Search

Clear cell carcinomas arising from the gynecological tract (including from the ovary, endometrium, cervix, vulva or vagina) represent rare but clinically significant entities with intriguing overlapping characteristics. Epidemiologically, clear cell carcinomas exhibit a predilection for women of Asian ethnicity and are often associated with a previous or synchronous diagnosis of endometriosis. Pathologically, despite originating from different primary organs, clear cell carcinomas of the gynecological tract show a similar morphological and immunophenotypic features on traditional histopathology, such as the expression of Napsin A and HNF1b on immunohistochemistry, without the expression of WT1. Well-described molecular characteristics of these cancers include recurrent mutations in genes such as ARID1A, PIK3CA, and/or PTEN, although significant variations exist across the different anatomical sites. Therapeutically, optimal management remains challenging due to the relative rarity of clear cell carcinomas and limited subtype-specific clinical trials. Surgery remains the cornerstone of treatment, often complemented by systemic chemotherapy. However, promising drugs targeting angiogenesis or the immune microenvironment have emerged in recent years, leading to clinical successes and are likely to reshape the therapeutic landscape of gynecological clear cell carcinoma. This review summarizes the commonalities and disparities in terms of epidemiology, pathology, molecular features and therapeutic approach, amongst clear cell carcinomas of different anatomical origin, offering a foundation for further research and dedicated therapeutic interventions for these malignancies.

