Search

Background: Biologically targeted therapies have been postulated as a viable strategy to improve outcomes for women with ovarian cancer. We assessed the safety, tolerance, pharmacokinetics, relevant circulating and image-derived biomarkers, and clinical activity of combination aflibercept and docetaxel in this population.Methods: For the phase 1 (pharmacokinetic) study, eligible patients had measurable, recurrent or persistent epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma with a maximum of two prior chemotherapy regimens. Aflibercept was administered intravenously over three dose levels (2, 4, or 6 mg/kg; one dose every 21 days) to identify the maximum tolerated dose for the phase 2 study. Pharmacokinetics were assessed and dynamic imaging was done during a lead-in phase with single-agent aflibercept (cycle 0) and during combination therapy with intravenous docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)). Eligibility for the phase 2 study was the same as for phase 1. Patients were enrolled in a two-stage design and given aflibercept 6 mg/kg intravenously and docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) intravenously, every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) as assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.0. The trial has completed enrolment and all patients are now off study. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00436501.Findings: From the phase 1 study, the recommended phase 2 doses of aflibercept and docetaxel were found to be 6 mg/kg and 75 mg/m(2), respectively. Log-linear pharmacokinetics (for unbound aflibercept) were observed for the three dose levels. No dose-limiting toxicities were noted. 46 evaluable patients were enrolled in the phase 2 trial; 33 were platinum resistant (15 refractory) and 13 were platinum sensitive. The confirmed ORR was 54% (25 of 46; 11 patients had a complete response and 14 had a partial response). Grade 3-4 toxicities observed in more than two patients (5%) were: neutropenia in 37 patients (80%); leucopenia in 25 patients (54%); fatigue in 23 patients (50%); dyspnoea in ten patients (22%); and stomatitis in three patients (7%). Adverse events specifically associated with aflibercept were grade 1-2 hypertension in five patients (11%), and grade 2 proteinuria in one patient (2%).Interpretation: Combination aflibercept plus docetaxel can be safely administered at the dose and schedule reported here, and is associated with substantial antitumour activity. These findings suggest that further clinical development of this combination in ovarian cancer is warranted.Funding: US National Cancer Institute, US Department of Defense, Sanofi-Aventis, Gynecologic Cancer Foundation, Marcus Foundation, and the Commonwealth Foundation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Competing Interests: LRD reports research funding to her institution for investigator-initiated trials from Merck, clinical trial grants (to institution) from Genentech/Roche, AbbVie/(GOG 3005), Acrivon, Advaxis, Aduro BioTech, Alkermes, Blueprint, Constellation, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKlein/Novartis, Immunogen, Inovio, Iovance, Karyopharm, KSQ Therapeutics, Lycera, Merck, Morab, MorphoTek, Naveris, Nurix, OncoQuest, Pfizer, Syndax, Tesaro, and Zentalis; royalties from UpToDate, Wiley, and ASCO; continuing medical education payments from Advance Medical, CEA Group, and Clinical Care Options; fees for Innovio Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB), Aegenus DSMB, and Merck advisory board (to her institution); personal advisory board fees from Daiichi Sankyo; and that she was until March, 2024, Secretary Treasurer for SGO (unpaid). LMR reports grant funding to her institution from Merck, Zentalis, Karyopharm, GOG Foundation, Regeneron, ImmunoGen, Acrivon, CanariaBio, CorceptTherapeutics, and Seagen; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Merck, GSK, Genmab, Seagen, GOG Foundation, Zentalis, ImmunoGen, Stemline, Eisai, Caris, Nykode, and Clovis; speakers fees from Seagen and Genmab; and that she is a consultant for the GOG Foundation. LRD and LMR are both coauthors of the KEYNOTE-A18 trial.

Background: At the first interim analysis of the phase 3 ENGOT-cx11/GOG-3047/KEYNOTE-A18 study, the addition of pembrolizumab to chemoradiotherapy provided a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. We report the overall survival results from the second interim analysis of this study., Methods: Eligible patients with newly diagnosed, high-risk (FIGO 2014 stage IB2-IIB with node-positive disease or stage III-IVA regardless of nodal status), locally advanced, histologically confirmed, squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous cervical cancer were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive five cycles of pembrolizumab (200 mg) or placebo every 3 weeks with concurrent chemoradiotherapy, followed by 15 cycles of pembrolizumab (400 mg) or placebo every 6 weeks. Pembrolizumab or placebo and cisplatin were administered intravenously. Patients were stratified at randomisation by planned external beam radiotherapy type (intensity-modulated radiotherapy [IMRT] or volumetric-modulated arc therapy [VMAT] vs non-IMRT or non-VMAT), cervical cancer stage at screening (FIGO 2014 stage IB2-IIB node positive vs III-IVA), and planned total radiotherapy (external beam radiotherapy plus brachytherapy) dose (<70 Gy vs ≥70 Gy [equivalent dose of 2 Gy]). Primary endpoints were progression-free survival per RECIST 1.1 by investigator or by histopathological confirmation of suspected disease progression and overall survival defined as the time from randomisation to death due to any cause. Safety was a secondary endpoint., Findings: Between June 9, 2020, and Dec 15, 2022, 1060 patients at 176 sites in 30 countries across Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, and South America were randomly assigned to treatment, with 529 patients in the pembrolizumab-chemoradiotherapy group and 531 patients in the placebo-chemoradiotherapy group. At the protocol-specified second interim analysis (data cutoff Jan 8, 2024), median follow-up was 29·9 months (IQR 23·3-34·3). Median overall survival was not reached in either group; 36-month overall survival was 82·6% (95% CI 78·4-86·1) in the pembrolizumab-chemoradiotherapy group and 74·8% (70·1-78·8) in the placebo-chemoradiotherapy group. The hazard ratio for death was 0·67 (95% CI 0·50-0·90; p=0·0040), meeting the protocol-specified primary objective. 413 (78%) of 528 patients in the pembrolizumab-chemoradiotherapy group and 371 (70%) of 530 in the placebo-chemoradiotherapy group had a grade 3 or higher adverse event, with anaemia, white blood cell count decreased, and neutrophil count decreased being the most common adverse events. Potentially immune-mediated adverse events occurred in 206 (39%) of 528 patients in the pembrolizumab-chemoradiotherapy group and 90 (17%) of 530 patients in the placebo-chemoradiotherapy group. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04221945., Interpretation: Pembrolizumab plus chemoradiotherapy significantly improved overall survival in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer These data, together with results from the first interim analysis, support this immuno-chemoradiotherapy strategy as a new standard of care for this population., Funding: Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests DL, YX, KH, GS, ML, PR-E, AA, JC, LR, AJPdSG, FCM, LH, HA, J-YL, VS, FZ, LG, JS, ET, KL, NC, C-LC, MB, HZ, AO, MC, EP, TU, SP, and LRD received funding to their institutions from Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Rahway, NJ, USA (MSD) to support the study. DL reports grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Pharma&, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, MSD, Pharmamar, Novartis, Seagen, Alkermes, Incyte, Roche, and Corcept; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Corcept, Clovis Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, MSD, Novartis, Oncoinvest, Novocure, Seagen, and Sutro; speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Corcept, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, MSD, and Seagen; travel grants from AstraZeneca, Menarini, GSK, and MSD; advisory board participation for AstraZeneca, Corcept, Clovis Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, MSD, Oncoinvest, Novocure, Seagen, and Sutro; and leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee, or advocacy group, paid or unpaid, for GCIG, MITO, and ENGOT. YX reports study funding, paid to the Peking Union Medical College Hospital, and support for attending meetings or travel from MSD. KH reports research contracts from Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, MSD, and Takeda; advisory board fees from Chugai, Eisai, Takeda, MSD, Roche, Genmab, Sanofi, GSK, and Zymeworks; honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Chugai, Eisai, Genmab, MSD, Takeda, Sanofi, Kyowa Kirin, Kaken, and GSK; and travel support from Regeneron and Seagen. GS reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, MSD, Coviden AG (a Medtronic company), Johnson & Johnson, and TESARO Bio Italy; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or education events from Baxter Healthcare, Olympus Europa, Intuitive Surgical, GSK, and Clovis Oncology Italy. ML reports payment for expert testimony from MSD, support for attending meetings or travel from MSD and AstraZeneca; and other financial or non-financial interests from MSD, AstraZeneca, and Roche. PR-E reports honoraria for educational events from MSD, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Asofarma, Pfizer, and Roche; support for attending ESMO and ASCO meetings from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Asofarma; and honoraria for advisory boards from MSD, Roche, AstraZeneca, Asofarma, BMS and Novartis. LR reports medical writing support from Merck, institutional grants from Merck, Zentalis, Karyopharn, GOG Foundation, Regeneron, ImmunoGen, Acrivon, CanariaBio, Corcept Therapeutics, and Seagen; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Merck, GSK, Genmab, Seagen, GOG Foundation, Zentalis, ImmunoGen, Semline, Eisai, Caris, Nykode, and Clovis; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Seagen and Genmab; and leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid, from GOG Foundation. AJPdSG reports consulting fees and payment for expert testimony from Bayer, Astellas, and Janssen; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events for expert testimony from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Janssen; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Astellas, Bayer, and Janssen. FCM reports honoraria for presentations from MSD and BMS; support for attending meetings or travel from AstraZeneca and MSD; and advisory board participation from Janssen and MSD. J-YL reports support for the present manuscript from MSD; grants or contracts from Advenchen, Ascendis Pharma, Alkermes, AstraZeneca, Beigene, BergenBio, BMS, CanariaBio, Corcept, Cellid, CKD, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Genmab, Genemedicine, GII, GSK, ImmunoGen, Janssen, Kelun, Merck, Mersana, MSD, Novartis, Onconic Therapeutics, ONO, Regeneron, Roche, Seagen, Sutro, Synthon, and Takeda; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, Janssen, MSD, Roche, Takeda, and ONO; and leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid, for AstraZeneca, CanariaBio, Genmab, GII, ImmunoGen, Seagen, Merck, Sutro, Regeneron, and MSD. FZ reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events, consulting fees, support for attending meetings or travel, and data safety monitoring board and advisory board participation for AstraZeneca, Daiichi, Eli-Lilly, Merck, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer, Genesis-Pharma, and Roche. LG reports institutional grants from IMV, Pfizer, Sutro Bio, Pharma, Merck Sharpe Dohme, Corcept Therapeutics, ImmunoGen, Shattuck Labs, Roche, Tesaro, K-Group, Beta Inc., GOG Foundation, GSK, AstraZeneca, OncoQuest Pharmaceuticals, Novocure, Alkermes, Espersas, and Mersana; consulting fees from Merck and GSK; payment or honoraria for lectures and presentations from Merck and GSK; support for attending meetings or travel from GSK, Merck, EndomERA, and Zentalis; and participation on advisory board meetings for GSK, Merck, Eisai, Novocure, Kora Health, Corcept, ImmunoGen, Canariabio, and Repare Therapeutics. JS reports grants or contracts from Roche, MSD, GSK, Tesaro, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Merck, and Novocure; consulting fees from Immunogen, Incyte, GSK, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Novocure, MSD, Eisai, and