Search

Background: Patients with recurrent cervical cancer have a poor prognosis. Cemiplimab, the fully human programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)-blocking antibody approved to treat lung and skin cancers, has been shown to have preliminary clinical activity in this population. Methods: In this phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients who had disease progression after first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy, regardless of their programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status. Women were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive cemiplimab (350 mg every 3 weeks) or the investigator's choice of single-agent chemotherapy. The primary end point was overall survival. Progression-free survival and safety were also assessed. Results: A total of 608 women were enrolled (304 in each group). In the overall trial population, median overall survival was longer in the cemiplimab group than in the chemotherapy group (12.0 months vs. 8.5 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 0.84; two-sided P<0.001). The overall survival benefit was consistent in both histologic subgroups (squamous-cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma [including adenosquamous carcinoma]). Progression-free survival was also longer in the cemiplimab group than in the chemotherapy group in the overall population (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.89; two-sided P<0.001). In the overall population, an objective response occurred in 16.4% (95% CI, 12.5 to 21.1) of the patients in the cemiplimab group, as compared with 6.3% (95% CI, 3.8 to 9.6) in the chemotherapy group. An objective response occurred in 18% (95% CI, 11 to 28) of the cemiplimab-treated patients with PD-L1 expression greater than or equal to 1% and in 11% (95% CI, 4 to 25) of those with PD-L1 expression of less than 1%. Overall, grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 45.0% of the patients who received cemiplimab and in 53.4% of those who received chemotherapy. Conclusions: Survival was significa

BACKGROUND: Uterine serous carcinoma is a distinct histologic subtype of endometrial cancer with an aggressive phenotype, poor prognosis, and limited therapeutic options. A previous proof-of-concept phase II trial of the Wee1 inhibitor adavosertib in uterine serous carcinoma demonstrated evidence of durable clinical activity. PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of adavosertib in women with recurrent or persistent uterine serous carcinoma. STUDY HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesize that adavosertib will demonstrate significant clinical activity, as measured by objective response rate, in women with recurrent or persistent uterine serous carcinoma. TRIAL DESIGN: Eligible participants will receive adavosertib monotherapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, starting at the recommended phase II dosing of adavosertib 300 mg daily days 1 through 5 and 8 through 12 of a 21-day cycle. Participants will have restaging studies every 6 weeks for the first 48 weeks and then every 9 weeks thereafter. MAJOR INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Patients with histologically confirmed recurrent or persistent uterine serous carcinoma, including endometrial carcinoma of mixed histology where the serous component comprises at least 10% of the tumor, and who have received at least one prior platinum-based chemotherapy regimen for the management of uterine serous carcinoma, are eligible for inclusion in the trial. Participants must have measurable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 criteria. Participants with carcinosarcoma are not eligible. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: The primary endpoint is the objective response rate by RECIST 1.1 criteria, as determined by blinded independent central review. SAMPLE SIZE: Approximately 120 patients will be enrolled in this trial. ESTIMATED DATES FOR COMPLETING AND PRESENTING RESULTS: Study completion and presentation of results are projected to be at the end of 2022. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04590248.

Objective: ARIEL3 (NCT01968213) is a placebo-controlled randomized trial of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib as maintenance treatment in patients with recurrent high-grade ovarian carcinoma who responded to their latest line of platinum therapy. Rucaparib improved progression-free survival across all predefined subgroups. Here, we present an exploratory analysis of clinical and molecular characteristics associated with exceptional benefit from rucaparib. Methods: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Molecular features (genomic alterations, BRCA1 promoter methylation) and baseline clinical characteristics were evaluated for association with exceptional benefit (progression-free survival ≥2 years) versus progression on first scan (short-term subgroup) and other efficacy outcomes. Results: Rucaparib treatment was significantly associated with exceptional benefit compared with placebo: 79/375 (21.1%) vs 4/189 (2.1%), respectively (p < 0.0001). Exceptional benefit was more frequent among patients with favorable baseline clinical characteristics and with carcinomas harboring molecular evidence of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). A comparison between patients who derived exceptional benefit from rucaparib and those in the short-term subgroup revealed both clinical markers (no measurable disease at baseline, complete response to latest platinum, longer penultimate platinum-free interval) and molecular markers (BRCA1, BRCA2, RAD51C, and RAD51D alterations and genome-wide loss of heterozygosity) significantly associated with exceptional benefit. Conclusions: Exceptional benefit in ARIEL3 was more common in, but not exclusive to, patients with favorable clinical characteristics or molecular features associated with HRD. Our results suggest that rucaparib can deliver exceptional benefit to a diverse set of patients with recurrent high-grade ovarian carcinoma.