Background: Checkpoint inhibitor therapy has demonstrated overall survival benefit in multiple tumor types. Tumor mutational burden (TMB) is a predictive biomarker for response to immunotherapies. This study evaluated the efficacy of nivolumab+ipilimumab in multiple tumor types based on TMB status evaluated using either tumor tissue (tTMB) or circulating tumor DNA in the blood (bTMB)., Patients and Methods: Patients with metastatic or unresectable solid tumors with high (≥10 mutations per megabase) tTMB (tTMB-H) and/or bTMB (bTMB-H) who were refractory to standard therapies were randomized 2:1 to receive nivolumab+ipilimumab or nivolumab monotherapy in an open-label, phase 2 study (CheckMate 848; NCT03668119). tTMB and bTMB were determined by the Foundation Medicine FoundationOne ® CDx test and bTMB Clinical Trial Assay, respectively. The dual primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) in patients with tTMB-H and/or bTMB-H tumors treated with nivolumab+ipilimumab., Results: In total, 201 patients refractory to standard therapies were randomized: 135 had tTMB-H and 125 had bTMB-H; 82 patients had dual tTMB-H/bTMB-H. In patients with tTMB-H, ORR was 38.6% (95% CI 28.4% to 49.6%) with nivolumab+ipilimumab and 29.8% (95% CI 17.3% to 44.9%) with nivolumab monotherapy. In patients with bTMB-H, ORR was 22.5% (95% CI 13.9% to 33.2%) with nivolumab+ipilimumab and 15.6% (95% CI 6.5% to 29.5%) with nivolumab monotherapy. Early and durable responses to treatment with nivolumab+ipilimumab were seen in patients with tTMB-H or bTMB-H. The safety profile of nivolumab+ipilimumab was manageable, with no new safety signals., Conclusions: Patients with metastatic or unresectable solid tumors with TMB-H, as determined by tissue biopsy or by blood sample when tissue biopsy is unavailable, who have no other treatment options, may benefit from nivolumab+ipilimumab., Trial Registration Number: NCT03668119., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AG has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Novartis, MSD, and Gilead; has a patent interest with Mylan; has participated in a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Novartis, AstraZeneca, MSD, and Gilead. AL has received grants from AstraZeneca and Sanofi; consulting fees from Seattle Genetics; honoraria/reimbursement and advisory board fees from AstraZeneca; advisory board fees or continuing medical education from Ability Pharma, Biocad, Clovis Oncology, GSK, Medscape, Merck Serono, MSD, TouchCongress, and Zentalis; support for attending meetings and/or travel from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, and Roche; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for ARIEL4 and TROPHIMMUNE. DSPT has received personal fees for advisory board membership from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Genmab, GSK, MSD, and Roche; personal fees as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Eisai, GSK, Merck Serono, MSD, Roche, and Takeda; ownership of stocks/shares of Asian Microbiome Library (AMiLi); institutional research grants from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Karyopharm Therapeutics, and Roche; institutional funding as coordinating PI from AstraZeneca, MSD, Eisai, Roche and Bergen Bio; institutional funding as local PI from Roche, GSK, Sutro Pharma, Bayer, Byondis B.V. and Zeria Pharmaceutical; a previous non-renumerated role as Chair of the Asia Pacific Gynecologic Oncology Trials Group (APGOT); a previous non-renumerated role as the Society President of the Gynecologic Cancer Group Singapore; non-renumerated membership of the Board of Directors of the GCIG; research funding from the Pangestu Family Foundation Gynaecological Cancer Research Fund; and product samples from AstraZeneca, Eisai, and MSD (non-financial interest). IL has received consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim; honoraria from Agenus, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celon, Cullinan Oncology, Jacobio, Janssen, Loxo, Macrogenics, Menarini, MSD, Pfizer, Rhizen, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda; institutional research funding from Agenus and Roche; and has been reimbursed for travel, accommodations, or expenses from Bristol Myers Squibb. J-PD has participated in advisory boards for Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, and Roche; has been an invited speaker for Merck Serono; has received research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, MSD, and Transgene. JV has participated in a data safety monitoring board for IO Biotech; has stock options in Genentech-Roche. MB has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD Oncology, Novartis, and Roche/Genentech; has received fees for participating in speakers’ bureaus for Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD Oncology, and Roche/Genentech. MM has received payment for a speaker for Alfasigma, Amgen, Astex, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GSK, Incyte, IOnctura, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, and SciClone; has received support for attending meetings and/or travel from Alfasigma, Amgen, Astex, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GSK, Incyte, IOnctura, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, and SciClone; has participated on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Alfasigma, Amgen, Astex, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GSK, Incyte, IOnctura, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, and SciClone; has stock options in EpiGen and Theravance. MS has received research grants from AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, EISAI, Eli Lilly, Five Prime, Gilead, GSK, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Samsung, and Takeda. NS provided consultation or attended advisory boards for Boehringer Ingelheim, Ellipses Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, and Luszana, with all payments to the Netherlands Cancer Institute; has received institutional research grants from AbbVie, Actuate Therapeutics, Amgen, Array, Ascendis Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, BridgeBio, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cantargia, CellCentric, Cogent Biosciences, Cresecendo Biologics, Cytovation, Deciphera, Dragonfly, Eli Lilly, Exelixis, Genentech, GSK, IDRx, Immunocore, Incyte, InteRNA, Janssen, Kinnate Biopharma, Kling Biotherapeutics, Lixte, Luszana, Merck, MSD, Merus, Molecular Partners, Navire Pharma, Novartis, Numab Therapeutics, Pfizer, Relay Pharmaceuticals, Revolution Medicin, Roche, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Taiho, and Takeda. PAA has received research grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi; has received consulting fees from Bayer, Bio-Al Health, Bristol Myers Squibb, Italfarmaco, Lunaphore, Medicenna, Merck Serono, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Philogen, Pierre-Fabre, Replimune, Roche-Genentech, Sandoz, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and ValoTx; has received support for attending meetings and/or travel from Bio-AI-Health, MSD, Pfizer, and Replimune; has participated on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Erasca, iTeos, MSD, Nouscom, Novartis, Oncosec, Regeneron, Roche-Genentech, and Seagen. T-EC has received research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck Serono, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, MSD, Pfizer, Servier, and Takeda; payment as a speaker for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, MSD, Pfizer, Servier, and Takeda; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, MSD, Pfizer, Servier, and Takeda; has participated on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, MSD, Pfizer, Servier, and Takeda. MP, PD and QD are employed by Bristol Myers Squibb. GK, JB, MP, MT, NH and SVV are employed by and hold stock options in Bristol Myers Squibb., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and platinum-based chemotherapy has emerged as a highly promising primary option for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (EC). The study aimed to evaluate treatment efficacy of ICIs with cytotoxic chemotherapy in EC., Methods: We conducted a comprehensive review of randomized controlled trials up to November 11, 2023, focusing on immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for EC. The primary endpoint was the pooled hazard ratio (HR), which was further analyzed across subgroups based on mismatch repair (MMR) status, race, histology, and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023475669)., Findings: Four trials with 2335 patients were analyzed. ICIs with chemotherapy significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.62-0.79) and overall survival (OS) (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63-0.89) compared to chemotherapy alone. Stratification by MMR status showed substantial benefits for dMMR (PFS; HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.26-0.43; OS; HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.22-0.91) over pMMR cohorts in both PFS and OS. In the subgroup analysis, there was significant PFS advantage in Caucasian (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.54-0.72) over non-Caucasian, in endometrioid histology (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.56-0.78) over non-endometrioid, and in PD-L1 positive (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.19-0.81) over PD-L1 negative population., Interpretation: ICIs combined with platinum-based chemotherapy significantly prolonged PFS and OS in patients with advanced or recurrent EC. Patients with dMMR status, Caucasians, endometrioid histology, and positive PD-L1 status showed significant PFS benefits, emphasizing the need for personalized treatment approaches to improve outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered potential competing interests: MCL reported having a consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca, Boryung, CKD Pharm, Genexine, Hospicare, GI Innovation, and Takeda and receiving research funding from AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Cellid, CKD Pharm, Clovis, Eisai, Genexine, GSK, Incyte, Merck, MSD, OncoQuest, Pfizer, and Roche outside the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Endometrial cancer incidence and mortality are rising among all ethnic groups. Carboplatin plus paclitaxel is the established frontline treatment for advanced/recurrent disease; however, subsequent treatment with traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy is challenging. The molecular characterization of endometrial cancer has provided important insights into the biological drivers of carcinogenesis, which has allowed for the development of newer precision immunotherapies and targeted therapies, including pembrolizumab, dostarlimab, and lenvatinib. Until recently, platinum rechallenge was often considered at the time of recurrence, given the lack of other available therapeutic options; however, "platinum sensitivity" in endometrial cancer is subjective and largely based on expert opinion and/or practitioner experience. Small retrospective studies have tried to provide guidance on the utility of platinum rechallenge, but they are limited by variable patient characteristics and small sample sizes. The applicability of these retrospective studies to contemporary clinical practice is difficult in the setting of changing patient demographics, a better understanding of endometrial cancer drivers, and the recent approvals of immune checkpoint inhibitors and the combination of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in the second-line setting. The primary focus of this review is to distill the available data regarding platinum-doublet chemotherapy rechallenge and highlight recent pivotal developments in endometrial cancer treatment, as well as future directions., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement Outside the submitted work, M Rubinstein reports funding from Merck, Zentalis, and AstraZeneca. V Makker reports advisory board participation for Eisai, Merck, Clovis, Faeth, Duality, Morphyes, Karyopharm, Novartis, Lilly, and Immunocore. A Nogueira-Rodrigues is a speaker for AstraZeneca, Merck, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Oncologia Brasil, and GSK; and is a consultant for Agenus, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Merck, Roche, and GSK. D Aoki reports consulting fees from Abbie, MSD, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Eisai, and Chugai; and personal fees from MSD, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Genmab, Takeda, Chugai, and Myriad Genetics. S Shen reports payment/honoraria from MJH Life Sciences. J Sehouli reports funding from GSK, Clovis, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, MSD, and Merck; consulting fees from GSK, Clovis, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, MSD, Merck, Roche, Pharmamar, and Eisai; payment/honoraria and advisory board from GSK, Clovis, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, MSD, Merck, Pharmamar, Novocure, and Incyte; payment from GSK, Clovis, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, MSD, Merck, Pharmamar, Novocure, and Eisai; support for meetings/travel from AstraZeneca, Roche, GSK, Tesaro, and Pharmamar; and leadership/fiduciary role for NOGGO, AGO, ENGAGE, and ESGO. DSP Tan reports consultancy fees and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Roche, MSD, Merck Serono, Bayer, Eisai, GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim; institutional research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, MSD, Eisai, BMS, Roche and Karyopharm; stock ownership of the Asian Microbiome Library (AMiLi); and support from the Singapore Ministry of Health's National Medical Research Council Clinician Scientist Award and Pangestu Family Foundation Gynaecological Cancer Research Fund. BJ Monk reports consulting fees from Acrivon, Adaptimune, Agenus, Akeso Bio, Amgen, Aravive, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis, Easai, 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, Verastem, and Zentalis; and payment/honoraria from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Easai, Merck, Myriad, Roche/Genentech, and TESARO/GSK., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Survival outcomes for cervical cancer differ between countries and world regions. Locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) is associated with poorer outcomes than early-stage disease. Country-specific variations in diagnostic and treatment recommendations might contribute to differences in LACC outcomes among countries., Objective: We compared international and country-specific guidelines for LACC diagnostic imaging and treatment recommendations., Methods: A systematic literature review and targeted search were used to identify cervical cancer treatment guidelines published between January 1999-August 2021. Guidelines were identified via literature databases, health technology assessment databases, disease-specific websites, and health organization websites. The targeted search included guidelines from countries in regions known to have high cervical cancer prevalence or mortality. Non-English guidelines were translated by native speakers or online translation services., Results: Forty-six guidelines from 31 countries, regions, and international organizations were compared (41/46 using staging criteria, 27 of which used 2009 FIGO). Most guidelines recommended imaging tests for diagnosis and staging. Chest X-ray, intravenous pyelogram, CT, and MRI were commonly recommended for diagnosis and staging while MRI and PET-CT were recommended for the assessment of lymph node status and distant metastases, with a preference for PET-CT over MRI. There was global consensus for cisplatin-based concurrent chemoradiation as primary treatment for stages IIB to IVA, with few exceptions. Treatment recommendations for stages IB2 to IIA2 varied. Most guidelines agreed on adjuvant concurrent chemoradiation after radical hysterectomy when there is a high recurrence risk, and adjuvant radiotherapy when there is an intermediate recurrence risk. Recommendations for other adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapies varied among the guidelines., Conclusions: Differences among treatment guidelines by LACC stage might be influenced by staging criteria used, resource availability, and prevention program effectiveness. Addressing these areas may unify guidelines and improve global outcomes. Review and update of guidelines will be important as novel LACC therapies become available., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest E. Pujade-Lauraine reports personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, personal fees and non-financial support from Tesaro/GSK, personal fees from Clovis, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, personal fees from Incyte, and personal fees from Pfizer, other from ARCAGY-Research, outside the submitted work. D.S.P. Tan is supported by grants from the Singapore Ministry of Health's National Medical Research Council and Pangestu Family Foundation Gynaecological Cancer Research Fund. He also reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Roche, MSD, Merck Serono, GSK, Tessa Therapeutics, Eisai, and Genmab, and research funding and support from AstraZeneca, Roche, Bayer, BMS, MSD, Eisai, and Karyopharm. He also reports stock ownership in the Asian Microbiome Library (AMiLi). All of these have been received outside the submitted work. A. Leary reports grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, Tesaro, and Clovis; grants and personal fees from MSD and Ability; personal fees from Biocad, Seattle Genetics, and Zentalis; other support from Merck Serono; and grants, non-financial support, and other from GSK, outside the submitted work. M.R. Mirza reports personal financial interests for AstraZeneca, Biocard, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Merck, Mersana, MSD, Oncology Venture, Pfizer, Roche, SeraPrognostics, Tesaro-GSK, ZaiLab; leadership roles for Karyopharm Therapeutics and Sera Prognostics; institutional financial interests (study grants) for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Clovis Oncology, Pfizer, Tesaro-GSK, Ultimovacs. T. Enomoto reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Takeda, MSD, and Chugai, outside the submitted work. J. Takyar has nothing to disclose. A.T. Nunes, J.D.H. Chagüi, and M.J. Paskow are employees and shareholders at AstraZeneca. B.J. Monk reports personal fees from AbbVie, Advaxis, Agenus, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biodesix, Clovis, Conjupro, Genmab, Gradalis, ImmunoGen, Immunomedics, Incyte, Janssen/Johnson & Johnson, Mateon, Merck, Myriad, Perthera, Pfizer, Precision Oncology, Puma, Roche/Genentech, Samumed, Takeda, Tesaro, and VBL, outside the submitted work., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: RET is an estrogen response gene with preclinical studies demonstrating cross-talk between the RET and estrogen receptor (ER) pathways. We investigate the role of lenvatinib, a multikinase inhibitor with potent activity against RET, in patients with metastatic breast cancer., Patients and Methods: Patients with advanced ER+/HER2- breast cancer were treated with lenvatinib plus letrozole in a phase Ib/II trial. Primary objectives included safety and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) determination in phase Ib, and objective response rates (ORR) in phase II dose expansion., Results: Sixteen patients were recruited in dose finding, where deescalating doses of lenvatinib from 20 to 14 mg were investigated. Lenvatinib 14 mg plus letrozole 2.5 mg daily was determined as RP2D. Thirty-one patients with 5 median lines of prior therapy in the metastatic setting (range, 0-11) were recruited in dose expansion. In this cohort, ORR was 23.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 9.9%-42.3%], with median duration of response (DoR) of 6.9 months [interquartile range (IQR) 5.9 to 13.1]. Clinical benefit rate ≥6 months (CBR) was 50.0% (95% CI, 31.3%-68.7%). Similar efficacy was observed in the subgroup of 25 patients who progressed on prior CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy [ORR 20.0% (95% CI, 6.8%-40.7%), median DoR 6.9 months (IQR 5.9-13.1), and CBR 52.0% (95% CI, 31.3%-72.2%)]. Pharmacodynamic studies showed target modulation, with paired tumor biopsies indicating downregulation of RET/pERK and improved vascular normalization index., Conclusions: Lenvatinib plus letrozole had manageable toxicity, with target engagement and preliminary antitumor activity observed, supporting further assessment in randomized studies., (©2022 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Cervical cancer constitutes a significant health burden for women globally. While most patients with early-stage disease can be cured with radical surgery or chemoradiotherapy, patients with high-risk locally advanced disease or with recurrent/metastatic disease have a poor prognosis with standard treatments. Immunotherapies are a rational treatment for this HPV-driven cancer that commonly expresses programmed cell death ligand-1. Before 2021, pembrolizumab was the only United States Food and Drug Administration-approved immunotherapy in cervical cancer, specifically for the second-line recurrent or metastatic (r/m) setting. In late 2021, the antibody-drug conjugate tisotumab vedotin was approved for second-line r/m cervical cancer and pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy ± bevacizumab was approved for first-line r/m disease based on results from KEYNOTE-826. Moreover, with at least 2 dozen additional immunotherapy clinical trials in the second-line and first-line r/m setting, as well as in locally advanced disease, the treatment landscape for cervical cancer may eventually encounter a potential paradigm shift. Pivotal trials of immunotherapies for cervical cancer that were recently approved or with the potential for regulatory consideration through 2024 are reviewed. As immunotherapy has the opportunity to establish new standards of care in the treatment of cervical cancers, new biomarkers to identify the ideal patient populations for these therapies may also become important. However, issues with access, affordability, and compliance in low- and middle-income countries are anticipated., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: This phase 1 study aims to evaluate the tolerability and the recommended phase 2 dose of selinexor in Asian patients with advanced or metastatic malignancies., Experimental Design: A total of 105 patients with advanced malignancies were enrolled from two sites in Singapore (National University Hospital and the National Cancer Centre, Singapore) from 24 February 2014 to 14 January 2019. We investigated four dosing schedules of selinexor in a 3 + 3 dose escalation design with an additional Phase 1b expansion cohort. Adverse events were graded with the NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v 4.03. Pharmacodynamic assessments included nuclear cytoplasmic localization of p27, XPO1 cargo proteins pre and post selinexor dosing and pharmacokinetic assessments were conducted at doses between 40 and 60 mg/m 2 ., Results: In our Asian patient cohort, dosing at 40 mg/m 2 given 2 out of 3 weeks, was the most tolerable for our patients. At this dose level, grade 3 adverse events included fatigue (8%), hyponatremia (23%), vomiting (5%), thrombocytopenia (5%), and anaemia (2%). Selinexor had a rapid oral absorption with median T max of 2 h and no PK accumulation after multiple doses of tested regimens. Complete responses were seen in two lymphoma patients. Partial responses were noted in three diffuse large B cell lymphomas, one Hodgkin's lymphoma and thymic carcinoma patient, respectively., Conclusion: Selinexor is tolerated by Asian patients at 40 mg/m 2 twice a week given 2 out of 3 weeks. A 1-week drug holiday was needed as our patients could not tolerate the current approved continuous dosing regimens because of persistent grade 3 fatigue, anorexia and hyponatremia., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement: The author declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: D.S.P.T. received consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Roche, MSD, Merck Serono, Tessa Therapeutics, Eisai and Genmab; D.S.P.T. received research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer and Karyopharm. V.H. received consultancy fees for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, DKSH and Novartis; Stock Ownership: Asian Microbiome Library (AMiLi); the sponsor had no involvement in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data; preparation, review or approval of the manuscript; or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication., (© The Author(s), 2022.)

