Search

Purpose: Lenvatinib and pembrolizumab (LEN+PEMBRO) demonstrated clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvements in efficacy versus treatment of physician's choice (TPC) in patients with advanced endometrial cancer (aEC) in the phase 3 Study 309/KEYNOTE-775. Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) is reported. Patients and Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to receive LEN+PEMBRO (n = 411; LEN 20 mg/day; PEMBRO 200 mg Q3W) or TPC (n = 416; doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 Q3W or paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 [weekly, 3 weeks on/1 week off]). Impact of treatment on HRQoL assessed by the global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL) score of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) was a secondary objective; other scales of the Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30), EORTC QLQ-Endometrial, 24 questions (EORTC QLQ-EN24), and EuroQoL 5 dimensions, 5 levels (EQ-5D-5L) were exploratory objectives. HRQoL was assessed on day 1 of each cycle. Completion/compliance, change from baseline, time to first and definitive deterioration were assessed. No multiplicity adjustments were applied for HRQoL endpoints. Results: The latest timepoint at which the predefined rates of completion (≥60%) and compliance (≥80%) were met was week 12. HRQoL at week 12 between treatment groups was generally similar. Time to first deterioration symptom scales favoured LEN+PEMBRO for QLQ-C30 dyspnoea, and QLQ-EN24 for poor body image, tingling/numbness, and hair loss; and TPC was favoured for QLQ-C30 pain, appetite loss, and diarrhoea, and QLQ-EN24 muscular pain. While the QLQ-C30 physical functional scale favoured TPC, other functional scales were generally similar between arms. Time to definitive deterioration favoured LEN+PEMBRO on most scales. Conclusion: HRQoL data from Study 309/KEYNOTE-775, with previously published efficacy and safety results, indicate that LEN+PEMBRO has an overall favourable benefit/risk profile versus TPC for the treatment of patients with aEC.

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., This article provides context and guidance for the recognition and management of adverse reactions in patients receiving lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab for the treatment of endometrial carcinoma.

Contains fulltext : 241226.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) BACKGROUND: Olaparib, a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, has previously been shown to extend progression-free survival versus placebo when given to patients with relapsed high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer who were platinum sensitive and who had a BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation, as part of the SOLO2/ENGOT-Ov21 trial. The aim of this final analysis is to investigate the effect of olaparib on overall survival. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial was done across 123 medical centres in 16 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at baseline of 0-1, had histologically confirmed, relapsed, high-grade serous or high-grade endometrioid ovarian cancer, including primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer, and had received two or more previous platinum regimens. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive olaparib tablets (300 mg in two 150 mg tablets twice daily) or matching placebo tablets using an interactive web or voice-response system. Stratification was by response to previous chemotherapy and length of platinum-free interval. Treatment assignment was masked to patients, treatment providers, and data assessors. The primary endpoint of progression-free survival has been reported previously. Overall survival was a key secondary endpoint and was analysed in all patients as randomly allocated. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one treatment dose. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01874353, and is no longer recruiting patients. FINDINGS: Between Sept 3, 2013 and Nov 21, 2014, 295 patients were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either olaparib (n=196 [66%]) or placebo (n=99 [34%]). One patient, randomised in error, did not receive olaparib. Median follow-up was 65·7 months (IQR 63·6-69·3) with olaparib and 64·5 months (63·4-68·7) with placebo. Median overall survival was 51·7 months (95% CI 41·5-59·1) with olaparib and 38·8 months (31·4-48·6) with placebo (hazard ratio 0·74 [95% CI 0·54-1·00]; p=0·054), unadjusted for the 38% of patients in the placebo group who received subsequent PARP inhibitor therapy. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse event was anaemia (which occurred in 41 [21%] of 195 patients in the olaparib group and two [2%] of 99 patients in the placebo group). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 50 (26%) of 195 patients receiving olaparib and eight (8%) of 99 patients receiving placebo. Treatment-emergent adverse events with a fatal outcome occurred in eight (4%) of the 195 patients receiving olaparib, six of which were judged to be treatment-related (attributed to myelodysplastic syndrome [n=3] and acute myeloid leukaemia [n=3]). INTERPRETATION: Olaparib provided a median overall survival benefit of 12·9 months compared with placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation. Although statistical significance was not reached, these findings are arguably clinically meaningful and support the use of maintenance olaparib in these patients. FUNDING: AstraZeneca and Merck.