Merck; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Immunogen, Incyte, GSK, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Novocure, BMS, Eisai, and Novartis; support for attending meetings or travel from GSK, Astra Zeneca, Roche, Novocure, Immunogen, Incyte, MSD, and Eisei; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Immunogen, Incyte, GSK, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Novocure, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Merck, Bayer, and PharmaMar; leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid, for ENGAGE, ESGO, ASCO, ESGO, GCIG, Deutsche Stiftung Eierstockkrebs, and AGO; and medical writing assistance from MSD. ET reports honoraria for presentations and meeting travel support from Elektra. KL reports study funding from MSD; grants or contracts from GSK; lecture honoraria from Eisai and AstraZeneca; participation on a data safety monitoring board for Karyopharm; participation on an advisory board for Eisai, MSD, Nykode, AstraZeneca, and GSK; and serving as deputy medical director for the Nordic Society of Gynecological Oncology Clinical Trial Unit. NC reports institutional grants from AstraZeneca and Roche; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from GSK and MSD; payment for participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, GSK, ImmunoGen, Mersana, MSD, Merck, Nuvation Bio, Onxerna, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Pieris, Roche, and Novocure; and non-remunerated leadership role as Chair of the Alleanza Contro il Tumore Ovarico Scientific Committee. MB reports honoraria for lectures and educational events from Roche, AstraZeneca, and GSK; and support for attending meetings from Roche, AstraZeneca, and Viatris. AO reports consulting fees from Agenus, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Corcept Therapeutics, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Daïichi Sankyo, Debiopharm International, Eisai, Exelisis, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genmab, GSK, ImmunoGen, Itheos, MSD, Mersana Therapeutics, Myriad Genetics, Novocure, OncoXerna Therapeutics, PharmaMar, Regeneron, Sattucklabs, Seagen–Pfizer, Sutro Biopharma, TORL Therapuetics, Zentalis, and Zymeworks; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from NSGO, Peerview, Peervoice, Medscape, Asociación Colombiada de Ginecológos Oncólogos, ESO, AstraZeneca, and GSK; support for attending meetings or travel from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, and Roche; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from Agenus, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Corcept Therapeutics, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Daïichi Sankyo, Debiopharm International, Eisai, Exelisis, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Genmab, GSK, ImmunoGen, Itheos, MSD, Mersana Therapeutics, Myriad Genetics, Novocure, OncoXerna Therapeutics, PharmaMar, Regeneron, Sattucklabs, Seagen–Pfizer, Sutro Biopharma, TORL Therapuetics, Zentalis, and Zymeworks; leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid, for Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup and European Society for Medical Oncology; and other financial or non-financial interests in Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup, European Society for Medical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Spanish Society of Medical Oncology, and GOG Foundation. EP reports provision of study material from MSD; honoraria for lectures, presentations, and educational events from MSD, Roche, GSK, and AstraZeneca; and receipt of investigational drug for study treatment from MSD. PL, KY, ST, and SMK are current or former full-time employees of MSD and hold stock or restricted stock units in the company. SP reports research funding from Roche, MSD, GSK, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, MSD, Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, and GSK; and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for GSK, MSD, Eisai, Biontech, and AstraZeneca. LRD reports institutional grants from Merck, Genentech, Roche, AbbVie, Acrivon, Advaxis, Aduro BioTech, Alkermes, Blueprint, Constellation, Eisai, GSK, Novartis, Immunogen, Inovio, Iovance, Karyopharm, KSQ Therapeutics, Lycera, Morab, MorphoTek, Naveris, Nurix, OncoQuest, Pfizer, Syndax, Tesaro, and Zentalis; royalties or licenses from UpToDate, Wiley, and ASCO; editing for ASCO Connection; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Advance Medical, CEA Group, and Clinical Care Options; participation on a data safety monitoring board for Innovia and Aegenus (payment to institution); and roles as Secretary Treasurer for SGO (unpaid) and on the Editorial Board of the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Purpose: We assessed the efficacy of cediranib, olaparib, and cediranib/olaparib compared with standard-of-care chemotherapy (SOC) in platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory epithelial ovarian cancer (PROC)., Patients and Methods: NRG-GY005 is an open-label, four-arm, phase II/III superiority trial enrolling patients with high-grade serous/endometrioid PROC and one to three previous therapies. Key exclusion criteria included previous receipt of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor or receipt of antiangiogenic therapy in the recurrent setting. Treatment arms (SOC [once weekly paclitaxel, topotecan, or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin], cediranib, olaparib, or cediranib/olaparib) were equally randomized. A preplanned interim futility analysis on the basis of progression-free survival (PFS) selected treatment arms to advance to phase III. PFS and overall survival (OS) were phase III coprimary end points, with hierarchical testing of PFS followed by OS to preserve type 1 error control, designed to have 90% power for a 0.625 PFS hazard ratio (HR). OS was tested after PFS in the multiple hierarchical testing procedure. Secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR) and patient-reported outcomes., Results: Five hundred sixty-two eligible patients were enrolled for phase II/III. Three arms met PFS criteria to carry forward to phase III (SOC, cediranib/olaparib, and cediranib). Median PFS was 3.4, 5.2, and 4 months with SOC, cediranib/olaparib, and cediranib, respectively, with a median follow-up duration of 42.2 months. PFS HR estimates for cediranib/olaparib and cediranib ( v SOC) were 0.796 (98.3% CI, 0.597 to 1.060) and 0.972 (98.3% CI, 0.726 to 1.300), respectively. Median OS was 13.6, 12.8, and 10.5 months, and of 443 patients with measurable disease, ORR was 8.6%, 24.7%, and 13.1% for SOC, cediranib/olaparib, and cediranib, respectively. No new safety signals were identified. In patients receiving cediranib/olaparib, no statistically significant difference was observed on the NFOSI-DRS-P subscale compared with SOC (98.3% CI, -1.3 to 1.5, P = .8725)., Conclusion: The cediranib-containing arms demonstrated clinical activity on the basis of PFS but were not superior compared with SOC.

The year 2023 was an extraordinary year for the further development and expansion of novel treatments for all patients with cervical cancer, ranging from early stage to later stage and metastatic or recurrent disease. Individuals with early-stage disease will benefit from less invasive surgery with subsequent improvement in quality of life. The effectiveness of immunotherapy has been demonstrated in upfront, locally advanced cervical cancer and confirmed in advanced metastatic disease. Induction chemotherapy will play a role in some patients with locally advanced disease, particularly those in low resource areas of the world. Novel therapeutics including antibody-drug conjugates have shown efficacy even in pretreated patients. As we continue to explore innovative therapeutics in this space, however, we must also continue to improve the diversity of clinical trial accrual to allow for generalizable results. At the same time, we must focus on eradicating this disease with appropriate screening and vaccination., (© 2024 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Cancer Society.)

Introduction: Early reports of PD-1 inhibition in ovarian clear cell carcinomas (OCCC) demonstrate promising response. We evaluated the combination of pembrolizumab and IDO-1 inhibitor epacadostat in patients with recurrent OCCC., Methods: This single arm, two-stage, phase 2 trial included those with measurable disease and 1-3 prior regimens. Patients received intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks and oral epacadostat 100 mg twice a day. Primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR), secondary endpoints were toxicity, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The study was powered to detect an absolute 25% increase in response (15% to 40%)., Results: Between September 28, 2018 and April 10, 2019, 14 patients enrolled at first stage. Rate of accrual was 2.3 patients per month. Median age was 65 years (44-89), 10 (71.4%) had ≥2 prior regimens. ORR was 21% (95% CI 5-51%) within 7 months of study entry with 3 partial responses, and 4 had stable disease (disease control rate 50%). Median PFS was 4.8 months (95% CI: 1.9-9.6), OS 18.9 months (95% CI: 1.9-NR). Most common grade ≥ 3 adverse events were electrolyte abnormalities and gastrointestinal pain, nausea, vomiting, bowel obstruction. In July 2019, the study reached the pre-specified criteria to re-open to second stage; however, the study closed prematurely in February 2021 due to insufficient drug supply., Conclusions: Pembrolizumab and epacadostat demonstrated an ORR of 21% in this small cohort of recurrent OCCC. The rapid rate of accrual highlights the enthusiasm and need for therapeutic studies in patients with OCCC., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. Lilian Gien received consulting fees from Merck – Advisor Board – October 2021. She also received Speaker Honorarium – January 2021 – from Merck. Dr. Danielle Enserro received funding from NCI for Cooperative Group/NCTN Grant Funding for all aspects of this trial including travel to Group meetings, trial design, statistical design and analysis, study monitoring, writing/editing of abstracts/manuscripts, etc. Dr. Matthew S. Block received grants or contracts from Merck – drug only contract for investigator-sponsored trial; Regeneron, Sorrento, Transgene, TILT Biotherapeutics, Alkermes, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, nFerence, Pharmacyclics and Viewpoint Molecular Therapeutics – institutional payment for clinical trial. He also has a patent filed for Dendritic Cell Based Vaccines Combined with Penbrolizumab for the Treatment of Advanced Ovarian Cancer – patent filed; author has waived rights to personal financial gain. He has participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from TILT Biotherapeutics, Sorrento, and Viewpoint Molecular Therapeutics – no payment received. Dr. Linda Duska has multiple grants from sponsors for clinical trials. These grants go to her institution and not to her. These include, but are not limited to: (research funding (to institution) for investigator initiated trials for Merck, clinical trial grants (to institution) from Genentech/Roche, AbbVie/(GOG 3005), Acrivon, Advaxis, Aduro BioTech, Alkermes, Blueprint, Constellation, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKlein/Novartis, Immunogen, Inovio, Iovance, Karyopharm, KSQ Therapeutics, Lycera, Merck, Morab, MorphoTek, Naveris, Nurix, OncoQuest, Pfizer, Syndax, Tesaro, and Zentalis. She has Royalties or licenses (all up to date) with Wiley and ASCO (Editor of ASCO Connection). She received consulting fees from Regeneron, Aadi Bioscience and Merck for serving on Scientific Advisory Boards. She received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Advance Medical, CEA Group and Clinical Care Options (CME). She has participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Innovio DSMB (to institution) and Aegenus DSMB (to institution). She served as Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid as Secretary Treasurer for SGO (unpaid) and Editorial Board, British Journal of OB/GYN. Dr. Andrea E. Wahner-Hendrickson received Grants or contracts from TORL Therapeutics (funding to institution for clinical trial, OXCIA (advisory board – unpaid), Prolynx (funding to institution for clinical trial and Mayo Ovarian SPORE (P50 CA1363939). She participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for OXCIA (unpaid). She also served in a Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group – MOCA (unpaid). Dr. Premal H. Thaker received grants to his institution from Merck and GlaxoSmithKline. She received consulting fees from Immunon. She also participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board with AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GlaxoSmithKline, Seagen, Agenus, Immunon, Immuogen, Mersana, Novocure, R-Pharm, Zentalis, Aadi Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Caris Iovance and Verastem. She also has stock or stock options with Immunon. Dr. Floor Backes received grants or contracts from Merck, Eisai, ImmunoGen, Clovis, Beigene, Natera, Tempus and AstraZeneca (research grants paid to the institution). Royalties or licenses from UptoDate (personal fees). She also received consulting fees from Agenus, Merck, Clovis, Immunogen, Eisai, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Myriad, BioNTech and Daiichi Sankyo (Advisory boards – personal fees). She received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Clinical Educational Concepts, Clinical Care Options, Medscape/WebMD, Med Learngin, 13Health, CMR Institute, Global Learning Initiative/Prova, OncLive, Targeted Oncology and Research To Practice (CME lectures – personal fees). She received support for attending meetings and/or travel from GlaxoSmithKline. She participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board – see consulting fees. She served in a Leadership or fiduciary role on other board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid from Society of Gynecologic Oncology (Board member – unpaid), NRG Oncology Developmental Therapeutics Committee – Co-Chair and IGCS Education360 – Co-Chair. Dr. Carolyn Y. Muller received a grant to her institution from New Mexico Minority Underserved NCORP to support enrollment to all NCI NCTN trials. She has a contract to her institution to enroll to GOG Partners trials from GOG Partners Foundation (Segan, GSK, Mersana, Alkemes, Merck, Verastem, Immunogen, etc). She received contracts to her institution for enrollment to specific clinical trials from Linneus Therapeutics. She serves as Chair, Board of Directors of the New Mexico Cancer Research Alliance (unpaid position that manages an affiliate consortium to provide access to clinical trials across the states many health systems). Dr. Paul DiSilvestro serves on the NRG Oncology Board of Directors in a leadership or fiduciary role. Dr. David M. Gershenson's institution received a grant from Novartis. He has royalties or licenses from Elsevier and UpToDate. He received consulting fees to himself from Verastem. He received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Yale University and University of Washington. He serves in a Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid from International Consortium for Low Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer. He has stock in Bristol Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson and Proctor & Gamble. He has other financial or non-financial interests himself in Audi AB, Verastem AB, Springworks AB and Onconova AB. Dr. Kathleen N. Moore has grants/contracts from Clovis Oncology Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly and Company, Genentech, GSK plc Pharmaceutical, Merck, PTC Therapeutics Pharmaceuticals, Verastem Oncology and Biotech. She received support for attending meetings and/or travel from Duality, GSK and Regeneron. She participates on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AstraZeneca, Aravive, Aadi Bioscience, Alkermes, Blueprint Medicines, Caris, Clovis Oncology Pharmaceutical, Duality, Eisai Pharmaceutical, EMD Serono Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Genentech Biotechology, GSK plc Pharmaceutical, ImmunoGen Biotechnology, InxMed, I-MAB Biotech, Iovance, Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine Pharmaceutical, Merck, Mereo BioPharma Group, Mersana Therapeutics Inc., Myriad Genetics, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Onconova Therapeutics Inc., OncXerna Therapeutics, Inc., Regeneron, VBL, and Verastem Oncology. She serves in a leadership or fiduciary role for GOG Partners and ASCO. Dr. Carol Aghajanian received Clinical Trial funding to her institution (MSK) from: Abbvie – MSKPI – GOG 3005; AstraZeneca – MSK PI, SOLO1/GOG 3004; National Coordinating Investigator and MSK PI, DO81RC00001; ENGOT-ov46; AGO-OVAR 23; GOG-3025; Clovis – MSK PI, ARIEL 2 &3; Genentech/Roche – MSK PI, GOG3015 (IMagyn050). She also participates on an Advisory Board for Blueprint Medicine – Advisory Board 6/30/21 (no consulting fee); Mrck – Global Cervical and Ovaian Cancer Virtual Advisory Board 7/10/23 (no consulting fee) and AstraZeneca – AZ Evolve dmc 4/26/23-ongoing, She also serves on the GOG Foundation, Board of Directors (unpaid, occasional travel cost reimbursement to attend meetings) and NRG Oncology Board of Directors (unpaid)., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Despite dedicated efforts to improve equitable access to cancer care in the United States, disparities in cancer outcomes persist, and geographically underserved patients remain at an increased risk of cancer with lower rates of survival. The critical evaluation of cancer prevention inequities and clinical trial access presents the opportunity to outline novel strategies to incrementally improve bookended access to gynecologic cancer care for geographically underserved patients. Cancer prevention strategies that can be addressed in the rural patient population mirror priorities in the Healthy People 2030 objectives and include increased identification of high risk individuals who may benefit from increased cancer screening and risk reduction, increasing the proportion of people who discuss interventions to prevent cancer, such as HPV vaccination, with their provider, and increasing the proportion of adults who complete evidence based cancer screening. Barriers to accrual to clinical trials for rural patients overlap significantly with the same barriers to obtaining health care in general. These barriers include: lack of facilities and specialized providers; lack of robust health infrastructure; inability to travel; and financial barriers. In this review, we will discuss current knowledge and opportunities to improve cancer prevention initiatives and clinical trial enrollment in geographically underserved populations with a focus on rurality., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest KLR declares no conflicts of interest. LRD reports personal fees for scientific advisory boards from Aadi Bioscience and Regeneron, fees (to institution) for scientific advisory boards from Merck, service on the Editorial Board for the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, personal royalties for writing expert content for UpToDate, research funding (to institution) for investigator-initiated trials from Merck, clinical trial grants (to institution) from Genentech/Roche, AbbVie/(GOG 3005), Acrivon, Advaxis, Aduro BioTech, Alkermes, Blueprint, Constellation, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKlein/Novartis, Immunogen, Inovio, Iovance, Karyopharm, KSQ Therapeutics, Lycera, Merck, Morab, MorphoTek, Naveris, Nurix, OncoQuest, Pfizer, Syndax, Tesaro, Zentalis, and membership of data and safety monitoring committees for Aegenus and Innovio (to institution)., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Pembrolizumab has shown efficacy in persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer. The effect of chemoradiotherapy might be enhanced by immunotherapy. In this phase 3 trial, we assessed the efficacy and safety of adding pembrolizumab to chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer., Methods: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 ENGOT-cx11/GOG-3047/KEYNOTE-A18 clinical trial, adults (age ≥18 years) at 176 medical centres in 30 countries with newly diagnosed, high-risk, locally advanced cervical cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) using an interactive voice-response system with integrated web response to receive 5 cycles of pembrolizumab (200 mg) or placebo every 3 weeks plus chemoradiotherapy, followed by 15 cycles of pembrolizumab (400 mg) or placebo every 6 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by planned external beam radiotherapy type (intensity-modulated radiotherapy or volumetric-modulated arc therapy vs non-intensity-modulated radiotherapy or non-volumetric-modulated arc therapy), cervical cancer stage at screening (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2014 stage IB2-IIB node positive vs stage III-IVA), and planned total radiotherapy (external beam radiotherapy plus brachytherapy) dose (<70 Gy vs ≥70 Gy equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions). Primary endpoints were progression-free survival per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1-by investigator or by histopathologic confirmation of suspected disease progression-and overall survival. Primary analysis was conducted in the intention-to-treat population, which included all randomly allocated participants. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population, which included all randomly allocated patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04221945, and is closed to new participants., Findings: Between June 9, 2020, and Dec 15, 2022, 1060 participants were randomly assigned to treatment, with 529 assigned to the pembrolizumab-chemoradiotherapy group and 531 to the placebo-chemoradiotherapy group. At data cutoff (Jan 9, 2023), median follow-up was 17·9 months (IQR 11·3-22·3) in both treatment groups. Median progression-free survival was not reached in either group; rates at 24 months were 68% in the pembrolizumab-chemoradiotherapy group versus 57% in the placebo-chemoradiotherapy group. The hazard ratio (HR) for disease progression or death was 0·70 (95% CI 0·55-0·89, p=0·0020), meeting the protocol-specified primary objective. Overall survival at 24 months was 87% in the pembrolizumab-chemoradiotherapy group and 81% in the placebo-chemoradiotherapy group (information fraction 42·9%). The HR for death was 0·73 (0·49-1·07); these data have not crossed the boundary of statistical significance. Grade 3 or higher adverse event rates were 75% in the pembrolizumab-chemoradiotherapy group and 69% in the placebo-chemoradiotherapy group., Interpretation: Pembrolizumab plus chemoradiotherapy significantly improved progression-free survival in patients with newly diagnosed, high-risk, locally advanced cervical cancer., Funding: Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co (MSD)., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests DL, YX, KH, GS, ML, PR-E, AAc, VSu, NC, AJPdSG, FCM, AR, AAy, J-YL, VSa, FZ, LG, JS, ET, KLin, RLaz, C-LC, RLam, HZ, AO, MC, SPo, TU, SPi, and LRD received funding to their institutions from MSD to support the study. DL reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD, ImmunoGen, Genmab, Seagen, Novartis, and PharmaMar; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, ImmunoGen, GSK, Seagen, and Genmab; support for attending meetings or travel from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, and GSK; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Oncoinvest, Corcept, Sutro, AstraZeneca, ImmunoGen, GSK, Seagen, Genmab, Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD, and PharmaMar; leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee, or advocacy group, paid or unpaid, for GCIG; receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts, or other services from Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD, and PharmaMar; and other financial or non-financial interests in AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, ImmunoGen, Incyte, MSD, Roche, Seagen, and Novartis. YX reports participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for MSD. KH reports research contracts from Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, MSD, and Takeda; advisory board fees from Chugai, Eisai, Takeda, MSD, Roche, Genmab, and Sanofi; honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Chugai, Eisai, Genmab, MSD, Takeda, Sanofi, Kyowa Kirin, and Kaken; and support for attending meetings or travel from Regeneron. GS reports grants or contracts from MSD Italia; consulting fees from Tesaro and Johnson & Johnson; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Clovis Oncology Italy. ML reports grants or contracts from MSD, AstraZeneca, and Roche; speaker fees from AstraZeneca and Roche; and meeting support from Roche. PR-E reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from MSD, Asofarma, Novartis, Janssen, and AstraZeneca; support for attending meetings or travel from Roche, Novartis, Asofarma, and AstraZeneca; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Pfizer, Asofarma, Bristol Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca. NC reports participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for GSK, Toray, Tarveda Therapeutics, Umoja, Kartos, Zentalis, Profound, and Novita Pharmaceuticals. AJPdSG reports consulting