Clear cell endometrial carcinoma represents an uncommon and poorly understood entity. Data from molecular/genomic profiling highlighted the importance of various signatures in assessing the prognosis of endometrial cancer according to four classes of risk (POLE mutated, MMRd, NSMP, and p53 abnormal). Unfortunately, data specific to clear cell histological subtype endometrial cancer are lacking. More recently, data has emerged to suggest that most of the patients (more than 80%) with clear cell endometrial carcinoma are characterized by p53 abnormality or NSMP type. This classification has important therapeutic implications. Although it is an uncommon entity, clear cell endometrial cancer patients with POLE mutation seem characterized by a good prognosis. Chemotherapy is effective in patients with NSMP (especially in stage III and IV) and patients with p53 abnormal disease (all stages). While, preliminary data suggested that patients with MMRd are less likely to benefit from chemotherapy. The latter group appears to benefit much more from immune checkpoint inhibitors: recent data from clinical trials on pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib and nivolumab plus cabozantinib supported that immunotherapy plus tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) would be the most appropriate treatment for recurrent non-endometrioid endometrial cancer (including clear cell carcinoma) after the failure of platinum-based chemotherapy. Moreover, ongoing clinical trials testing the anti-tumor activity of innovative products will clarify the better strategies for advanced/recurrent clear cell endometrial carcinoma. Further prospective evidence is urgently needed to better characterize clear cell endometrial carcinoma., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Giorgio Bogani: Novartis AG Pharma (C/A, H), Italian Ministry of Health (RG). Nicole Concin: AstraZeneca (C/A, SH), Seattle Genetics (C/A, SH), MSD (SAB), Mersana (C/A, SH), eTheRNA immunotherapies NV (C/A, SH), Roche (travel expenses), Genmab (travel expenses), Amgen (travel expenses). Isabelle Ray-Coquard: Honoraria from AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK/Tesaro and PharmaMar; Consulting/advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Roche, Clovis, GSK/Tesaro, Genmab, PharmaMar, MSD, Mersana, Deciphera, OncXea, Esai, BMS, Novartis and Pfizer; Research funding from MSD;Travel expenses from AstraZeneca, GSK and Roche. Yakir Segev: AstraZeneca (CA), GSK (CA). Pauline Wimberger: Amgen (SH, RF, SAB), AstraZeneca (SH, RF, H, SAB), Clovis (SH, RF, SAB), Eisai (SH, SAB), GSK (SH, SAB), Lilly (SH, SAB), MSD (SH, RF, SAB), Novartis (SH, RF, SAB), Pfizer (SH, RF, SAB), Roche (SH, RF, H, SAB), TEVA (SH, SAB). Natalie YL Ngoi: AstraZeneca (SH), Janssen (SH). Kazuhiro Takehara: AstraZeneca (SH), Chugai (SH, RF), Eisai (SH), MSD (SH), Mochida (SH), Takeda (SH). Takayuki Enomoto: Takeda (SH), Astra Zeneca (SH), Eisai (SH), Chugai Pharma (SH, RF), MSD (SH), Mochida (SH). Domenica Lorusso: AstraZeneca (H, CA), Clovis (H, CA, RF), GSK/Tesaro (H, CA), Roche (CA), Genmab (CA), PharmaMar (CA, RF), MSD (CA, RF), Esai (CA), Merck Serono (CA), Novartis (CA) and PharmaMar (H); Consulting/advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Roche, Clovis, GSK/Tesaro. Diane Provencher: AstraZeneca (CA, SH, SAB), GSK (CA, SH, SAB). Nadeem Abu-Rustum: NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA008748 (F). Hannelore Denys: Roche (CA, SH, SAB), Pfizer (CA, SH, SAB), AstraZeneca (SH, SAB), Lily (SAB), GSK (SAB), Novartis (SH), Pharmamar (SH). Bradley J Monk: AstraZeneca (SH, SAB), GSK (SH, SAB), Incyte (SAB), Merck (SH, SAB), Roche/Genentech (SH, SAB), Eisai (SAB), GOG-Foundation (E), US Oncology (E). The other authors indicated no financial relationship. Legend: consulting/advisory relationship (CA); speaker honoraria (SH); honoraria (H); research funding (RF); ownership interest (OI); intellectual propriety/patent holder (IP); scientific advisory board (SAB)., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The replication stress response (RSR) involves a downstream kinase cascade comprising ataxia telangiectasia-mutated (ATM), ATM and rad3-related (ATR), checkpoint kinases 1 and 2 (CHK1/2), and WEE1-like protein kinase (WEE1), which cooperate to arrest the cell cycle, protect stalled forks, and allow time for replication fork repair. In the presence of elevated replicative stress, cancers are increasingly dependent on RSR to maintain genomic integrity. An increasing number of drug candidates targeting key RSR nodes, as monotherapy through synthetic lethality, or through rational combinations with immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies, are demonstrating promising efficacy in early phase trials. RSR targeting is also showing potential in reversing PARP inhibitor resistance, an important area of unmet clinical need. In this review, we introduce the concept of targeting the RSR, detail the current landscape of monotherapy and combination strategies, and discuss emerging therapeutic approaches, such as targeting Polθ., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests N.Y.L.N. received honoraria from AstraZeneca and Janssen. D.S.P.T. received research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Karyopharm and honoraria from AstraZeneca, MSD, Tessa Therapeutics, Novartis, Bayer, and Genmab. T.A.Y. received research funding (paid to his institution) from Artios, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis, Constellation, Cyteir, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Forbius, F-Star, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, ImmuneSensor, Ipsen, Jounce, Karyopharm, Kyowa, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Ribon Therapeutics, Regeneron, Repare, Sanofi, Scholar Rock, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro, and Vertex Pharmaceuticals. In addition, he has received fees for consulting with Almac, Aduro, AstraZeneca, Atrin, Axiom, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calithera, Clovis, Cybrexa, EMD Serono, F-Star, Guidepoint, Ignyta, I-Mab, Jansen, Merck, Pfizer, Repare, Roche, Rubius, Schrodinger, Seattle Genetics, Varian, and Zai Labs. M.P. has no interests declared., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The efficacy of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) is restricted by inevitable drug resistance, while their use in combination with chemotherapy and targeted agents is commonly associated with dose-limiting toxicities. Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) has demonstrated durable responses in different solid tumors and is well-established across multiple cancers. Despite this, single agent activity is limited to a minority of patients and drug resistance remains an issue. Building on the monotherapy success of both drug classes, combining PARPi with ICB may be a safe and well-tolerated strategy with the potential to improve survival outcomes. In this review, we present the preclinical, translational, and clinical data supporting the combination of DNA damage response (DDR) and ICB as well as consider important questions to be addressed with future research., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests N.Y.L.N. received honoraria from AstraZeneca and Janssen. D.S.P.T. received research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Karyopharm and honoraria from AstraZeneca, MSD, Tessa Therapeutics, Novartis, Bayer, and Genmab. T.A.Y. received research funding (paid to his institution) from Artios, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis, Constellation, Cyteir, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Forbius, F-Star, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, ImmuneSensor, Ipsen, Jounce, Karyopharm, Kyowa, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Ribon Therapeutics, Regeneron, Repare, Sanofi, Scholar Rock, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro, and Vertex Pharmaceuticals. In addition, he has reeived fees for consulting with Almac, Aduro, AstraZeneca, Atrin, Axiom, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calithera, Clovis, Cybrexa, EMD Serono, F-Star, Guidepoint, Ignyta, I-Mab, Jansen, Merck, Pfizer, Repare, Roche, Rubius, Schrodinger, Seattle Genetics, Varian, and Zai Labs., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Precision oncology, such as next generation sequencing (NGS) molecular analysis and bioinformatics are used to guide targeted therapies. The laboratory turnaround time (TAT) is a key performance indicator of laboratory performance. This study aims to formally apply statistical process control (SPC) methods such as CUSUM and EWMA to a precision medicine programme to analyze the learning curves of NGS and bioinformatics processes., Patients and Methods: Trends in NGS and bioinformatics TAT were analyzed using simple regression models with TAT as the dependent variable and chronologically-ordered case number as the independent variable. The M-estimator "robust" regression and negative binomial regression were chosen to serve as sensitivity analyses to each other. Next, two popular statistical process control (SPC) approaches which are CUSUM and EWMA were utilized and the CUSUM log-likelihood ratio (LLR) charts were also generated. All statistical analyses were done in Stata version 16.0 (StataCorp), and nominal P < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant., Results: A total of 365 patients underwent successful molecular profiling. Both the robust linear model and negative binomial model showed statistically significant reductions in TAT with accumulating experience. The EWMA and CUSUM charts of overall TAT largely corresponded except that the EWMA chart consistently decreased while the CUSUM analyses indicated improvement only after a nadir at the 82 nd case. CUSUM analysis found that the bioinformatics team took a lower number of cases (54 cases) to overcome the learning curve compared to the NGS team (85 cases)., Conclusion: As NGS and bioinformatics lead precision oncology into the forefront of cancer management, characterizing the TAT of NGS and bioinformatics processes improves the timeliness of data output by potentially spotlighting problems early for rectification, thereby improving care delivery., Competing Interests: DT consults on the advisory board for Astra Zeneca and has received research funding from Karyopharm Therapeutics. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Jain, Sim, Ng, Chin, Lim, Syn, Kamal, Gupta, Heong, Lee, Sapari, Koh, Isa, Ho, O’Hara, Ulagapan, Gu, Shroff, Weng, Lim, Lim, Pang, Ng, Wong, Soo, Yong, Chee, Lee, Goh, Soong and Tan.)