Introduction/Background* In Study 309/KEYNOTE-775, lenvatinib+pembrolizumab showed significant and clinically meaningful improvements in OS, PFS, and ORR versus treatment of physician’s choice (TPC) in aEC patients following prior platinum-based therapy. Safety considerations are also important in EC. Herein, we characterize common adverse reactions (ARs) in patients with aEC in Study 309/KEYNOTE-775 and their respective management strategies. Additionally, the clinician’s role in proactively managing ARs will be highlighted. Methodology In Study 309/KEYNOTE-775, patients were randomized to lenvatinib 20 mg QD PO + pembrolizumab 200 mg IV Q3W (n=411) or TPC (n=416; doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 IV Q3W or paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 IV QW, 3 weeks on/1 week off). Herein, characterization of key ARs is based on incidence and known association with lenvatinib+pembrolizumab, and interventions for ARs in aEC patients. Key ARs are grouped by preferred terms per FDA definitions for ARs in patients with endometrial carcinoma from the US prescribing information; ARs include hypertension, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, decreased appetite, stomatitis, vomiting, hypothyroidism, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPES), and decreased weight. Result(s)* Median times (weeks) to first onset of key ARs [any grade] were: hypertension (2.1), fatigue (2.3), musculoskeletal pain (3.2), nausea (4.7), decreased appetite (4.9), stomatitis (4.9), vomiting (7.6), diarrhea (7.9), hypothyroidism (8.9), PPES (9.6), and decreased weight (10.7). Among ARs described, those that led to withdrawal of lenvatinib included decreased appetite (2%), fatigue (2%), hypertension (2%), diarrhea (1%), musculoskeletal pain (1%), vomiting (1%), and decreased weight (1%); only decreased appetite (1%) and diarrhea (1%) led to withdrawal of pembrolizumab. Hypertension most frequently led to lenvatinib dose reduction (18%); diarrhea and hypertension most frequently led to dose interruption of lenvatinib (11% each) as last action taken with lenvatinib. Diarrhea most frequently led to pembrolizumab interruption (8%). Change in sum of target lesion diameters over time, exposure-adjusted ARs, and AR management strategies will be reported. Conclusion* In general, ARs due to lenvatinib+pembrolizumab were as expected and often occurred within 3 months of treatment initiation. As will be presented, clinicians play a critical role in prompt identification and AR-directed management of patients with aEC; such management may potentially reduce treatment interruption(s) and/or lenvatinib dose reduction.

e17591 Background: Olaparib, a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi), monotherapy as first-line maintenance treatment has shown to be cost-effective in ovarian cancer (OC) patients with BRCA mutations in Spain. Regardless of BRCA status, patients with homologous recombination deficiency positive (HRD+) also benefit from PARPi following first-line platinum-based therapy. PAOLA-1 trial confirmed that adding Olaparib to bevacizumab (BEV) significantly increased progression-free survival (PFS) in OC patients. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of Olaparib plus BEV versus BEV monotherapy for the maintenance treatment of HRD+ advanced OC patients after response to first-line platinum-based therapy plus BEV from Spanish National Health System perspective. Methods: A lifetime partitioned survival model with monthly cycles and four health states (PFS, first progression, second progression, and death) was developed. Long-term survival defined as 60 months was included in the mixed survival model as a landmark to extrapolate PFS from the PAOLA-1 trial. Weibull distribution was selected as the most accurate survival model for PFS extrapolation. Time to second progression, and overall survival (OS) were extrapolated using parametric survival models. Mortality was obtained from the OS and adjusted by Spanish mortality rates. Health state utilities and adverse event (AE) frequencies were obtained from PAOLA-1. An expert panel validated data and assumptions. Direct costs including drug acquisition and administration, follow-up, subsequent therapies, AE, and end-of-life were obtained from local sources. A 3% annual discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated as cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to assess the robustness of the model. Results: Base-case analysis of Olaparib plus BEV compared with BEV showed an ICER of €24,371 per QALY gained. Discount rates applied to outcomes and the cost of Olaparib generated the most significant changes in the ICER. PSA demonstrated that Olaparib plus BEV had a 49.5% and 90.3% probability of being cost-effective versus BEV at a willingness-to-pay of €25,000 and €60,000 per QALY gained, respectively. Conclusions: Olaparib plus BEV is a cost-effective maintenance therapy compared with BEV for patients with HRD+ advanced OC in Spain.[Table: see text]

TPS5606 Background: Ofranergene obadenovec (Ofra-vec, VB-111) is an anti-cancer gene based immune activator and targeted vascular disruptor. The dual mechanism of action triggers a broad antiangiogenic effect and induces of a tumor directed immune response. A phase II trial in patients with platinum resistant ovarian cancer (PROC) demonstrated that ofra-vec in combination with weekly paclitaxel was well tolerated and associated with a CA-125 Objective Response Rate (ORR) of 58%, a trend for improved survival and induction of an immunotherapeutic effect of tumor infiltration with CD-8 T cells. Based on these observations, a pivotal phase III study was initiated in collaboration with the GOG Foundation, Inc. Methods: Study NCT03398655 is an international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study. Eligible patients have recurrent PROC and may have been previously treated with up to 5 prior lines of therapy (but not >2 for PROC). Patient are randomized 1:1 to receive ofra-vec (1x1013 Viral Particles) with weekly paclitaxel (80mg/m2), or weekly paclitaxel with placebo. Randomization is stratified by number of prior treatment lines, prior antiangiogenic therapy and platinum refractory disease status. The dual primary endpoints are OS and PFS. A pre-planned interim analysis of CA-125 response (GCIG) performed by the DSMC met the pre-defined criteria showing that CA-125 ORR in the treatment arm was at least 10% higher than in the control arm. Study is enrolling in the US, EU, Japan and Israel, with 90% enrollment to date. Completion of accrual is anticipated in Q1 2022. Clinical trial information: NCT03398655.

