Search

Background CAN-003 was a randomized, open-label, Phase 2 trial evaluating the safety, efficacy and immune outcomes of CVac, a mucin 1 targeted-dendritic cell (DC) treatment as a maintenance therapy to patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).Methods Patients (n = 56) in first (CR1) or second clinical remission (CR2) were randomized (1:1) to standard of care (SOC) observation or CVac maintenance treatment. Ten doses were administered over 56 weeks. Both groups were followed for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).Results Fifty-six patients were randomized: 27 to SOC and 29 to CVac. Therapy was safe with only seven patients with Grade 3–4 treatment-emergent adverse events. A variable but measurable mucin 1 T cell-specific response was induced in all CVac-treated and some standard of care (SOC) patients. Progression free survival (PFS) was not significantly longer in the treated group compared to SOC group (13 vs. 9 months, p = 0.36, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.73). Analysis by remission status showed in the CR1 subgroup a median PFS of 18 months (SOC) vs. 13 months (CVac); p = 0.69 (HR = 1.18; CI 0.52–2.71). However CR2 patients showed a longer median PFS in the CVac-treated group (median PFS not yet reached, >13 vs. 5 months; p = 0.04, HR = 0.32 CI). OS for CR2 patients at 42 months of follow-up showed a difference of 26 months for SOC vs. > 42 months for CVac-treated (as median OS had not been reached; HR = 0.17 (CI 0.02–1.4) with a p = 0.07).Conclusions CVac, a mucin 1-dendritic cell maintenance treatment was safe and well tolerated in ovarian cancer patients. A variable but observed CVac-derived, mucin 1-specific T cell response was measured. Notably, CR2 patients showed an improved PFS and lengthened OS. Further studies in CR2 ovarian cancer patients are warranted (NCT01068509).Trial registration NCT01068509. Study Initiation Date (first patient screened): 20 July 2010. Study Completion Date (last patient observation): 20 August 2013, the last patient observation for progression-free survival; 29 April 2015, the last patient was documented regarding overall survival.

Objective: We report updated results with longer follow-up in patients with MSI-H/dMMR endometrial cancer (EC) in cohort D (advanced EC of any MSI/dMMR status) and cohort K (any MSI-H/dMMR advanced solid tumor, except colorectal) of the phase 2 KEYNOTE-158 study (NCT02628067) and the first results from patients with non-MSI-H/non-dMMR advanced EC (cohort D)., Methods: Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W for ≥35 cycles. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1 by central review. Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety., Results: As of January 12, 2022, median (range) follow-up in the MSI-H/dMMR (n = 94) and non-MSI-H/non-dMMR (n = 96) groups was 54.5 (14.7-71.4) and 68.3 (64.3-71.9) months, respectively. The ORR (95 % CI) was 50 % (40 %-61 %) in the MSI-H/dMMR group; 15 patients (16 %) experienced a complete response, 32 (34 %) experienced a partial response. The ORR (95 % CI) in the non-MSI-H/non-dMMR group was 7 % (3 %-14 %); 7 patients (7 %) experienced a partial response, none experienced a complete response. The estimated 4-year DOR rates were 66 % and 56 %, respectively. Median PFS was 13.1 (95 % CI, 4.3-25.7) months in the MSI-H/dMMR group and 2.1 (95 % CI, 2.1-2.2) months in the non-MSI-H/non-dMMR group. Median OS was 65.4 (95 % CI, 29.5-not reached) and 11.1 (95 % CI, 8.1-15.3) months, respectively. Toxicity was manageable in both groups., Conclusions: These results continue to support pembrolizumab as a standard-of-care option for MSI-H/dMMR advanced EC in patients with disease progression following prior systemic therapy who are not candidates for curative surgery or radiation., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest David M. O'Malley: Reports funding to institution during the conduct of the study and medical writing support from Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA; reports personal fees as a consultant and/or advisory board member from: AbbVie, AdaptImmune, Agenus,Inc., Arquer Diagnostics, Arcus Biosciences, Inc., AstraZeneca, Atossa Therapeutics, Boston Biomedical, Cardiff Oncology, Celcuity, Clovis Oncology, Corcept Therapeutics, Duality Bio, Eisai, Elevar, Exelixis, Genentech Inc., Genelux, GlaxoSmithKline, GOG Foundation, Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., ImmunoGen, Inc., Imvax, InterVenn, INXMED, IOVANCE Biotherapeutics, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Laekna, Leap Therapeutics, Inc., Luzsana Biotechology, Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA, MSD, Mersana Therapeutics,Inc., Myriad, Novartis, NovoCure, OncoC4, Inc., Onconova, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., RepImmune, R Pharm, Roche Diagnostics, Seattle Genetics (SeaGen), Sorrento, Sutro Biopharma, Tarveda Therapeutics, Toray, Trillium, Umoja, Verastem, Inc., VBL Therapeutics, Vincerx Pharma, Xencor, Zentalis; research funding (all funding to institution) from: AbbVie, Advaxis, Agenus,Inc., Alkermes, Aravive, Inc., Arcus Biosciences, Inc., AstraZeneca, BeiGene USA, Inc., Boston Biomedical, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Deciphera Pharma, Eisai, EMD Serono, Inc., Exelixis, Genentech Inc., Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, GOG Foundation, Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., ImmunoGen, Inc., Incyte Corporation, IOVANCE Biotherapeutics, Karyopharm, Leap Therapeutics, Inc., Ludwig Institute for Ca, Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA, MSD, Mersana Therapeutics, Inc., NCI, Novartis, NovoCure, NRG Oncology, OncoC4, Inc., OncoQuest Inc., Pfizer Inc., Precision Therapeutics, Inc., Prelude Therapeutics, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., RTOG, Rubius Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics (SeaGen), Sutro Biopharma, SWOG, Verastem, Inc.; participation in Data Safety Monitoring Board for Frantz Viral Therapeutics; member of Board of Directors for GOG Foundation. Giovanni Mendonca Bariani: Research funding from Mabxience; Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA; Bristol Myers Squibb. Advisory role: Libbs. Philippe A. Cassier: Reports funding to institution during the conduct of the study from MSD; grants/contracts to institution from: AbbVie, ADCT, Adlai Nortye, Amgen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Blueprint, C4 Therapeutics, Debio Pharm, Daiichi Sankyo, Dragonfly, Exelixis, Incyte, Iteos, Janssen, Kinnate, Lilly, Molecular Partners, Novartis, Ose Immunotherapeutics, Pierre Fabre, Relay, Roche/Genentech, Sotio, Taiho, Tango, Toray, Turningpoint, and Transgene; consulting fees from: Boehringer Ingelheim, Ose Immunotherapeutics, Scenic, Brenus, and BMS; support for travel from: Novartis; receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts or other services to institutions from Debio Pharm, Novartis, and GSK. Aurelien Marabelle: Reports funding for the present manuscript from MSD; grants/contracts from Fondation MSD Avenir; consulting fees, honoraria, and support for travel from MSD; leadership or fiduciary role in SITC, FITC; and receipt of drug supply for academic trial from MSD. Aaron R. Hansen: Reports receipt of grants/contracts to the institution from: Advancell, AVEO, BMS, Janssen, Macrogenics, MSD, Seagen, Roche, and Tyra Biosciences; consulting fees from: Astellas, Bayer, Eisai, and MSD; and support for travel from: Bayer. Ana De Jesus Acosta: Nothing to disclose. Wilson H. Miller, Jr: Reports receipt of grants/contracts to institution from: CIHR, CRS, Terry Fox Research Institute, Samuel Waxman Cancer Research Foundation, and CCSRI; consulting fees from Merck, BMS, Roche, GSK, Novartis, Amgen, Mylan, EMD Serono, and Sanofi; honoraria from: McGill University, JGH, BMS, Merck, Roche, GSK, Novartis, Amgen, Mylan, EMD Serono, and Sanofi; other financial or non-financial interests from: BMS, Novartis, GSK, Roche, AstraZeneca, Methylgene, MedImmune, Bayer, Amgen, Merck, Incyte, Pfizer, Sanofi, Array, MiMic, Ocellaris Pharma, Astellas, Alkermes, Exelixis, VelosBio, Genentech, Seagen, and Zymeworks. Tamar Safra: Nothing to disclose. Antoine Italiano: Grants or contracts and honoraria, and participation in Data Safety Monitoring Board from Bayer, MSD, Merck, GSK, Roche, AstraZeneca, Parthenon, and Daiichi. Research funding from AstraZeneca, GSK, BMS, Roche, Pharmamar, IPSEN, Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA; AstraZeneca; Merck Serono; and Bayer. Personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA; AstraZeneca; Bayer; Bristol Myers Squibb; Epizyme; and Roche. Linda Mileshkin: Reports medical writing support for the present manuscript from MSD. Lili Yao: Employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA, and owns stock in Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. Alexander Gozman: Employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA; and owns stock in Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. Fan Jin: Employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA and owns stock in Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. Michele Maio: Advisor/board member for Roche; Bristol Myers Squibb; Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA; Incyte; AstraZeneca; Amgen; Pierre Fabre; Eli Lilly; GlaxoSmithKline; Sanofi; Alfasigma; Merck Serono; Honoraria for Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb; Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA; AstraZeneca; Amgen; Pierre Fabre; Eli Lilly; GlaxoSmithKline; Sciclone; Sanofi; Alfasigma; Merck Serono; Owns stock in Epigen Therapeutics., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Phase 1 oncology trials provide access to new therapies and may improve cancer outcomes. Phase 1 trials conducted in the Asian-Pacific region are increasing at a faster rate than the global trend. This study aimed to describe the changing landscape of phase 1 oncology trials in Australia in the last decade., Methods: This cross-sectional study reviewed phase 1 oncology trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov conducted in Australia. Phase 1 trials were included for analysis if they enrolled adults with solid organ malignancies, used at least one systemic agent, and were first registered between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2022. The number of trials, site locations, sponsor type, and drug class were analyzed using descriptive statistics., Results: Over the 10-year period, ClinicalTrials.gov included 493 phase 1 clinical trials across 71 Australian sites. Most sites were in metropolitan locations; in Melbourne, trials were concentrated within selected sites, while in Sydney, trials were spread across a larger number of sites. The number of phase 1 trials per annum increased from 18 in 2012 to 75 in 2022. Since 2020, emerging biopharmaceutical companies have become the predominant sponsor type, a trend that is also seen globally. While most trial sponsors were North American (42%), there was increasing representation from Asian sponsors over the 10-year period (6% in 2012 to 39% in 2022). Immunomodulatory (45%) and targeted approaches (44%) accounted for most drug classes used alone or in combination., Conclusions: There are an increasing number of phase 1 trials conducted within Australia. Sponsors of phase 1 trials are increasingly from Asian countries and are more likely to be emerging biopharmaceutical companies., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

