consistently favored rucaparib., Conclusion: The significant differences in QA-PFS and Q-TWiST confirm the benefit of rucaparib versus placebo in all predefined cohorts.

Objective: Somatic HER2 mutations occur in ~5% of cervical cancers and are considered oncogenic and associated with poor prognosis. Neratinib, an irreversible pan-HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is active in multiple HER2-mutant cancers. SUMMIT is a phase II basket trial investigating the efficacy and safety of neratinib in solid tumors., Methods: Patients with HER2-mutant, persistent, metastatic/recurrent cervical cancer with disease progression after platinum-based treatment for advanced/recurrent disease received oral neratinib 240 mg/day with mandatory loperamide prophylaxis during cycle 1. The primary endpoint was confirmed objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included: response duration (DOR); clinical benefit rate (CBR); progression-free survival (PFS); overall survival (OS); safety., Results: Sixteen eligible patients were enrolled; 10 (62.5%) had endocervical adenocarcinoma. The most common HER2 mutation was S310F (63% of patients). Three of 12 RECIST-measurable patients had confirmed partial responses (ORR 25%; 95%CI 5.5-57.2%); 3 had stable disease ≥16 weeks (CBR 50%; 95%CI 21.1-78.9%). DOR for responders were 5.6, 5.9, and 12.3 months. Median PFS was 7.0 months (95%CI 0.7-18.3 months); median OS was 16.8 months (95%CI 4.1-NE months). Diarrhea (75%), nausea (44%), and decreased appetite (38%) were the most common adverse events. One patient (6%) reported grade 3 diarrhea. There were no grade 4 events, and no diarrhea-related treatment discontinuations., Conclusions: Neratinib monotherapy showed evidence of activity in heavily pretreated patients with HER2-mutant cervical cancer, with no new safety signals. Given the few effective options for cervical cancer after platinum-based therapy failure, neratinib warrants further investigation in this molecularly defined patient population., Trial Registration Number: NCT01953926 (ClinicalTrials.gov), 2013-002872-42 (EudraCT)., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest A. Oaknin: has received advisory board honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, Clovis Oncology, Tesaro, Inmunogen, Genmab, and Deciphera and travel/accommodation support from Roche, AstraZeneca, and PharmaMar. C.F. Friedman: has received institutional research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, and Genentech, advisory board honoraria from AstraZeneca, and serves on steering committees for the Genentech MyPathway and the Merck LYNK-002 studies (compensation waived). L.D. Roman: has received advisory board honoraria from Tempus Labs and is a consultant for Quantgene. A. D'Souza: has no competing interests. I. Brana: has received institutional research funding from Puma Biotechnology Inc. F. Clement-Bidard: has received advisory board honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Amgen, and AstraZeneca. J. Goldman: has received institutional research funding from Puma Biotechnology Inc. E. A. Alvarez: has received advisory board honoraria from Eisai Co. Inc. and ArQule Inc. and has been a medical consultant for Tracon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. V. Boni: has received advisory board honoraria from Loxo Oncology and Ideaya. A.C. ElNaggar: has received institutional research funding from Caris Life Sciences and advisory board honoraria from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Leap Therapeutics, Tesaro/GSK, and AbbVie Pharmaceuticals. R. Passalacqua: has received advisory board/speaker honoraria from Amgen, Astellas, Bayer, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Roche, MSD, and Pierre-Fabre. K.T.M. Do: has received advisory board honoraria from QED Therapeutics. A.D. Santin: has received advisory board honoraria from Merck and Tesaro and has received institutional research funding from Puma Biotechnology Inc., Immunomedics, Tesaro, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Genentech. K. Keyvanjah: is an employee and shareholder of Puma Biotechnology Inc. F. Xu: is an employee and shareholder of Puma Biotechnology Inc. L.D. Eli: is an employee and shareholder of Puma Biotechnology Inc. A.S. Lalani: is an employee and shareholder of Puma Biotechnology Inc. R.P. Bryce: is an employee and shareholder of Puma Biotechnology Inc. D.M. Hyman: has acted in a consulting/advisory role for Atara Biotherapeutics, Chugai Pharma, CytomX Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Bayer, and Genentech, and has received institutional research funding from Loxo Oncology, Puma Biotechnology Inc., and AstraZeneca. He is currently employed by Loxo Oncology/Eli Lilly. F. Meric-Bernstam: has received institutional research funding from Novartis, AstraZeneca, Calithera, Aileron, Bayer, Jounce, CytoMx, eFFECTOR, Zymeworks, Puma Biotechnology Inc., Curis, Millennium, Daiichi Sankyo, AbbVie, Guardant Health, Takeda, and GlaxoSmithKline, grants/travel-related fees from Taiho, Genentech, Debiopharm Group, and Pfizer, consultancy fees from Pieris, Dialectica, Sumitomo Dainippon, Samsung Bioepis, Aduro, OrigiMed, Xencor, Jackson Laboratory, Zymeworks, and Parexel International, advisory board fees from Inflection Biosciences, GRAIL, Darwin Health, Clearlight Diagnostics, Spectrum, Mersana, and Seattle Genetics. D.H. Solit: has acted in a consulting/advisory role for Loxo Oncology, Pfizer, Illumina, Vivideon Therapeutics, QED Therapeutics, and Lilly Oncology. B.J. Monk: has received consultancy fees from Puma Biotechnology Inc., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Patients with advanced endometrial carcinoma have limited treatment options. We report final primary efficacy analysis results for a patient cohort with advanced endometrial carcinoma receiving lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in an ongoing phase Ib/II study of selected solid tumors., Methods: Patients took lenvatinib 20 mg once daily orally plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks, in 3-week cycles. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) at 24 weeks (ORR Wk24 ); secondary efficacy end points included duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Tumor assessments were evaluated by investigators per immune-related RECIST., Results: At data cutoff, 108 patients with previously treated endometrial carcinoma were enrolled, with a median follow-up of 18.7 months. The ORR Wk24 was 38.0% (95% CI, 28.8% to 47.8%). Among subgroups, the ORR Wk24 (95% CI) was 63.6% (30.8% to 89.1%) in patients with microsatellite instability (MSI)-high tumors (n = 11) and 36.2% (26.5% to 46.7%) in patients with microsatellite-stable tumors (n = 94). For previously treated patients, regardless of tumor MSI status, the median DOR was 21.2 months (95% CI, 7.6 months to not estimable), median PFS was 7.4 months (95% CI, 5.3 to 8.7 months), and median OS was 16.7 months (15.0 months to not estimable). Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 83/124 (66.9%) patients., Conclusion: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab showed promising antitumor activity in patients with advanced endometrial carcinoma who have experienced disease progression after prior systemic therapy, regardless of tumor MSI status. The combination therapy had a manageable toxicity profile.