11511 Background: CDK4/6 inhibitors showed a favorable progression-free survival (PFS) in DD LPS, a sarcoma bearing 12q 13-15 amplicon that implies CDK4 amplification. The median PFS was 4 and 7 months (m) for palbociclib and abemaciclib, respectively. Preclinical experiments in 10 sarcoma cell lines and 6 PDX models, including only one DD LPS, showed higher efficacy of anti-CDK4 in cases with high expression of CDK4 and low expression of p16. This rationale supported the design of a phase II trial exploring palbociclib in a wide range of sarcomas, excluding DD LPS. Methods: Progressing pretreated advanced soft tissue sarcoma, excluding DD LPS, or osteosarcoma adult patients (pts), whose tumors overexpressed CDK4 and underexpressed CDKN2A mRNA in a baseline mandatory biopsy, were enrolled. CDK4 and CDKN2A expression were assessed by qRT-PCR, using an external control as reference (Universal human reference RNA; Agilent Technologies). The primary endpoint was 6-m PFS rate. Minimax Simon’s two-stage with type 1 and 2 errors of 10%, and null and alternative hypothesis of H0 15%, H1 40%, 6-month PFS rates were specified. The study will warrant further investigation if 6 or more pts had a PFS > 6 m from 21 evaluable pts. Palbociclib was administered orally at 125 mg/ day 21 out of 28 days. Pre-screening intended to increase the probability of positive profile in the baseline biopsy. Results: A total of 214 pts with 236 CDK4/ CDKN2A determinations were assessed for enrolment; 141 for prescreening, in archive tumor sample, and 95 for screening, in a baseline biopsy. There were 38/141 (27%) and 28/95 (29%) pts with favorable mRNA profile from pre and screening, respectively. Twenty-two pts were enrolled with a median of previous systemic lines of 3 (1-5). There were 9 different sarcoma subtypes, including 2 osteosarcomas. With a median FU of 10 m (0.4-23.3), the median PFS was 4.2 m (95% CI 0.9-7.4), while the 6- and 12-m PFS rates were 30% (95% CI 9-51) and 18% (95% CI 12-48) respectively. From 19 evaluable pts (1 early death by COVID, 1 withdrew consent and for 1 it was too early to be assessed) 11 had stable disease (58%) and 8 progressed (42%) as the best response. Patients with CDK4 expression above the median value had significantly longer mPFS in the univariate analysis: 5.9 m (95% CI 1.4-10.4) vs 1.9 m (95% CI 0.6-3.2), p = 0.046; and longer OS: 15.5 m (95% CI 6.8-24.3) vs 10.6 m (95% CI 0-23.2), p = 0.047, respectively. The probability to find a positive profile in the screening was 29%, but this proportion increased up to 41% if in pre-screening had been positive. Conclusions: Palbociclib showed to be effective in a wide variety of sarcoma subtypes, other than DD LPS, selected by CDK4/CDKN2A biomarkers. Clinical trial information: NCT03242382.

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 (ORRWk24); 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 ORRWk24 was 38.0% (95% CI, 28.8% to 47.8%). Among subgroups, the ORRWk24 (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.

Background Sorafenib is a potent targeted-therapy that blockades angiogenesis and has demonstrated activity against some sarcoma subtypes. Preclinical studies suggested that treatment with sorafenib plus cytotoxic agents could result in additive efficacy. Methods Patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma, with or without anthracycline pretreatment were included. Patients received oral sorafenib 400 mg twice daily starting on Day +2, ifosfamide 2.0 g/m2 iv infusion lasting 4 h on days 1, 2 and 3 with concurrent mesna 400 mg/m2 every three weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or up to a maximum of 6 cycles of ifosfamide (sorafenib could be continued until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity). Primary objective was progression-free rate (PFR) at 3 and 6 months; secondary objectives were overall response rate (ORR), Progression-free survival (PFS), Overall survival (OS) and safety. This article reports the phase II part of a phase I/II clinical trial. Results Thirty-five patients were enrolled. PFR at 3 and 6 months was 66% (95% CI 48–81) and 37% (95% CI 22–55). Six patients (17%) achieved partial response and 17 (49%) stable disease. Median PFS was 4.8 months (CI 95% 1.94–6.36) and overall survival 16.2 months (95% CI 8.75-NA). Conclusion Treatment with sorafenib plus ifosfamide achieved a significant clinical benefit with an acceptable safety profile in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma resistant to anthracyclines, which warrants a more detailed study in randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Angiopoietin 1 and 2 regulate angiogenesis and vascular remodelling by interacting with the tyrosine kinase receptor Tie2, and inhibition of angiogenesis has shown promise in the treatment of ovarian cancer. We aimed to assess whether trebananib, a peptibody that inhibits binding of angiopoietin 1 and 2 to Tie2, improved progression-free survival when added to carboplatin and paclitaxel as first-line therapy in advanced epithelial ovarian, primary fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer in a phase 3 clinical trial. METHODS: TRINOVA-3, a multicentre, multinational, phase 3, double-blind study, was done at 206 investigational sites (hospitals and cancer centres) in 14 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with biopsy-confirmed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III to IV epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancers, and an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (2:1) using a permuted block method (block size of six patients) to receive six cycles of paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) and carboplatin (area under the serum concentration-time curve 5 or 6) every 3 weeks, plus weekly intravenous trebananib 15 mg/kg or placebo. Maintenance therapy with trebananib or placebo continued for up to 18 additional months. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, as assessed by the investigators, in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses included patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01493505, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Jan 30, 2012, and Feb 25, 2014, 1164 patients were screened and 1015 eligible patients were randomly allocated to treatment (678 to trebananib and 337 to placebo). After a median follow-up of 27·4 months (IQR 17·7-34·2), 626 patients had progression-free survival events (405 [60%] of 678 in the trebananib group and 221 [66%] of 337 in the placebo group). Median progression-free survival did not differ between the trebananib group (15·9 months [15·0-17·6]) and the placebo group (15·0 months [12·6-16·1]) groups (hazard ratio 0·93 [95% CI 0·79-1·09]; p=0·36). 512 (76%) of 675 patients in the trebananib group and 237 (71%) of 336 in the placebo group had grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events; of which the most common events were neutropenia (trebananib 238 [35%] vs placebo 126 [38%]) anaemia (76 [11%] vs 40 [12%]), and leucopenia (81 [12%] vs 35 [10%]). 269 (40%) patients in the trebananib group and 104 (31%) in the placebo group had serious adverse events. Two fatal adverse events in the trebananib group were considered related to trebananib, paclitaxel, and carboplatin (lung infection and neutropenic colitis); two were considered to be related to paclitaxel and carboplatin (general physical health deterioration and platelet count decreased). No treatment-related fatal adverse events occurred in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Trebananib plus carboplatin and paclitaxel did not improve progression-free survival as first-line treatment for advanced ovarian cancer. The combination of trebananib plus carboplatin and paclitaxel did not produce new safety signals. These results show that trebananib in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel is minimally effective in this patient population. FUNDING: Amgen. ispartof: LANCET ONCOLOGY vol:20 issue:6 pages:862-876 ispartof: location:England status: published