Background: Homologous recombination repair (HRR) enables fault-free repair of double-stranded DNA breaks. HRR deficiency is predicted to occur in around half of high-grade serous ovarian carcinomas. Ovarian cancers harbouring HRR deficiency typically exhibit sensitivity to poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPi). Current guidelines recommend a range of approaches for genetic testing to identify predictors of sensitivity to PARPi in ovarian cancer and to identify genetic predisposition. Design: To establish a European-wide consensus for genetic testing (including the genetic care pathway), decision making and clinical management of patients with recently diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer, and the validity of biomarkers to predict the effectiveness of PARPi in the first-line setting. The collaborative European experts’ consensus group consisted of a steering committee (n = 14) and contributors (n = 84). A (modified) Delphi process was used to establish consensus statements based on a systematic literature search, conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Results: A consensus was reached on 34 statements amongst 98 caregivers (including oncologists, pathologists, clinical geneticists, genetic researchers, and patient advocates). The statements concentrated on (i) the value of testing for BRCA1/2 mutations and HRR deficiency testing, including when and whom to test; (ii) the importance of developing new and better HRR deficiency tests; (iii) the importance of germline non-BRCA HRR and mismatch repair gene mutations for predicting familial risk, but not for predicting sensitivity to PARPi, in the first-line setting; (iv) who should be able to inform patients about genetic testing, and what training and education should these caregivers receive. Conclusion: These consensus recommendations, from a multidisciplinary panel of experts from across Europe, provide clear guidance on the use of BRCA and HRR de

Background: Few prospective studies have compared poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors to chemotherapy for the treatment of BRCA1-mutated or BRCA2-mutated ovarian carcinoma. We aimed to assess rucaparib versus platinum-based and non-platinum-based chemotherapy in this setting. Methods: In this open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study (ARIEL4), conducted in 64 hospitals and cancer centres across 12 countries (Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Poland, Russia, Spain, Ukraine, the UK, and the USA), we recruited patients aged 18 years and older with BRCA1-mutated or BRCA2-mutated ovarian carcinoma, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and who had received two or more previous chemotherapy regimens. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (2:1), using an interactive response technology and block randomisation (block size of six) and stratified by progression-free interval after the most recent platinum-containing therapy, to oral rucaparib (600 mg twice daily) or chemotherapy (administered per institutional guidelines). Patients assigned to the chemotherapy group with platinum-resistant or partially platinum-sensitive disease were given paclitaxel (starting dose 60–80 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15); those with fully platinum-sensitive disease received platinum-based chemotherapy (single-agent cisplatin or carboplatin, or platinum-doublet chemotherapy). Patients were treated in 21-day or 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, assessed in the efficacy population (all randomly assigned patients with deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations without reversion mutations), and then in the intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned patients). Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of assigned study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02855944; enrolment is complete, and the study

ObjectiveTo determine whether a non‑platinum chemotherapy doublet improves overall survival (OS) among patients with recurrent/metastatic cervical carcinoma.MethodsGynecologic Oncology Group protocol 240 is a phase 3, randomized, open-label, clinical trial that studied the efficacy of paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 plus topotecan 0.75 mg/m2 days 1-3 (n = 223) vs cisplatin 50 mg/m2 plus paclitaxel 135 or 175 mg/m2 (n = 229), in 452 patients with recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer. Each chemotherapy doublet was also studied with and without bevacizumab (15 mg/kg). Cycles were repeated every 21 days until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or complete response. The primary endpoints were OS and the frequency and severity of adverse effects. We report the final analysis of OS.ResultsAt the protocol-specified final analysis, median OS was 16.3 (cisplatin-paclitaxel backbone) and 13.8 months (topotecan-paclitaxel backbone) (HR 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38; p = 0.28). Median OS for cisplatin-paclitaxel and topotecan-paclitaxel was 15 vs 12 months, respectively (HR 1.10; 95% CI,0.82-1.48; p = 0.52), and for cisplatin-paclitaxel-bevacizumab and topotecan-paclitaxel-bevacizumab was 17.5 vs 16.2 months, respectively (HR 1.16; 95% CI, 0.86-1.56; p = 0.34). Among the 75% of patients in the study population previously exposed to platinum, median OS was 14.6 (cisplatin-paclitaxel backbone) vs 12.9 months (topotecan-paclitaxel backbone), respectively (HR 1.09; 95% CI, 0.86-1.38;p = 0.48). Post-progression survival was 7.9 (cisplatin-paclitaxel backbone) vs 8.1 months (topotecan-paclitaxel backbone) (HR 0.95; 95% CI, 0.75-1.19). Grade 4 hematologic toxicity was similar between chemotherapy backbones.ConclusionsTopotecan plus paclitaxel does not confer a survival benefit to women with recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer, even among platinum-exposed patients. Topotecan-paclitaxel should not be routinely recommended in this population. NCT00803062.

In 2018, the European Society of Gynecological Oncology (ESGO) jointly with the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) published evidence-based guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer. Given the large body of new evidence addressing the management of cervical cancer, the three sister societies jointly decided to update these evidence-based guidelines. The update includes new topics to provide comprehensive guidelines on all relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment in cervical cancer. To serve on the expert panel (27 experts across Europe) ESGO/ESTRO/ESP nominated practicing clinicians who are involved in managing patients with cervical cancer and have demonstrated leadership through their expertise in clinical care and research, national and international engagement, profile, and dedication to the topics addressed. To ensure the statements were evidence based, new data identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the international development group. Before publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 155 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives. These updated guidelines are comprehensive and cover staging, management, follow-up, long-term survivorship, quality of life and palliative care. Management includes fertility sparing treatment, early and locally advanced cervical cancer, invasive cervical cancer diagnosed on a simple hysterectomy specimen, cervical cancer in pregnancy, rare tumors, recurrent and metastatic diseases. The management algorithms and the principles of radiotherapy and pathological evaluation are also defined.