The use of circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) to profile mutational signatures represents a non-invasive opportunity for understanding cancer mutational processes. Here we present MisMatchFinder, a liquid biopsy approach for mutational signature detection using low-coverage whole-genome sequencing of ctDNA. Through analysis of 375 plasma samples across 9 cancers, we demonstrate that MisMatchFinder accurately infers single-base and doublet-base substitutions, as well as insertions and deletions to enhance the detection of ctDNA and clinically relevant mutational signatures., Competing Interests: Competing interests The authors declare the following competing interests: S.-J.D. is an advisory board member for Adela. The remaining authors declare no competing interests., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Recent success of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-targeted antibody-drug-conjugate trastuzumab-deruxtecan in HER2-low and HER2-positive tumors has sparked interest in examining the HER2 status of tumors not traditionally associated with HER2 amplification. Despite the increasing number of systemic treatment options, patients with advanced endometrial cancer (EC) still face a poor prognosis. This study evaluates HER2-low status in over 800 EC, correlating HER2 with both molecular and clinical features., Methods: HER2 status was determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and dual in situ hybridization (DISH) on four studies of previously classified high-risk EC (PORTEC-3 and Medical Spectrum Twente cohort), recurrent or metastatic EC (DOMEC), and a primary stage IV cohort. EC was classified as HER2-negative (IHC 0), HER2-low (IHC 1+/2+ without amplification), or HER2-positive (IHC 3+ or DISH-confirmed amplification). Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards models assessed the independence of any prognostic impact of HER2 status., Results: HER2 status was determined in 806 EC: 74.8% were HER2-negative, 17.2% HER2-low, and 7.9% HER2-positive. HER2-low was found across all molecular classes and histotypes. The highest rates of HER2-low and HER2-positive tumors were in recurrent or metastatic EC (35.6% and 15.6%), followed by primary stage IV EC (29.9% and 12.4%) and high-risk EC (14.2% and 6.8%). HER2 status had no independent prognostic value., Conclusion: A quarter of high-risk, metastatic, or recurrent EC exhibited HER2 overexpression. The presence of HER2 overexpression in all clinical and molecular categories highlights the need for broad testing and offers treatment options for a wide range of patients.

Background: Combining PARP inhibitors (PARPis) with immune checkpoint inhibitors may improve clinical outcomes in selected cancers. We evaluated rucaparib and atezolizumab in advanced gynaecological or triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC)., Methods: After identifying the recommended dose, patients with PARPi-naive BRCA-mutated or homologous recombination-deficient/loss-of-heterozygosity-high platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer or TNBC received rucaparib plus atezolizumab. Tumour biopsies were collected pre-treatment, during single-agent rucaparib run-in, and after starting combination therapy., Results: The most common adverse events with rucaparib 600 mg twice daily and atezolizumab 1200 mg on Day 1 every 3 weeks were gastrointestinal effects, fatigue, liver enzyme elevations, and anaemia. Responding patients typically had BRCA-mutated tumours and higher pre-treatment tumour levels of PD-L1 and CD8 + T cells. Markers of DNA damage repair decreased during rucaparib run-in and combination treatment in responders, but typically increased in non-responders. Apoptosis signature expression showed the reverse. CD8 + T-cell activity and STING pathway activation increased during rucaparib run-in, increasing further with atezolizumab., Conclusions: In this small study, rucaparib plus atezolizumab demonstrated acceptable safety and activity in BRCA-mutated tumours. Increasing anti-tumour immunity and inflammation might be a key mechanism of action for clinical benefit from the combination, potentially guiding more targeted development of such regimens., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03101280)., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

The Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) Endometrial Cancer Consensus Conference on Clinical Research (ECCC) was held in Incheon, South Korea, Nov 2-3, 2023. The aims were to develop consensus statements for future trials in endometrial cancer to achieve harmonisation on design elements, select important questions, and identify unmet needs. All 33 GCIG member groups participated in the development, refinement, and finalisation of 18 statements within four topic groups, addressing adjuvant treatment in high-risk disease; treatment for metastatic and recurrent disease; trial designs for rare endometrial cancer subgroups and special circumstances; and specific methodology and adaptation for trials in low-resource settings. In addition, eight areas of unmet need were identified. This was the first GCIG Consensus Conference to include patient advocates and an expert on inclusion, diversity, equity, and access to take part in all aspects of the process and output. Four early-career investigators were also selected for participation, ensuring that they represented different GCIG member groups and regions. Unanimous consensus was obtained for 16 of the 18 statements, with 97% concordance for the remaining two. Using the described methodology from previous Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conferences, this conference did not require even one minority statement. The high acceptance rate following active involvement in the preparation, discussion, and refinement of the statements by all representatives confirmed the consensus progress within a global academic setting, and the expectation that the ECCC will lead to greater harmonisation, actualisation, inclusion, and resolution of unmet needs in clinical research for individuals living with and beyond endometrial cancer worldwide., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests All authors report that the KGOG paid for their 2-night hotel stay and basic meals during the 2 days of the ECCC on Clinical Research meeting. CLC reports a research grant paid to her institution from Varian; payment to her institution for participation on a data safety monitoring board from Merck; and unpaid roles as chair of GCIG Endometrial Committee and member of Guidelines Committees for Endometrial cancer of the European Society of Gynaecologic Oncology (ESGO) and the European Society of Radiotherapy and Oncology. GE reports personal consulting fees from MSD, personal fees from Eisai, and support for attending a meeting or travel from MSD. LE reports personal consulting fees AstraZeneca, GSK, and MSD; personal fees from AstraZeneca and GSK, and support for attending a meeting or travel from AstraZeneca and GSK. RAN reports research grants paid to his institution from Elekta, Varian, and Accuray; and payment to his institution for presentations from Elekta and MSD. DL reports research grants both personal and paid to her institution from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, MSD, Novartis, Pharmamar, and Seagen; personal grants from Corcept, Oncoinvest, and Sutro; and grants to her institution from Incyte and Roche; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Corcept, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, MSD, Novartis, Oncoinvest, Pharmamar, Seagen, and Sutro; payment for presentations from Clovis Oncology, Corcept, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, MSD, Novartis, Oncoinvest, Pharmamar, Seagen, and Sutro; support for attending a meeting or travel from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, MSD and GSK; and payments for participation on a data safety monitoring board from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Corcept, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, MSD, Novartis, Oncoinvest, Pharmamar, Seagen, and Sutro. AO reports research grants paid to his institution from AstraZeneca; consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, uncompensated participation on data and safety monitoring boards of studies funded by AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline; and unpaid roles as principal investigator on investigator-initiated trials and on steering committees of trials funded by AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline. BP reports research grants from Tesaro/GSK, Merck, AstraZeneca, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Sutro, Incyte, Clovis Oncology, Roche/Genentech, Mersana, Celsion/Immunon, Imab, Takeda, Toray, VBL Therapeutics, InxMed, Agenus, Seagen, NRG Oncology, Duality Bio, Xencor, Onconova, Celgene, Sutro Biopharma, Novocure, Immunogen, Eisai, Acrivon, and Alkermes; consulting fees from Tesaro/GSK, AstraZeneca, Merck, Immunogen, Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) Foundation, SeaGen, Lily, Eisai, Signatera, Celsion, Butro Biopharma, Imvax, Incyte, InxMed, Onconova Therapeutics, R Pharm, Regeneron, and Duality Bio; payment for presentations from Bioascend, PERS, Vanium, Curio, OncLive, Yale University and PeerView; support for attending a meeting or travel from GOG Partners, payment for participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from Sutro, AstraZeneca, GOG Foundation, Celsion/Immunon, Toray, InxMed, Imvax, Imab, Tesaro/GSK, Merck, Mersana, Nuvation, and BioNtech; and unpaid leadership roles in boards, societies and committees: Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) Clinical Practice Committee Chair, SGO Board of Directors, SGO COVID-19 Taskforce co-chair, GOG Partners, and New York Obstetrical Society Second VP. BH reports textbook royalties from Elsevier; consulting fees from Tempus; honoraria for lectures from Leica and Projects in Knowledge; and unpaid leadership roles on the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists Board of Directors (as member at large) and on the Endometrial Cancer MSI Committee of the College of American Pathologists. IR-C reports research grants from AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK, Mersana, BMS, and MSD; payment for presentations from AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK, Mersana, BMS, MSD, Roche, Pharmamar, Seagen, Eisai, and Novartis; support for attending a meeting or travel from Roche, GSK, AstraZeneca, Pharmamar, and MSD; and payment for participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from Clovis, Deciphera, Adaptimmue, Sutro, and Immunogen. DG reports support for attending meetings or travel from IGCS Board of Directors; payment for participation on a data and safety monitoring board from Merck, and a leadership role in NRG Oncology. AM reports payment for participation as independent statistician on data safety monitoring boards from ONY Biotech, Regeneron, and Genentech/Roche. NC reports payments or honoraria for presentations from GSK, Seagen, Akesobio, AstraZeneca, eTheRNA immunotherapies NV, Kartos, MSD, Mersana, ImmunoGen, Eisai, Seattle Genetics, TouchIME, and Medscape Oncology; support for attending a meeting or travel from Roche, Genmab, and Amgen; payment for participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from GSK, Mersana, Seagen, ImmunoGen, Akesobio, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Mersana, Seattle