Purpose of Review: Changes in molecular classification together with a deeper knowledge of both immune disregulation and phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase (PI3K) pathway alterations are leading to a new endometrial cancer treatment paradigm. This review will address the cutting-edge data in this field., Recent Findings: This article will cover the updated data in endometrial cancer molecular classification and its correlation with the outcomes in randomized clinical trials (e.g., PORTEC-3). Moreover, we will review the latest data regarding checkpoint blockade molecules (CPB) in the recurrent setting and how they are changing the treatment landscape. In addition, the role of the PI3K inhibitors, their activity, and toxicity profile will be described., Summary: As result of the incorporation of molecular classification in our daily practice, the adjuvant treatment in endometrial cancer is rapidly evolving and leading to a new paradigm. The promising data observed with CPB in the recurrent setting have led to the food and drug administration approval of pembrolizumab as monotherapy and in combination with lenvatinib. Additionally, the current outcomes achieved with PI3K inhibitor agents encourage us to continue our clinical research to identify those patients who may benefit the most.

Purpose: PARP inhibitors (PARPi) are standard-of-care therapy for high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC). We investigated combining cediranib (antiangiogenic) with olaparib (PARPi) at emergence of PARPi resistance., Patients and Methods: The proof-of-concept EVOLVE study (NCT02681237) assessed cediranib-olaparib combination therapy after progression on a PARPi. Women with HGSOC and radiographic evidence of disease progression were enrolled into one of three cohorts: platinum sensitive after PARPi; platinum resistant after PARPi; or progression on standard chemotherapy after progression on PARPi (exploratory cohort). Patients received olaparib tablets 300 mg twice daily with cediranib 20 mg once daily until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The coprimary endpoints were objective response rate (RECIST v1.1) and progression-free survival (PFS) at 16 weeks. Archival tissue (PARPi-naïve) and baseline biopsy (post-PARPi) samples were mandatory. Genomic mechanisms of resistance were assessed by whole-exome and RNA sequencing., Results: Among 34 heavily pretreated patients, objective responses were observed in 0 of 11 (0%) platinum-sensitive patients, 2 of 10 (20%) platinum-resistant patients, and 1 of 13 (8%) in the exploratory cohort. Sixteen-week PFS rates were 55%, 50%, and 39%, respectively. The most common grade 3 toxicities were diarrhea (12%) and anemia (9%). Acquired genomic alterations at PARPi progression were reversion mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2 , or RAD51B (19%); CCNE1 amplification (16%); ABCB1 upregulation (15%); and SLFN11 downregulation (7%). Patients with reversion mutations in homologous recombination genes and/or ABCB1 upregulation had poor outcomes., Conclusions: This is currently the largest post-PARPi study identifying genomic mechanisms of resistance to PARPis. In this setting, the activity of cediranib-olaparib varied according to the PARPi resistance mechanism., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Introduction: To describe patient-reported outcomes and toxicities at time of treatment discontinuation secondary to progression or toxicities in advanced/recurrent cervical cancer patients receiving chemotherapy with bevacizumab., Methods: Summarize toxicity, grade, and health-related quality of life within 1 month of treatment discontinuation for women receiving chemotherapy with bevacizumab in GOG240., Results: Of the 227 patients who received chemotherapy with bevacizumab, 148 discontinued study protocol treatment (90 for disease progression and 58 for toxicity). The median survival time from treatment discontinuation to death was 7.9 months (95% CI 5.0 to 9.0) for those who progressed versus 12.1 months (95% CI 8.9 to 23.2) for those who discontinued therapy due to toxicities. The most common grade 3 or higher toxicities included hematologic, gastrointestinal, and pain. Some 57% (84/148) of patients completed quality of life assessment within 1 month of treatment discontinuation. Those patients who discontinued treatment due to progression had a mean decline in the FACT-Cx TOI of 3.2 points versus 2.2 in patients who discontinued therapy due to toxicity. This was a 9.9 point greater decline in the FACT-Cx TOI scores than those who discontinued treatment due to progression (95% CI 2.8 to 17.0, p=0.007). The decline in quality of life was due to worsening physical and functional well-being. Those who discontinued treatment due to toxicities had worse neurotoxicity and pain., Discussion: Patients who discontinued chemotherapy with bevacizumab for toxicity experienced longer post-protocol survival but significantly greater declination in quality of life than those with progression. Future trial design should include supportive care interventions that optimize physiologic function and performance status for salvage therapies., Competing Interests: Competing interests: DC reports personal fees received from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Roche/Genentech, and Tesaro, outside of the submitted work. BJM reports personal fees received from Roche/Genentech, outside of the submitted work. RTP reports serving on a Scientific Advisory Board for Genentech/Roche. AO reports serving on advisory boards for Roche, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, Clovis Oncology, and Tesaro and received support for travel/accommodation from Roche, AstraZeneca, and PharmaMar. WKH reports receiving personal fees as consultant for Antiva, PathoVax, and Li-Cor, outside of the submitted work. DR reports serving on the Advisory Board for Genentech and Ipsen and received personal fees, outside of the submitted report. RS reports serving on the Speaker Bureau for Genentech as well as serving on Advisory Boards for Tesaro, Clovis, AstraZeneca, and Ethicon, outside of the submitted work. KST reports serving on the Speaker’s Bureau, Advisory