Purpose: Low-dose fractionated whole abdominal radiation therapy (LDFWART) has synergistic activity with paclitaxel in preclinical models. The aim of this phase 1 trial was to determine the recommended phase 2 dose and preliminary activity of weekly paclitaxel (wP) concurrent with LDFWART in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC)., Methods and Materials: Patients were enrolled at de-escalating dose levels of wP (part A), starting at 80 mg/m 2 , concurrent with fixed-dose LDFWART delivered in 60 cGy fractions twice-daily, 2 days per week, for 6 continuous weeks. After completing the 6-week course of wP + LDFWART, patients received wP until disease progression. Dose-limiting toxicity was evaluated during the first 3 weeks of wP + LDFWART. At wP (80 mg/m 2 ) + LDFWART, no dose-limiting toxicities were observed; this was the established maximum tolerated dose. The trial was expanded (part B) with 7 additional patients with platinum-resistant, high-grade serous ovarian cancer to confirm toxicity and activity., Results: A total of 10 heavily pretreated patients were recruited (3 patients to part A, 7 patients to part B). They had received a median of 5 prior lines of therapy, and 70% of patients had received prior wP; 60% of patients completed 6 weeks of wP + LDFWART. Common related grade ≥3 adverse events were neutropenia (60%) and anemia (30%). Median progression-free survival was 3.2 months, and overall survival was 13.5 months. Of patients evaluable for response, 33% (3 of 9) achieved confirmed biochemical response (CA125 decrease >50% from baseline), 11% (1) achieved a partial response, and 5 patients had stable disease, giving a disease control rate of 66.7% (6 of 9). Four patients had durable disease control of ≥12 weeks, completing 12 to 21 weeks of wP., Conclusions: The recommended phase 2 dose of wP + LDFWART for 6 weeks is 80 mg/m 2 . Encouraging efficacy in heavily pretreated PROC patients was observed, suggesting that further development of this therapeutic strategy in PROC should be considered., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Targeting the ataxia telangiectasia and RAD3-related (ATR) enzyme represents a promising anticancer strategy for tumors with DNA damage response (DDR) defects and replication stress, including inactivation of ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM) signaling. We report the dose-escalation portion of the phase I first-in-human trial of oral ATR inhibitor BAY 1895344 intermittently dosed 5 to 80 mg twice daily in 21 patients with advanced solid tumors. The MTD was 40 mg twice daily 3 days on/4 days off. Most common adverse events were manageable and reversible hematologic toxicities. Partial responses were achieved in 4 patients and stable disease in 8 patients. Median duration of response was 315.5 days. Responders had ATM protein loss and/or deleterious ATM mutations and received doses ≥40 mg twice daily. Overall, BAY 1895344 is well tolerated, with antitumor activity against cancers with certain DDR defects, including ATM loss. An expansion phase continues in patients with DDR deficiency. SIGNIFICANCE: Oral BAY 1895344 was tolerable, with antitumor activity in heavily pretreated patients with various advanced solid tumors, particularly those with ATM deleterious mutations and/or loss of ATM protein; pharmacodynamic results supported a mechanism of action of increased DNA damage. Further study is warranted in this patient population. See related commentary by Italiano, p. 14 . This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1 ., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: Patients with recurrent ovarian clear cell carcinoma (OCCC) have limited effective options due to chemoresistance. A phase II study was designed to assess the activity of ENMD-2076, an oral multitarget kinase selective against Aurora A and VEGFR., Patients and Methods: This multicenter phase II study included patients with recurrent OCCC who received prior platinum-based chemotherapy. Primary endpoints were objective response and 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rates. Correlative analyses include ARID1A and PTEN expression by IHC and gene sequencing with a targeted custom capture next-generation sequencing panel., Results: Forty patients were enrolled with a median age of 54, of which 38 patients were evaluable. ENMD-2076 was well tolerated with main related grade 3 toxicities being hypertension (28%), proteinuria (10%), and diarrhea (10%). Best response was partial response for 3 patients (1 unconfirmed) and stable disease for 26 patients. The overall 6-month PFS rate was 22% and differed according to ARID1A expression (ARIDIA - vs. ARID1A + ; 33% vs. 12%, P = 0.023). PTEN-positive expression was observed in 20 of 36 patients, and there was no correlation with outcome. Median PFS in patients with PI3KCA wild-type versus PI3KCA -mutated group was 5 versus 3.7 months ( P = 0.049). Molecular profiling showed variants in PI3KCA (27%), ARID1A (26%), and TP53 (7%). The patient with the longest treatment duration (22 months) was PTEN wild-type, diploid PTEN with putative biallelic inactivation of ARID1A ., Conclusions: Single-agent ENMD-2076 did not meet the preset bar for efficacy. Loss of ARID1A correlated with better PFS on ENMD-2076 and warrants further investigation as a potential predictive biomarker., (©2018 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Developing multiple cancers is an indicator of underlying hereditary cancer predisposition, but there is a paucity of data regarding the clinical genetic testing outcomes of these patients., Methods: We compared cancer index patients with ≥2 primary malignancies versus 1 primary cancer who underwent clinical evaluation and testing with multi-gene panels comprising up to 49 genes from 1998-2016., Results: Among 1191 cancer index patients, 80.6%, 17.2%, and 2.2% respectively had 1, 2, and ≥3 primary malignancies. For patients with 2 primary cancers (n=205), the most common cancer pairs were bilateral breast (37.5%), breast-ovary (11.7%), endometrium-ovary (9.2%), colon-endometrium (3.9%) and colon-colon (3.4%). 42.3% patients underwent gene testing including 110/231 (47.6%) with multiple malignancies. Pathogenic variants were found more frequently in younger patients, in those with a family history of cancer related to the suspected syndrome, and a trend towards significance in those with multiple primary cancers (35.5% vs. 25.6%, p = 0.09). In patients with multiple cancers, pathogenic variants were most commonly identified in BRCA1 (38.5%), BRCA2 (17.9%), and the mismatch repair genes (20.5%), while 23.1% of pathogenic mutations were in other moderate- to high-penetrance cancer predisposition genes including APC, ATM, MUTYH, PALB2, RAD50 and TP53., Conclusion: Patients with multiple cancers were more likely to carry pathogenic mutations than those with single cancer. About three-quarters of deleterious mutations in patients with multiple primary cancers were in BRCA1/2 and the mismatch repair genes, but multi-gene panel testing facilitated the detection of mutations in another 6 genes and is warranted in this high-risk population., Competing Interests: CONFLICTS OF INTEREST The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Defective DNA repair is a common hallmark of cancer. Homologous recombination is a DNA repair pathway of clinical interest due to the sensitivity of homologous recombination-deficient cells to poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. The measurement of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) in cancer is therefore vital to the appropriate design of clinical trials incorporating PARP inhibitors. However, methods to identify HRD in tumors are varied and controversial. Understanding existing and new methods to measure HRD is important to their appropriate use in clinical trials and practice. The aim of this review is to summarize the biology and clinical validation of current methods to measure HRD, to aid decision-making for patient stratification and translational research in PARP inhibitor trials. We discuss the current clinical development of PARP inhibitors, along with established indicators for HRD such as germline BRCA1/2 mutation status and clinical response to platinum-based therapy. We then examine newer assays undergoing clinical validation, including 1) somatic mutations in homologous recombination genes, 2) "genomic scar" assays using array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH), single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) analysis or mutational signatures derived from next-generation sequencing, 3) transcriptional profiles of HRD, and 4) phenotypic or functional assays of protein expression and localization. We highlight the strengths and weaknesses of each of these assays, for consideration during the design of studies involving PARP inhibitors.