Genetics, eTheRNA immunotherapies NV, and Kartos; and leadership roles as President of ESGO and Chair of European Network for Gynaecological Oncological Trial groups Early Drug Development Network. MAP reports grants paid to his institution from GSK; payment for participation on a data and safety monitoring board from GSK, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Merck, Immunogen, Clovis Oncology, Jazz Pharma, and SeaGen; and payment to his institution for a leadership role on a board or committee from NRG Oncology. MAB reports payment to his institution for participation on a data and safety monitoring board from Immunogen; and employment as physician at The Permanente Medical Group. J-WK, EA, SIK, J-YP, LM, PBO, AB, DM, VG, TB, CG, TM, HW, XM-G, WS, and GS declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Importance: Cervical cancer is a common and lethal cancer worldwide. Bintrafusp alfa is a first-in-class bifunctional fusion protein composed of the extracellular domain of the human transforming growth factor β receptor II (or transforming growth factor β trap) fused via a flexible linker to the C-terminus of each heavy chain of an immunoglobulin G1 antibody blocking programmed cell death 1 ligand 1., Objective: To evaluate the safety and response rates of bintrafusp alfa in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer., Design, Setting, and Participants: This phase 2 nonrandomized controlled trial evaluated bintrafusp alfa monotherapy in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer with disease progression during or after platinum-based chemotherapy. Data were collected from March 2020 to February 2022., Intervention: Patients received bintrafusp alfa, 1200 mg, intravenously once every 2 weeks., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was confirmed objective response rate per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 by an independent review committee., Results: At data cutoff, 146 of 203 screened patients received 1 or more doses of bintrafusp alfa; of these, the median (range) age was 53 (24-79) years. The study met its primary end point of a 95% CI above the objective response rate benchmark of 15%, with a confirmed objective response rate of 21.9% (95% CI, 15.5-29.5) per the independent review committee. Of these patients, 19 (59.4%) had a durable response of 6 months or more. At data cutoff, responses were ongoing in 13 of 32 responders (40.6%). The most common treatment-related adverse events were anemia (25 [17.1%]), rash (21 [14.4%]), hypothyroidism (15 [10.3%]), and pruritus (15 [10.3%]). Any-cause adverse events of special interest included anemia (82[56.2%]), bleeding events (81 [55.5%]), and immune-related adverse events (49 [33.6%])., Conclusions and Relevance: This phase 2 nonrandomized controlled trial of bintrafusp alfa met its primary end point, which may support the potential of a bispecific therapy targeting transforming growth factor β and programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04246489.

Background: Patients with unfavourable subset cancer of unknown primary (CUP) have a poor prognosis when treated with standard platinum-based chemotherapy. Whether first-line treatment guided by comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) can improve outcomes is unknown. The CUPISCO trial was designed to inform a molecularly guided treatment strategy to improve outcomes over standard platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed, unfavourable, non-squamous CUP. The aim of the trial was to compare the efficacy and safety of molecularly guided therapy (MGT) versus standard platinum-based chemotherapy in these patients. This was to determine whether the inclusion of CGP in the initial diagnostic work-up leads to improved outcomes over the current standard of care. We herein report the primary analysis., Methods: CUPISCO was a phase 2, prospective, randomised, open-label, active-controlled, multicentre trial done at 159 sites in 34 countries outside the USA. Patients with central eligibility review-confirmed disease (acceptable histologies included adenocarcinoma and poorly differentiated carcinoma) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, evaluated by CGP, who reached disease control after three cycles of standard first-line platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned 3:1 via a block-stratified randomisation procedure to MGT versus chemotherapy continuation for at least three further cycles. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03498521, and follow-up is ongoing., Findings: From July 10, 2018, to Dec 9, 2022, 636 (42%) of 1505 screened patients were enrolled. Median follow-up in the treatment period was 24·1 months (IQR 11·6-35·6). Of 438 patients who reached disease control after induction chemotherapy, 436 were randomly assigned: 326 (75%) to the MGT group and 110 (25%) to the chemotherapy group. Median progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population was 6·1 months (95% CI 4·7-6·5) in the MGT group versus 4·4 months (4·1-5·6) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·56-0·92]; p=0·0079). Related adverse event rates per 100-patient-years at risk were generally similar or lower with MGT versus chemotherapy., Interpretation: In patients with previously untreated, unfavourable, non-squamous CUP who reached disease control after induction chemotherapy, CGP with subsequent MGTs resulted in longer progression-free survival than standard platinum-based chemotherapy. On the basis of these results, we recommend that CGP is performed at initial diagnosis in patients with unfavourable CUP., Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests All authors received research funding in the form of third-party medical writing assistance from F Hoffmann-La Roche. AK reports research funding for a clinical trial in CUP from Bristol Myers Squibb; research funding for a clinical trial in CUP from Molecular Health; and consulting fees, support for attending meetings or travel, or both, participation in a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from F Hoffmann-La Roche. TB was study oncologist for the CUPISCO trial for F Hoffman-La Roche and received remuneration for this work for the benefit of employer, and support for attending meetings or travel, or both. CP reports travel, accommodation, or expenses and additional costs linked to the study (paid to institution), and investigator fees from F Hoffmann-La Roche. K-KS reports grants or contracts (paid to institution for running trials) from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, AstraZeneca, and Merck; consulting fees (personal) from Nouscom; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events (personal) from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Servier, Seagen, and Nouscom; support for attending meetings or travel (personal), or both, from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, and Merck; and an advisory board (personal) for Mirati Therapeutics. NCo reports honoraria, advisory board membership, support for attending meetings or travel, or both, from F Hoffman-La Roche; a patent pending, application number GB2317261.2; an advisory or leadership role for CUP Foundation (Jo's Friends; unpaid); and research support to team from AstraZeneca, Orion, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Taiho, GSK, Novartis, Starpharma, Bayer, Eisai, UCB, Redx Pharmaceuticals, Stemline Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, AstraZeneca, Cancer Research UK, Orion, and LOXO-Oncology. JJdM reports support for attending meetings or travel, or both, from Bristol Myers Squibb. RAP-C reports medical writing and processing fees from Astellas, Ipsen, Roche, BeiGene, and Bristol Myers Squibb; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Eisai, Bristol Myers Squibb, Astellas, Roche, Amgen, and Eli Lilly; payment for expert testimony from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Bristol Myers Squibb; support for attending meetings or travel, or both, from Roche, Lilly, Astellas, and Bristol Myers Squibb; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca, Roche, and Ipsen. FL reports grants or contracts from Lilly and Merck Sharp & Dohme; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Lilly, Merck, Sanofi, and Roche; and support for attending meetings or travel, or both from Lilly, Merck, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. DGJR reports consulting fees from Merck, Pfizer, and Astellas; payment for honoraria, lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Gilead and Merck Sharp & Dohme; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Janssen and AstraZeneca. JT reports consulting fees from Servier and Bristol Myers Squibb; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Servier, Bayer, and Ipsen; and reports support for attending meetings or travel, or both (American Society of Clinical Oncology Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2022), from Zentiva and Roche. CA reports research grants from Roche, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, AstraZeneca, Nektar, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, Amgen, Incyte, and Bayer; advisory boards for Novartis, Merck, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, Teva, Astellas, and Bristol Myers Squibb; and peakers bureaus for Bristol Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, Teva, Amgen, and Bayer. MÖ reports an advisory board, honoraria, and travel support from Janssen; additional costs linked to the study (paid to institution), investigator fees, and honoraria from F Hoffmann-La Roche; an advisory board and honoraria from Sanofi; an advisory board and honoraria for Astellas; honoraria from Novartis; travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb; and travel support and speaker support from AstraZeneca. MS reports honoraria for lectures F Hoffmann-La Roche. FB reports additional costs linked to the study and investigator fees from F Hoffmann-La Roche; an advisory board for AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Bristol Myers Squibb; speakers bureaus for AstraZeneca and Bristol Myers Squibb; and travel support or accommodation from Takeda, Merck Sharp & Dohme. SYK reports research funding (paid to institution; principal investigator since 2019) from F Hoffmann-La Roche; honorarium for lecture (May, 2023) from LG Chem; honorarium for lecture (August, 2023) from Merck Sharp & Dohme Korea; an advisory board (December, 2021) for Ono Korea; and an advisory board (December, 2022) for Guardant Health. YN reports research funding (paid to institution) from AbbVie, Ono, Daiichi Sankyo, Taiho, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Chugai, and Bayer; payment for honoraria, lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events (personal) from AstraZeneca, Eisai, Ono, Gardant, Takeda, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Chugai, PDR pharma, Nihon Kayaku, Taiho, Bristol Myers Squibb, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. AI reports additional costs linked to the study, investigator fees, advisory role, honoraria, and research funding from F Hoffmann-La Roche; an advisory role and honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo; an advisory role for Immune Design; an advisory role and honoraria from Epizyme; an advisory role and honoraria from Bayer and Lilly; patents, royalties, or intellectual property from Bristol Myers Squibb; honoraria from