Board for Roche/Genentech., (© IGCS and ESGO 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: In ARIEL3, rucaparib maintenance treatment significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo. Here, we report prespecified, investigator-assessed, exploratory post-progression endpoints and updated safety data., Methods: In this ongoing (enrolment complete) randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, patients aged 18 years or older who had platinum-sensitive, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 who had received at least two previous platinum-based chemotherapy regimens and responded to their last platinum-based regimen were randomly assigned (2:1) to oral rucaparib (600 mg twice daily) or placebo in 28-day cycles using a computer-generated sequence (block size of six with stratification based on homologous recombination repair gene mutation status, progression-free interval following penultimate platinum-based regimen, and best response to most recent platinum-based regimen). Patients, investigators, site staff, assessors, and the funder were masked to assignments. The primary endpoint of investigator-assessed progression-free survival has been previously reported. Prespecified, exploratory outcomes of chemotherapy-free interval (CFI), time to start of first subsequent therapy (TFST), time to disease progression on subsequent therapy or death (PFS2), and time to start of second subsequent therapy (TSST) and updated safety were analysed (visit cutoff Dec 31, 2017). Efficacy analyses were done in all patients randomised to three nested cohorts: patients with BRCA mutations, patients with homologous recombination deficiencies, and the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01968213., Findings: Between April 7, 2014, and July 19, 2016, 564 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to rucaparib (n=375) or placebo (n=189). Median follow-up was 28·1 months (IQR 22·0-33·6). In the intention-to-treat population, median CFI was 14·3 months (95% CI 13·0-17·4) in the rucaparib group versus 8·8 months (8·0-10·3) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·43 [95% CI 0·35-0·53]; p<0·0001), median TFST was 12·4 months (11·1-15·2) versus 7·2 months (6·4-8·6; HR 0·43 [0·35-0·52]; p<0·0001), median PFS2 was 21·0 months (18·9-23·6) versus 16·5 months (15·2-18·4; HR 0·66 [0·53-0·82]; p=0·0002), and median TSST was 22·4 months (19·1-24·5) versus 17·3 months (14·9-19·4; HR 0·68 [0·54-0·85]; p=0·0007). CFI, TFST, PFS2, and TSST were also significantly longer with rucaparib than placebo in the BRCA-mutant and homologous recombination-deficient cohorts. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse event of grade 3 or higher was anaemia or decreased haemoglobin (80 [22%] patients in the rucaparib group vs one [1%] patient in the placebo group). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 83 (22%) patients in the rucaparib group and 20 (11%) patients in the placebo group. Two treatment-related deaths have been previously reported in this trial; there were no new treatment-related deaths., Interpretation: In these exploratory analyses over a median follow-up of more than 2 years, rucaparib maintenance treatment led to a clinically meaningful delay in starting subsequent therapy and provided lasting clinical benefits versus placebo in all three analysis cohorts. Updated safety data were consistent with previous reports., Funding: Clovis Oncology., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Most hyperprogression disease (HPD) definitions are based on tumor growth rate (TGR). However, there is still no consensus on how to evaluate this phenomenon., Patients and Methods: We investigated two independent cohorts of patients with advanced solid tumors treated in phase I trials with (i) programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)/PD-L1 antibodies in monotherapy or combination and (ii) targeted agents (TA) in unapproved indications. A Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1-based definition of hyperprogression was developed. The primary endpoint was the assessment of the rate of HPD in patients treated with ICIs or TAs using both criteria (RECIST and TGR) and the impact on overall survival (OS) in patients who achieved PD as best response., Results: Among 270 evaluable patients treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, 29 PD-1/PD-L1-treated patients (10.7%) had HPD by RECIST definition. This group had a significantly lower OS (median of 5.23 months; 95% CI, 3.97-6.45) when compared with the non-HPD progressor group (median, 7.33 months; 95% CI, 4.53-10.12; HR = 1.73, 95% CI, 1.05-2.85; P = 0.04). In a subset of 221 evaluable patients, 14 (6.3%) were categorized as HPD using TGR criteria, differences in median OS (mOS) between this group (mOS 4.2 months; 95% IC, 2.07-6.33) and non-HPD progressors ( n = 44) by TGR criteria (mOS 6.27 months; 95% CI, 3.88-8.67) were not statistically significant (HR 1.4, 95% IC, 0.70-2.77; P = 0.346). Among 239 evaluable patients treated with TAs, 26 (10.9%) were classified as having HPD by RECIST and 14 using TGR criteria in a subset of patients. No differences in OS were observed between HPD and non-HPD progressors treated with TAs., Conclusions: HPD measured by TGR or by RECIST was observed in both cohorts of patients; however, in our series, there was an impact on survival only in the immune-checkpoint inhibitor cohort when evaluated by RECIST. We propose a new way to capture HPD using RECIST criteria that is intuitive and easy to use in daily clinical practice., (©2019 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Patients with metastatic, recurrent, or persistent cervical cancer not amenable to local control and/or distant metastases have a very poor prognosis, only being candidates for palliative-systemic therapy. First line standard treatment in this scenario is based on cisplatin/paclitaxel plus bevacizumab (GOG 240 regimen) with a short median overall survival (16.8 months) and progression-free survival (8.2 months)., Primary Objective: To determine whether the addition of atezolizumab to cisplatin-paclitaxel and bevacizumab improves overall survival, compared with cisplatin-paclitaxel