PARP inhibitors demonstrate synthetic lethality in tumors with BRCA1/2 mutations and other homologous recombination repair deficiencies by interfering with DNA repair and causing direct toxicity to DNA through PARP trapping. PARP inhibitors have been shown to be beneficial in the treatment of BRCA1/2-mutated ovarian cancers, which has led to a shift in the treatment paradigm of this disease. Further studies to establish the role of PARP inhibitors during earlier stages of treatment are ongoing. The use of PARP inhibitors in other cancers with homologous recombination repair deficiencies, such as breast cancer and prostate cancer, is gradually evolving as well, including their use in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings. PARP inhibitor combination strategies with chemotherapy, targeted agents, radiotherapy, and immunotherapy are also being explored. The role of predictive biomarkers, including molecular signatures and homologous recombination deficiency scores based on loss of heterozygosity and other structural genomic aberrations, will be crucial to improved patient stratification to enhance the clinical utility of PARP inhibitors. This may also allow the use of PARP inhibitors to be extended beyond tumors with specific homologous recombination DNA repair gene mutations in the future. An improved understanding of the mechanisms underlying PARP inhibitor resistance will also be important to enable the development of new approaches to increase efficacy. This is a field rich in opportunity, and the coming years should see a better understanding of which patients we should be treating with PARP inhibitors and where these agents should come in over the course of treatment., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Retrospective studies have shown an improved prognosis, higher response rates to platinum-containing regimens, and longer treatment-free intervals between relapses in patients with BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 (BRCA1/2)-mutated ovarian cancer (BMOC) compared with patients who are not carriers of this mutation. These features of BMOC are attributed to homologous-recombination repair (HR) deficiency in the absence of BRCA1/2 function, which results in an impaired ability of tumor cells to repair platinum-induced double-strand breaks (DSBs), thereby conferring increased chemosensitivity and increased sensitivity to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) enzyme inhibition and other DNA-damaging chemotherapeutic agents such as pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD). Therefore, the chemotherapeutic approach for patients with BMOC should focus on treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy at first-line and recurrent-disease settings and measures to increase the platinum-free interval following early platinum-resistant relapse (i.e., progression-free survival of less than 6 months from last platinum-based chemotherapy) by using nonplatinum cytotoxic agents, with the aim of reintroducing platinum again at a later date. The role of first-line intraperitoneal platinum-based therapy in the specific context of BMOC also merits further analysis. Other than platinum, alternative DNA-damaging agents (including PLD and trabectedin) also may have a therapeutic role in patients with recurrent BMOC. The recent approval of olaparib for clinical use in Europe and the United States will also affect chemotherapeutic strategies for these patients. Further work to clarify the precise relationship between BRCA1/2 mutation genotype and clinical phenotype is crucial to delineating the optimal therapeutic choices in the future for patients with BMOC.

