Search

The Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) sixth Ovarian Cancer Conference on Clinical Research was held virtually in October, 2021, following published consensus guidelines. The goal of the consensus meeting was to achieve harmonisation on the design elements of upcoming trials in ovarian cancer, to select important questions for future study, and to identify unmet needs. All 33 GCIG member groups participated in the development, refinement, and adoption of 20 statements within four topic groups on clinical research in ovarian cancer including first line treatment, recurrent disease, disease subgroups, and future trials. Unanimous consensus was obtained for 14 of 20 statements, with greater than 90% concordance in the remaining six statements. The high acceptance rate following active deliberation among the GCIG groups confirmed that a consensus process could be applied in a virtual setting. Together with detailed categorisation of unmet needs, these consensus statements will promote the harmonisation of international clinical research in ovarian cancer.

The statement ". . .patients under 300 mg. . ." has been changed to ". . .patients at 300 mg. . ." (p3; line 29) to prevent misinterpretation on rates of thrombocytopenia in patients who remained at the 300 mg dose. Table S3 has also been revised to clearly show the relevant information to support the statement on p3. This also provides further information about rates of hematologic toxicities by dose level to better inform readers.

The statement ". . .patients under 300 mg. . ." has been changed to ". . .patients at 300 mg. . ." (p3; line 29) to prevent misinterpretation on rates of thrombocytopenia in patients who remained at the 300 mg dose. Table S3 has also been revised to clearly show the relevant information to support the statement on p3. This also provides further information about rates of hematologic toxicities by dose level to better inform readers.

Background: Niraparib is a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor approved in the USA and Europe for maintenance treatment of adult patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer who are in complete or partial response to platinum-based chemotherapy. In the pivotal ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial, the dose reduction rate due to treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) was 68.9%, and the discontinuation rate due to TEAE was 14.7%, including 3.3% due to thrombocytopenia. A retrospective analysis was carried out to identify clinical parameters that predict dose reductions. Patients and methods: All analyses were carried out on the safety population, comprising all patients who received at Least one dose of study drug. Patients were analyzed according to the study drug consumed (i.e., as treated). A predictive modeling method (decision trees) was used to identify important variables for predicting the likelihood of developing grade 3 thrombocytopenia within 30 days after the first dose of niraparib and determine cut-off points for chosen variables. Results: Following dose modification, 200 mg was the most commonly administered dose in the ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial. Baseline platelet count and baseline body weight were identified as risk factors for increased incidence of grade 3 thrombocytopenia. Patients with a baseline body weight <77 kg or a baseline platelet count <150 000/ml in effect received an average daily dose 200 mg (median 1⁄4 207 mg) due to dose interruption and reduction. Progression-free survival in patients who were dose reduced to either 200 or 100 mg was consistent with that of patients who remained at the 300 mg starting dose. Conclusions: The analysis presented suggests that patients with baseline body weight of <77 kg or baseline platelets of <150 000/ml May benefit from a starting dose of 200 mg/day

The Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) Fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference (OCCC) was held in Tokyo, Japan from 7 to 9 November 2015. It provided international consensus on 15 important questions in 4 topic areas, which were generated in accordance with the mission statement to establish 'International Consensus for Designing Better Clinical Trials'. The methodology for obtaining consensus was previously established and followed during the Fifth OCCC. All 29 clinical trial groups of GCIG participated in program development and deliberations. Draft consensus statements were discussed in topic groups as well as in a plenary forum. The final statements were then presented to all 29 member groups for voting and documentation of the level of consensus. Full consensus was obtained for 11 of the 15 statements with 28/29 groups agreeing to 3 statements, and 27/29 groups agreeing to 1 statement. The high acceptance rate of the statements among trial groups reflects the fact that we share common questions, and recognise important unmet needs that will guide future research in ovarian cancer.