plus bevacizumab in patients with metastatic, recurrent, or persistent cervical cancer., Study Hypothesis: The primary hypothesis is whether the addition of atezolizumab to cisplatin-paclitaxel and bevacizumab improves overall survival in metastatic, recurrent, or persistent cervical cancer., Trial Design: The BEATcc study is a phase III, randomized, open-label, multi-center clinical trial. The study will be performed on an intent-to-treat population. The control arm is the administration of chemotherapy (platinum plus paclitaxel) and bevacizumab, while the experimental arm is the administration of atezolizumab in combination with the same chemotherapy regimen (1:1 randomization). The trial will be run under the ENGOT umbrella alongside JGOG and GOG-F. GEICO is the lead group on behalf of ENGOT., Major Inclusion/exclusion Criteria: Women over 18 years old with histologically or cytologically confirmed diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous metastatic, recurrent, or persistent cervical cancer, not amenable for curative treatment with surgery and/or radiation therapy, will be included. Women are not eligible if they have received prior systemic anti-cancer therapy for metastatic or persistent/recurrent disease or they have disease involving the bladder or rectum at the screening/baseline pelvic magnetic resonance imaging., Primary Endpoint: Overall survival, defined as the observed length of life from entry into the study (day of randomization) to death from any cause or the date of last contact., Sample Size: A total of 404 patients are expected to be recruited into the study, assuming a total 10% drop-out rate. In order to test whether the experimental arm improves overall survival, the study will have 80% power using one-sided α of 0.025. There will be one interim analysis to close the study in case of early efficacy results in the experimental arm., Estimated Dates for Completing Accrual and Presenting Results: The trial was launched in Q3 2018 and the trial is estimated to close in Q3 2022. We expect to be able to report mature data from the BEATcc trial by 2023., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03556839)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AO has served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Genmab/Seattle Genetics, ImmunoGen, PharmaMar, Roche, and Tesaro and received support for travel or accommodation from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, Roche, and Tesaro., (© IGCS and ESGO 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Data are limited regarding the use of poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, such as veliparib, in combination with chemotherapy followed by maintenance as initial treatment in patients with high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma., Methods: In an international, phase 3, placebo-controlled trial, we assessed the efficacy of veliparib added to first-line induction chemotherapy with carboplatin and paclitaxel and continued as maintenance monotherapy in patients with previously untreated stage III or IV high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive chemotherapy plus placebo followed by placebo maintenance (control), chemotherapy plus veliparib followed by placebo maintenance (veliparib combination only), or chemotherapy plus veliparib followed by veliparib maintenance (veliparib throughout). Cytoreductive surgery could be performed before initiation or after 3 cycles of trial treatment. Combination chemotherapy was 6 cycles, and maintenance therapy was 30 additional cycles. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the veliparib-throughout group as compared with the control group, analyzed sequentially in the BRCA -mutation cohort, the cohort with homologous-recombination deficiency (HRD) (which included the BRCA -mutation cohort), and the intention-to-treat population., Results: A total of 1140 patients underwent randomization. In the BRCA -mutation cohort, the median progression-free survival was 34.7 months in the veliparib-throughout group and 22.0 months in the control group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28 to 0.68; P<0.001); in the HRD cohort, it was 31.9 months and 20.5 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.57; 95 CI, 0.43 to 0.76; P<0.001); and in the intention-to-treat population, it was 23.5 months and 17.3 months (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.83; P<0.001). Veliparib led to a higher incidence of anemia and thrombocytopenia when combined with chemotherapy as well as of nausea and fatigue overall., Conclusions: Across all trial populations, a regimen of carboplatin, paclitaxel, and veliparib induction therapy followed by veliparib maintenance therapy led to significantly longer progression-free survival than carboplatin plus paclitaxel induction therapy alone. The independent value of adding veliparib during induction therapy without veliparib maintenance was less clear. (Funded by AbbVie; VELIA/GOG-3005 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02470585.)., (Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Purpose: Nivolumab was assessed in patients with virus-associated tumors in the phase I/II CheckMate 358 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02488759). We report on patients with recurrent/metastatic cervical, vaginal, or vulvar cancers., Patients and Methods: Patients received nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks. Although patients with unknown human papillomavirus status were enrolled, patients known to have human papillomavirus-negative tumors were ineligible. The primary end point was objective response rate. Duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival, and overall survival were secondary end points. Safety and patient-reported outcomes were exploratory end points., Results: Twenty-four patients (cervical, n = 19; vaginal/vulvar, n = 5) were enrolled. Most patients had received prior systemic therapy for metastatic disease (cervical, 78.9%; vaginal/vulvar, 80.0%). Objective response rates were 26.3% (95% CI, 9.1 to 51.2) for cervical cancer and 20.0% (95% CI, 0.5 to 71.6) for vaginal/vulvar cancers. At a median follow-up of 