fees, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events, and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca, Astellas, Bayer, and Janssen; payment for expert testimony from Janssen; and support for attending meetings or travel from Janssen, MSD, and Bayer. FCM reports speaker fees from MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Eli Lilly, and BMS; payment for expert testimony from MSD, Janssen, GSK, Eli Lilly, and Bristol Myers Squibb; and meeting and travel support from MSD and Amgen. AR reports advisory board fees from MSD Israel. J-YL reports grants or contracts from Advenchen, Ascendis Pharma, Alkermes, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BerGenBio, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cellid, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Genmab, GII, GSK, ImmunoGen, Janssen, Merck, Mersana, MSD, Novartis, Onconic Therapeutics, OncoQuest, Ono, Regeneron, Roche, Seagen, Sutro, Synthon, and Takeda; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, Janssen, MSD, Roche, Takeda, and Ono. FZ reports grants or contracts, consulting fees, payment for expert testimony, support for attending meetings or travel, participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board, and leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee, or advocacy group, paid or unpaid, from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, Novartis, Genesis Pharma, and Gilead. LG reports institutional grants from GSK, Pfizer, MSD, Karyopharm, Tesaro, IMV, Alkermes, Clovis Oncology, ImmunoGen, Roche, Mersana, and AstraZeneca; consulting fees from GSK, Merck, Eisai, and Novocure; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from GSK, Merck, Eisai, Novocure, and Corcept; and support for attending meetings or travel from Corcept, GSK, AstraZeneca, and Merck. JS reports grants or contracts from Roche, MSD, GSK, Tesaro, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Merck, and Novocure; consulting fees from ImmunoGen, Incyte, GSK, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Novocure, MSD, Eisai, and Merck; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from ImmunoGen, Incyte, GSK, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Novocure, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, and Novartis; support for attending meetings or travel from GSK, AstraZeneca, Roche, Novocure, ImmunoGen, Incyte, MSD, and Eisei; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for ImmunoGen, Incyte, GSK, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Novocure, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Merck, Bayer, and PharmaMar; and leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee, or advocacy group, paid or unpaid, for ENGAGE, ESGO, ASCO, ESGO, GCIG, Deutsche Stiftung Eierstockkrebs, and AGO. KLin reports grants or contracts from GSK (paid to institution); payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Eisai; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Eisai, MSD, Nykode, AstraZeneca, and GSK. HZ reports contracted research and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events for MSD. AO reports grants or contracts from AbbVie Deutschland, Advaxis, Aeterna Zentaris, Amgen, Aprea Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Roche, ImmunoGen, MSD de España, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, PharmaMar, Regeneron, and Tesaro (paid to institution); consulting fees and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from Agenus, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Corcept, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Exelixis, EMD Serono, Roche, Genmab, GSK, ImmunoGen, iTeos, MSD de España, Mersana, Novocure, OncXerna Therapeutics, PharmaMar, Regeneron, Sattucklabs, Seagen, and Sutro; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from NSGO, Peerview, Peervoice, Medscape, Asociación Colombiana de Ginecológos Oncólogos, ESO, AstraZeneca, and GSK; and support for attending meetings or travel from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, and Roche. SPo reports consulting fees from MSD, AstraZeneca, GSK, and Eisai; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events, support for attending meetings or travel, and advisory board fees from MSD, AstraZeneca, and GSK; and leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee, or advocacy group for the Austrian Association of Gynecologic Oncology (unpaid). SPi reports research funding from Roche, MSD, AZ, Pfizer, and GSK; and honoraria from AZ, Roche, MSD, GSK, and PharmaMar. LRD reports research funding (paid to institution) from and acting as an expert advisor (unpaid) for Merck & Co; writing fees for expert content for UpToDate; participation on a scientific advisory board for Aadi Bioscience; and serving on the Editorial Board of the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. KLi, KY, ST, and SMK are full-time employees of MSD and hold stock or restricted stock units in the company., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To elucidate unmet needs in high-risk endometrial cancer (EC), this study described perioperative treatment patterns in Medicare beneficiaries with high-risk EC and quantified the impact of disease recurrence on clinical and economic outcomes among patients receiving adjuvant therapy., Methods: Patients aged ≥66 years with high-risk EC (stage I/II EC of non-endometrioid histology or stage III/IVA EC of any histology) receiving hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy from SEER-Medicare data (2007-2019) were identified; perioperative treatment patterns were described. Post-operative treatment patterns were described among patients receiving adjuvant therapy; overall survival (OS), all-cause and EC-related healthcare resource utilization and costs were evaluated from recurrence date (using a claims-based algorithm developed with clinical input) for recurrent patients and from a frequency-matched date for non-recurrent patients., Results: Of 2,279 patients receiving EC surgery, 3.1% received neoadjuvant therapy and 55.3% received adjuvant therapy. Among 1,199 patients receiving adjuvant therapy, systemic adjuvant therapy with radiation (38.9%) was most common. Median OS was 1.4 years among 378 (31.5%) recurrent patients identified over a median follow-up of 3.7 years. Recurrent patients had significantly higher per-patient-year rates of all-cause outpatient visits (37.7 vs. 22.6), EC-related outpatient visits (14.5 vs. 3.0), and all-cause hospitalizations (1.3 vs. 0.4) than non-recurrent patients, and an excess of $84,562 and $62,128 in all-cause and EC-related annual costs, predominantly driven by hospitalizations., Conclusions: Our findings highlight the considerable clinical and economic burden experienced by patients with high-risk EC experiencing recurrence and emphasize the unmet need for novel therapies in early settings to mitigate this burden.

Objective: This study sought to determine if patients with early stage cervical cancer who possessed intermediate-high risk factors (defined by Peters or Sedlis criteria) and had pathologically negative lymph nodes at the time of surgery had higher rates of low volume metastases (LVM) on retrospective ultrastaging., Methods: This IRB-approved retrospective cohort study collected data via chart review on early stage, surgically-treated node-negative cervical cancer patients who underwent postoperative adjuvant therapy, treated at a single institution from January 2011 through June 2021. Nodal blocks were retrospectively ultrastaged per standard protocol. Descriptive statistics were performed for analysis., Results: Over the 10-year study period, n = 20 patients met study inclusion criteria. Most patients were white with squamous cell histology, with a mean number of 25.15 (SD = 12) nodes examined on initial pathologic evaluation. 85 % (n = 17) patients were pathologic stage IB. 85 % of the cohort were recommended for adjuvant radiation, with the remaining 15 % for cisplatin-based chemoradiation. LVM in the form of micrometastasis was retrospectively identified in one patient (5 %) who had received whole pelvic radiation and recurred locally within the irradiated field., Conclusions: This small retrospective series of surgically managed cervical cancer with intermediate-high risk tumor factors identified only 1 patient with LVM, representing 5% of the total population. The biologic importance of ITC and LVM remains unclear in cervical cancer, however this investigation highlights the low incidence even when all nodes are evaluated in a higher risk cohort. The presence of LVM would not have changed management decisions based on this retrospective analysis., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

Background: Mirvetuximab soravtansine-gynx (MIRV), a first-in-class antibody-drug conjugate targeting folate receptor α (FRα), is approved for the treatment of platinum-resistant ovarian cancer in the United States., Methods: We conducted a phase 3, global, confirmatory, open-label, randomized, controlled trial to compare the efficacy and safety of MIRV with the investigator's choice of chemotherapy in the treatment of platinum-resistant, high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Participants who had previously received one to three lines of therapy and had high FRα tumor expression (≥75% of cells with ≥2+ staining intensity) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive MIRV (6 mg per kilogram of adjusted ideal body weight every 3 weeks) or chemotherapy (paclitaxel, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, or topotecan). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival; key secondary analytic end points included objective response, overall survival, and participant-reported outcomes., Results: A total of 453 participants underwent randomization; 227 were assigned to the MIRV group and 226 to the chemotherapy group. The median progression-free survival was 5.62 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.34 to 5.95) with MIRV and 3.98 months (95% CI, 2.86 to 4.47) with chemotherapy (P<0.001). An objective response occurred in 42.3% of the participants in the MIRV group and in 15.9% of those in the chemotherapy group (odds ratio, 3.81; 95% CI, 2.44 to 5.94; P<0.001). Overall survival was significantly longer with MIRV than with chemotherapy (median, 16.46 months vs. 12.75 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.89; P = 0.005). During the treatment period, fewer adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred with MIRV than with chemotherapy (41.7% vs. 54.1%), as did serious adverse events of any grade (23.9% vs. 32.9%) and events leading to discontinuation (9.2% vs. 15.9%)., Conclusions: Among participants with platinum-resistant, FRα-positive ovarian cancer, treatment with MIRV showed a significant benefit over chemotherapy with respect to progression-free and overall survival and objective response. (Funded by ImmunoGen; MIRASOL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04209855.)