Novartis and Ipsen; and research funding from AstraZeneca–MedImmune, PharmaMar, Merck Sharp & Dohme Oncology, and Merck Serono. NCh reports being an employee and holding stocks or shares at F Hoffmann-La Roche. GD-P reports being an employee and holding stocks or shares at F Hoffmann-La Roche. CM reports being an employee of F Hoffmann-La Roche. JS reports being an employee and holding stocks or shares at F Hoffmann-La Roche. MT reports being an employee and holding stocks or shares at F Hoffmann-La Roche, and patents planned, issued, or pending (antibodies against human CSF-1R and uses thereof; modulators for HER2 signalling in HER2 expressing patients with gastric cancer) from F Hoffmann-La Roche. JSR reports being an employee of Foundation Medicine; and holding stocks or shares at Roche Holdings. HM reports research funding (paid to institution), consulting fees, and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for F Hoffmann-La Roche; and an advisory role and honoraria for lectures from Amgen, Astellas, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Merck, Stemline Therapeutics. LM reports additional costs linked to the CUPISCO trial (paid to institution), support for the presentation of the CUPISCO trial results and associated publication; and travel and accommodation expenses to attend the 2023 European Society for Medical Oncology meeting and present the CUPISCO trial results from F Hoffmann-La Roche., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Ovarian cancer has the highest mortality among gynecologic cancers, primarily because it typically is diagnosed at a late stage and because of the development of chemoresistance in recurrent disease. Improving outcomes in women with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer is a substantial unmet need. Activation of the glucocorticoid receptor (GR) by cortisol has been shown to suppress the apoptotic pathways used by cytotoxic agents, limiting their efficacy. Selective GR modulation may be able to counteract cortisol's antiapoptotic effects, enhancing chemotherapy's efficacy. A previous phase 2 study has shown that adding intermittently dosed relacorilant, a selective GR modulator, to nab-paclitaxel improved outcomes, including progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), with minimal added toxicity, in women with recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. The ROSELLA study aims to confirm and expand on these findings in a larger population., Methods: ROSELLA is a phase 3, randomized, 2-arm, open-label, global multicenter study in women with recurrent, platinum-resistant, high-grade serous epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer. Eligible participants have received 1 to 3 lines of prior systemic anticancer therapy, including ≥1 prior line of platinum therapy and prior treatment with bevacizumab, with documented progressive disease or intolerance to the most recent therapy. There is no biomarker-based requirement for participant selection. Participants are randomized 1:1 to receive intermittently dosed relacorilant in combination with nab-paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel monotherapy. The study's primary efficacy endpoint is PFS as assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary efficacy endpoints include OS, investigator-assessed PFS, objective response rate, best overall response, duration of response, clinical benefit rate at 24 weeks, and cancer antigen 125 response. The study is also evaluating safety and patient-reported outcomes., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05257408; European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database Identifier: 2022-000662-18., Competing Interests: Alexander B. Olawaiye: Grants/research support, Corcept Therapeutics, AstraZeneca; Honoraria or consultation fees, AstraZeneca, GSK, Merck, Genentech., (© 2024. Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology, Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology, and Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology.)

Objective: To investigate cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in plasma and ascites and its association with clinical outcomes (paracentesis-free interval, overall survival) and CA125 level in participants with advanced ovarian cancer, treated with palliative intraperitoneal bevacizumab to delay re-accumulation of ascites., Methods: cfDNA was extracted from 0.3 to 1 mL samples from 20/24 participants of the REZOLVE trial. Standard and methylation-specific PCRs were performed to measure 3 biomarkers: total cfDNA (Alu), tumour-derived cfDNA (ctDNA, methylated IFFO1 promoter) and endothelium-derived cfDNA (ec-cfDNA, unmethylated CDH5 promoter). Values were correlated to clinical outcomes., Results: cfDNA was detected in all samples, with higher yield in ascites (mean 669 ng/mL) than plasma (mean 75 ng/mL, p < 0.0001). Ascites had a higher ctDNA proportion than plasma (74 % vs. 20 %, p < 0.0001) and plasma had a higher ec-cfDNA proportion than ascites (24 % vs. 16 %, p < 0.002). High ctDNA proportion (>75 %) in ascites was associated with a significantly shorter paracentesis-free interval (median interval 47.5 versus 84 days, hazard ratio (HR) 2.21, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 5.73, p = 0.039) and ctDNA presence in plasma was unfavourable for survival (median survival 56 versus 242 days, HR 3.21, 95 % CI 1.15 to 9.00, p = 0.008). A significant positive correlation was observed between ctDNA proportion in plasma and CA125 level (p = 0.012). No significant difference in total cfDNA, ctDNA nor ec-cfDNA was observed between participants who were responders versus non-responders., Conclusion: Sufficient cfDNA was detected in both plasma and ascites to study three biomarkers. These samples can provide useful information and should be considered in the design of future ovarian cancer trials., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest KW declares potential financial conflict of interest due to stock ownership in the following companies that are developing cell-free DNA based clinical assays: Guardant Heath; Exact Sciences; EpiGenomics AG. All other authors declare no competing financial interests., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Patients with unfavorable carcinoma of unknown primary origin (CUP) have an extremely poor prognosis of ∼1 year or less, stressing the need for more tailored treatments, which are currently being tested in clinical trials. CUPISCO (NCT03498521) was a phase II randomized study of targeted therapy/cancer immunotherapy versus platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated, unfavorable CUP, defined as per the European Society for Medical Oncology guidelines. We present a preliminary, descriptive molecular analysis of 464 patients with stringently diagnosed, unfavorable CUP enrolled in the CUPISCO study., Materials and Methods: Genomic profiling was carried out on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue to detect genomic alterations and assess tumor mutational burden and microsatellite instability., Results: Overall, ∼32% of patients carried a potentially targetable genomic alteration, including PIK3CA, FGFR2, ERBB2, BRAF V600E , EGFR, MET, NTRK1, ROS1, and ALK. Using hierarchical clustering of co-mutational profiles, 10 clusters were identified with specific genomic alteration co-occurrences, with some mirroring defined tumor entities., Conclusions: Results reveal the molecular heterogeneity of patients with unfavorable CUP and suggest that genomic profiling may be used as part of informed decision-making to identify the potential primary tumor and targeted treatment options. Whether stringently diagnosed patients with unfavorable CUP benefit from targeted therapies in a similar manner to those with matched known primaries will be a key learning from CUPISCO., Competing Interests: Disclosure CBW reports honoraria from Bayer, Celgene, Ipsen, Servier, Taiho, and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, has participated in advisory boards for Celgene, Shire/Baxalta, Rafael Pharmaceuticals, RedHill BioPharma, and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, and has received travel/accommodation expenses from Bayer, Celgene, RedHill BioPharma, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Servier, and Taiho. JFG is an employee of and has stocks/shares in F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. CP has received an institutional research grant from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, works as a study pathologist for the CUPISCO trial, and has received travel coverage and remuneration for study-related work such as histopathology reviews for patients in screening and in molecular tumor boards, for the benefit of her employer. ARK, NCh, and GDP are employees of and hold stocks/shares in F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. AB was an employee of F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. TB has received an institutional research grant from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, works as a study oncologist for the CUPISCO trial, and has received coverage for study-related travel and remuneration for study-related work in a molecular tumor board for the benefit of his employer. NCo has participated in an advisory board for RedX Pharmaceuticals and has received institutional research funding from AstraZeneca, Orion, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Taiho, GSK, Novartis, Starpharma, Bayer, Eisai, UCB, RedX Pharmaceuticals, Stemline Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Avacta Pharmaceuticals, and Tarveda Therapeutics. EH is an employee of and holds stocks/shares in F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. DXJ is an employee of Foundation Medicine, Inc. and holds stocks/shares in F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. FL has received institutional research funding from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Amgen, and Merck, has received travel/accommodation expenses from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and Merck, has participated in an advisory board for F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Amgen, Merck, Sanofi, and Servier, and has participated in a speaker bureau/expert testimony for F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and Sanofi. LM has received travel/accommodation expenses from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and BeiGene. HM has received honoraria from or has participated in advisory boards for F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Ventana, Definiens, Merck, BMS, Astellas, Johnson & Johnson, Bayer, Ipsen, and Amgen, has received travel/accommodation expenses from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and Definiens, and has received institutional research funding from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. JSR has received honoraria from, holds stocks/shares in, and has a leadership role in Foundation Medicine, Inc. ESS is an employee of Foundation Medicine, Inc. and holds stocks/shares in F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. RWT has received honoraria from Merck Serono Australia. AK has received honoraria from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Daiichi Sankyo, and AbbVie, honoraria to his institution from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and Bayer, has a leadership role in F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, has received