19.2 months, median DOR was not reached (range, 23.3 to 29.5+ months; + indicates a censored observation) in the five responding patients in the cervical cohort; the DOR was 5.0 months in the single responding patient in the vaginal/vulvar cohort. Median overall survival was 21.9 months (95% CI, 15.1 months to not reached) among patients with cervical cancer. Any-grade treatment-related adverse events were reported in 12 of 19 patients (63.2%) in the cervical cohort and all five patients in the vaginal/vulvar cohort; there were no treatment-related deaths. In the cervical cohort, nivolumab treatment generally resulted in stabilization of patient-reported outcomes associated with health status and health-related quality of life., Conclusion: The efficacy of nivolumab in patients with recurrent/metastatic cervical and vaginal or vulvar cancers is promising and warrants additional investigation. No new safety signals were identified with nivolumab treatment in this population.

Objective: To report results from an integrated efficacy and safety analysis supporting the European Commission's approval of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib as monotherapy treatment for relapsed, platinum-sensitive, BRCA -mutated ovarian cancer., Methods: Efficacy was analyzed in platinum-sensitive patients from Study 10 (NCT01482715) and ARIEL2 (NCT01891344) who had high-grade serous or endometrioid epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer and a deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation and received two or more prior chemotherapies (including two or more platinum-based therapies). The primary end point was investigator-assessed, confirmed objective response rate (visit cut-off: April 10, 2017). Safety was analyzed in patients with ovarian cancer, regardless of BRCA mutation status or lines of prior chemotherapies, who received at least one dose of rucaparib 600 mg in either study (visit cut-off: December 31, 2017)., Results: In the integrated platinum-sensitive efficacy population (n=79), objective response rate was 64.6% (95% CI, 53.0 to 75.0); 10.1% (8/79) of patients had a complete response and 54.4% (43/79) had a partial response. Median duration of response was 294 days (95% CI, 224 to 393). In the integrated safety population (n=565), the most common any-grade treatment-emergent adverse events were nausea (77.7%, 439/565), asthenia/fatigue (74.7%, 422/565), vomiting (45.8%, 259/565), and hemoglobin decreased (44.2%, 250/565). Treatment-emergent adverse events led to treatment interruption, dose reduction, or discontinuation in 60.2% (340/565), 46.0% (260/565), and 16.8% (95/565) of patients., Conclusions: In patients with platinum-sensitive, BRCA -mutated ovarian cancer, rucaparib demonstrated antitumor activity and is the first and currently the only poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor approved by the European Commission as treatment for this population. The safety analysis used a more recent visit cut-off date and larger population than previously published, was consistent with prior reports, and was the basis for the treatment-indication safety population in rucaparib's recently updated European Union label., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RSK has served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, Roche, and Tesaro. AO has served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Genmab/Seattle Genetics, ImmunoGen, PharmaMar, Roche, and Tesaro; has received support for travel or accommodation from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, and Roche; and reports institutional research grant support from Clovis Oncology, AbbVie Deutschland, Ability Pharmaceuticals, Advaxis, Aeterna Zentaris, Amgen, Aprea Therapeutics, Eisai, ImmunoGen, Merck/Merck Sharp & Dohme, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, PharmaMar, Roche, and Tesaro. IR-C has served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Genmab/Seattle Genetics, ImmunoGen, PharmaMar, Roche, and Tesaro and received support for travel or accommodation from AstraZeneca and Roche. AL has served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Gritstone, Genmab/Seattle Genetics, and Tesaro; reports institutional support for clinical trials from Clovis Oncology and AstraZeneca; and reports boarding and travel expenses for congress activities from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, and Roche. JB has served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, and Bristol-Myers Squibb and received support for travel from AstraZeneca. YD has served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Genmab, and Tesaro; serves on a trial steering committee for AstraZeneca; has received research funding from Clovis Oncology; her institution, Newcastle Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, has received reimbursement of study costs from Clovis Oncology for a clinical trial described in this manuscript. YD and her employer (Newcastle University) receive royalties in recognition of their role in the preclinical development of rucaparib. AMO has served on steering committees for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, and Tesaro. RS-F has served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology. SMD has received honoraria from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, and her institution has received research funding from Clovis Oncology and AstraZeneca. TC, LM, and SG are employees of Clovis Oncology and may own stock or have stock options in that company. DL has served in a consulting or advisory role for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Genmab, Merck, and Tesaro and received institutional research support from Clovis Oncology, Merck, PharmaMar, and Tesaro. JAL has served in an advisory role for Clovis Oncology, Artios Pharma, AstraZeneca, Merck/Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, and Tesaro; is chair of an independent Data Monitoring Committee for Regeneron; and has served on speakers' bureaus for and received research grants from AstraZeneca and Merck/Merck Sharp & Dohme. IAM has served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Takeda, and Tesaro and receives