Background Quality of life (QOL) has become an important complementary endpoint in cancer clinical studies alongside more traditional assessments (eg, tumour response, progression-free survival, overall survival). Niraparib maintenance treatment has been shown to significantly improve progression-free survival in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. We aimed to assess whether the benefits of extending progression-free survival are offset by treatment-associated toxic effects that affect QOL.Methods The ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial was a multicentre, double-blind, phase 3, randomised controlled trial done in 107 study sites in the USA, Canada, Europe, and Israel. Patients with recurrent ovarian cancer who were in response to their last platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned (2: 1) to receive either niraparib (300 mg once daily) as a maintenance treatment or placebo. Randomisation was stratified based on time to progression after the penultimate platinum-based regimen, previous use of bevacizumab, and best response (complete or partial) to the last platinum-based regimen with permuted-block randomisation (six in each block) using an interactive web response system. The trial enrolled two independent cohorts on the basis of germline BRCA (gBRCA) mutation status (determined by BRACAnalysis Testing, Myriad Genetics, Salt Lake City, UT, USA). The primary endpoint of the trial was progression-free survival, and has already been reported. In this study, we assessed patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the intention-to-treat population using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovarian Symptoms Index (FOSI) and European QOL five-dimension five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L). We collected PROs from trial entry every 8 weeks for the first 14 cycles and every 12 weeks thereafter. If a patient discontinued, we collected PROs at discontinuation and during a postprogression visit 8 weeks (plus or minus 2 weeks) later. We assessed the effect of haematological toxic ef

BACKGROUND Niraparib is an oral poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase (PARP) 1/2 inhibitor that has shown clinical activity in patients with ovarian cancer. We sought to evaluate the efficacy of niraparib versus placebo as maintenance treatment for patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer. METHODS In this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial, patients were categorized according to the presence or absence of a germline BRCA mutation (gBRCA cohort and non-gBRCA cohort) and the type of non-gBRCA mutation and were randomly assigned in a 2: 1 ratio to receive niraparib (300 mg) or placebo once daily. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS Of 553 enrolled patients, 203 were in the gBRCA cohort (with 138 assigned to niraparib and 65 to placebo), and 350 patients were in the non-gBRCA cohort (with 234 assigned to niraparib and 116 to placebo). Patients in the niraparib group had a significantly longer median duration of progression-free survival than did those in the placebo group, including 21.0 vs. 5.5 months in the gBRCA cohort (hazard ratio, 0.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17 to 0.41), as compared with 12.9 months vs. 3.8 months in the non-gBRCA cohort for patients who had tumors with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.59) and 9.3 months vs. 3.9 months in the overall non-gBRCA cohort (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.61; P amp;lt; 0.001 for all three comparisons). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events that were reported in the niraparib group were thrombocytopenia (in 33.8%), anemia (in 25.3%), and neutropenia (in 19.6%), which were managed with dose modifications. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer, the median duration of progression-free survival was significantly longer among those receiving niraparib than among those receiving placebo, regardless of the presence or absence of gBRCA mutations or HRD status, Funding Agencies|Tesaro; Amgen; Genentech; Roche; AstraZeneca; Myriad Genetics; Merck; Gradalis; Cerulean; Vermillion; ImmunoGen; Pfizer; Bayer; Nu-Cana BioMed; INSYS Therapeutics; GlaxoSmithKline; Verastem; Mateon Therapeutics; Pharmaceutical Product Development; Clovis Oncology; Janssen/Johnson Johnson; Eli Lilly; Merck Sharp Dohme

BACKGROUND: CAN-003 was a randomized, open-label, Phase 2 trial evaluating the safety, efficacy and immune outcomes of CVac, a mucin 1 targeted-dendritic cell (DC) treatment as a maintenance therapy to patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). METHODS: Patients (n = 56) in first (CR1) or second clinical remission (CR2) were randomized (1:1) to standard of care (SOC) observation or CVac maintenance treatment. Ten doses were administered over 56 weeks. Both groups were followed for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were randomized: 27 to SOC and 29 to CVac. Therapy was safe with only seven patients with Grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events. A variable but measurable mucin 1 T cell-specific response was induced in all CVac-treated and some standard of care (SOC) patients. Progression free survival (PFS) was not significantly longer in the treated group compared to SOC group (13 vs. 9 months, p = 0.36, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.73). Analysis by remission status showed in the CR1 subgroup a median PFS of 18 months (SOC) vs. 13 months (CVac); p = 0.69 (HR = 1.18; CI 0.52-2.71). However CR2 patients showed a longer median PFS in the CVac-treated group (median PFS not yet reached, >13 vs. 5 months; p = 0.04, HR = 0.32 CI). OS for CR2 patients at 42 months of follow-up showed a difference of 26 months for SOC vs. > 42 months for CVac-treated (as median OS had not been reached; HR = 0.17 (CI 0.02-1.4) with a p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: CVac, a mucin 1-dendritic cell maintenance treatment was safe and well tolerated in ovarian cancer patients. A variable but observed CVac-derived, mucin 1-specific T cell response was measured. Notably, CR2 patients showed an improved PFS and lengthened OS. Further studies in CR2 ovarian cancer patients are warranted (NCT01068509). TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01068509. Study Initiation Date (first patient screened): 20 July 2010. Study Completion Date (last patient observation): 20 August 2013