In cancer cells, the nuclear-cytoplasmic transport machinery is frequently disrupted, resulting in mislocalization and loss of function for many key regulatory proteins. In this review, the mechanisms by which tumor cells co-opt the nuclear transport machinery to facilitate carcinogenesis, cell survival, drug resistance, and tumor progression will be elucidated, with a particular focus on the role of the nuclear-cytoplasmic export protein. The recent development of a new generation of selective inhibitors of nuclear export (XPO1 antagonists) and how these novel anticancer drugs may bring us closer to the implementation of this therapeutic strategy in the clinic will be discussed.

Introduction: Preclinical data suggest that BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2)-mutated ovarian cancers (BMOC) are exquisitely sensitive to platinum-salts, but resistant to microtubule-stabilizing anticancer agents. The clinical relevance of these preclinical data is unclear, since there are currently no published data on the efficacy of single-agent taxane chemotherapy in patients with BMOC. A retrospective study was undertaken to investigate the clinical effects of paclitaxel monotherapy in patients with BMOC., Methods: Clinical data on responses and progression-free-survival (PFS) following paclitaxel (3-weekly/weekly) monotherapy in BMOC patients were collected from four cancer centres. Antitumour response was defined as RECIST partial or complete response (PR/CR), and clinical benefit was defined as PR/CR and stable disease (SD) lasting at least 18 weeks. Comparisons of the rate and duration of response and clinical benefit between categorical variables (e.g. platinum-sensitive versus platinum-resistant patients) were undertaken., Results: We identified 26 BMOC patients who received paclitaxel monotherapy for relapsed disease, of which 15/26 (58%) were platinum-sensitive and 11/26 (42%) were platinum-resistant. The response rate to paclitaxel monotherapy was 46% (12/26). Clinical benefit rate was significantly higher in platinum-sensitive than platinum-resistant patients (80% versus 36%, p=0.04). BMOC patients with platinum-sensitive disease had significantly longer median PFS compared with platinum-resistant patients (42 versus 21 weeks, p=0.003)., Conclusions: These data provide the first clinical evidence that paclitaxel monotherapy is active in BMOC and may be more effective in platinum-sensitive BMOC., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Breast cancers can be classified by hierarchical clustering using an "intrinsic" gene list into one of at least five molecular subtypes: basal-like, HER2, luminal A, luminal B, and normal breast-like. Five different intrinsic gene lists composed of varying numbers of genes have been used for molecular subtype identification and classification of breast cancers. The aim of this study was to determine the objectivity and interobserver reproducibility of the assignment of molecular subtype classes by hierarchical cluster analysis., Methods: Three publicly available breast cancer datasets (n = 779) were subjected to two-way average-linkage hierarchical cluster analysis using five distinct intrinsic gene lists. We used free-marginal Kappa statistics to analyze interobserver agreement among five breast cancer researchers for the whole classification and for each molecular subtype separately according to each intrinsic gene list for each breast cancer dataset., Results: None of the classification systems tested produced almost perfect agreement (Kappa ≥ 0.81) among observers. However, substantial interobserver agreement (70.8% to 76.1% of the samples and free-marginal Kappa scores from 0.635 to 0.701) was consistently observed in all datasets for four molecular subtypes (luminal, basal-like, HER2, and normal breast-like). When luminal cancers were subdivided (luminal A, B, and C), none of the classification systems produced substantial agreement (Kappa ≥ 0.61) in all the datasets analyzed. Analysis of each subtype separately revealed that only two (basal-like and HER2) could be reproducibly identified by independent observers (Kappa ≥ 0.81)., Conclusions: Assignment of molecular subtype classes of breast cancer based on the analysis of dendrograms obtained with hierarchical cluster analysis is subjective and shows modest interobserver reproducibility. For the development of a molecular taxonomy, objective definitions for each molecular subtype and standardized methods for their identification are required.

