Search

In recent years, the incorporation of new strategies to the therapeutic armamentarium has completely changed the outcomes of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). The identification of new predictive and prognostic biomarkers has also enabled the selection of those patients more likely to respond to targeted agents. Nevertheless, EOC is still a highly lethal disease and resistance to many of these new agents is common. The objective of this guideline is to summarize the most relevant strategies to manage EOC, to help the clinician throughout the challenging diagnostic and therapeutic processes and to provide evidence-based recommendations., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) and MXenes have gained prominence in the queue of advanced material research. Both materials' outstanding physical and chemical characteristics prominently promote their utilization in diverse fields, especially the electrochemical energy storage (EES) domain. The collective contribution of extremely high specific surface area (SSA), customizable pores, and abundant active sites propose MOFs as integral materials for EES devices. However, conventional MOFs endure low conductivity, constraining their utility in practical applications. The development of hybrid materials via integrating MOFs with various conductive materials stands out as an effective approach to improvising MOF's conductivity. MXenes, formulated as two-dimensional (2D) carbides and nitrides of transition metals, fall in the category of the latest 2D materials. MXenes possess extensive structural diversity, impressive conductivity, and rich surface chemical characteristics. The electrochemical characteristics of MOF@MXene hybrids outperform MOFs and MXenes individually, credited to the synergistic effect of both components. Additionally, the MOF derivatives coupled with MXene, exhibiting unique morphologies, demonstrate outstanding electrochemical performance. The important attributes of MOF@MXene hybrids, including the various synthesis protocols, have been summarized in this review. This review delves into the architectural analysis of both MOFs and MXenes, along with their advanced hybrids. Furthermore, the comprehensive survey of the latest advancements in MOF@MXene hybrids as electroactive material for supercapacitors (SCs) is the prime objective of this review. The review concludes with an elaborate discussion of the current challenges faced and the future outlooks for optimizing MOF@MXene composites., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest 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., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To evaluate atezolizumab combined with platinum-based chemotherapy (CT) followed by maintenance niraparib for late-relapsing recurrent ovarian cancer., Methods: The multicenter placebo-controlled double-blind randomized phase III ENGOT-OV41/GEICO 69-O/ANITA trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03598270) enrolled patients with measurable high-grade serous, endometrioid, or undifferentiated recurrent ovarian cancer who had received one or two previous CT lines (most recent including platinum) and had a treatment-free interval since last platinum (TFIp) of >6 months. Patients were stratified by investigator-selected carboplatin doublet, TFIp, BRCA status, and PD-L1 status in de novo biopsy and randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either atezolizumab or placebo throughout standard therapy comprising six cycles of a carboplatin doublet followed (in patients with response/stable disease) by maintenance niraparib until progression. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST v1.1., Results: Between November 2018 and January 2022, 417 patients were randomly assigned (15% BRCA- mutated, 36% PD-L1-positive, 66% TFIp >12 months, 11% previous poly [ADP-ribose] polymerase inhibitor after frontline CT, and 53% previous bevacizumab). Median follow-up was 28.6 months (95% CI, 26.6 to 30.5 months). Atezolizumab did not significantly improve PFS (hazard ratio, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.71 to 1.10]; P = .28). Median PFS was 11.2 months (95% CI, 10.1 to 12.1 months) with atezolizumab versus 10.1 months (95% CI, 9.2 to 11.2 months) with standard therapy. Subgroup analyses generally showed consistent results, including analyses by PD-L1 status. The objective response rate (ORR) was 45% (95% CI, 39 to 52) with atezolizumab and 43% (95% CI, 36 to 49) with standard therapy. The safety profile was as expected from previous experience of these drugs., Conclusion: Combining atezolizumab with CT and maintenance niraparib for late-relapsing recurrent ovarian cancer did not significantly improve PFS or the ORR.