., (Copyright © 2023 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Objective: This study assessed the efficacy, safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of the treatment regimen of dostarlimab, a programmed death-1 inhibitor, combined with niraparib, a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, in patients with BRCA wild type (BRCAwt) recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC) who had previously received bevacizumab treatment., Methods: This Phase II, open-label, single-arm, multicenter study, conducted in the USA, enrolled patients with recurrent PROC to receive niraparib and dostarlimab until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (up to 3 years). A preplanned interim futility analysis was performed after the first 41 patients had undergone ≥1 radiographic evaluation (approximately 9 weeks from the first treatment)., Results: The prespecified interim futility criterion was met and the study was therefore terminated. For the 41 patients assessed, the objective response rate (ORR) was 7.3% (95% confidence interval: 1.5-19.9); no patients achieved a complete response, 3 patients (7.3%) achieved a partial response (duration of response; 3.0, 3.8, and 9.2 months, respectively), and 9 patients (22.0%) had stable disease. In total, 39 patients (95.1%) experienced a treatment-related adverse event, but no new safety issues were observed. HRQoL, assessed using FOSI, or Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Ovarian Symptom Index scores, worsened over time compared with baseline scores., Conclusions: The study was terminated due to the observed ORR at the interim futility analysis. This highlights a need for effective therapies in treating patients with recurrent BRCAwt PROC., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest LMR reports personal fees from GSK/TESARO for consultancy unrelated to this study; research grant (to institution): Seagen, Genmab, Merck, Akeso, Mersana, Incyte, GOG Foundation, Genentech; consulting fees: Agenus, Akeso, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Elevar, EMD Serono/Merck, Genmab, Seagen, GOG Foundation, Hengrui, ImmunoGen, Iovance, Merck, Mersana, Myriad, Novocure, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche/Genentech, GSK/Tesaro, Zentalis; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: AstraZeneca, Eisai, Myriad, Roche/Genentech, GSK/Tesaro. DMO reports grant funding (to the institution) from AbbVie; personal fees for an advisory board from AbbVie; support for manuscript preparation from GSK/TESARO. BJM reports consulting/advisory role and honoraria for AbbVie, ChemoCare, ChemoID, Eisai, Geistlich Pharma, Incyte, Mateon Therapeutics, Merck, Myriad Pharmaceuticals, Perthera, Precision Oncology, Samumed, Takeda, and VBL Therapeutics; consulting/advisory role, honoraria, and research funding (to the institution) from Advaxis, Amgen, Immunogen, NuCana BioMed and Pfizer; consulting/advisory role, speakers bureau, honoraria, and research funding (to the institution) from AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech and TESARO; consulting/advisory role, speakers bureau and honoraria from Clovis Oncology; speakers bureau, honoraria and research funding (to the institution) from Janssen; consulting/advisory role for Cerulean Pharma, OncoMed, and OncoSec; a leadership role for US Oncology; honoraria from Agenus, Conjupro Biotherapeutics, Genmab, Immunomedics, OncoQuest, and PumaBiotechnology; research funding (to the institution) from Array BioPharma, Lilly, Morphotek, Novartis, and Regeneron. RLC reports consulting, grant and honoraria/reimbursement from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Janssen, Merck, and Roche/Genentech; consulting and honoraria/reimbursement from Arrivive, Eisai, Novocure, Oncomed/Mateo, and TESARO/GSK; consulting and grant from AbbVie, grant from Genmab. SG reports a consulting/advisory role for AstraZeneca, Immunogen, Rigel, and Sermonix Pharmaceuticals; research funding (to the institution) from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Pfizer, PharmaMar, and GSK/TESARO; hold patents, royalties or other intellectual property with Sermonix Pharmaceuticals. SA reports research funding from AstraZeneca. LRD reports consulting/advisory role for Genentech/Roche, Merck, Inovio Pharmaceuticals, CUE Biopharma; institutional research funding from GSK, Millennium, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Aeterna Zentaris, Novartis, Abbvie, GSK/TESARO, Cerulean Pharma, Aduro Biotech, Advaxis, Syndax, Pfizer, Merck, Genentech/Roche, Cerulean Pharma, Morab, Morphotek, Syndax, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Leap Therapeutics. HD reports a consulting/advisory role for Eisai and Merck. RWH reports speaker's bureau from AstraZeneca, Clovis, and GSK. MH reports advisory board participation for Clovis Oncology, Janssen, Immunogen, Eisai, Seagen, and Tesaro; grant funding from Merck. HSC has nothing to disclose. NGC reports participation in advisory boards from AstraZeneca, GSK, Toray, Tarveda Therapeutics, Aadi. ACE is an employee and stockholder in Natera Inc. REO is funded in part by the NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA008748, reports personal fees for advisory boards from TESARO/GSK, Bayer, Regeneron, SeaGen, Fresenius Kabi, R-Pharm, Miltenyi, 2seventybio and Immunogen; reports personal fees from MJH Life Sciences, Onclive/PER and Curio; and reports non-compensated membership of steering committees for the PRIMA and DUO-O studies. SW reports a consulting/advisory role for Regeneron. AT, AS, LMN, AB and VS are employees of and hold stocks/shares in GSK. PAK reports personal fees from GSK/TESARO for consultancy unrelated to this study and personal fees for advisory board participation from AstraZeneca, Merck, and Pfizer., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: The Bromodomain and Extra-Terminal (BET) domain proteins facilitate the development of many human cancers via epigenetic regulation. BET inhibitors may be effective in reversing platinum resistance in ovarian cancer (OC) and may generate synthetic lethality with ARID1A loss. PLX2853 is an orally active, small-molecule inhibitor of BET bromodomain-mediated interactions that exhibits low nanomolar potency in blocking all four BET family members., Methods: We conducted a multicenter and open-label study with two parallel arms: a phase IIa study of PLX2853 monotherapy in patients with advanced gynecologic malignancies with an ARID1A mutation and a phase Ib/IIa combination study of PLX2853 plus carboplatin in women with platinum-resistant OC. The primary objectives were safety and tolerability for phase Ib and efficacy for both phase IIa portions. Thirty-four of 37 enrolled patients completed at least one post-baseline response assessment., Results: Of the 14 evaluable patients on the monotherapy arm, 1 (7.1%) achieved a best overall response of partial response (PR), 5 (35.7%) had stable disease (SD), and 8 (57.1%) had progressive disease (PD). Of the 20 evaluable patients on the combination arm, 1 (5.0%) had PR, 9 (45.0%) had SD, and 10 (50%) had PD., Conclusion: This study confirmed the safety profile of PLX2853 and demonstrated the feasibility of combination with carboplatin. Although these results did not meet the prespecified response criteria, evidence of clinical activity highlights the rationale for further exploration of BET inhibitors in patients with ARID1A -mutated gynecologic malignancies, possibly in combination with agents targeting potential feedback mechanisms such as the PI3K pathway.

Purpose: Dickkopf-1 (DKK1) is a Wnt signaling modulator promoting tumor growth, metastasis, angiogenesis, and immunosuppression by regulating innate immunity. DKK1 is over-expressed in gynecologic cancers and is associated with shortened survival. DKN-01 is a humanized monoclonal antibody with DKK1 neutralizing activity that may provide clinical benefit to patients whose tumors have overexpression of DKK1 or Wnt genetic alterations., Methods: We conducted an open-label, Phase 2 basket study with 2-stage design in patients with endometrial carcinoma (EC) and platinum-resistant/refractory epithelial ovarian cancer. DKN-01 was administered either as monotherapy or in combination with weekly paclitaxel at investigator's discretion. All patients underwent NGS testing prior to enrollment; tumor tissue was also tested for DKK1 expression by RNAscope pre-treatment and after cycle 1 if available. At least 50% of patients were required to have a Wnt signaling alteration either directly or tangentially. This publication reports results from the EC population overall and by DKK1-expression., Results: DKN-01 monotherapy and in combination with paclitaxel was more effective in patients with high DKK1-expressing tumors compared to low-expressing tumors. DKN-01 monotherapy demonstrated an objective response rate [ORR] of 25.0% vs. 0%; disease control rate [DCR] of 62.5% vs. 6.7%; median progression-free survival [PFS] was 4.3 vs. 1.8 months, and overall survival [OS] was 11.0 vs. 8.2 months in DKK1-high vs DKK1-low patients. Similarly, DKN-01 in combination with paclitaxel demonstrated greater clinical activity in patients with DKK1-high tumors compared to DKK1-low tumors: DCR was 55% vs. 44%; median PFS was 5.4 vs. 1.8 months; and OS was 19.1 vs. 10.1 months. Wnt activating mutations correlated with higher DKK1 expression. DKN-01 was well tolerated as a monotherapy and in combination with paclitaxel., Conclusions: Collectively, data demonstrates promising clinical activity of a well-tolerated drug, DKN-01, in EC patients with high tumoral DKK1 expression which frequently corresponded to the presence of a Wnt activating mutation. Future development will focus on using DKN-01 in DKK1-high EC patients in combination with immunotherapy., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. Arend participates in Data Safety Monitoring/Advisory Boards (DSMB) for Astra Zeneca, Caris Life Sciences, Clovis, Merck, Seagen, Sutro, Glaxo Smith Kline, VBL Therapeutics. Dr. Matulonis reports relationships with the Med Learning Group and participates in DSMB for: Allarity, NextCure, Alkermes, Symphogen, Trillium, Agenus, Immunogen, Novartis, Boerhinger Ingelheim, Rivkin Foundation, Ovarian Cancer Research Alliance, Clearity Foundation, and Morphosys. Dr. Kagey and Dr. Sirard are employed by and own stock in Leap Therapeutics. Dr. Hamilton reports consulting or advisory for: Pfizer (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Puma Biotechnology (Inst), Daiichi Sankyo (Inst), Mersana (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Silverback Therapeutics (Inst), Black Diamond (Inst). Dr. Sachdev participates in DSMB for Pfizer, Immunomedics, AstraZeneca, Tempus, and Ipsen; discloses stock/options in Biosplice Therapeutics; and is employed by Biosplice Therapeutics. Dr. Duska reports royalties from JB Learning, consulting fees from UpToDate, serves as an expert law review, and participates in DSMB for Regeneron and Inovio. She reports leadership in SGO, ASCO, the NCI, and the British Journal of OBGYN. Dr. ElNaggar reports employment and stock/options with Natera. Ms. Liu and Ms. Piper were employed by LEAP Therapeutics during manuscript preparation. Dr. O'Malley participates in DSMB for: AbbVie, AdaptImmune, Agenus, Arquer Diagnostics, Arcus Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Atossa Therapeutics, Boston Biomedical, Cardiff Oncology, Celcuity, Clovis Oncology, Corcept Therapeutics, Duality Biom, Eisai, Elevar, Exelixis, Genentech, Genelux, GlaxoSmithKline, GOG Foundation, Hoffman-LaRoche, ImmunoGen, Imvax, InterVenn, INXMED, IOVANCE Biotherapeutics, Janssen, Laekna, Leap Therapeutics, Luzsana Biotechnology, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mersana, Myriad, Novartis, NovoCure, OncoC4, Onconova, Regeneron, RepImmune, R Pharm, Roche, SeaGen, Sorrento, Sutro, Tarveda, Toray, Trillium, Umoja, Verastem, VBL Therapeutics, Vincerx, Xencor, Zentalis. All other authors report no disclosures., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Cervical cancer continues to affect women in the United States and throughout the world despite an effective vaccine against human papillomavirus and cancer screening programs. For the women who develop cervical cancer, surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy have been the mainstays of treatment for years. Recently, novel therapeutics have been developed that offer new treatment opportunities for women living with advanced and/or recurrent disease. Immunotherapy has become an important tool against cervical cancer with the approval of pembrolizumab in the second line for advanced or recurrent disease. Checkpoint inhibitors have recently been approved in the front line for advanced and/or recurrent disease in combination with chemotherapy, and they are being studied in the front line in combination with chemoradiation. Antibody-drug conjugates-specifically tisotumab vedotin (TV)-also have recently received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, and TV is currently being studied in combination with checkpoint inhibitors and with carboplatin. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes have been studied in early-phase trials and have shown promise in small patient series. Despite these new therapies, there continue to be racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic inequities with respect to access to care, access to and participation in clinical trials, and survival in the United States as well as globally. New FDA guidance requires researchers to work to reduce disparities by including women of more diverse backgrounds in clinical trials. Finally, as progress continues to be made in the treatment of established disease, prevention through vaccination and screening remains paramount. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: The treatment of cervical cancer remains a significant problem in the United States and especially worldwide. Although early cases can be cured, cervical cancer that has spread remains difficult to treat. The past few years have seen significant advances in new therapies and combinations of therapies for women with advanced or recurrent disease. Although this is excellent news for these women, cervical cancer is a preventable disease through screening with Papanicolaou smears and vaccination with the human papillomavirus vaccine. By improving access to and acceptance of screening and vaccination, we can eradicate cervical cancer in the United States and the world., (© 2023 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Cancer Society.)