institutional research funding from Merck and Bayer, has received travel/accommodation expenses from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Celgene, and Daiichi Sankyo, and has acted as an advisory consultant for Daiichi Sankyo, BMS, and AbbVie. All authors received research support (medical writing support) from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Personalised oncology, whereby patients are given therapies based on their molecular tumour profile, is rapidly becoming an essential part of optimal clinical care, at least partly facilitated by recent advances in next-generation sequencing-based technology using liquid- and tissue-based biopsies. Consequently, clinical trials have shifted in approach, from traditional studies evaluating cytotoxic chemotherapy in largely histology-based populations to modified, biomarker-driven studies (e.g. basket, umbrella, platform) of molecularly guided therapies and cancer immunotherapies in selected patient subsets. Such modified study designs may assess, within the same trial structure, multiple cancer types and treatments, and should incorporate a multistakeholder perspective. This is key to generating complementary, fit-for-purpose and timely evidence for molecularly guided therapies that can be used as proof-of-concept to inform further study designs, lead to approval by regulatory authorities and be used as confirmation of clinical benefit for health technology assessment bodies. In general, the future of cancer clinical trials requires a framework for the application of innovative technologies and dynamic design methodologies, in order to efficiently transform scientific discoveries into clinical utility. Next-generation, modified studies that involve the joint efforts of all key stakeholders will offer individualised strategies that ultimately contribute to globalised knowledge and collective learning. In this review, we outline the background and purpose of such modified study designs and detail key aspects from a multistakeholder perspective. We also provide methodological considerations for designing the studies and highlight how insights from already-ongoing studies may address current challenges and opportunities in the era of personalised oncology., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interests The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships, which may be considered as potential competing interests: Christophe Le Tourneau has received honoraria from Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Merck Serono, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Nanobiotix, GlaxoSmithKline, Celgene, Rakuten Medical and Seattle Genetics; has had a consulting/advisory role for Amgen, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, AstraZeneca, Nanobiotix, GlaxoSmithKline, Celgene, Rakuten, Seattle Genetics and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd; has received research funding from MSD; and has received travel/accommodation expenses from MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb and AstraZeneca. Fabrice André has received institutional research funding from F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Daiichi Sankyo. Åslaug Helland has received honoraria to her institution for talks and advice given to AstraZeneca, Roche, Janssen, Bayer, Novartis, Takeda, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, MSD, BMS, Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Merck and Sanofi; and has received research funding from Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, Ultimovacs, Incyte, Eli Lilly and Novartis. Linda Mileshkin has received travel/accommodation expenses from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and BeiGene. Warnyta Minnaard is the cofounder, director and volunteer at Missie Tumor Onbekend, the CUP patient charity in the Netherlands; is also employed by Noaber Ventures; has received honoraria for various presentations at Dutch hospitals in regards to CUP and various presentations to healthcare industry companies (including pharma) on the CUP patient charity to her institution; has received meeting/travel support from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd; and is a volunteer for Stichting Cancer of Unknown Primary Platform—the Netherlands (CUPP-NL). Anja Schiel is an employee of the Norwegian Medicines Agency and acted as Vice-Chair on the EUnetHTA 21 Committee for Scientific Consistency and Quality Joint Scientific Consultations. Kjetil Taskén has received honoraria to his institution for talks and advice given to Roche, Novartis, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bayer and Kite/Gilead. David M. Thomas is supported by an NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1195742), as well as grants, personal fees and non-financial support from F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Pfizer and Bayer; grants and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, Amgen, Eli Lilly and Eisai; personal fees from Omico; and non-financial support from Elevation Oncology, outside the submitted work. Maria Luisa Veronese is an employee of Incyte International Biosciences Sàrl. Gonzalo Durán-Pacheco, Lada Leyens, Kaspar Rufibach and Marlene Thomas are employees of and hold stock/shares in F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. Alwin Krämer has received honoraria from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Daiichi Sankyo and AbbVie; has received honoraria to his institution from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and Bayer; has a leadership role in F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd; has received institutional research funding from Merck and Bayer; has received travel/accommodation expenses from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Celgene and Daiichi Sankyo; and has acted as an advisory consultant for Daiichi Sankyo, BMS and AbbVie. All authors received research support (medical writing support) from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The aim of this study was to investigate the antitumour activity, safety, and tolerability of pamiparib plus tislelizumab in patients with previously treated advanced solid tumours., Methods: In this study, patients were enrolled into eight arms by tumour type. All received pamiparib 40 mg orally twice daily plus tislelizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR), assessed by the investigator per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours v1.1. Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DoR), safety, and tolerability., Results: Overall, 180 patients were enrolled. In the overall population, the ORR was 20.0% (range: 0-47.4 across study arms), with median DoR of 17.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.2, not estimable [NE]). The highest ORR was observed in the triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) arm (patients with BRCA1/2 mutations and/or homologous recombination deficiency) (ORR: 47.4%; median DoR: 17.1 months [95% CI: 3.0, NE]). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of ≥Grade 3 occurred in 61.7% of patients. Serious TEAEs occurred in 50.0% of patients., Conclusions: Pamiparib plus tislelizumab showed a variable level of antitumour activity in patients with advanced solid tumours, with the highest ORR in TNBC and was associated with a manageable safety profile., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT02660034., (© 2023. Crown.)

Background: Diagnosis and management of cancers of unknown primary (CUP) remain challenging. This study examines the referral patterns, management and outcomes of patients referred to Australia's first dedicated CUP clinic., Methods: Retrospective medical record review was conducted for patients seen at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre CUP clinic between July 2014 and August 2020. Overall survival (OS) was analysed for patients with a CUP diagnosis where treatment information was available., Results: Of 361 patients referred, fewer than half had completed diagnostic work-up at the time of referral. A diagnosis of CUP was established in 137 (38%), malignancy other than CUP in 177 (49%) and benign pathology in 36 (10%) patients. Genomic testing was successfully completed in 62% of patients with initial provisional CUP and impacted management in 32% by identifying a tissue of origin or actionable genomic alteration. The use of site-specific, targeted therapy or immunotherapy was independently associated with longer OS compared to empirical chemotherapy., Conclusion: Our specialised CUP clinic facilitated diagnostic work-up among patients with suspected malignancy and provided access to genomic testing and clinical trials for patients with a CUP diagnosis, all of which are important to improve outcomes in this patient population., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Introduction: People with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with immunotherapies (IT) or targeted therapies (TT) may have improved outcomes in a subset of people who respond, raising unique psychological concerns requiring specific attention. These include the need for people with prolonged survival to reframe their life plans and tolerate uncertainty related to treatment duration and prognosis. A brief intervention for people with advanced cancer, Managing Cancer and Living Meaningfully (CALM), could help people treated with IT or TT address these concerns. However, CALM has not been specifically evaluated in this population. This study aims to evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of CALM in people with advanced NSCLC treated with IT or TT and obtain preliminary evidence regarding its effectiveness in this population., Methods and Analysis: Twenty people with advanced NSCLC treated with IT or TT will be recruited from Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia. Participants will complete three to six sessions of CALM delivered over 3-6 months. A prospective, single-arm, mixed-methods pilot study will be conducted. Participants will complete outcome measures at baseline, post-intervention, 3 months and 6 months, including Patient Health Questionnaire, Death and Dying Distress Scale, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy General and Clinician Evaluation Questionnaire. The acceptability of CALM will be assessed using patient experiences surveys and qualitative interviews. Feasibility will be assessed by analysis of recruitment rates, treatment adherence and intervention delivery time., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics approval has been granted by the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/82047/PMCC). Participants with cancer will complete a signed consent form prior to participation, and carers and therapists will complete verbal consent. Results will be made available to funders, broader clinicians and researchers through conference presentations and publications. If CALM is found to be acceptable in this cohort, this will inform a potential phase 3 trial., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Aim: To catalogue and compare the pattern of metastatic disease in germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic mutation carriers and non-carriers with breast, ovarian and prostate cancer from a rapid autopsy programme., Methods and Results: The number of metastases in the major body systems and the proportion of participants with metastases were documented in 50 participants (19 germline mutation