Objective: To assess patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with ovarian cancer (OC) who received niraparib as first-line maintenance therapy., Methods: PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 (NCT02655016) enrolled patients with newly diagnosed advanced OC who responded to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomized (2:1) to niraparib or placebo once daily in 28-day cycles until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or death. HRQoL was assessed as a prespecified secondary end point using patient-reported responses to the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QOL Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), the EORTC QLQ Ovarian Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-OV28), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovarian Symptom Index (FOSI), and EQ-5D-5L questionnaires. Assessments were collected at baseline and every 8 weeks (±7 days) for 56 weeks, beginning on cycle 1/day 1, then every 12 weeks (±7 days) thereafter while the patient received study treatment., Results: Among trial participants (niraparib, n = 487; placebo, n = 246), PRO adherence exceeded 80% for all instruments across all cycles. Patients reported no decline over time in HRQoL measured via EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/QoL and FOSI overall scores. Scores for abdominal/gastrointestinal symptoms (EORTC QLQ-OV28) and nausea and vomiting, appetite loss, and constipation (EORTC QLQ-C30) were higher (worse symptoms) in niraparib-treated patients than placebo-treated patients; except for constipation, these differences resolved over time. Patients did not self-report any worsening from baseline of fatigue, headache, insomnia, or abdominal pain on questionnaires., Conclusions: Despite some early, largely transient increases in gastrointestinal symptoms, patients with OC treated with niraparib first-line maintenance therapy reported no worsening in overall HRQoL., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. Pothuri reports institutional grant support from AstraZeneca, Celsion, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Genentech/Roche, GSK, I-Mab, Immunogen, Incyte, Karyopharm, Merck, Mersana, Onconova, Seagen, Sutro Biopharma, and Toray; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, GOG Foundation, Merck, and Seagen; support for attending meetings from GOG Partners; advisory board fees from Arquer Diagnostics, Atossa, Clovis Oncology, Deciphera, Eisai, Elevar Therapeutics, GOG Foundation, I-Mab, Immunogen, Lily, Merck, Mersana, Natera, Onconova, Regeneron, Sutro Biopharma, Tesaro/GSK, Toray, and VBL Therapeutic. Dr. Han has nothing to disclose. Dr. Chase reports consultant fees from AstraZeneca and GSK, and honoraria from AstraZeneca, GSK, Immunogen, and Seagen/Genmab. Dr. Heitz reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, GSK, Roche, and Tesaro; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Roche, and Tesaro. Dr. Burger reports receiving travel support from Genentech and Mersana Therapeutics, stock from Genentech and Mersana Therapeutics, and is an employee of Genentech and Mersana Therapeutics. Dr. Gaba reports consulting fees, advisory board, and honoraria fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD, and PharmaMar, and support for attending meetings from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, and MSD. Dr. Van Le has nothing to disclose. Dr. Guerra reports AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, Merck, Pharmamar, Roche, and Tesaro; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK/Tesaro, and Merck; payment for expert testimony from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, Merck, Tesaro; travel support from GSK, Roche, and Tesaro; advisory board participation for AstraZeneca, GSK, Merck, and Tesaro. Dr. Bender reports institutional grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology Inc., Genentech, MSD, and Tesaro. Dr. Korach serves in a leadership role for ISGO. Dr. Cloven reports advisory board fees from Aadii, GSK, Kartos 2022, Novita Pharmaceuticals 2023, Tarveda Therapeutics, Toray, Umoja 2022, and Zentalis. Dr. Churruca reports payment for expert testimony from PharmaMar and support for attending meetings from GSK, and MSD. Dr. Follana reports payment for expert testimony from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Daiichi, GSK, and Novartis; and support for attending meetings from AstraZeneca, Daiichi, GSK, and Novartis. Dr. DiSilvestro reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Immunogen; travel support from AstraZeneca; and leadership roles in the GOG Foundation Board of Directors and NRG Oncology Board of Directors. Dr. Baurain reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GSK, Immunocore, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Sun Pharma. Dr. Jardon has nothing to disclose (deceased). Dr. Pisano has nothing to disclose. Dr. Peen has nothing to disclose. Dr. Mäenpää reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eisai, and GSK. Dr. Gupta was an employee of GSK at the time the analysis was conducted; currently an employee of Mersana Therapeutics. Dr. Bacqué was an employee of GSK at the time the analysis was conducted; currently an employee of Repare Therapeutics. Dr. Li was an employee of GSK at the time the analysis was conducted and reports GSK stock ownership; currently an employee of Adagio Therapeutics. Ms. Compton is a former employee of GSK and currently receiving consulting fees from GSK. Dr. Antonova is a former employee of GSK. Dr. Monk reports consulting fees from Agenus, Akeso Biopharma, Amgen, Aravive, Bayer, Elevar, EMD Merck, Genmab/Seagen, GOG Foundation, Gradalis, ImmunoGen, Iovance, Karyopharm, MacroGenics, Mersana, Myriad, Novartis, Novocure, Pfizer, Puma, Regeneron, Sorrento, US Oncology Research, and VBL; and speakers' bureau honoraria from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Eisai, Merck, Roche/Genentech, and Tesaro/GSK. Dr. González-Martín reports manuscript funding from GSK; research/grant funding from Roche and Tesaro/GSK; advisory/consulting fees from Alkermes, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, HederaDx, ImmunoGen, Illunina, MacroGenics, Mersana, MSD, Novartis, Novocure, Oncoinvent, Pfizer/Merck, PharmaMar, Roche, Seagen, Sotio, Sutro, Takeda, and Tubuli; speaker bureau fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, PharmaMar, and Roche; and support for attending meetings from AstraZeneca, GSK, PharmaMar, and Roche., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of the O-RADS MRI criteria in the stratification of risk of malignancy of solid or sonographically indeterminate ovarian masses and assess the interobserver agreement of this classification between experienced and inexperienced radiologists., Methods: This single-centre retrospective study included patients from 2019 to 2022 with sonographically indeterminate or solid ovarian masses who underwent MRI with a specific protocol for characterisation according to O-RADS MRI specifications. Each study was evaluated using O-RADS lexicon by two radiologists, one with 17 years of experience in gynaecological radiology and another with 4 years of experience in general radiology. Findings were classified as benign, borderline, or malignant according to histology or stability over time. Diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement were assessed., Results: A total of 183 patients with US indeterminate or solid adnexal masses were included. Fifty-seven (31%) did not have ovarian masses, classified as O-RADS 1. The diagnostic performance for scores 2-5 was excellent with a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 97.4%, 100%, 96.2%, and 100%, respectively by the experienced radiologist and 96.1%, 92.0%, 93.9%, and 94.8% by the inexperienced radiologist. Interobserver concordance was very high (Kappa index 0.92). Almost all the misclassified cases were due to misinterpretation of the classification similar to reports in the literature., Conclusion: The diagnostic performance of O-RADS MRI determined by either experienced or inexperienced radiologists is excellent, facilitating decision-making with high diagnostic accuracy and high reproducibility. Knowledge of this classification and use of assessment tools could avoid frequent errors due to misinterpretation., Critical Relevance Statement: Up to 31% of ovarian masses are considered indeterminate by transvaginal US and 32% of solid lesions considered malignant by transvaginal US are benign. The O-RADs MRI accurately classifies these masses, even when used by inexperienced radiologists, thereby avoiding incorrect surgical approaches., Key Points: • O-RADS MRI accurately classifies indeterminate and solid ovarian masses by ultrasound. • There is excellent interobserver agreement between experienced and non-experienced radiologists. • O-RADS MRI is a helpful tool to assess clinical decision-making in ovarian tumours., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: The aim of our study was to elucidate the impact of bevacizumab added to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) on the tumor immune microenvironment and correlate the changes with the clinical outcome of the patients., Experimental Design: IHC and multiplex immunofluorescence for lymphoid and myeloid lineage markers were performed in matched tumor samples from 23 patients with ovarian cancer enrolled in GEICO 1205/NOVA clinical study before NACT and at the time of interval cytoreductive surgery., Results: Our results showed that the addition of bevacizumab to NACT plays a role mainly on lymphoid populations at the stromal compartment, detecting a significant decrease of CD4+ T cells, an increase of CD8+ T cells, and an upregulation in effector/regulatory cell ratio (CD8+/CD4+FOXP3+). None of the changes observed were detected in the intra-epithelial site in any arm (NACT or NACT-bevacizumab). No differences were found in