5570 Background: In Study 309/KEYNOTE-775, lenvatinib + pembrolizumab (L+P) demonstrated significant and clinically meaningful improvement in OS, PFS, and ORR compared with TPC in aEC pts following prior platinum-based systemic therapy. Given the medical complexity/age of EC pts, QoL analyses are critical, but often under-reported. We present results of pt-reported HRQoL for Study 309/KEYNOTE-775. Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive lenvatinib 20 mg QD PO + pembrolizumab 200 mg IV Q3W (n=411) or TPC (n=416; doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 IV Q3W or paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 IV QW, 3 wks on/1 wk off). Pt-reported HRQoL was assessed at cycle 1 day 1, day 1 of each subsequent cycle and at time of discontinuation using EORTC QLQ-C30, its EC module QLQ-EN24, and EQ-5D-5L in treated pts who had ≥1 HRQoL assessment available. Higher scores indicate better functioning/QoL (EORTC QLQ-C30, EQ-5D-5L) or worse symptom severity (QLQ-EN24). Changes in EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS)/QoL was a secondary endpoint. This was analyzed from baseline to the latest timepoint at which overall completion was ≥60% and overall compliance was ≥80%, using constrained longitudinal data analysis; other HRQoL analyses were exploratory. Results: Completion and compliance rates of EORTC QLQ-C30 were >95% in both groups at baseline. Primary analysis was conducted at wk 12 as completion rate was 80% for L+P and 62% for TPC; compliance rate was 93% for L+P and 87% for TPC. Baseline GHS/QoL scores were similar between the L+P group and TPC group: mean (SD) of 65.74 (21.87) vs 65.69 (22.71), respectively. Over 12 wks of follow-up, pts in both groups had slight decreases in GHS/QoL. Similar decreases were observed for pts receiving L+P vs TPC: -5.97 (95% CI: -8.36, -3.58) vs -6.98 (95% CI: -9.63, -4.33). The between-group difference in least-squares (LS) mean score change from baseline to wk 12 for L+P vs TPC was 1.01 points (95% CI: -2.28, 4.31). Over time, QoL scores were generally similar across treatments. Results were similar for other HRQoL endpoints (Table). Conclusions: No significant differences were observed in HRQoL scores between treatment groups. With no standard treatment approach following failure of platinum-based therapy, these data along with previously reported efficacy and safety findings from Study 309/KEYNOTE-775 further support that L+P has an overall favorable benefit/risk profile compared to chemotherapy. Clinical trial information: NCT03517449. [Table: see text]

Simple Summary Sarcomas are a rare group of heterogeneous tumors. Because treatment side-effects detract from the survival benefit of treatment, it is important to assess treatment effectiveness in terms of patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL). However, a sarcoma specific measurement instrument or strategy does currently not exist. This study aims to (1) develop a list of all HRQoL issues relevant to sarcoma patients; (2) determine a strategy for sarcoma-specific HRQoL assessment. An international, multicenter study will be conducted, searching existing literature and conducting interviews with adult sarcoma patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) to create a list of HRQoL issues. Subsequently, another group of sarcoma patients and HCPs will be asked to rate and prioritize the issues. This information will help create a strategy to measure HRQoL in sarcoma patients, taking into account the heterogeneity of sarcomas, which will improve the collection of personalized patient-reported outcome data in future research and clinical care. Abstract Sarcomas comprise 1% of adult tumors and are very heterogeneous. Long-lasting and cumulative treatment side-effects detract from the (progression-free) survival benefit of treatment. Therefore, it is important to assess treatment effectiveness in terms of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including health-related quality of life (HRQoL) as well. However, questionnaires capturing the unique issues of sarcoma patients are currently lacking. Given the heterogeneity of the disease, the development of such an instrument may be challenging. The study aims to (1) develop an exhaustive list of all HRQoL issues relevant to sarcoma patients and determine content validity; (2) determine a strategy for HRQoL measurement in sarcoma patients. We will conduct an international, multicenter, mixed-methods study (registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04071704) among bone or soft tissue sarcoma patients ≥18 years, using EORTC Quality of Life Group questionnaire development guidelines. First, an exhaustive list of HRQoL issues will be generated, derived from literature and patient (n = 154) and healthcare professional (HCP) interviews (n = 30). Subsequently, another group of sarcoma patients (n = 475) and HCPs (n = 30) will be asked to rate and prioritize the issues. Responses will be analyzed by priority, prevalence and range of responses for each item. The outcome will be a framework for tailored HRQoL measurement in sarcoma patients, taking into account sociodemographic and clinical variables.