carriers). Analysis was conducted on the participants' pattern of disease for the different cancers and mutation subgroups. The four commonly affected organ systems were the digestive (liver only) (82%), respiratory (76%), gastrointestinal (65%) and reticuloendothelial (42%). There were significant differences in the pattern of metastatic breast cancer in BRCA1/2 germline carriers compared with non-carriers. Breast cancer carriers had significantly fewer organ systems involved (median n = 3, range = 1-3) compared with non-carriers (median n = 9, range = 1-7) (P = 0.03). BRCA1/2 carriers with ovarian carcinomas had significantly more organ systems with metastatic carcinoma (median n = 10, range = 3-8) than non-carriers (median n = 5, range = 3-5) (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the number of involved systems in BRCA2 carriers compared with non-carriers with prostate cancer (P = 1.0). There was an absence of locoregional disease (6.5%) compared with distant disease (93.5%) among the three cancer subtypes (P < 0.001). The majority of metastatic deposits (97%) collected during the autopsy were identified by recent diagnostic imaging., Conclusion: Even though a major limitation of this study is that our numbers are small, especially in the breast cancer carrier group, the metastatic patterns of breast and ovarian cancers may be impacted by BRCA1/2 carrier status, suggesting that tumours derived from patients with these mutations use different mechanisms of dissemination. The findings may focus clinical diagnostic imaging for monitoring metastases where whole-body imaging resources are scant., (© 2023 The Authors. Histopathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Epidemiological evidence supports an association between higher levels of physical activity and improved cancer survival. Trial evidence is now needed to demonstrate the effect of exercise in a clinical setting. The E xercise during CH emotherapy for O varian cancer (ECHO) trial is a phase III, randomised controlled trial, designed to determine the effect of exercise on progression-free survival and physical well-being for patients receiving first-line chemotherapy for ovarian cancer., Methods and Analysis: Participants (target sample size: n=500) include women with newly diagnosed primary ovarian cancer, scheduled to receive first-line chemotherapy. Consenting participants are randomly allocated (1:1) to either the exercise intervention (plus usual care) or usual care alone, with stratification for recruitment site, age, stage of disease and chemotherapy delivery (neoadjuvant vs adjuvant). The exercise intervention involves individualised exercise prescription with a weekly target of 150 minutes of moderate-intensity, mixed-mode exercise (equivalent to 450 metabolic equivalent minutes per week), delivered for the duration of first-line chemotherapy through weekly telephone sessions with a trial-trained exercise professional. The primary outcomes are progression-free survival and physical well-being. Secondary outcomes include overall survival, physical function, body composition, quality of life, fatigue, sleep, lymphoedema, anxiety, depression, chemotherapy completion rate, chemotherapy-related adverse events, physical activity levels and healthcare usage., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics approval for the ECHO trial (2019/ETH08923) was granted by the Sydney Local Health District Ethics Review Committee (Royal Prince Alfred Zone) on 21 November 2014. Subsequent approvals were granted for an additional 11 sites across Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory. Findings from the ECHO trial are planned to be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and international exercise and oncology conferences., Trial Registration Number: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ANZCTRN12614001311640; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=367123&isReview=true)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Australian Genomics is a national collaborative partnership of more than 100 organizations piloting a whole-of-system approach to integrating genomics into healthcare, based on federation principles. In the first five years of operation, Australian Genomics has evaluated the outcomes of genomic testing in more than 5,200 individuals across 19 rare disease and cancer flagship studies. Comprehensive analyses of the health economic, policy, ethical, legal, implementation and workforce implications of incorporating genomics in the Australian context have informed evidence-based change in policy and practice, resulting in national government funding and equity of access for a range of genomic tests. Simultaneously, Australian Genomics has built national skills, infrastructure, policy, and data resources to enable effective data sharing to drive discovery research and support improvements in clinical genomic delivery., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests R.L.W. is the Chair of the Medical Services Advisory Committee; the views in this paper are not representing those of the Commonwealth of Australia. I.E.S. has served on scientific advisory boards for BioMarin, Chiesi, Eisai, Encoded Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Knopp Biosciences, Nutricia, Rogcon, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, UCB, and Xenon Pharmaceuticals; has received speaker honoraria from GlaxoSmithKline, UCB, BioMarin, Biocodex, Chiesi, Liva Nova, Nutricia, Zuellig Pharma, and Eisai; has received funding for travel from UCB, Biocodex, GlaxoSmithKline, Biomarin, and Eisai; has served as an investigator for Anavex Life Sciences, Cerecin Inc, Cerevel Therapeutics, Eisai, Encoded Therapeutics, EpiMinder Inc, Epygenyx, ES-Therapeutics, GW Pharma, Marinus, Neurocrine BioSciences, Ovid Therapeutics, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, UCB, Ultragenyx, Xenon Pharmaceuticals, Zogenix, and Zynerba; and has consulted for Care Beyond Diagnosis, Epilepsy Consortium, Atheneum Partners, Ovid Therapeutics, UCB, Zynerba Pharmaceuticals, BioMarin, Encoded Therapeutics, and Biohaven Pharmaceuticals; and is a Non-Executive Director of Bellberry Ltd and a Director of the Australian Academy of Health and Medical Sciences and the Australian Council of Learned Academies Limited. She may accrue future revenue on pending patent WO61/010,176 (filed: 2008): Therapeutic Compound; has a patent for SCN1A testing held by Bionomics Inc and licensed to various diagnostic companies; and has a patent molecular diagnostic/theranostic target for benign familial infantile epilepsy (BFIE) (PRRT2) 2,011,904,493 & 2,012,900,190 and PCT/AU2012/001,321 (TECH ID:2012-009)., (Copyright © 2023 American Society of Human Genetics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Disclosure AK reports personal fees as an invited speaker from Roche; fees paid to his institution for advisory board membership from Roche; institutional funding from Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS); non-remunerated role as a principal investigator for Roche. TB reports fees paid to his institution as a study oncologist, for expert testimony and study-related travel expenses from Roche. CP reports fees paid to her institution as an invited speaker from Roche; institutional funding as a coordinating principal investigator from Roche. GB reports personal fees for advisory board membership from Gensenta; institutional funding as a Steering Committee member from Bayer; non-remunerated roles as a principal investigator for Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD) and Roche; member of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). SD reports personal fees as an invited speaker from Bracco Germany; non-remunerated leadership role as President (2010-2012) and Vice-President (2012-2014) of DEGUM (German Ultrasound Society); non-remunerated role as member and chairman of the ‘Radiation Protection in Medicine’ (2017-2020) working group for the Radiation Protection Commission (SSK) at the German Federal Ministry of Environmental Protection. KH has reported no potential conflicts of interest. LM reports a non-remunerated role as co-chair of the Steering Committee for the CUPISCO trial from Roche. HM reports personal fees as an invited speaker from Amgen and Roche; personal fees for advisory board membership from AstraZeneca, Janssen and Merck; institutional funding from Roche. KO reports institutional funding from BioClavis, BioTheranostics and Leica; non-remunerated advisory role as member of Steering Group for Early Detection and Diagnosis of Cancer Roadmap for Cancer Research UK and as member of Innovation Expert Advisory Group (EAG) for NHS England Cancer Innovation Programme; co-author of the RCPath dataset on CUP and malignancy of unknown origin for the Royal College of Pathologists; Cancer Research UK affiliate at the Beatson Institute; member of the National Cancer Research Institute (UK). AP reports personal fees for a congress subscription from Amgen; personal fees for advisory board membership in urothelial cancer from Basilea; personal fees for congress expenses from Janssen. HW reports personal fees as an invited speaker and for advisory board membership from Array BioPharma, Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Erytech, Incyte, Merck KGaA, Pierre Fabre, Servier Sirtex Medical and Roche/Genentech; personal fees for consultancy from OnoSil; personal fees for an advisory role and as a Trial Steering Committee member from Zymeworks; personal fees and institutional funding for an advisory role, as a coordinating principal investigator and member of Trial Steering Committee from Sirtex Medical; non-remunerated advisory roles with Bayer, Pfizer and Pierre Fabre. GZ reports personal fees as an invited speaker from Amgen, Ipsen, Leo Pharma and Merck. GP is the Chief Medical Officer for ESMO and member of ASCO and the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group and the Hellenic Society of Medical Oncology (HeCOG). KF reports personal fees for advisory board membership from Curevac and Orion; fees paid to his institution as an invited speaker from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and Sanofi; fees paid to his institution for advisory board membership from AAA, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen, MSD, Novartis/AAA and Pfizer; institutional funding as trial chair from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Janssen, MSD, Orion and Pfizer; non-remunerated role as principal investigator and trial chair for Bayer, BMS, Merck, Novartis/AAA and Orion. TO has declared no conflicts of interest.

High-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSC) is frequently characterized by homologous recombination (HR) DNA repair deficiency and, while most such tumors are sensitive to initial treatment, acquired resistance is common. We undertook a multiomics approach to interrogate molecular diversity in end-stage disease, using multiple autopsy samples collected from 15 women with HR-deficient HGSC. Patients had polyclonal disease, and several resistance mechanisms were identified within most patients, including reversion mutations and HR restoration by other means. We also observed frequent whole-genome duplication and global changes in immune composition with evidence of immune escape. This analysis highlights diverse evolutionary changes within HGSC that evade therapy and ultimately overwhelm individual patients., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature America, Inc.)