PURPOSE: To determine whether abagovomab maintenance therapy prolongs recurrence-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with ovarian cancer in first clinical remission. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage III to IV ovarian cancer in complete clinical remission after primary surgery and platinum- and taxane-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned at a ratio of 2:1 in a phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study. Abagovomab 2 mg or placebo was administered as 1-mL suspension once every 2 weeks for 6 weeks (induction phase) and then once every 4 weeks (maintenance phase) until recurrence or up to 21 months after random assignment of the last patient. The primary end point was RFS; secondary end points were OS and immunologic response. RESULTS: Characteristics of the 888 patients included: mean age, 56.3 years; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, ≤ 1 in > 99% of patients; serous papillary subtype, 81.5%; stage III, 85.9%; and cancer antigen 125 ≤ 35 U/mL after third cycle, 80.9%. Mean exposure to study treatment (± standard deviation) was 449.7 ± 333.08 days. Hazard ratio (HR) of RFS for the treatment group using tumor size categorization (≤ 1 cm, > 1 cm) was 1.099 (95% CI, 0.919 to 1.315; P = .301). HR of OS using tumor size categorization (≤ 1 cm, > 1 cm) was 1.150 (95% CI, 0.872 to 1.518; P = .322). The most frequently reported type of adverse event was an injection site reaction in 445 patients (50.2%), followed by injection site erythema and fatigue in 227 (25.6%) and 212 patients (23.9%), respectively. By the final visit, median anti-anti-idiotypic antibody level was 493,000.0 ng/mL, indicating a robust response. CONCLUSION: Abagovomab administered as repeated monthly injections is safe and induces a measurable immune response. Administration as maintenance therapy for patients with ovarian cancer in first remission does not prolong RFS or OS.

At the 4th Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference of the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) held in Vancouver, Canada, in June 2010, representatives of 23 cooperative research groups studying gynecologic cancers gathered to establish international consensus on issues critical to the conduct of large randomized trials. The process focused on 13 predetermined questions. Group A, 1 of the 3 discussion groups, addressed the first 5 questions, examining first-line therapies in newly diagnosed ovarian cancer patients. A1: What are the appropriate end points for different trials (maintenance, upfront chemotherapy trials including molecular drugs)? A2: Are there any subgroups defined by tumor biology who need specific treatment options/trials? A3: Is the 2004 GCIG-recommended standard comparator arm still valid? A4: What is the role of modifying dose, schedule, and delivery of chemotherapy? A5: What role does surgery play today? Copyright © 2011 by IGCS and ESGO.

BACKGROUND: During an international workshop held in September 1998, a group of specialists in the field of ovarian cancer reached consensus on a number of issues with implications for standard practice and for research of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: Five groups of experts considered several issues which included: biologic factors, prognostic factors, surgery, initial chemotherapy, second-line treatment, the use of CA 125, investigational drugs, intra-peritoneal treatment and high-dose chemotherapy. The group attempted to arrive at answers to questions such as: Are there prognostic factors, which help to identify patients who will not do well with current therapy? What is the current best therapy for advanced ovarian carcinoma? What directions should research take in advanced ovarian cancer? These issues were discussed in a plenary meeting. RESULTS: One of the major conclusions drawn by the consensus committee was that in previously untreated advanced ovarian cancer, cisplatin plus paclitaxel has been shown to be superior to previous standard therapy with cisplatin plus cyclophosphamide (level I evidence). However, for many patients, carboplatin plus paclitaxel is a reasonable alternative because of toxicity and convenience considerations. Most participants felt that the benefits in terms of toxicity for the paclitaxel-carboplatin are such that its widespread adoption at this stage is justified. Until mature survival data are available a minority of investigators would recommend continued use of cisplatin plus paclitaxel, specifically for those patients with advanced disease with the best prognostic characteristics. For future clinical research in this area, new end points for randomised clinical trials, together with a new Trials Network, are proposed., Journal Article, info:eu-repo/semantics/published