6083 Background: As part of an ongoing phase Ib/II study (NCT02501096) in patients (pts) with selected solid tumors, LEN (20 mg PO QD) + PEMBRO (200 mg IV Q3W) displayed substantial and durable antitumor activity in advanced EC. In previously treated EC that was not microsatellite instability high (MSI-H) or mismatch repair deficient (dMMR; n=94 pts), the objective response rate (ORR) by independent imaging review (IIR) per RECIST 1.1 was 38.3% (95% CI 28.5–48.9). In this post hoc analysis, we assessed 2 subgroups of pts with previously treated, advanced, non MSI-H or dMMR EC who received LEN + PEMBRO in an early-treatment setting. Methods: Pts were examined in 2 subgroups: (1) Pts with only 1 prior line of cytotoxic therapy regardless of surgical stage or setting (adjuvant treatment for local-regional disease or treatment for metastatic disease); and (2) pts from subgroup 1 with local-regional disease at diagnosis who received only adjuvant cytotoxic therapy. There were no restrictions on prior hormonal or chemoradiation therapies in either subgroup. Tumor responses were assessed by IIR per RECIST 1.1. Results: Subgroup 1 included 63 pts and subgroup 2 had 21 pts. ORR (95% CI) was 41.3% (29.0–54.4) for subgroup 1 and 57.1% (34.0–78.2) for subgroup 2. Additional efficacy outcomes are summarized in the table. In subgroup 1, treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 62 (98%) pts (42 [67%] ≥ grade 3). TRAEs led to study-drug interruption of one or both drugs in 43 (68%) pts and dose reductions of LEN in 42 (67%) pts; 12 (19%) pts discontinued one or both drugs due to a TRAE. Serious TRAEs occurred in 18 (29%) pts and 2 (3%) pts died from a TRAE. The safety profile for subgroup 2 was generally similar to the profile for subgroup 1. Conclusions: The efficacy of LEN + PEMBRO for early-line treatment of advanced non MSI-H or dMMR EC appears promising. No new safety signals have emerged. A phase III study of LEN + PEMBRO vs paclitaxel + carboplatin for first-line treatment in advanced or recurrent EC is underway. Clinical trial information: NCT02501096. [Table: see text]

Summary Background Pathological complete response to preoperative treatment in adults with soft-tissue sarcoma can be achieved in only a few patients receiving radiotherapy. This phase 2–3 trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of the hafnium oxide (HfO2) nanoparticle NBTXR3 activated by radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone as a pre-operative treatment in patients with locally advanced soft-tissue sarcoma. Methods Act.In.Sarc is a phase 2–3 randomised, multicentre, international trial. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with locally advanced soft-tissue sarcoma of the extremity or trunk wall, of any histological grade, and requiring preoperative radiotherapy were included. Patients had to have a WHO performance status of 0–2 and a life expectancy of at least 6 months. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive web response system to receive either NBTXR3 (volume corresponding to 10% of baseline tumour volume at a fixed concentration of 53·3 g/L) as a single intratumoural administration before preoperative external-beam radiotherapy (50 Gy in 25 fractions) or radiotherapy alone, followed by surgery. Randomisation was stratified by histological subtype (myxoid liposarcoma vs others). This was an open-label study. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a pathological complete response, assessed by a central pathology review board following European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer guidelines in the intention-to-treat population full analysis set. Safety analyses were done in all patients who received at least one puncture and injection of NBTXR3 or at least one dose of radiotherapy. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT02379845 , and is ongoing for long-term follow-up, but recruitment is complete. Findings Between March 3, 2015, and Nov 21, 2017, 180 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned and 179 started treatment: 89 in the NBTXR3 plus radiotherapy group and 90 in the radiotherapy alone group. Two patients in the NBTXR3 group and one patient in the radiotherapy group were excluded from the efficacy analysis because they were subsequently discovered to be ineligible; thus, a total of 176 patients were analysed for the primary endpoint in the intention-to-treat full analysis set (87 in the NBTXR3 group and 89 in the radiotherapy alone group). A pathological complete response was noted in 14 (16%) of 87 patients in the NBTXR3 group and seven (8%) of 89 in the radiotherapy alone group (p=0·044). In both treatment groups, the most common grade 3–4 treatment-emergent adverse event was postoperative wound complication (eight [9%] of 89 patients in the NBTXR3 group and eight [9%] of 90 in the radiotherapy alone group). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events related to NBTXR3 administration were injection site pain (four [4%] of 89) and hypotension (four [4%]) and the most common grade 3–4 radiotherapy-related adverse event was radiation skin injury in both groups (five [6%] of 89 in the NBTXR3 group and four [4%] of 90 in the radiotherapy alone group). The most common treatment-emergent grade 3–4 adverse event related to NBTXR3 was hypotension (six [7%] of 89 patients). Serious adverse events were observed in 35 (39%) of 89 patients in the NBTXR3 group and 27 (30%) of 90 patients in the radiotherapy alone group. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Interpretation This trial validates the mode of action of this new class of radioenhancer, which potentially opens a large field of clinical applications in soft-tissue sarcoma and possibly other cancers. Funding Nanobiotix SA and PharmaEngine, Inc.