PURPOSE In SOLO1/GOG 3004 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01844986), maintenance therapy with the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib provided a sustained progression-free survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 (BRCA) mutation. We report overall survival (OS) after a 7-year follow-up, a clinically relevant time point and the longest follow-up for any poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor in the first-line setting. METHODS This double-blind phase III trial randomly assigned patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation in clinical response to platinum-based chemotherapy to maintenance olaparib (n = 260) or placebo (n = 131) for up to 2 years. A prespecified descriptive analysis of OS, a secondary end point, was conducted after a 7-year follow-up. RESULTS The median duration of treatment was 24.6 months with olaparib and 13.9 months with placebo, and the median follow-up was 88.9 and 87.4 months, respectively. The hazard ratio for OS was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.40 to 0.76; P = .0004 [P < .0001 required to declare statistical significance]). At 7 years, 67.0% of olaparib patients versus 46.5% of placebo patients were alive, and 45.3% versus 20.6%, respectively, were alive and had not received a first subsequent treatment (Kaplan-Meier estimates). The incidence of myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukemia remained low, and new primary malignancies remained balanced between treatment groups. CONCLUSION Results indicate a clinically meaningful, albeit not statistically significant according to prespecified criteria, improvement in OS with maintenance olaparib in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation and support the use of maintenance olaparib to achieve long-term remission in this setting; the potential for cure may also be enhanced. No new safety signals were observed during long-term follow-up.

Second-line treatment of endometrial cancer is an unmet medical need. Lurbinectedin showed promising antitumor activity in a phase I study in combination with doxorubicin in advanced endometrial cancer. This phase 2 Basket trial evaluated lurbinectedin 3.2 mg/m2 1-h intravenous infusion every 3 weeks in a cohort of 73 patients with pretreated endometrial cancer. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) according to RECIST v1.1. Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), safety and an exploratory translational study. Confirmed complete (CR) and partial response (PR) was reported in two and six patients, respectively (ORR = 11.3%; 95%CI, 5.0–21.0%). Median DoR was 9.2 months (95%CI, 3.4–18.0 months), median PFS was 2.6 months (95%CI, 1.4–4.0 months) and median OS was 9.3 months (95%CI, 6.1–12.8 months). Molecular subtypes showed differences in PFS rate at 6 months (p53abn 23.7% vs. “No Specific Molecular Profile” [NSMP] 42.9%) and median OS (p53abn 6.6 months vs. NSMP 16.1 months). The most common treatment-related adverse events (mostly grade 1/2) were fatigue (54.8% of patients), nausea (50.7%), vomiting (26.0%) decreased appetite (17.8%). and constipation, (19.2%). The most common grade 3/4 toxicity was neutropenia (43.8%; grade 4, 19.2%; febrile neutropenia, 4.1%). In conclusion, considering the exploratory aim of this trial and the hints of antitumor activity observed together with a predictable and manageable safety profile, further biomarker-based development of lurbinectedin is recommended in this indication in combination with other agents. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02454972., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

This article reports on a project entitled “Tackling the BIPOC Awarding Gap” (2022-2025), whose aim is to foster teacher training practices that enhance diversity in language learning environments and tackle the awarding gap experienced by BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) aka BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and People of Colour) students. According to Advance HE (2021), the difficulties experienced by BAME-BIPOC students to achieve higher marks remain a patent reality in mostof today’s higher-education institutions in the UK. This paper describes how our collaborative project endeavours to tackle the BAME-BIPOC awarding gap from four main angles: 1) student-teacher collaboration; 2) teacher training; 3) redevelopment and decolonisation of practical translation syllabi; and 4) the establishment of a support network. In this paper, the focus is put on the main challenges, lessons learnt and examples of best practices stemming from the first year of this project., Este artículo informa sobre un proyecto titulado “Tackling the BIPOC Awarding Gap” (2022-2025), cuyo objetivo es fomentar prácticas de formación docente que mejoren la diversidad en los entornos de aprendizaje de idiomas y abordar la brecha académica que afecta a los estudiantes de minoríasétnicas, un problema aún acuciante en la mayoría de las universidades británicas según Advance HE(2021). Este artículo describecómo nuestro proyecto colaborativo trata de compensarla brecha académica de minoría étnicaabordándoladesde cuatro ángulos principales: 1) colaboración entre estudiantes y profesores; 2) formación docente; 3) remodelación y descolonización de los programas de estudio de traducción; y 4) el establecimiento de una red de apoyo. En particular, nos centraremos en los principales desafíos, lecciones aprendidas y ejemplos de mejores prácticas que se derivan del primer año de este proyecto.