Objective: At an academic institution in rural Virginia, we noticed a trend of increased re-admissions for postoperative pelvic abscesses. The primary study objective was to determine if intraoperative use of hemostatic agents (HA) was associated with postoperative abscess formation in patients undergoing hysterectomy., Methods: Retrospective chart review identified women who underwent hysterectomy by a Gynecologic Oncologist for any indication at a single institution from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019. Patient and surgical characteristics were abstracted and comparisons were made among those who received any HA and those that did not. The relationship between intraoperative HA use and postoperative pelvic abscess formation was determined using multivariate logistic regression. Secondary outcomes evaluated included the presence of other major post-operative adverse events., Results: 428 hysterectomies were identified with a postoperative pelvic abscess rate of 3.7 %. Abscesses were identified in 4 (2.2 %) of cases without vs 12 (4.9 %) of cases with HA use with a logistic regression model demonstrating no significant difference in the groups (OR = 2.10, p = 0.22). Data showed an increase in presentation to the Emergency Department (ED) (OR = 3.43, p = 0.002 adjusted) and higher odds of readmission within 30 days of surgery (OR = 3.19, p = 0.03) with HA use., Conclusions: No association was found between HA use and abscess formation; however, data showed HA use was associated with increased odds of presentation to the ED and readmission to the hospital within 30 days of surgery. Given the potential negative impact on patient outcomes, use of these products at time of hysterectomy should be made with careful consideration., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2022 Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the tolerability and efficacy of combination bevacizumab rucaparib therapy in patients with recurrent cervical or endometrial cancer., Patients & Methods: Thirty-three patients with recurrent cervical or endometrial cancer were enrolled. Patients were required to have tumor progression after first line treatment for metastatic, or recurrent disease. Rucaparib was given at 600 mg BID twice daily for each 21-day cycle. Bevacizumab was given at 15 mg/kg on day 1 of each 21-day cycle. The primary endpoint was efficacy as determined by objective response rate or 6-month progression free survival., Results: Of the 33 patients enrolled, 28 were evaluable. Patients with endometrial cancer had a response rate of 17% while patients with cervical cancer had a response rate of 14%. Median progression free survival was 3.8 months (95% C·I 2.5 to 5.7 months), and median overall survival was 10.1 months (95% C·I 7.0 to 15.1 months). Patients with ARID1A mutations displayed a better response rate (33%) and 6-month progression free survival (PFS6) rate (67%) than the entire study population. Observed toxicity was similar to that of previous studies with bevacizumab and rucaparib., Conclusions: The combination of bevacizumab with rucaparib did not show significantly increased anti-tumor activity in all patients with recurrent cervical or endometrial cancer. However, patients with ARID1A mutations had a higher response rate and PFS6 suggesting this subgroup may benefit from the combination of bevacizumab and rucaparib. Further study is needed to confirm this observation. No new safety signals were seen., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study explored the feasibility of cetuximab with chemoradiation in women with cervical carcinoma and evaluated fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG-PET/CT) to assess early response to cetuximab (NCT00292955)., Patients and Methods: Eligible patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IB-IVB invasive carcinoma of the uterine cervix were treated on 1 of 3 dose levels (DL). DL1 consisted of neoadjuvant cetuximab, then concurrent radiotherapy with cetuximab 250 mg/m2/cisplatin 40 mg/m2, followed by weekly cetuximab. DL2 consisted of radiotherapy with cetuximab 200 mg/m2 and cisplatin 30 mg/m2. DL3 consisted of radiotherapy with cetuximab 250 mg/m2 and cisplatin 30 mg/m2. Patients underwent 18F-FDG-PET/CT before treatment, after neoadjuvant cetuximab, and at the end of treatment., Results: Of the 21 patients enrolled, 9, 3, and 9 were treated in DL1, DL2, and DL3, respectively. DL1 required dose reductions due to gastrointestinal toxicities. DL2 and 3 were tolerated with 1 dose-limiting toxicity (grade 4 renal failure) at DL3. Following 3 weekly treatments of neoadjuvant cetuximab in DL1, 7 patients had maximum standardized uptake value changes on 18F-FDG-PET/CT consistent with response to cetuximab. Of the 12 patients with locally advanced disease, eleven evaluable patients had no evidence of disease on 18F-FDG-PET/CT at treatment end. Five-year progression-free survival and overall survival rates for all patients were 57.5% and 58.5%, respectively., Conclusions: Cetuximab with cisplatin 30 mg/m2 and radiotherapy was tolerated. 18F-FDG-PET/CT demonstrated early evidence of response to neoadjuvant cetuximab. With advances in precision oncology and the recent approval of pembrolizumab in metastatic cervical cancer, dual-target inhibition with an epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor may be a promising treatment in the future., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Microsatellite instability (MSI) due to defective DNA mismatch repair has emerged as an actionable biomarker in advanced endometrial cancer (aEC). Currently, there are no treatment patterns and outcomes data in non-MSI-high (non-MSI-H) or mismatch repair proficient (pMMR) aEC patients following prior systemic therapy (FPST). Our goal was to describe real-world data in this population in the US in 2019 and prior years., Methods: Endometrial Cancer Health Outcomes (ECHO) is a retrospective patient chart review study conducted in the US. Patients with non-MSI-H/pMMR aEC and progression between 06/01/2016-06/30/2019 FPST were eligible. Data collected included patient demographics, clinical and treatment characteristics, and clinical outcomes. Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed to estimate time to treatment discontinuation, real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS), and overall survival (OS), separately by treatment category., Results: A total of 165 eligible patients initiated second-line therapy with chemotherapy ± bevacizumab (n = 140) or hormonal therapy (n = 25). Median age was 66.0 years at aEC diagnosis, 70.2% were Stage IIIB-IV, 40.0% had ECOG ≥ 2 at second-line therapy initiation. Median rwPFS was 5.0 months (95% CI: 4.0-6.0) for patients receiving chemotherapy ± bevacizumab and 5.5 months (95% CI: 3.0-29.0) for those receiving hormonal therapy. Median OS was 10.0 months (95% CI: 8.0-13.0) and 9.0 months (95% CI: 6.0-NA) in these groups, respectively., Conclusions: Non-MSI-H/pMMR patients who initiated second-line therapy with chemotherapy ± bevacizumab or hormonal therapy had poor clinical outcomes with a median survival less than 1 year and rwPFS less than 6 months. This was the first study to define the clinical unmet need in patients with non-MSI-H/pMMR aEC with conventional therapy., Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: [Sneha Kelkar, Shelby Corman & Nifasha Rusibamayila are employees of Open Health and report that Open Health received consulting fees/funding support from Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA during the conduct of the study; Vimalanand Prabhu is an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA, and reports stock from Merck & Co., Inc.; Jingchuan Zhang reports support from Eisai Inc. during the conduct of the study; meeting/travel support from Eisai Inc.; and other financial interests from Eisai Inc. Cynthia Macahilig & Shardul Odak report support from RTI-Health Solutions during the conduct of the study. Linda Duska reports that University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA received grants/contracts to support clinical research trials from Genentech/Roche, Cerulean/NextGen/(GOG 3008), AbbVie/(GOG 3005), Tesaro, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKlein/Novartis, Morab, MorphoTek, Merck & Co., Inc., Aduro BioTech, Syndax, Ludwig, LEAP Therapeutics, Eisai, Lycera, Inovio, Advaxis, Mersana, Verastem, Ellipses, Corcept, Plexxicon, Constellation, Arch, Mirasol, and Quest Pharmtech Dr. Duska has received royalties from Elsevier and JB Learning; consulting fees from MorphoTek, Genentech/Roche, Advance Medical, UpToDate, Parexel, State of California and ClearView Health Care; personal fees from legal expert review; and payment for leadership/board roles in ASCO, National Cancer Institute and British Journal of OB/GYN.]., (© 2022 Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC., a subsidiary Merck & Co., Inc.,, The Author(s).)

Purpose: This surgical window of opportunity (window) study assessed the short-term effect of medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) alone versus MPA plus the histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor entinostat on regulation of progesterone receptor (PR) in women with newly diagnosed endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma., Patients and Methods: This multisite, randomized, open-label surgical window study treated women intramuscularly on day 1 with 400 mg MPA. Entinostat given 5 mg by mouth on days 1, 8, and 15 was randomly assigned with equal probability. Surgery followed on days 21-24. Pretreatment and posttreatment tissue was assessed for PR H-scores, Ki-67 levels, and histologic response., Results: Fifty patients were accrued in 4 months; 22 and 20 participants had PR evaluable pretreatment and posttreatment slides in the MPA and MPA/entinostat arms, respectively. Median posttreatment PR H-scores were significantly lower than pretreatment H-scores in both arms but did not differ significantly (MPA: 247 vs. 27, MPA/entinostat 260 vs. 23, respectively, P = 0.87). Decreased Ki-67 was shown in 90% treated with MPA/entinostat compared with 68% treated with MPA alone ( P = 0.13). Median PR H-score decreases were larger when Ki-67 was decreased (208) versus not decreased (45). The decrease in PR pretreatment versus posttreatment was associated with loss of Ki-67 nuclear staining, consistent with reduced cellular proliferation ( P < 0.008)., Conclusions: This surgical window trial rapidly accrued in a multisite setting and evaluated PR as its primary endpoint and Ki-67 as secondary endpoint. Despite no immediate effect of entinostat on PR in this short-term study, lessons learned can inform future window and treatment trials., (©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Objective: To evaluate how women with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), dichotomized by BRCA status, tolerate intravenous (IV) or intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy given with veliparib and bevacizumab (bev) on a GOG phase I study (GOG 9923, NCT00989651)., Methods: This is an unplanned, post hoc analysis of an IRB approved, multi-institutional, prospective study (GOG 9923). Clinical characteristics and toxicity data based on BRCA status were evaluated and descriptive statistics were used to summarize baseline patient characteristics and toxicities. The Kaplan Meier method was used to generate survival estimates., Results: Four hundred twenty-four patients were evaluable. Patients were treated with IV carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bev every 21 days (regimen 1), weekly IV paclitaxel with carboplatin and bev (regimen 2) or IV paclitaxel and bev with IP cisplatin (regimen 3). Bev was continued as maintenance in all arms. Within each of these regimens, veliparib was given either twice daily for the entirety of each cycle (continuous) or on days -2 to 5 (intermittent). Ten percent of patients treated on regimen 1, 12% on regimen 2, and 19.8% on regimen 3 had BRCA-associated tumors. Patients with BRCA-associated tumors, when compared to wild type, experienced similar rates of anemia, febrile neutropenia (, abdominal pain, colonic perforation, nausea, vomiting, and peripheral sensory neuropathy. Median progression free survival (PFS) was not significantly different between BRCA-associated and wild type cancers (HR 0.96, CI 0.65-1.42), though this study's primary aim was not to evaluate outcomes., Conclusions: Germline BRCA mutations positively affect chemosensitivity in EOC, but whether differences in toxicities among BRCA-associated and BRCA wild type tumors existed was previously not reported. In this population with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer no differences in reported toxicity between the two groups was observed., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To identify the incidence of radiation-induced urologic complication requiring procedural intervention following high-dose radiotherapy for cervical carcinoma, and to identify predictors of complication occurrence., Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of cervical cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy with primary focus on procedural complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III). Clinical data were collected including radiation dose, procedure performed, timing of complication, and need for additional procedures. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression modeling was performed to assess predictive value of demographic and clinical variables., Results: A total of 126 patients with FIGO stage 1A2-4B cervical cancer were included in study analysis, with 18 patients experiencing procedural complication (14.3%). A total of 22 complications were identified, representing an average of 1.2 complications per patient with complication. The most common complications were ureteral stricture and radiation cystitis. The most common nononcologic procedures performed in the treatment of these complications were ureteral stenting, percutaneous nephrostomy tube placement, and cystoscopy. Notably, a total of 259 procedures were performed in the treatment of urologic complications, representing 14.4 procedures per patient and 24.6 procedures per patient with ureteral stricture. Logistic regression demonstrated active smoking at the time of diagnosis to be a predictor of procedural complication., Conclusion: Radiotherapy in the treatment of cervical cancer is associated with a high rate of urologic procedural complication. These complications often require numerous procedures and long-term management given their complexity. These findings suggest a need for awareness and plans for multidisciplinary management of urologic complications in this patient population., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: EP0057 (formerly CRLX101) is an investigational nanoparticle-drug conjugate (NDC) of a cyclodextrin-based polymer backbone plus camptothecin, a topoisomerase-1 inhibitor. Prior studies showed efficacy in recurrent or persistent, epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer (EOC)., Methods: This phase Ib/2 trial assessed safety and efficacy of EP0057 Q2W plus weekly paclitaxel in patients with EOC. The recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) was identified using a 3+3 design. The single-arm phase 2 assessed overall response (ORR) per RECIST 1.1 in patients previously treated with bevacizumab. Secondary objectives included progression free survival (PFS) and duration of response., Results: The RP2D was established as 15 mg/m 2 EP0057 Q2W plus 80 mg/m 2 paclitaxel administered 3 weeks on/1 week off. Nine patients enrolled on phase 1b, with no DLTs; 21 additional patients enrolled on phase 2. All completed >1 cycle. Median age was 62 (44-76) years, 57% ≥3 prior therapies. For the primary analysis, 6/19 patients with prior bevacizumab had confirmed responses (ORR=31.6% (95% CI: 15.4% to 54.0%)) including one complete response (CR). Median PFS was 5.4 months. Most common grade 3/4 adverse events attributed to treatment were decreased neutrophil count (13, 43%) and anemia (3, 10%)., Conclusions: Although the observed ORR was not statistically better than the historical control rate, EP0057 remains an interesting option for treatment of recurrent EOC. EP0057 exhibits high plasma drug retention, slow clearance, and controlled slow release of CPT from the polymer when administered alone and with paclitaxel. (NCT02389985) 242 words., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. Duska has served on advisory boards for Astra Zeneca, Genentech, Merck, Tesaro, Morphotek. She serves on the DSMC for an Inovio trial. Her institution has received research funding on her behalf to conduct investigator-initiated studies from GSK/Novartis and Merck. Her institution has received research funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies to support clinical research. Dr. Moore has served on advisory boards for Astra Zeneca, Advaxis, Clovis, Immunogen, Tesaro, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, Pfizer, Merck, Aravive, Samumed, Oncomed, VBL Therapeutics and Eisai. She serves on steering committees (not compensated) for Astra Zeneca, Tesaro, VBL Therapeutics. She has received research funding from PTC Therapeutics, Lilly, Genentech/Roche and Clovis. Dr. Supko reports support from GOG Foundation for pharmacokinetic studies. Dr. Thaker reports grants and personal fees from Merck, grants and personal fees from Glaxo Smith Kline, personal fees from Celsion, personal fees from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from Iovance, personal fees from Stryker, personal fees from Aravive. Dr. Zamboni reports personal fees from Cerulean Pharmaceuticals, personal fees from BlueLink/NewLink Pharmaceuticals, personal fees from Ellipses Pharmaceuticals, during the conduct of the study Dr. Mathews reports grants from Syros, grants from Deciphera, grants from Astra Zeneca, grants from Astellas Pharma, grants from Tesaro/GSK, grants from Seattle Genetics, and grants from Regeneron. Dr. Lucas reports personal fees from MediGLO. Dr. OMalley reports funds from Cerulean Pharmaceuticals; personal fees and other from AstraZeneca, personal fees and other from Clovis, personal fees and other from Tesaro, personal fees and other from Immunogen, personal fees from Ambry, personal fees and other from Janssen/J&J, personal fees and other from Abbvie, personal fees and other from Regeneron, personal fees and other from Amgen, personal fees from Novocure, personal fees and other from Genentech/Roche, other from VentiRx, other from Array Biopharma, other from EMD Serono, other from Ergomed, other from Ajinomoto Inc., other from Ludwig Cancer Research, other from Stemcentrx, Inc, personal fees and other from GOG Foundation, other from Bristol-Myers Squibb Co, other from Serono Inc, other from TRACON Pharmaceuticals, other from Yale University, other from New Mexico Cancer Care Alliance, other from INC Research, Inc, other from inVentiv Health Clinical, other from Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc, other from PRA Intl, personal fees from Myriad Genetics, personal fees and other from Eisai, personal fees and other from Agenus, personal fees and other from GSK, personal fees from Tarveda, personal fees and other from Merck, other from GenMab, personal fees and other from Seattle Genetics. Dr. Schilder reports grants from GOG Foundation, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Incyte, personal fees from Ceslsion, rom Flatiron, personal fees from Clovis, personal fees from Immunogen. The following authors report no financial interests: Dr. Hays, Dr. Miller, Christopher Purdy, Dr. Modesitt, Dr. Krasner., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors are being considered for locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) together with standard-of-care pelvic chemoradiation (CRT). However, the safety of the combination and its optimal schedule are unknown. Defining the safety of the combination is a primary objective of a study examining concurrent and sequential schedules. This article presents a safety analysis that was fully accrued and met reporting requirements., Methods: Pembrolizumab was given after CRT (arm 1) or during CRT (arm 2) according to a randomized phase 2 design. Patients who were 18 years old or older and had LACC (stages IB-IVA according to the 2009 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics system) were randomized 1:1 to the treatment regimens. The CRT was identical in the 2 arms. Pembrolizumab was administered every 3 weeks for 3 doses; no maintenance was allowed. All patients receiving any treatment were evaluated for safety. Safety assessments included the incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs) and the occurrence of protocol-defined dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) through 30 days after the last pembrolizumab infusion., Results: As of August 2019, 52 of the 88 planned patients had completed treatment and were evaluable for toxicity. Treatment-related grade 2 or higher toxicity was experienced by 88%; 11 had at least 1 grade 4 AE, and another 23 had at least 1 grade 3 AE. Grade 1 or higher diarrhea was reported in 34 patients (65%; 50% of these were grade 1), and there was no difference between arms (63% in arm 1 vs 68% in arm 2). Two patients experienced 3 DLTs. Most patients completed cisplatin (100% in arm 1 vs 82% in arm 2); 83% in both arms completed all pembrolizumab., Conclusions: Preliminary results support the safety and feasibility of adding pembrolizumab to pelvic CRT concurrently or sequentially., Lay Summary: Pembrolizumab is a humanized antibody against programmed cell death protein 1 that is used in cancer immunotherapy. Preliminary data suggest that pembrolizumab can be safely combined with chemotherapy and pelvic radiation in the treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer. Future studies of the addition of immunotherapy to traditional chemoradiation are planned to determine the best way to deliver the treatment and whether any improvement is seen with the addition of immunotherapy to traditional therapy., (© 2020 American Cancer Society.)

Tumor cell expression of major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I is required for antigen presentation and adaptive immune recognition. Absent or diminished MHC class I expression is thought to contribute to immunotherapeutic resistance in some epithelial tumors but has not been previously studied in cervical and vulvar carcinoma. Given that anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) checkpoint inhibition is deployed for programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive recurrent and metastatic cervical squamous carcinomas, identifying tumors with loss of MHC class I is of clinical interest to optimize the selection of immunotherapeutic candidates. Immunohistochemistry for PD-L1 and MHC class I combined A, B, and C heavy chains (MHC class I) was assessed in 58 human papillomavirus-associated cervical and vulvar lesions, including 27 squamous intraepithelial lesions (SILs) and 31 invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Although 84% of SCC and 22% of SIL were PD-L1-positive, 35.5% (11/31) of SCC and 18.5% (5/27) of SIL also showed clonal or complete loss of MHC class I. Loss of MHC class I expression was more common in PD-L1-positive (10/26, 38%) versus PD-L1-negative SCC (1/5, 20%). In summary, over one third of human papillomavirus-associated cervical and vulvar SCC show clonal or complete loss of MHC class I expression, including many PD-L1-positive cases. This suggests that the efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 axis may be limited in a subset of cervical and vulvar squamous neoplasms due to an impaired ability to engage with the adaptive immune system related to loss of MHC class I expression.