PURPOSE This study estimated time without symptoms or toxicity (TWiST) with niraparib compared with routine surveillance (RS) in the maintenance treatment of patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Mean progression-free survival (PFS) was estimated for niraparib and RS by fitting parametric survival distributions to Kaplan-Meier data for 553 patients with recurrent ovarian cancer who were enrolled in the phase III ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial. Patients were categorized according to the presence or absence of a germline BRCA mutation—g BRCAmut and non-g BRCAmut cohorts. Mean time with toxicity was estimated based on the area under the Kaplan-Meier curve for symptomatic grade 2 or greater fatigue, nausea, and vomiting adverse events (AEs). Time with toxicity was the number of days a patient experienced an AE post–random assignment and before disease progression. TWiST was estimated as the difference between mean PFS and time with toxicity. Uncertainty was explored using alternative PFS estimates and considering all symptomatic grade 2 or greater AEs. RESULTS In the g BRCAmut and non-g BRCAmut cohorts, niraparib treatment resulted in a mean PFS benefit of 3.23 years and 1.44 years, respectively, and a mean time with toxicity of 0.28 years and 0.10 years, respectively, compared with RS. Hence, niraparib treatment resulted in a mean TWiST benefit of 2.95 years and 1.34 years, respectively, compared with RS, which is equivalent to more than four-fold and two-fold increases in mean TWiST between niraparib and RS in the g BRCAmut and non-g BRCAmut cohorts, respectively. This TWiST benefit was consistent across all sensitivity analyses, including modeling PFS over 5-, 10-, and 15-year time horizons. CONCLUSION Patients who were treated with niraparib compared with RS experienced increased mean TWiST. Thus, patients who were treated with niraparib in the ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial experienced more time without symptoms or symptomatic toxicities compared with control.

Olaratumab is a platelet-derived growth factor receptor-α (PDGFRα)-targeting monoclonal antibody blocking PDGFRα signaling. PDGFRα expression is associated with a more aggressive phenotype and poor ovarian cancer outcomes. This randomized, open label phase II study evaluated olaratumab plus liposomal doxorubicin compared with liposomal doxorubicin alone in advanced ovarian cancer patients. Patients with platinum-refractory or platinum-resistant advanced ovarian cancer were randomized 1:1 to receive liposomal doxorubicin (40 mg/m2, intravenous infusion) administered every 4 weeks with or without olaratumab (20 mg/kg, IV infusion) every 2 weeks. Patients were stratified based on prior response to platinum therapy (refractory vs resistant). The primary efficacy endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate, duration of response, and safety. A total of 123 patients were treated (62 olaratumab+liposomal doxorubicin; 61 liposomal doxorubicin). Median PFS was 4.2 months for olaratumab+liposomal doxorubicin and 4.0 months for liposomal doxorubicin (stratified hazard ratio [HR] = 1.043; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.698–1.558; p = 0.837). Median OS was 16.6 months and 16.2 months in the olaratumab+liposomal doxorubicin and liposomal doxorubicin arms, respectively (HR = 1.098; 95% CI 0.71–1.71). In the platinum-refractory subgroup, median PFS was 5.5 months (95% CI 1.6–9.2) and 3.7 months (95% CI 1.9–9.2) in the olaratumab+liposomal doxorubicin (n = 15) and liposomal doxorubicin arms (n = 16), respectively (HR = 0.85; 95% CI 0.38–1.91). Overall, 59.7% (olaratumab+liposomal doxorubicin) and 65.6% (liposomal doxorubicin) of patients reported grade ≥ 3 adverse events regardless of causality. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (all grades) regardless of causality were fatigue related (61%), nausea (57%), and constipation (52%) with olaratumab+liposomal doxorubicin and nausea (64%), fatigue related (62%), and mucositis (46%) with liposomal doxorubicin. The addition of olaratumab to liposomal doxorubicin did not result in significant prolongation of PFS or OS in platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00913835 ; registered June 2, 2009.

TPS5607 Background: Lenvatinib (LEN) is a multikinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1–3, fibroblast growth factor receptors 1–4, platelet-derived growth factor receptor α, RET, and KIT. Pembrolizumab (PEMBRO) is a monoclonal antibody targeting programmed cell death receptor 1 (PD-1). Preliminary analyses of a phase 1b/2 study of LEN + PEMBRO showed promising antitumor activity and a manageable safety profile in advanced endometrial cancer (EC). Methods: A multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 study (KEYNOTE-775/E7080-G000-309; clinicaltrials.gov NCT03517449) will evaluate efficacy and safety of LEN + PEMBRO vs treatment of physician’s choice (TPC) in patients with advanced EC. Patients must be aged ≥ 18 years, have advanced EC that progressed after 1 prior platinum-based therapy, have measurable disease per RECIST v1.1, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 1. Patients must have mismatch repair (MMR) status confirmed by central laboratory via immunohistochemistry on archived or fresh tumor biopsy. ~780 patients (~120 MMR-deficient; ~660 MMR-proficient) will be randomized to receive LEN 20 mg orally once daily and PEMBRO 200 mg intravenously (IV) every 3 weeks (Q3W) or TPC. Patients will be randomized first according to MMR status; MMR-proficient patients will be further stratified by ECOG PS, geographic region, and prior history of pelvic radiation. TPC is either doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 by IV Q3W or paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 by 1-hour IV infusion weekly (3 weeks on/1 week off). The dual primary endpoints are progression-free survival (PFS; per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review) and overall survival (OS). The PFS analysis will occur at the planned interim analysis (~363 OS events in MMR-proficient patients; ~524 PFS events), and the study will have 99% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.55 with a 1-sided 0.0005 significance level. A final OS analysis will occur at 518 OS events, when the study will have 90% power to detect a HR of 0.75 with a 1-sided 0.0245 significance level. Secondary endpoints include objective response rate, health-related quality of life, safety and tolerability, and pharmacokinetics. Clinical trial information: NCT03517449.