institutional funding from AstraZeneca., (© IGCS and ESGO 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: Patients with advanced/recurrent epithelial ovarian and uterine cancers have limited treatment options beyond platinum chemotherapy. Both tumor types can express programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), providing a potential therapeutic target for these patients. Here we present data from the ovarian and uterine cancer cohorts of the Phase I atezolizumab monotherapy study (PCD4989g)., Methods: This Phase I, multi-center, first-in-human, open-label, dose-escalation/expansion clinical trial investigated single-agent atezolizumab in cohorts of patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian or uterine cancer. The primary objective was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of single-agent atezolizumab. Anti-tumor activity and preliminary assessment of potential biomarkers were evaluated as secondary and exploratory objectives, respectively., Results: The ovarian and uterine cancer cohorts enrolled 12 and 15 patients, respectively (10 [83%] and 5 [33%], respectively, had PD-L1 ≥ 5% on tumor-infiltrating immune cells). Atezolizumab was generally well tolerated with no new safety signals identified. The safety profiles in both cohorts were consistent with the known profile of atezolizumab monotherapy. Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were mostly Grade ≤ 2, with no treatment-related Grade ≥ 4 AEs reported. Preliminary anti-tumor activity, with long durations of response, was observed in 2 patients from each cohort (ovarian cancer, 8.1 and 30.6+ months; uterine cancer, 7.3 and 16.6+ months). High microsatellite instability and tumor mutational burden were noted in the responders from the uterine cancer cohort., Conclusions: Atezolizumab monotherapy was well tolerated in patients with epithelial ovarian or uterine cancer and may have clinical activity warranting further investigation., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01375842., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Objective: To analyze the effect that the introduction of minimally invasive procedures has had on surgical and oncologic outcomes when compared with conventional open radical hysterectomy (ORH) in a national reference cancer after 17 years of experience in radical hysterectomy., Design: A prospective controlled study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2)., Setting: A university teaching hospital., Patients: All patients who underwent radical hysterectomy as primary treatment for cervical cancer in our institution between May 1999 and June 2016, with a total of 188 patients., Interventions: Patients underwent ORH or minimally invasive surgery (MIS) (i.e., laparoscopic or robotically assisted radical hysterectomy)., Measurements and Main Results: Seventy-six patients underwent ORH, 90 laparoscopic radical hysterectomy, and 22 robotically assisted radical hysterectomy. Blood loss and hospital stay were inferior in the MIS group (p <.0001). The laparotomic group presented shorter operation times (p = .0001). With a median follow-up of 112.4 months, a total of 156 patients (83%) were alive and free of disease at the time of the data analysis. Overall survival was higher in the MIS group when compared with the ORH group (91 vs 78.9, p = .026). There were no differences regarding recurrence rates between the surgical approaches., Conclusion: With 1 of the largest follow-up periods in the literature, this study provides added evidence that MIS could become the preferable surgical approach for early-stage cervical cancer since it appears to reduce morbidity without affecting oncologic results., (Copyright © 2018 AAGL. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

A key resistance mechanism to platinum-based chemotherapies and PARP inhibitors in BRCA -mutant cancers is the acquisition of BRCA reversion mutations that restore protein function. To estimate the prevalence of BRCA reversion mutations in high-grade ovarian carcinoma (HGOC), we performed targeted next-generation sequencing of circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) extracted from pretreatment and postprogression plasma in patients with deleterious germline or somatic BRCA mutations treated with the PARP inhibitor rucaparib. BRCA reversion mutations were identified in pretreatment cfDNA from 18% (2/11) of platinum-refractory and 13% (5/38) of platinum-resistant cancers, compared with 2% (1/48) of platinum-sensitive cancers ( P = 0.049). Patients without BRCA reversion mutations detected in pretreatment cfDNA had significantly longer rucaparib progression-free survival than those with reversion mutations (median, 9.0 vs. 1.8 months; HR, 0.12; P < 0.0001). To study acquired resistance, we sequenced 78 postprogression cfDNA, identifying eight additional patients with BRCA reversion mutations not found in pretreatment cfDNA. SIGNIFICANCE: BRCA reversion mutations are detected in cfDNA from platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory HGOC and are associated with decreased clinical benefit from rucaparib treatment. Sequencing of cfDNA can detect multiple BRCA reversion mutations, highlighting the ability to capture multiclonal heterogeneity. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 151 ., (©2018 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Each year, more than half a million women are diagnosed with cervical cancer and the disease results in over 300 000 deaths worldwide. High-risk subtypes of the human papilloma virus (HPV) are the cause of the disease in most cases. The disease is largely preventable. Approximately 90% of cervical cancers occur in low-income and middle-income countries that lack organised screening and HPV vaccination programmes. In high-income countries, cervical cancer incidence and mortality have more than halved over the past 30 years since the introduction of formal screening programmes. Treatment depends on disease extent at diagnosis and locally available resources, and might involve radical hysterectomy or chemoradiation, or a combination of both. Conservative, fertility-preserving surgical procedures have become standard of care