Purpose: Ovarian clear cell carcinomas (OCCC) are a drug-resistant and aggressive type of epithelial ovarian cancer. We analyzed the molecular genetic profiles of OCCCs to determine whether distinct genomic subgroups of OCCCs exist., Experimental Design: Fifty pure primary OCCCs were subjected to high-resolution microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH). Unsupervised hierarchical clustering using Ward's linkage analysis was performed to identify genomic subgroups of OCCCs. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. Cox-regression analysis was used to identify independent predictors of outcome. Differentially amplified regions between genomic subgroups of OCCCs were identified using a multi-Fisher's exact test., Results: Hierarchical cluster analysis revealed two distinct clusters of OCCCs with different clinical outcomes. Patients from cluster-1 had a significantly shorter median progression-free survival (PFS) than those from cluster-2 (11 vs. 65 months, P = 0.009), although estimates for ovarian cancer-specific survival (OCS) did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.065). In multivariate analysis, suboptimal debulking surgery and genomic cluster were independently prognostic for PFS. Recurrently amplified genomic regions with a significantly higher prevalence in cluster-1 than cluster-2 OCCCs were identified and validated. HER2 gene amplification and protein overexpression was observed in 14% of OCCCs, suggesting that this may constitute a potential therapeutic target for a subgroup of these tumors., Conclusions: OCCCs constitute a heterogeneous disease at the genomic level despite having similar histological features. The pattern of genomic aberrations in subgroups of OCCCs is of clinical significance. We have identified recurrently amplified regions that may harbor potential therapeutic targets for subgroups of OCCCs., (©2011 AACR.)

Background: Microarray expression profiling classifies breast cancer into five molecular subtypes: luminal A, luminal B, basal-like, HER2, and normal breast-like. Three microarray-based single sample predictors (SSPs) have been used to define molecular classification of individual samples. We aimed to establish agreement between these SSPs for identification of breast cancer molecular subtypes., Methods: Previously described microarray-based SSPs were applied to one in-house (n=53) and three publicly available (n=779) breast cancer datasets. Agreement was analysed between SSPs for the whole classification system and for the five molecular subtypes individually in each cohort., Findings: Fair-to-substantial agreement between every pair of SSPs in each cohort was recorded (kappa=0.238-0.740). Of the five molecular subtypes, only basal-like cancers consistently showed almost-perfect agreement (kappa>0.812). The proportion of cases classified as basal-like in each cohort was consistent irrespective of the SSP used; however, the proportion of each remaining molecular subtype varied substantially. Assignment of individual cases to luminal A, luminal B, HER2, and normal breast-like subtypes was dependent on the SSP used. The significance of associations with outcome of each molecular subtype, other than basal-like and luminal A, varied depending on SSP used. However, different SSPs produced broadly similar survival curves., Interpretation: Although every SSP identifies molecular subtypes with similar survival, they do not reliably assign the same patients to the same molecular subtypes. For molecular subtype classification to be incorporated into routine clinical practice and treatment decision making, stringent standardisation of methodologies and definitions for identification of breast cancer molecular subtypes is needed., Funding: Breakthrough Breast Cancer, Cancer Research UK., (2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Approximately 8% of breast cancers show increased copy numbers of chromosome 17 centromere (CEP17) by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) (ie average CEP17 >3.0 per nucleus). Currently, this pattern is believed to represent polysomy of chromosome 17. HER2-amplified cancers have been shown to harbour complex patterns of genetic aberrations of chromosome 17, in particular involving its long arm. We hypothesized that aberrant copy numbers of CEP17 in FISH assays may not necessarily represent true chromosome 17 polysomy. Eighteen randomly selected CEP17 polysomic cases and a control group of ten CEP17 disomic cases, as defined by dual-colour FISH, were studied by microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH), which was performed on microdissected samples using a 32K tiling-path bacterial artificial chromosome microarray platform. Additional FISH probes were employed for SMS (17p11.2) and RARA (17q21.2) genes, as references for chromosome 17 copy number. Microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization revealed that 11 out of the 18 polysomic cases harboured gains of 17q with involvement of the centromere, one displayed 17q gain sparing the centromeric region, and only one could be defined as polysomic. The remaining five cases displayed amplification of the centromeric region. Among these, one case, showing score 2+ by immunohistochemistry and 8.5 HER2 mean copy number, was classified as not amplified by HER2/CEP17 ratio and as amplified by HER2/SMS ratio. Our results suggest that true chromosome 17 polysomy is likely to be a rare event in breast cancer and that CEP17 copy number greater than 3.0 in FISH analysis is frequently related to gain or amplification of the centromeric region. Larger studies investigating the genetic profiles of CEP17 polysomic cases are warranted.

Purpose: To characterize the molecular genetic profiles of grade 3 invasive ductal carcinomas of no special type using high-resolution microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) and to identify recurrent amplicons harboring putative therapeutic targets associated with luminal, HER-2, and basal-like tumor phenotypes., Experimental Design: Ninety-five grade 3 invasive ductal carcinomas of no special type were classified into luminal, HER-2, and basal-like subgroups using a previously validated immunohistochemical panel. Tumor samples were microdissected and subjected to aCGH using a tiling path 32K BAC array platform. Selected regions of recurrent amplification were validated by means of in situ hybridization. Expression of genes pertaining to selected amplicons was investigated using quantitative real-time PCR and gene silencing was done using previously validated short hairpin RNA constructs., Results: We show that basal-like and HER-2 tumors are characterized by "sawtooth" and "firestorm" genetic patterns, respectively, whereas luminal cancers were more heterogeneous. Apart from confirming known amplifications associated with basal-like (1q21, 10p, and 12p), luminal (8p12, 11q13, and 11q14), and HER-2 (17q12) cancers, we identified previously unreported recurrent amplifications associated with each molecular subgroup: 19q12 in basal-like, 1q32.1 in luminal, and 14q12 in HER-2 cancers. PPM1D gene amplification (17q23.2) was found in 20% and 8% of HER-2 and luminal cancers, respectively. Silencing of PPM1D by short hairpin RNA resulted in selective loss of viability in tumor cell lines harboring the 17q23.2 amplification., Conclusions: Our results show the power of aCGH analysis in unraveling the genetic profiles of specific subgroups of cancer and for the identification of novel therapeutic targets.