Background Olaparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, has previously shown efficacy in a phase 2 study when given in capsule formulation to all-comer patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed high-grade serous ovarian cancer. We aimed to confirm these findings in patients with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation using a tablet formulation of olaparib. Methods This international, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial evaluated olaparib tablet maintenance treatment in platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation who had received at least two lines of previous chemotherapy. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at baseline of 0–1 and histologically confirmed, relapsed, high-grade serous ovarian cancer or high-grade endometrioid cancer, including primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to olaparib (300 mg in two 150 mg tablets, twice daily) or matching placebo tablets using an interactive voice and web response system. Randomisation was stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy (complete vs partial) and length of platinum-free interval (6–12 months vs ≥12 months) and treatment assignment was masked for patients, those giving the interventions, data collectors, and data analysers. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival and we report the primary analysis from this ongoing study. The efficacy analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population; safety analyses included patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01874353, and is ongoing and no longer recruiting patients. Findings Between Sept 3, 2013, and Nov 21, 2014, we enrolled 295 eligible patients who were randomly assigned to receive olaparib (n=196) or placebo (n=99). One patient in the olaparib group was randomised in error and did not receive study treatment. Investigator-assessed median progression-free survival was significantly longer with olaparib (19·1 months [95% CI 16·3–25·7]) than with placebo (5·5 months [5·2–5·8]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·30 [95% CI 0·22–0·41], p

Objectives Gemcitabine has well-recognized activity in the treatment of ovarian cancer. Fixed-dose rate (FDR) delivery has been proposed as a more rationale way to administer gemcitabine, to avoid saturation of the enzyme that catalyzes its intracellular transformation into the active metabolites, difluorodeoxycitidine biphosphate, and triphosphate. Our aim was to assess clinical activity of gemcitabine delivered by FDR infusion in patients with platinum resistant ovarian cancer. Materials and methods Patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer received gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) over 120 minutes on days 1 and 8 of each cycle. Cycles were repeated every 3 weeks, and up to 6 cycles were delivered. Results Forty-eight patients were included in the study. Among 41 patients evaluable for response, 9 clinical responses (1 complete response and 8 partial responses) were observed, achieving a global response rate of 22%. Grade 3 to 4 hematological toxicity consisted of anemia (15% of patients), neutropenia (24%), and thrombopenia (10%). One patient died due to septic shock. The main grade 3 to 4 nonhematological toxicity was asthenia (7 patients, 17%). Conclusion Activity of gemcitabine administered by FDR infusion in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer seems similar to that achieved using 30-minute infusions, with higher toxicity.

5517 Background: Therapeutic paradigms for recurrent OC vary by geography. Maintenance following response to platinum-based chemotherapy (Plat) is standard in Europe, whereas in the US maintenance is considered following complete response (CR) vs treatment for partial response (PR). Niraparib is a highly selective PARP 1/2 inhibitor (PARPi). In preclinical studies it concentrates in the tumor relative to plasma, delivering > 90% durable PARP inhibition and antitumor effects. Niraparib demonstrated significantly longer PFS vs placebo (P) in pts with recurrent OC following a CR or PR to Plat in the randomized, controlled, double-blind phase 3 ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial. Methods: Pts with recurrent OC, no prior PARPi use, ≥2 prior courses of Plat, and response to most recent Plat were eligible. Pts were assigned to 1 of 2 cohorts on the basis of g BRCA testing (g BRCAmut or non-g BRCAmut) and randomized 2:1 within each cohort to niraparib 300 mg or P qd until progressive disease (PD). Randomization occurred up to 8 weeks after last dose of the most recent Plat. Pts were stratified by time to progression after penultimate Plat (6 to < 12 months or ≥12 months), prior use of bevacizumab (yes/no), and response to most recent Plat (CR or PR). PFS was measured from time of randomization to death or earliest PD as assessed by independent review committee. Results: 49% of pts (niraparib: 67/138; P: 32/65) in the g BRCAmut and ~49% of pts (niraparib: 117/234 [50%]; P: 56/116 [48%]) in the non-g BRCAmut cohorts entered NOVA with a PR following their most recent Plat. At time of unblinding, 30 (45%) niraparib and 23 (72%) P pts in the g BRCAmut and 65 (56%) niraparib and 45 (80%) P pts in the non-g BRCAmut cohorts had PFS events. PFS hazard ratios (95% CI) were 0.24 (0.131–0.441) in g BRCAmut and 0.35 (0.230–0.532) in non-g BRCAmut cohorts for pts who had a PR to their most recent platinum regimen. This compared favorably to the overall NOVA study results, where PFS hazard ratios (95% CI) were 0.27 (0.173–0.410) in g BRCAmut and 0.45 (0.338–0.607) in non-g BRCAmut cohorts. Conclusions: Niraparib treatment provided significant benefit to pts with recurrent OC who achieved a PR following Plat. Clinical trial information: NCT01847274.

10524 Background: Risk estimation of recurrence in localized GIST relies on factors as mitosis, size, site or capsule rupture. Recently, genotype has shown to add prognostic value at least in inter...