for women with low-risk, early-stage disease. Advances in radiotherapy technology, such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy, have resulted in less treatment-related toxicity for women with locally-advanced disease. For women with metastatic or recurrent disease, the overall prognosis remains poor; nevertheless, the incorporation of the anti-VEGF agent bevacizumab has been able to extend overall survival beyond 12 months. Preliminary results of novel immunotherapeutic approaches, similarly to other solid tumours, have shown promising results so far., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Advances in the understanding of the histological and molecular characteristics of ovarian cancer now allow 5subtypes to be identified, leading to a more refined therapeutic approach and improved clinical trials. Each of the subtypes has specific histological features and a particular biomarker expression, as well as mutations in different genes, some of which have prognostic and predictive value. CA125 and HE4 are examples of ovarian cancer biomarkers used in diagnosis and follow-up. Currently, somatic or germinal mutations on BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are the most important biomarkers in epithelial ovarian cancer, having prognostic and predictive value. In this article, a group of experts from the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology and the Spanish Society of Pathology review the histological and molecular characteristics of the 5subtypes of ovarian cancer and describe the most useful biomarkers and mutations for diagnosis, screening and tailored treatment strategy., (Copyright © 2018 Sociedad Española de Anatomía Patológica. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Objective: An integrated analysis was undertaken to characterize the antitumor activity and safety profile of the oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib in patients with relapsed high-grade ovarian carcinoma (HGOC)., Methods: Eligible patients from Study 10 (NCT01482715) and ARIEL2 (NCT01891344) who received a starting dose of oral rucaparib 600mg twice daily (BID) with or without food were included in these analyses. The integrated efficacy population included patients with HGOC and a deleterious germline or somatic BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation who received at least two prior chemotherapies and were sensitive, resistant, or refractory to platinum-based chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed confirmed objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR) and progression-free survival (PFS). The integrated safety population included patients with HGOC who received at least one dose of rucaparib 600mg BID, irrespective of BRCA1/2 mutation status and prior treatments., Results: In the efficacy population (n=106), ORR was 53.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 43.8-63.5); 8.5% and 45.3% of patients achieved complete and partial responses, respectively. Median DOR was 9.2months (95% CI, 6.6-11.6). In the safety population (n=377), the most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were nausea, asthenia/fatigue, vomiting, and anemia/hemoglobin decreased. The most common grade ≥3 treatment-emergent AE was anemia/hemoglobin decreased. Treatment-emergent AEs led to treatment interruption, dose reduction, and treatment discontinuation in 58.6%, 45.9%, and 9.8% of patients, respectively. No treatment-related deaths occurred., Conclusions: Rucaparib has antitumor activity in advanced BRCA1/2-mutated HGOC and a manageable safety profile., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Advanced/metastatic or recurrent endometrial cancer has a poor prognosis. Malignant endometrial tissue has high steroid sulphatase (STS) activity. The aim of this study was to evaluate STS as a therapeutic target in patients with endometrial cancer., Methods: This was a phase 2, multicenter, international, open-label, randomized (1:1), 2-arm study of the STS inhibitor oral irosustat 40 mg/d versus oral megestrol acetate 160 mg/d in women with advanced/metastatic or recurrent estrogen receptor-positive endometrial cancer. The primary end point was the proportion of patients without progression or death 6 months after start of treatment. Secondary end points included progression-free survival, time to progression, overall survival, and safety., Results: Seventy-one patients were treated (36 with irosustat, 35 with megestrol acetate). The study was prematurely stopped after futility analysis. Overall, 36.1% and 54.1% of patients receiving irosustat or megestrol acetate had not progressed or died at 6 months, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between irosustat and megestrol acetate in response and overall survival rates. Irosustat patients had a median progression-free survival of 16 weeks (90% confidence interval, 9.0-31.4) versus 40 weeks (90% confidence interval, 16.3-64.0) in megestrol acetate patients. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 20 (55.6%) and 13 (37.1%) patients receiving irosustat or megestrol, respectively. Most adverse events in both groups were grade 1 or 2., Conclusions: Although irosustat monotherapy did not attain a level of activity sufficient for further development in patients with advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer, this study confirms the activity of hormonal treatment (megestrol acetate) for this indication.

Cervical cancer (CC) is the second most common cancer worldwide, with a well known origin, infection by high-risk human papilloma virus. Although screening programmes have led to a relevant reduction in the incidence and mortality due to CC in developed countries, it is still an important cause of mortality in young women in undeveloped countries. Clinical stage is the most relevant prognostic factor in CC and the standard of care is still based on it. In early stages, the primary treatment is surgery or radiotherapy, whereas concomitant chemo-radiotherapy is the conventional approach in locally advanced stage. In the setting of recurrent or metastatic CC the treatment is largely palliative, so it is important to develop new therapeutic strategies.