Introduction: The FIGO 2018 staging of cervix cancer recognizes a total of 11 categories of loco-regionally advanced cervix cancer (LRACC). Whilst incorporating imaging is an improvement over clinical staging (FIGO 2009), this had led to more categories of disease which are not prognostically discrete groups. We aimed to analyze survival according to 2018 FIGO stages of cervix cancer and identify isoprognostic groups of patients based on primary tumor volume and nodal status., Methods: Patients referred for radiotherapy with curative intent between 1996 and 2014 were eligible. Baseline clinico-pathological and follow up information was retrieved from an ethics-approved institutional prospective database. Patients were classified according to FIGO 2018 staging based on histo-pathology, MRI (tumor volume and local compartmental spread assessment) and PET results (nodal spread). Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival at five years. Following survival analysis using recognized prognostic factors, isoprognostic categories were identified and merged to form 5 isoprognostic groups., Results: Seven hundred and forty-four LRACC patients were included. The median (IQR) follow-up was 5.1 (2.6-8.4) yrs. Stage migration occurred in most patients, showing heterogeneous 5 years survival according to 2018 FIGO stages. In contrast progressively worsening prognosis could be demonstrated in the 5 observed isoprognostic clusters (p < 0.002)., Conclusion/implications: Prognosis in LRACC depends on the interplay between primary tumor characteristics, type of local spread and nodal disease. A prospective study of survival and patterns of failure according to isoprognostic clusters would be useful to determine the most appropriate treatment modality and estimate survival as well as better patient selection for clinical trials., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Little is known about the healthcare resource usage and costs for patients with cancer of unknown primary (CUP)., Objective: The aim of this study was to describe and quantify healthcare resource use and costs in Australia, 6 months prior to and after a diagnosis of CUP, and compare to those of women with ovarian cancer., Methods: Individual-level data combining baseline surveys, clinical records and Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) claim records were analysed for 149 patients with CUP and 480 patients with ovarian cancer from two prospective cohort studies. MBS data were aggregated for the period 6 months prior to diagnosis date and 6 months after diagnosis. Data included doctor consultations, pathology, diagnostics, therapeutic procedures, imaging, allied health and medicines. Generalised linear models were used to evaluate the cost differences between CUP and ovarian cancer using gamma family and log link functions. Models were adjusted for age, employment, marital status, surgery, chemotherapy and number of comorbidities., Results: The mean healthcare costs in the 6 months prior to diagnosis of CUP were Australian (AU) $3903 versus AU$1327 for ovarian cancer (adjusted cost ratio 2.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.08-4.15). Mean healthcare costs 6 months post-diagnosis were higher for patients with CUP versus ovarian cancer (AU$20,339 vs AU$13,819, adjusted cost ratio 1.47, 95% CI 1.13-1.92). Higher costs for patients with CUP were driven by imaging (AU$1937 vs AU$1387), procedures (AU$5403 vs AU$2702) and prescribed medicines for all conditions (AU$10,111 vs AU$6717)., Conclusions: Pre-diagnosis costs for patients with CUP are nearly triple those for ovarian cancer. Six months after diagnosis, healthcare costs for CUP remained higher than for ovarian cancer due to imaging, procedures and medicines., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) is a syndrome defined by clinical absence of a primary cancer after standardised investigations. Gene expression profiling (GEP) and DNA sequencing have been used to predict primary tissue of origin (TOO) in CUP and find molecularly guided treatments; however, a detailed comparison of the diagnostic yield from these two tests has not been described. Here, we compared the diagnostic utility of RNA and DNA tests in 215 CUP patients (82% received both tests) in a prospective Australian study. Based on retrospective assessment of clinicopathological data, 77% (166/215) of CUPs had insufficient evidence to support TOO diagnosis (clinicopathology unresolved). The remainder had either a latent primary diagnosis (10%) or clinicopathological evidence to support a likely TOO diagnosis (13%) (clinicopathology resolved). We applied a microarray (CUPGuide) or custom NanoString 18-class GEP test to 191 CUPs with an accuracy of 91.5% in known metastatic cancers for high-medium confidence predictions. Classification performance was similar in clinicopathology-resolved CUPs - 80% had high-medium predictions and 94% were concordant with pathology. Notably, only 56% of the clinicopathology-unresolved CUPs had high-medium confidence GEP predictions. Diagnostic DNA features were interrogated in 201 CUP tumours guided by the cancer type specificity of mutations observed across 22 cancer types from the AACR Project GENIE database (77,058 tumours) as well as mutational signatures (e.g. smoking). Among the clinicopathology-unresolved CUPs, mutations and mutational signatures provided additional diagnostic evidence in 31% of cases. GEP classification was useful in only 13% of cases and oncoviral detection in 4%. Among CUPs where genomics informed TOO, lung and biliary cancers were the most frequently identified types, while kidney tumours were another identifiable subset. In conclusion, DNA and RNA profiling supported an unconfirmed TOO diagnosis in one-third of CUPs otherwise unresolved by clinicopathology assessment alone. DNA mutation profiling was the more diagnostically informative assay. © 2022 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland., (© 2022 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.)

Background: Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) is a heterogeneous group of metastatic cancers where a primary tissue of origin (TOO) is uncertain. Most patients with CUP have limited treatment options and poor survival outcomes. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can be efficacious in some patients with CUP, but the optimal predictive biomarkers are unknown. We therefore assessed immune and genomic biomarkers as well as predicted TOO in patients with CUP, including a subset treated with ICIs., Methods: Patients with CUP were subject to gene-expression profiling (GEP) and DNA panel sequencing. Immune and stromal-related gene expression was explored by NanoString, including genes associated with immunotherapy response (IR) in other solid malignancies. ICI responsive cancer types were assigned based on Food and Drug Administration-approved indications, and either detection of a latent primary tumor or the TOO was suspected based on genomics informed pathology review. Tumor mutation burden (TMB) and gene mutations were also assessed., Results: A total of 219 patients with CUP were included, 215 assessed for TOO in a previous study, with the majority (163) receiving both RNA and DNA tests. Of GEP profiled cases, 33% (59/175) had a high IR gene-expression score. Of the DNA sequenced cases, 16% (32/203) had high TMB (>10 mutations/Mb), including two with mismatch repair deficiency. Low correlation was observed between TMB and an IR score (R=0.26, p<0.001). Among 110 CUPs with a latent primary or suspected TOO, 47% (52/110) belonged to ICI-responsive cancer types. More than half of the CUPs had at least one feature that may predict ICI response (high IR score, high TMB, ICI-responsive cancer type). Among patients with CUP treated with ICIs, 8/28 (29%) responded (2 complete responses and 6 partial responses). Among non-responders, 9 had stable and 11 had progressive disease. All responders had a high IR score (7/8) and/or high TMB (3/8), while most (5/8) belonged to ICI-responsive cancer types. These features were detected at a lower frequency in non-responders and mostly in patients with stable disease., Conclusions: A significant fraction of CUP tumors had genomic features previously associated with ICI response. High IR score was the most sensitive predictive feature of ICI response, warranting evaluation in a larger patient series., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: RJH is a shareholder in Telix Pharmaceuticals and a Founder and Director of PreMIT. CSK is on the advisory board of AstraZeneca, BMS and Roche. CS is on the advisory board of MSD, Sanofi, Janssen, and GSK. ADeF has received grant funding from AstraZeneca, unrelated to this study; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Women with advanced endometrial carcinoma (EC) with mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency have improved outcomes when treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors; however, additional biomarkers are needed to identify women most likely to respond. Scores for programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1), immunohistochemical staining of tumor (TC+), immune cells (IC+) and presence of tumor-associated immune cells (ICP) on MMR deficient (n = 34) and proficient (n = 33) EC from women treated with durvalumab in the PHAEDRA trial (ANZGOG1601/CTC0144) (trial registration number ACTRN12617000106336, prospectively registered 19 January 2017) are reported and correlated with outcome. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses and area under the ROC curve were used to determine optimal cutpoints. Performance was compared with median cutpoints and two algorithms; a novel algorithm derived from optimal cutpoints (TC+ ≥ 1 or ICP ≥ 10 or IC+ ≥ 35) and the Ventana urothelial carcinoma (UC) algorithm (either TC+ ≥ 25, ICP > 1 and IC+ ≥ 25 or ICP = 1 and IC+ = 100). The cutpoint ICP ≥ 10 had highest sensitivity (53%) and specificity (82%), being prognostic for progression-free survival (PFS) (p = 0.01), while the optimal cutpoints algorithm was associated with overall survival (p = 0.02); these results were not significant after adjusting for MMR status. The optimal cutpoints algorithm identified non-responders (p = 0.02) with high sensitivity (88%) and negative predictive value (92%), remaining significant after adjustment for MMR. Although MMR status had the strongest association with response, further work to determine the significance of ICP ≥ 10 and the novel optimal cutpoint algorithm is needed.