Background: High-grade serous ovarian cancers show increased replication stress, rendering cells vulnerable to ATR inhibition because of near universal loss of the G1/S checkpoint (through deleterious TP53 mutations), premature S phase entry (due to CCNE1 amplification, RB1 loss, or CDKN2A mRNA downregulation), alterations of homologous recombination repair genes, and expression of oncogenic drivers (through MYC amplification and other mechanisms). We hypothesised that the combination of the selective ATR inhibitor, berzosertib, and gemcitabine could show acceptable toxicity and superior efficacy to gemcitabine alone in high-grade serous ovarian cancer., Methods: In this multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 study, 11 different centres in the US Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trials Network enrolled women (aged ≥18 years) with recurrent, platinum-resistant high-grade serous ovarian cancer (determined histologically) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, who had unlimited previous lines of cytotoxic therapy in the platinum-sensitive setting but no more than one line of cytotoxic therapy in the platinum-resistant setting. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous gemcitabine (1000 mg/m 2 ) on day 1 and day 8, or gemcitabine plus intravenous berzosertib (210 mg/m 2 ) on day 2 and day 9 of a 21-day cycle until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. Randomisation was done centrally using the Theradex Interactive Web Response System, stratified by platinum-free interval, and with a permuted block size of six. Following central randomisation, patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, and analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of the study drugs. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02595892, and is active but closed to enrolment., Findings: Between Feb 14, 2017, and Sept 7, 2018, 88 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 70 were randomly assigned to treatment with gemcitabine alone (36 patients) or gemcitabine plus berzosertib (34 patients). At the data cutoff date (Feb 21, 2020), the median follow-up was 53·2 weeks (25·6-81·8) in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group and 43·0 weeks (IQR 23·2-69·1) in the gemcitabine alone group. Median progression-free survival was 22·9 weeks (17·9-72·0) for gemcitabine plus berzosertib and 14·7 weeks (90% CI 9·7-36·7) for gemcitabine alone (hazard ratio 0·57, 90% CI 0·33-0·98; one-sided log-rank test p=0·044). The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were decreased neutrophil count (14 [39%] of 36 patients in the gemcitabine alone group vs 16 [47%] of 34 patients in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group) and decreased platelet count (two [6%] vs eight [24%]). Serious adverse events were observed in ten (28%) patients in the gemcitabine alone group and nine (26%) patients in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group. There was one treatment-related death in the gemcitabine alone group due to sepsis and one treatment-related death in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group due to pneumonitis., Interpretation: To our knowledge, this is the first randomised study of an ATR inhibitor in any tumour type. This study shows a benefit of adding berzosertib to gemcitabine in platinum-resistant high-grade serous ovarian cancer. This combination warrants further investigation in this setting., Funding: US National Cancer Institute., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The "surprise question" ("Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next year?") has been shown to be predictive of 12-month mortality in multiple populations, but has not been studied in gynecologic oncology (GO) patients. We sought to evaluate the prognostic performance of the surprise question in GO patients among physician and non-physician providers., Methods: GO providers at two tertiary care centers were asked the surprise question about a cohort of their patients undergoing chemotherapy or radiation. Demographic and clinical information was chart abstracted. Mortality data were collected at one year; relative risk of death at one year based on response to the surprise question was then calculated., Results: 32 providers (12 MDs, 7 APPs, 13 RNs) provided 942 surprise question assessments for 358 patients. Fifty-seven % had ovarian cancer and 54% had recurrent disease. Eighty-three (24%) patients died within a year. Patients whose physician answered "No" to the surprise question had a 43% one-year mortality (compared to 10% for "Yes"). Overall RR of 12-month mortality for "No" was 3.76 (95% CI 2.75-5.48); this association remained significant in all provider types. Among statistically significant predictors of 12-month mortality (including recurrent disease and >2 prior lines of chemotherapy), the surprise question had the highest RR., Conclusions: The surprise question is a simple, one question tool that effectively identifies GO patients increased risk of 12-month mortality. The surprise question could be used to identify patients for early referral to palliative care and initiation advance care planning., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Angiogenesis inhibition is a valuable strategy for ovarian cancer (EOC). Pazopanib (paz) is a potent small molecular inhibitor of VEGF-1, -2, -3, PDGFR, c-kit, and has activity as a single agent in ovarian cancer. We designed a trial to assess the benefit of adding paz to gemcitabine (gem) in patients with recurrent EOC., Methods: An open-label, randomized, multi-site, phase 2 trial was conducted (NCT01610206) including patients with platinum resistant or sensitive disease, ≤ 3 prior lines of chemotherapy, and measurable/evaluable disease. Patients were randomly assigned to weekly gem 1000 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 8 of a 21 day cycle, with or without paz 800 mg QD, stratified by platinum sensitivity and number of prior lines (1 vs 2 or 3). The primary endpoint was PFS., Results: 148 patients were enrolled 2012-2017. Median age was 63 years (30-82); 60% were platinum resistant; median surveillance was 13 months (0.4-54 months). Median PFS was 5.3 (95% CI, 4.2-5.8) vs 2.9 months (95% CI, 2.1-4.1) in the gem arm. The PFS effect was most pronounced in the platinum resistant group (5.32 vs 2.33 months Tarone-Ware p < 0.001). There was no difference in OS. Overall RR (PR 20% vs 11%, Chi-squre p = 0.02) and DCR (80% vs 60%, Chi-square p < 0.001) were higher in the combination. High grade AEs in the combination arm included ≥ Grade 3: hypertension (15%), neutropenia (35%), and thrombocytopenia (12%)., Conclusions: The addition of paz to gem enhanced anti-tumor activity; those with platinum-resistant disease derived the most benefit from combination therapy, even in the setting of receiving prior bevacizumab., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. Duska has served on advisory boards for Astra Zeneca, Genentech, Merck, Tesaro, Morphotek. She serves on the DSMC for an Inovio trial. She has received research funding from GSK/Novartis (current trial) and Merck. Her instition has received research funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Secord reports research funding from pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work; and a grant from the National Cancer Trial Network outside the submitted work. She also reports honoraria/advisory boards from Alexion, Aravive, Astex Pharmaceuticals Inc., Astra Zeneca, Clovis, Janssen/Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Mersana, Myriad, Oncoquest, Roche/Genentech, and Tesaro outside of the submitted work. Dr. Moore has served on advisory boards for Astra Zeneca, Advaxis, Clovis, Immunogen, Tesaro, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, Pfizer, Merck, Aravive, Samumed, Oncomed, VBL Therapeutics and Eisai. She serves on steering committees (not compensated) for Astra Zeneca, Tesaro, VBL Therapeutics. She has received research funding from PTC Therapeutics, Lilly, Genentech/Roche and Clovis. Dr. Brown reports personal fees from Tesaro, personal fees from Clovis, from Tempus, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Genentech, personal fees from Olympus, personal fees from Advanced Surgical Concepts, personal fees from OncLive, outside the submitted work. The following authors report no financial interests: Dr. McGuire, Dr. Petroni, Ms Varhegyi, Dr. Barroilhet, Dr. Jelovac, Dr. Darus., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Improvements in disease free survival for epithelial ovarian, peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer (EOC) will only come with improved primary therapy. Incorporation of poly-ADP-ribose inhibitors (PARPi) in the frontline setting may represent one strategy. This study sought to determine the maximum tolerated and feasible doses of the PARPi veliparib in combination with chemotherapy for EOC., Methods: A phase I, 3 + 3 dose escalation evaluated dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) in cycles 1-2. Once <2/6 patients experienced a DLT, that dose level expanded to evaluate feasibility over 4 cycles. This study opened 10/2009 and closed 8/2016. Eligible patients had untreated, stage II-IV EOC. Veliparib was added either continuous (day 1-21) or intermittent (day - 2 to 5) during 6 cycles of chemotherapy. Three chemotherapy backbones were evaluated (2 intravenous (q3week and weekly) and 1 intraperitoneal (IP)) all inclusive of bevacizumab with and as maintenance to 22 cycles., Findings: Dose evaluations for 424 treated patients were available. Regimen 1 (q3 week), continuous (Reg1c) the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was 250 mg veliparib BID and feasible dose was 150 mg BID. For regimen 1, intermittent (Reg1i) the MTD and feasible dose were 400 and 250 mg BID. For Reg2c (weekly paclitaxel) the MTD and feasible dose were 150 mg BID. For Reg2i the MTD and feasible dose were 250 and 150 mg BID. For Reg3c (IP) the MTD and feasible dose were 150 mg BID and for Reg3i (IP), the MTD and feasible dose were 400 mg and 300 mg BID., Interpretation: The feasible dose for Reg1c, 2c, 2i and 3c was 150 mg po BID. For Reg1i and 3i the dose was pushed to 250 and 300 mg po BID respectively. There is no apparent difference in efficacy between continuous and intermittent dosing indicating that the higher doses achieved in intermittent dosing may not be needed. (NCT00989651)., Funding: National Cancer Institute., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in gynecologic oncology surgical patients. Many centers use neuraxial analgesia (NA), which affects the timing of prophylactic anticoagulation. In 2012, we determined that the rate of VTE in patients undergoing laparotomy with NA was higher than in those who received alternative pain control. In addition, compliance with preoperative anticoagulation guidelines was only 40%. We undertook a quality initiative (QI) project to increase compliance to 80% in NA cases and maintain 90% in non-NA cases., Methods: A multidisciplinary working group designed and deployed a QI intervention bundle. Compliance was defined as the receipt of a prophylactic dose of anticoagulant within 1 hour after NA or before skin incision regardless of anesthesia type. Data were abstracted from the medical record after the study period. Cases from the year before QI were used for comparison. Primary outcome was compliance and secondary outcome was the rate of VTE., Results: One hundred women were treated under the QI project and 182 historical cases (HCs) were used for comparison. Overall compliance improved (96% QI v 73% HC; P < .001). This difference was marked in cases with NA (95% QI v 40% HC; P < .001) and remained stable in non-NA cases (97% QI v 91% HC; P = .29). The overall rate of VTE, independent of anesthesia type, remained unchanged (2.1% HC v 0% QI; P = .3)., Conclusion: Relatively simple and inexpensive initiatives to improve routine processes within the surgical pathway are feasible and attract staff participation. Such efforts are likely to translate into greater levels of patient safety.

Background: Bevacizumab provides benefit in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), yet resistance to bevacizumab often occurs. We determined if nintedanib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor of VEGF, FGF, and PDGF receptors has antitumor activity in bevacizumab-resistant recurrent EOC, tubal, and peritoneal cancer., Methods: This phase II study evaluated nintedanib 200 mg/day until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary objective was 6-month progression free survival (PFS6m). Secondary objectives were response rate and toxicity. Simon two-stage optimal design was used. Baseline angiogenic plasma biomarkers were measured., Results: 27 patients were enrolled evaluable for PFS; 26 were evaluable for PFS6m. The median age was 65 years (range 44-73); 89.9% had high-grade serous EOC; 70% received at least >2 prior chemotherapies; and 81% (22/27) had chemoresistant disease. With median follow up of 15.6 months (range 2-38) the PFS6m rate was 11.5% (3/26). Three participants had long duration of disease control (8-16 months). Median PFS and overall survival were 1.8 and 16 months, respectively. Response rate was 7.4% (2/27 PR). Thirty-seven percent (10/27) had stable disease, while 56% (15/27) had progressive disease. Adverse events included Grade 3 liver enzyme elevation (15%), Grade 3 diarrhea (7%), Grade 2 fatigue (7%), and Grade 2 nausea/vomiting (15%). PD patients exhibited higher levels of CD73, IL6, and VEGFD (p < 0.05) compared to PR/SD patients. IL6 was associated with worse PFS (p = 0.03)., Conclusions: Single-agent nintedanib has minimal activity in an unselected bevacizumab-resistant EOC population. Nintedanib was tolerable and toxicities were manageable. Plasma CD73, IL6, and VEGFD were identified as prognostic markers for progressive disease, and IL6 was associated with worse PFS confirming similar observations made in patients treated with other anti-angiogenic agents., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Carcinomas originate from epithelial tissues, which have apical (luminal) and basal orientations. The degree of luminal versus basal differentiation in cancer has been shown to be biologically important in some carcinomas and impacts treatment response., Experimental Design: Although prior studies have focused on individual cancer types, we used a modified clinical-grade classifier (PAM50) to subtype 8,764 tumors across 22 different carcinomas into luminal A, luminal B, and basal-like tumors., Results: We found that all epithelial tumors demonstrated similar gene expression-based luminal/basal subtypes. As expected, basal-like tumors were associated with increased expression of the basal markers KRT5/6 and KRT14, and luminal-like tumors were associated with increased expression of the luminal markers KRT20. Luminal A tumors consistently had improved outcomes compared with basal across many tumor types, with luminal B tumors falling between the two. Basal tumors had the highest rates of TP53 and RB1 mutations and copy number loss. Luminal breast, cervical, ovarian, and endometrial tumors had increased ESR1 expression, and luminal prostate, breast, cervical, and bladder tumors had increased androgen receptor (AR) expression. Furthermore, luminal B tumors had the highest rates of AR and ESR1 mutations and had increased sensitivity in vitro to bicalutamide and tamoxifen. Luminal B tumors were more sensitive to gemcitabine, and basal tumors were more sensitive to docetaxel., Conclusions: This first pan-carcinoma luminal/basal subtyping across epithelial tumors reveals global similarities across carcinomas in the transcriptome, genome, clinical outcomes, and drug sensitivity, emphasizing the biological and translational importance of these luminal versus basal subtypes., (©2018 American Association for Cancer Research.)