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common gynaecological tumour in developing countries. Most patients with EC are diagnosed at an early stage with a low risk of relapse and overall survival at 5 years greater than 85%. Nevertheless, there is a subgroup of patients with a very poor prognosis due to the pathological features and molecular characteristics. Until now there has been no consensus regarding adjuvant treatment in EC patients, with many open questions: In which patients is it indicated? Which is the best approach: chemotherapy, radiotherapy or both? What is the right timing? Relevant clinical trials are in progress in order to answer these questions. Unfortunately, the survival of patients with metastatic or recurrent EC is quite short due to the poor responses to standard first-line chemotherapy and the lack of second lines of treatment.

This dose-escalating phase I clinical trial was designed to determine the recommended dose (RD) and to assess the safety and feasibility of weekly plitidepsin (1-hour i.v. infusion, Days 1, 8 and 15) combined with carboplatin (1-hour i.v. infusion, Day 1, after plitidepsin) in 4-week (q4wk) cycles given to patients with advanced solid tumors or lymphomas. Twenty patients were enrolled and evaluable for both safety and efficacy. The starting dose was plitidepsin 1.8 mg/m(2) and carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) = 5 min*mg/ml; dose escalation proceeded based on worst toxicity in the previous cohort. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was plitidepsin 3.0 mg/m(2) and carboplatin AUC = 5 min*mg/ml, with grade 3 transaminase increases as the most common dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). The RD for phase II studies was plitidepsin 2.4 mg/m(2) and carboplatin AUC = 5 min*mg/ml, with fatigue, myalgia and nausea as the most common drug-related adverse events (AEs). No unexpected toxicity was seen. Twelve patients (60%), ten of whom were heavily pretreated (≥2 previous chemotherapy lines) showed stable disease (SD), with a median time to progression (TTP) of 4.4 months. In conclusion, plitidepsin 2.4 mg/m(2) and carboplatin AUC = 5 min*mg/ml is a safe dose for future phase II studies evaluating the use of this combination in cancer patients potentially sensitive to platinum-based therapy.

Background: Olaparib is a novel, orally active poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor that induces synthetic lethality in homozygous BRCA-deficient cells. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of olaparib for treatment of advanced ovarian cancer in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations., Methods: In this international, multicentre, phase 2 study, we enrolled two sequential cohorts of women (aged >or=18 years) with confirmed genetic BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, and recurrent, measurable disease. The study was undertaken in 12 centres in Australia, Germany, Spain, Sweden, and the USA. The first cohort (n=33) was given continuous oral olaparib at the maximum tolerated dose of 400 mg twice daily, and the second cohort (n=24) was given continuous oral olaparib at 100 mg twice daily. The primary efficacy endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00494442., Findings: Patients had been given a median of three (range 1-16) previous chemotherapy regimens. ORR was 11 (33%) of 33 patients (95% CI 20-51) in the cohort assigned to olaparib 400 mg twice daily, and three (13%) of 24 (4-31) in the cohort assigned to 100 mg twice daily. In patients given olaparib 400 mg twice daily, the most frequent causally related adverse events were nausea (grade 1 or 2, 14 [42%]; grade 3 or 4, two [6%]), fatigue (grade 1 or 2, ten [30%]; grade 3 or 4, one [3%]), and anaemia (grade 1 or two, five [15%]; grade 3 or 4, one [3%]). The most frequent causally related adverse events in the cohort given 100 mg twice daily were nausea (grade 1 or 2, seven [29%]; grade 3 or 4, two [8%]) and fatigue (grade 1 or 2, nine [38%]; none grade 3 or 4)., Interpretation: Findings from this phase 2 study provide positive proof of concept of the efficacy and tolerability of genetically targeted treatment with olaparib in BRCA-mutated advanced ovarian cancer., Funding: AstraZeneca., (Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In the absence of a curative treatment for patients with recurrent ovarian cancer, many agents have shown different levels of activity in the control of this disease. Trabectedin is an antineoplastic agent originally derived from the Caribbean marine tunicate Ecteinascidia turbinate. This drug has a new mechanism of action based on DNA minor-groove binding. Following the encouraging results from Phase I and II studies of trabectedin monotherapy or in combination in patients with relapsed ovarian cancer, a Phase III trial investigating the use of trabectedin plus liposomal doxorubicin versus liposomal doxorubicin was launched. This study demonstrated a benefit for the combination in terms of progression-free survival that was consistent with published data of platinum-based regimens. This study has opened up the possibility of effective, nonplatinum, trabectedin-based combination therapy in patients with advanced or recurrent ovarian cancer.

Cervical cancer is one of the most common types of cancer in women worldwide, with the highest rates observed in underdeveloped countries. In the last decades, its incidence has decreased after the implementation of screening programs, mainly in developed countries. Infection with high-risk oncogenic HPV is associated with precancerous lesions and cervical cancer. Advances in the understanding of the role of HPV in the etiology of high-grade cervical lesions (CIN 2/3) and cervical cancer have led to the development, evaluation and recommendation of two prophylactic HPV vaccines. This review article provides a summary of the studies related with their development and efficacy.