Purpose: To identify therapeutic targets in ovarian clear cell carcinomas, a chemoresistant and aggressive type of ovarian cancer., Experimental Design: Twelve ovarian clear cell carcinoma cell lines were subjected to tiling path microarray comparative genomic hybridization and genome-wide expression profiling analysis. Regions of high-level amplification were defined and genes whose expression levels were determined by copy number and correlated with gene amplification were identified. The effects of inhibition of PPM1D were assessed using short hairpin RNA constructs and a small-molecule inhibitor (CCT007093). The prevalence of PPM1D amplification and mRNA expression was determined using chromogenic in situ hybridization and quantitative real-time reverse transcription-PCR in a cohort of pure ovarian clear cell carcinomas and on an independent series of unselected epithelial ovarian cancers., Results: Array-based comparative genomic hybridization analysis revealed regions of high-level amplification on 1q32, 1q42, 2q11, 3q24-q26, 5p15, 7p21-p22, 11q13.2-q13.4, 11q22, 17q21-q22, 17q23.2, 19q12-q13, and 20q13.2. Thirty-four genes mapping to these regions displayed expression levels that correlated with copy number gains/amplification. PPM1D had significantly higher levels of mRNA expression in ovarian clear cell carcinoma cell lines harboring gains/amplifications of 17q23.2. PPM1D inhibition revealed that PPM1D expression and phosphatase activity are selectively required for the survival of ovarian clear cell carcinoma cell lines with 17q23.2 amplification. PPM1D amplification was significantly associated with ovarian clear cell carcinoma histology (P = 0.0003) and found in 10% of primary ovarian clear cell carcinomas. PPM1D expression levels were significantly correlated with PPM1D gene amplification in primary ovarian clear cell carcinomas., Conclusion: Our data provide strong circumstantial evidence that PPM1D is a potential therapeutic target for a subgroup of ovarian clear cell carcinomas.

Purpose: We evaluated the clinical impact of germ-line BRCA1/2 mutations in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) on responses to first and subsequent lines of chemotherapy, treatment-free interval (TFI) between each line of therapy, and overall survival (OS)., Patients and Methods: Twenty-two EOC patients with germ-line BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations (BRCA-positive) were selected from our database and matched (1:2) with 44 nonhereditary EOC controls (defined by no associated personal history of breast cancer and no family history of breast and ovarian cancer or an uninformative BRCA mutation test) for stage, histologic subtype, age, and year of diagnosis. All patients received primary platinum-based chemotherapy. Statistical comparisons included responses after first-, second-, and third-line treatment (chi(2)/Fisher's exact test) and median OS (Kaplan-Meier method/log-rank test)., Results: Compared with controls, BRCA-positive patients had higher overall (95.5% v 59.1%; P = .002) and complete response rates (81.8% v 43.2%; P = .004) to first line treatment, higher responses to second and third line platinum-based chemotherapy (second line, 91.7% v 40.9% [P = .004]; third line, 100% v 14.3% [P = .005]) and longer TFIs. A significant improvement in median OS in BRCA-positive patients compared with controls was observed from both time of diagnosis (8.4 v 2.9 years; P < .002) and time of first relapse (5 v 1.6 years; P < .001). BRCA status, stage, and length of first response were independent prognostic factors from time of first relapse., Conclusion: BRCA-positive EOC patients have better outcomes than nonhereditary EOC patients. There exists a clinical syndrome of BRCAness that includes serous histology, high response rates to first and subsequent lines of platinum-based treatment, longer TFIs between relapses, and improved OS.

Background: Triple negative phenotype (TNP) breast cancers are characterised by the lack of expression of oestrogen and progesterone receptors and of human EGF receptor 2 (HER2) overexpression/amplification. This subgroup of cancers has an aggressive clinical behaviour and is associated with poorer overall survival compared with other subtypes. Given the lack of targets for current tailored therapies in TNP tumours, chemotherapy is the only systemic treatment available; however, overall outcomes remain poor. Therefore, optimal treatment regimens and targeted therapies are urgently needed., Objective: We discuss characteristics of TNP cancers that underpin the rationale of current and novel therapeutic strategies, and an approach for finding and validating new therapeutic targets., Results/conclusion: The results of large prospective randomised controlled trials are currently awaited. Efforts to unravel the heterogeneity and complexity of TNP cancers using the latest high-throughput molecular techniques and integrating these findings with biology-driven therapeutic strategies in clinical trials will be of paramount importance for the development of treatment approaches for this breast cancer subtype.

HER2 and TOP2A are targets for the therapeutic agents trastuzumab and anthracyclines and are frequently amplified in breast cancers. The aims of this study were to provide a detailed molecular genetic analysis of the 17q12-q21 amplicon in breast cancers harbouring HER2/TOP2A co-amplification and to investigate additional recurrent co-amplifications in HER2/TOP2A-co-amplified cancers. In total, 15 breast cancers with HER2 amplification, 10 of which also harboured TOP2A amplification, as defined by chromogenic in situ hybridisation, and 6 breast cancer cell lines known to be amplified for HER2 were subjected to high-resolution microarray-based comparative genomic hybridisation analysis. This revealed that the genomes of 12 cases were characterised by at least one localised region of clustered, relatively narrow peaks of amplification, with each cluster confined to a single chromosome arm (ie 'firestorm' pattern) and 3 cases displayed many narrow segments of duplication and deletion affecting the vast majority of chromosomes (ie 'sawtooth' pattern). The smallest region of amplification (SRA) on 17q12 in the whole series extended from 34.73 to 35.48 Mb, and encompassed HER2 but not TOP2A. In HER2/TOP2A-co-amplified samples, the SRA extended from 34.73 to 36.54 Mb, spanning a region of approximately 1.8 Mb. Apart from HER2 and TOP2A, this region encompassed four additional genes whose expression levels as defined by quantitative real-time PCR are significantly higher in HER2/TOP2A-co-amplified vs HER2-amplified breast cancers: CASC3, CDC6, RARA and SMARCE1. Of the cell lines studied, SKBR3 and UACC812 showed HER2/TOP2A co-amplification. In conclusion, this is the first detailed genome-wide characterisation of HER2/TOP2A-amplified breast cancers; cell lines were identified that can be used to model these cancers in vitro. The 17q12 amplicon is complex and harbours multiple genes that may be associated with breast cancer development and progression, and potentially exploitable as therapeutic targets.

Microarray-based comparative genomic hybridisation (aCGH) is contributing to the molecular characterisation of solid malignancies. This technique provides tremendous opportunities for translational research by facilitating detailed analysis of entire cancer genomes in a single experiment with unprecedented resolution. Apart from providing data to help catalogue the molecular genetic profiles of breast cancers and breast cancer cell lines, aCGH has also proven to be a useful technique for the identification of novel therapeutic targets. However, aCGH alone does not provide all lines of evidence required for the identification of 'amplicon drivers' and 'druggable targets'. This can be more effectively achieved by integrating data from aCGH, expression profiling and RNA interference experiments. In this review, we discuss the techniques available for aCGH analysis and possible approaches for using aCGH as a tool for the identification of novel therapeutic targets., (Copyright 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Metastasis from epithelial ovarian cancer can occur via the transcoelomic, haematogeneous, or lymphatic route. Of these, transcoelomic metastasis is the most common, and is responsible for the greatest morbidity and mortality in women with this disease. Unfortunately, very little is known about the mechanisms behind this process. This review assesses the current evidence and ideas about the biology of transcoelomic dissemination. The mechanisms of cell detachment, migration, and implantation in transcoelomic metastasis are placed within the context of clinical observations of ovarian cancer to derive a stepwise hypothesis of this process. Evidence for transcoelomic dissemination versus transcoelomic metaplasia in ovarian cancer is presented. Future high throughput microarray studies that compare changes at a genomic and gene expression level between primary ovarian tumours and their peritoneal metastases are hoped to lead to a more conclusive picture of transcoelomic metastasis, and to delineate the key molecular players in this process. These studies might also result in the identification of potential new therapeutic targets in ovarian cancer.