myeloid lineage (macrophage-like). The percentage of Treg populations and effector/regulatory cell ratio in the stroma were the only two variables significantly associated with progression-free survival (PFS)., Conclusions: The addition of bevacizumab to NACT did not have an impact on PFS in the GEICO 1205 study. However, at the cellular level, changes in CD4+, CD8+ lymphocyte populations, and CD8+/CD4+FOXP3 ratio have been detected only at the stromal site. On the basis of our results, we hypothesize about the existence of mechanisms of resistance that could prevent the trafficking of T-effector cells into the epithelial component of the tumor as a potential explanation for the lack of efficacy of ICI in the first-line treatment of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. See related commentary by Soberanis Pina and Oza, p. 12., (©2023 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: Platinum-based doublets with concurrent and maintenance bevacizumab are standard therapy for ovarian cancer (OC) relapsing after a platinum-free interval (PFI) >6 months. Immunotherapy may be synergistic with bevacizumab and chemotherapy., Patients and Methods: ATALANTE/ENGOT-ov29 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02891824), a placebo-controlled double-blinded randomized phase III trial, enrolled patients with recurrent epithelial OC, one to two previous chemotherapy lines, and PFI >6 months. Eligible patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to atezolizumab (1,200 mg once every 3 weeks or equivalent) or placebo for up to 24 months, combined with bevacizumab and six cycles of chemotherapy doublet, stratified by PFI, PD-L1 status, and chemotherapy regimen. Coprimary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and PD-L1-positive populations (alpha .025 for each population)., Results: Between September 2016 and October 2019, 614 patients were randomly assigned: 410 to atezolizumab and 204 to placebo. Only 38% had PD-L1-positive tumors. After 3 years' median follow-up, the PFS difference between atezolizumab and placebo did not reach statistical significance in the ITT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.99; P = .041; median 13.5 v 11.3 months, respectively) or PD-L1-positive (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.16; P = .30; median 15.2 v 13.1 months, respectively) populations. The immature overall survival (OS) HR was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.65 to 1.01; median 35.5 v 30.6 months with atezolizumab v placebo, respectively). Global health-related quality of life did not differ between treatment arms. Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 88% of atezolizumab-treated and 87% of placebo-treated patients; grade ≥3 AEs typical of immunotherapy were more common with atezolizumab (13% v 8%, respectively)., Conclusion: ATALANTE/ENGOT-ov29 did not meet its coprimary PFS objectives in the ITT or PD-L1-positive populations. OS follow-up continues. Further research on biopsy samples is warranted to decipher the immunologic landscape of late-relapsing OC.

Background: The PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 (NCT02655016) trial was amended to prospectively evaluate the safety and efficacy of an individualized starting dose (ISD) regimen of niraparib for first-line maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer., Methods: In the phase 3 PRIMA trial, patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer with a complete/partial response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy (N = 733) were initially treated with a fixed starting dose (FSD) regimen of 300 mg once daily. Subsequently, the protocol was amended so newly enrolled patients received an ISD: 200 mg once daily in patients with baseline body weight < 77 kg or baseline platelet count < 150,000/µL, and 300 mg once daily in all other patients. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed by starting dose., Results: Overall, 475 (64.8%) patients were assigned to an FSD (niraparib, n = 317; placebo, n = 158) and 258 (35.2%) were assigned to an ISD (niraparib, n = 170; placebo, n = 88). Efficacy in patients who received FSD or ISD was similar for the overall (FSD hazard ratio [HR], 0.59 [95% CI, 0.46-0.76] vs. ISD HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.48-0.98]) and the homologous recombination-deficient (FSD HR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.30-0.64] vs. ISD HR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.22-0.72]) populations. In patients with low body weight/platelet count, rates of grades ≥3 and 4 hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events, dose interruptions, and dose reductions were lower for those who received ISD than for those who received FSD., Conclusions: In PRIMA, similar dose intensity, similar efficacy, and improved safety were observed with the ISD compared with the FSD regimen., (© 2023 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Cancer Society.)