Cardiac metastases are more frequent than primary heart neoplasias. Nearly any malignant tumour may metastasize to the heart, but the most common are carcinomas rather than sarcomas. We report the case of a patient who presented with heart metastasis 6 years after resection of an uterine leiomyosarcoma. The patient died thirty months after surgical resection without evidence of cardiac recurrence. Although cardiac metastases from uterine leiomyosarcoma are exceptional, they should be suspected in the presence of suggestive symptoms, since they can be associated with long survival after surgical treatment.

5593 Background: We conducted an international survey to evaluate the differences in the systemic, radiotherapeutic and operative management of endometrial cancer (EC) in different regions of the world. Methods: In 2009 avalidated 15-item-questionnaire regarding surgical and adjuvant procedures of EC was sent to all German gynaecological clinics and in 2010 the English adapted questionnaire was set online as well as sent per post in most major gynaecological cancer societies. Results: 316 German institutions and 302 Institutions from 24 countries participated. We combined the different countries into regional groups: Central Europe (CE), southern Europe (SE), Asia and USA/UK. In Asian countries and in CE a lymph node dissection (LND) was performed routinely in 72.8% and in 55.6% of the cases, whereas in the USA/UK and in SE a LND was done mainly in selected cases when specific risk factors such as high-grade or non-endometrioid-histology applied (62.8% and 72.5%) than routinely (p < 0.001). A systematic pelvic and paraaortic LND was performed most frequently in CE 91.0%, in SE 76.9%, in Asia 70.9% and in USA/UK 68.6% (p < 0.001). A systematic LND with the intention of both adequate staging and for therapeutic value was performed in countries of central Europe to 74.6% and in Asia to 67.2%. In USA/UK the LND was seen merely as a staging instrument by 53.5% (p < 0.001). The LND was performed up to renal veins in CE in 86.8%, in Asia in 80.8%, in USA/UK in 51.2% and in SE in 45.1 %. A significant difference war found in the treatment for FIGO stage I (high risk factors (high grade, L1,V1)) and stage II disease between the countries: chemotherapy was applied in 84.8% of the participated centers in Asia,42.3% in SE, 21.2% in CE and only 13.6% in USK/UK (p

e16543 Background: Dose-dense therapy and administration of sequential non-platinum agents in PROC plays a role in reverting platinum-resistance and may improve the prognosis of such patients over years (Bamias A, 2013). The PFI extension is one of the current strategies to improve survival in partially platinum-sensitive (PPS) ROC, with a PFI 6-12 months (Poveda A, 2011). Trabectedin is a minor groove DNA-binder, which may play a role in reverting platinum resistance in patients with PROC and PPS ROC. Methods: Trabectedin 1.1-1.5 mg/m2as single agent was given as a 3-h infusion every 3 weeks with antiemetic and steroid premedication. Tumor response was assessed every 12 weeks. Results: Overall, 27 patients (24 with PROC and 3 with PPS ROC) treated from 2003 to 2013 in a single institution were included in the analysis. The patients had a median age of 63 years (range 45-81), most had serous-papillary (67%), clear-cell (11%), endometrioid (7%) and other (15%) histological subtypes and received a median of 5 prior chemotherapy lines (range: 1-9), 89% of whom also received other non-platinum agents. A median of 4.9 trabectedin cycles (range 1-14) was given. The overall response rate (ORR) was 15%, with a median duration of response of 16.5 weeks (range 5.86-44.43), while 41% of patients achieved stable disease (SD) lasting ≥4 months as best response. Thirteen of 27 patients were retreated with platinum-based chemotherapy after progression with trabectedin treatment. The ORR to platinum retreatment was 54% (n = 7) and SD was achieved in 8% (n = 1) of these patients, for an overall clinical benefit of 61%. Conclusions: Intercalation of a non-platinum therapy with trabectedin prior to subsequent platinum rechallenge may contribute to prolong PFI and to re-sensitize the patients with PROC and PPS ROC to further platinum-based therapies leading to a significant clinical benefit. Further prospective studies are warranted to determine the contribution of sequential treatments with trabectedin in patients with PROC and PPS ROC.

5569 Background: The primary aim of this study was to investigate information needs and preferences among patients with ovarian cancer, focusing especially on doctor-patient relationships and therapy management in different European countries. Methods: A questionnaire was developed based on the experiences of expression II, a German survey, and then provided to primary and recurrent ovarian cancer patients via internet (online) or as a print-version in 8 countries in Europe (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Rumania, Spain). In the first part basic data (age, tumour status, therapy) were requested from the patient. In the second part, most of the questions tried to evaluate the expectations and needs concerning their therapy management and doctor-patient communication. Results: From December 2009 to October 2012, a total of 1743 patients with ovarian cancer from 8 European countries participated in the survey.The median age was 58 years (range 16-89). Nearly all patients (96,3%) had a primary surgery and a first-line chemotherapy (91,5%). About 423 (25,7%) patients were included in another clinical trial.Most of the patients in each country were pleased with the completeness and understandability of the explanations about the therapies from their doctors. About 68% of patients would be interested in having the opportunity to have a second opinion. The three most important aspects, which were proposed by patients to improve therapy against ovarian cancer were: “the therapy should not induce alopecia” (42%), “there must be more done to counter fatigue” (34%), and “the therapy should be more effective” (29%). Conclusions: This study underlines the high need of ovarian cancer patients to discuss all details concerning treatment options and clinical management with only minor difference between the countries. Patients also need more information about side effects of cancer therapies and second opinion opportunities. Besides effectiveness of therapy, alopecia and fatigue are the most important side effects bothering the patients.