Genomic Instability (GI) is a transversal phenomenon shared by several tumor types that provide both prognostic and predictive information. In the context of high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC), response to DNA-damaging agents such as platinum-based and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) has been closely linked to deficiencies in the DNA repair machinery by homologous recombination repair (HRR) and GI. In this study, we have developed the Scarface score, an integrative algorithm based on genomic and transcriptomic data obtained from the NGS analysis of a prospective GEICO cohort of 190 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumor samples from patients diagnosed with HGSOC with a median follow up of 31.03 months (5.87-159.27 months). In the first step, three single-source models, including the SNP-based model (accuracy = 0.8077), analyzing 8 SNPs distributed along the genome; the GI-based model (accuracy = 0.9038) interrogating 28 parameters of GI; and the HTG-based model (accuracy = 0.8077), evaluating the expression of 7 genes related with tumor biology; were proved to predict response. Then, an ensemble model called the Scarface score was found to predict response to DNA-damaging agents with an accuracy of 0.9615 and a kappa index of 0.9128 ( p < 0.0001). The Scarface Score approaches the routine establishment of GI in the clinical setting, enabling its incorporation as a predictive and prognostic tool in the management of HGSOC.

Background: Rucaparib is a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor approved in Europe as maintenance therapy for recurrent platinum-sensitive (Pt-S) ovarian cancer (OC). The Rucaparib Access Programme (RAP) was designed to provide early access to rucaparib for the above-mentioned indication, as well as for patients with BRCA-mutated Pt-S or platinum-resistant (Pt-R) OC and no therapeutic alternatives., Methods: In this observational, retrospective study we analysed the efficacy and safety of rucaparib within the RAP in Spain. Hospitals associated with the Spanish Ovarian Cancer Research Group (GEICO) recruited patients with high-grade epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer treated with rucaparib 600 mg twice daily as maintenance or treatment (Pt-S/Pt-R) in the RAP. Baseline characteristics, efficacy, and safety data were collected., Results: Between July 2020 and February 2021, 51 patients treated in 22 hospitals in the RAP were included in the study. Eighteen patients with a median of 3 (range, 1-6) prior treatment lines received rucaparib as maintenance; median progression-free survival (PFS) for this group was 9.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.2-11.6 months). Among 33 patients (median 5 [range, 1-9] prior treatment lines) who received rucaparib as treatment, 7 and 26 patients had Pt-S and Pt-R disease, respectively. Median PFS was 10.6 months (95% CI, 2.5 months-not reached) in the Pt-S group and 2.2 months (95% CI, 1.1-3.2 months) in the Pt-R group. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 39% of all patients, the most common being anaemia (12% and 15% in the maintenance and treatment groups, respectively). At data cut-off, 5 patients remained on treatment., Conclusion: Efficacy results in these heavily pre-treated patients were similar to those from previous trials. The safety profile of rucaparib in real life was predictable and manageable., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Germline and tumor BRCA testing constitutes a valuable tool for clinical decision-making in the management of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients. Tissue testing is able to identify both germline (g) and somatic (s) BRCA variants, but tissue preservation methods and the widespread implementation of NGS represent pre-analytical and analytical challenges that need to be managed. This study was carried out on a multicenter prospective GEICO cohort of EOC patients with known gBRCA status in order to determine the inter-laboratory reproducibility of tissue sBRCA testing. The study consisted of two independent experimental approaches, a bilateral comparison between two reference laboratories (RLs) testing 82 formalin-paraffin-embedded (FFPE) EOC samples each, and a Ring Test Trial (RTT) with five participating clinical laboratories (CLs) evaluating the performance of tissue BRCA testing in a total of nine samples. Importantly, labs employed their own locally adopted next-generation sequencing (NGS) analytical approach. BRCA mutation frequency in the RL sub-study cohort was 23.17%: 12 (63.1%) germline and 6 (31.6%) somatic. Concordance between the two RLs with respect to BRCA status was 84.2% (g BRCA 100%). The RTT study distributed a total of nine samples (three commercial synthetic human FFPE references, three FFPE, and three OC DNA) among five CLs. The median concordance detection rate among them was 64.7% (range: 35.3-70.6%). Analytical discrepancies were mainly due to the minimum variant allele frequency thresholds, bioinformatic pipeline filters, and downstream variant interpretation, some of them with consequences of clinical relevance. Our study demonstrates a wide range of concordance in the identification and interpretation of BRCA sequencing data, highlighting the relevance of establishing standard criteria for detecting, interpreting, and reporting BRCA variants.