Objective: Palliative care improves outcomes for patients with thoracic cancer; however, limited evidence exists for the benefits of this approach for caregivers. This study aimed to advance understanding of the experiences of palliative care described by bereaved caregivers., Methods: Fifteen adult caregivers completed semi-structured interviews following prior participation in a randomised controlled trial of early referral to palliative care versus discretionary referral to palliative care. Interviews explored caregiver experiences of palliative care delivery. Interview transcripts were thematically analysed., Results: Four related themes about the experiences of palliative care were identified, each of which required sufficient time between palliative care first contact and death: 'relationship building'; 'clear communication and information'; 'access to practical support'; and 'access to psychosocial support'. The core category underpinning these themes was palliative care facilitates caregiver preparedness. Caregivers noted that palliative care played a critical role in preparing them for the future and described a sense of practical and emotional 'relief' associated with the support services made available to them., Conclusion: Our findings emphasise that palliative care can have a positive impact on caregivers' preparedness for providing the care needed by thoracic cancer patients and that this can improve the experiences of both caregivers and patients., (© 2022 The Authors. European Journal of Cancer Care published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: Patients diagnosed with Cancer of Unknown Primary (CUP) experience high levels of psychological distress and report poor understanding of their cancer. We aimed to investigate: (1) if CUP patients with poorer understanding of their cancer diagnosis and testing experience more symptoms of psychological distress than those with better understanding; (2) if the relationship between patients' understanding of their cancer and psychological distress is mediated by illness uncertainty; and (3) explore whether patients' degree of understanding of their cancer can be predicted by clinical and socio-demographic factors., Methods: 209 CUP patients completed a questionnaire measuring anxiety, depression, illness uncertainty, fatigue, pain, sleep and understanding of their cancer. Using an apriori theoretical framework, we employed structural equation modelling to investigate predictors of patient's understanding of their cancer and psychological distress and the relationships between understanding, illness uncertainty and distress., Results: The structural equation model displayed good fit indices and supported the hypothesised relationship of patient's understanding of their cancer and the extent of psychological distress, which was mediated via illness uncertainty. Physical symptoms were positively associated with psychological distress and illness uncertainty. Younger age was predictive of lower patient's understanding of their cancer and higher levels of psychological distress., Conclusions: Patients with CUP, particularly those who are younger and experiencing more physical symptoms, report higher levels of psychological distress and may require additional mental health support. Our findings highlight a need to improve CUP patient's understanding about their illness, which could help reduce their illness uncertainty and alleviate psychological distress., (© 2022 The Authors. Psycho-Oncology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: To better serve women with gynaecological cancers, we need a sound understanding of their health, wellbeing and needs. This study sought to explore these issues in a sample of Australian women before commencing curative radiotherapy., Methods: We undertook a secondary analysis of baseline data from a supportive care trial (n = 311). Descriptive statistics were used to summarise responses to measures of wellbeing, general psychological distress, symptom distress, sexual function and vaginal changes, and supportive care needs. Pre-specified regression models were used to examine sources of variation in wellbeing and sexual function., Results: Women reported lower emotional, functional and physical wellbeing than population norms (all p < 0.001). The prevalence of general psychological distress was 31% (95% CI 26-36%). Distress caused by physical symptoms was typically low. Health system and information needs comprised eight of the top ten moderate-to-high supportive care needs. Most women reported no change in interest for physical contact or sex compared to pre-diagnosis, but some sexually active women (16-24%) reported smaller vaginal size, increased dryness, and more pain on intercourse. General psychological distress was a robust marker of poorer wellbeing and sexual function., Conclusions: Before radiotherapy, a substantial minority of women with gynaecological cancers experience general psychological distress, reduced wellbeing and moderate-to-high health system and information needs. A model of comprehensive care incorporating assessment of unmet needs, general psychological distress, and sexual issues is recommended. Healthcare providers may require training to elicit and respond to a constellation of interrelated issues and access relevant services for women requiring additional support., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest All authors declare no potential sources of conflict of interest., (Crown Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: This study aimed to determine the healthcare experiences, quality of life, and psychosocial needs of patients with cancer of unknown primary (CUP) early after diagnosis; comparing their experiences to patients with advanced cancer of a known primary (non-CUP control patients) and published general population reference data where available., Methods: This study was a cross-sectional, multi-site study comparing CUP patients (n = 139) compared to non-CUP controls (n = 45). Demographic, clinical information and patient-reported outcome questionnaire data were collected at baseline., Results: Differences in healthcare experienced were found between CUP and non-CUP controls with CUP patients reporting higher scores for unmet medical communication/information needs compared with non-CUP control patients (p = 0.013) as well as greater uncertainty in illness (p = 0.042). Whilst no differences were found between CUP and non-CUP controls on the EORTC and PROMIS measures, of those that 'received written information about your cancer…' and asked '…how useful was it?' fewer CUP patients reported finding the information useful 40% vs 61%, and more were likely to not have received written information at all 59% vs 32%; (p = 0.002). Additionally, of those that found information about their cancer online, fewer patients with CUP reported finding it useful 32% vs 48% control patients (p = 0.005)., Conclusions: CUP patients have unmet medical communication/information needs and greater uncertainty in illness but do not differ in health-related quality of life domains compared to patients with advanced cancer of a known primary., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: While multiple clinical trials have demonstrated benefits of early palliative care for people with cancer, access to these services is frequently very late if at all. Establishing evidence-based, disease-specific 'triggers' or times for the routine integration of early palliative care may address this evidence-practice gap., Aim: To test the feasibility of using defined triggers for the integration of standardised, early palliative (STEP) care across three advanced cancers., Method: Phase II, multi-site, open-label, parallel-arm, randomised trial of usual best practice cancer care +/- STEP Care conducted in four metropolitan tertiary cancer services in Melbourne, Australia in patients with advanced breast, prostate and brain cancer. The primary outcome was the feasibility of using triggers for times of integration of STEP Care, defined as enrolment of at least 30 patients per cancer in 24 months. Triggers were based on hospital admission with metastatic disease (for breast and prostate cancer), or development of disease recurrence (for brain tumour cohort). A mixed method study design was employed to understand issues of feasibility and acceptability underpinning trigger points., Results: The triggers underpinning times for the integration of STEP care were shown to be feasible for brain but not breast or prostate cancers, with enrolment of 49, 6 and 10 patients across the three disease groups respectively. The varied feasibility across these cancer groups suggested some important characteristics of triggers which may aid their utility in future work., Conclusions: Achieving the implementation of early palliative care as a standardized component of quality care for all oncology patients will require further attention to defining triggers. Triggers which are 1) linked to objective points within the illness course (not dependent on recognition by individual clinicians), 2) Identifiable and visible (heralded through established service-level activities) and 3) Not reliant upon additional screening measures may enhance their feasibility., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Collins, Sundararajan, Le, Mileshkin, Hanson, Emery and Philip.)

Objective: Pembrolizumab demonstrated a clinically meaningful objective response rate in patients with previously treated, advanced MSI-H/dMMR endometrial cancer in the multicohort phase 2 KEYNOTE-158 study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02628067). We present health-related quality of life (HRQoL) results for these patients., Methods: This analysis included patients from cohorts D (endometrial cancer with any MSI status) and K (any MSI-H/dMMR solid tumor except colorectal) who had previously treated, advanced MSI-H/dMMR endometrial cancer. Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W for 35 cycles. EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-3L questionnaires were administered at baseline, at regular intervals during treatment, and 30 days after treatment discontinuation. Pre-specified exploratory analyses included changes from baseline to week 9 in QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS)/QoL and EQ-5D-3L visual analog scale (VAS) score for all patients and by best overall response., Results: 84 of 90 enrolled patients completed ≥1 HRQoL questionnaire and were included in the analysis. QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-3L compliance rates were 90% and 94%, respectively, at baseline, and 92% and 93% at week 9. Mean (95% CI) QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL scores improved from baseline to week 9 by 6.08 (0.71-11.46) points in the overall population, with greater improvement in patients who achieved complete or partial response (11.67 [5.33-18.00]-point increase). Mean (95% CI) EQ-5D-3L VAS scores improved by 6.00 (2.25-9.75) points in the overall population and 9.11 (5.24-12.98) points in patients with CR/PR., Conclusions: Pembrolizumab maintained or improved HRQoL in patients with previously treated, advanced MSI-H/dMMR endometrial cancer, further supporting efficacy and safety results from KEYNOTE-158 and pembrolizumab use in this setting., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: Treatment options for advanced vulvar cancer are limited. We evaluated pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with advanced vulvar squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) enrolled in the phase 2 multicohort, open-label KEYNOTE-158 study (NCT02628067)., Methods: Eligible patients had histologically or cytologically documented advanced vulvar SCC with prior treatment failure, measurable disease per RECIST v1.1, ECOG performance status 0-1, and a tumor sample available for biomarker analysis. Pembrolizumab 200 mg was administered intravenously Q3W for up to 35 cycles (approximately 2 years). The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1 by independent central radiologic review in all patients and subgroups based on PD-L1 combined positive score (≥1 [PD-L1-positive] versus <1 [PD-L1-negative])., Results: 101 patients were enrolled. Median time from first dose to data cutoff was 36.0 months. The ORR (95% CI) was 10.9% (5.6%-18.7%) among all patients, 9.5% (4.2%-17.9%) among the 84 patients with PD-L1-positive tumors, and 28.6% (3.7%-71.0%) among the 7 patients with PD-L1-negative tumors. Among patients with a response, median DOR was 20.4 (range, 2.1+ to 28.0) months. Median (95% CI) PFS and OS were 2.1 (2.0-2.1) and 6.2 (4.9-9.4) months, respectively. Treatment-related AEs occurred in 50.5% of patients (grade 3-5, 11.9%) and led to discontinuation of treatment in 5.0% of patients. Two deaths were considered treatment-related (hepatitis, n = 2)., Conclusions: Pembrolizumab monotherapy was associated with durable responses in a subset of patients with vulvar SCC. Responses occurred regardless of tumor PD-L1 status. No new safety signals emerged; overall, pembrolizumab was well tolerated., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Ronnie Shapira-Frommer: study funding to the institution from Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA (MSD), to support study conduct; honoraria for serving as a speaker from MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Roche; personal fees for advisory boards from MSD, Clovis Oncology, and VBL Therapeutics. Linda Mileshkin: study funding to the institution from MSD to support study conduct. Ludmila Manzyuk: study funding to the institution from MSD to support study conduct. Nicolas Penel: study funding to the institution from MSD to support study conduct. Sarina A. Piha-Paul: study funding to the institution from MSD to support study conduct; clinical trial research support from AbbVie, Inc., ABM Therapeutics, Inc., Acepodia, Inc., Alkermes, Aminex Therapeutics, Amphivena Therapeutics, Inc., BioMarin Pharmaceutical, Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cerulean Pharma, Inc., Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Curis, Inc., Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, ENB Therapeutics, Five Prime Therapeutics, F-Star Beta Limited, F-Star Therapeutics, Ltd., Gene Quantum, Genmab A/S, GlaxoSmithKline, Helix BioPharma Corp., HiberCell, Inc., Immunomedics, Inc., Incyte Corp., Jacobio Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd., Lytix Biopharma AS, MedImmune, LLC, Medivation, Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA; Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Pfizer, Principia Biopharma, Inc., Puma Biotechnology, Inc., Rapt Therapeutics, Inc., Seattle Genetics, Silverback Therapeutics, Synlogic, Taiho Oncology, Tesaro, Inc., TransThera Bio, and NCI/NIH (CCSG Shared Resources Grant# P30Ca016672). Matthew Burge: honoraria and study funding to the institution from MSD to support study conduct. Eugenia Girda: study funding to the institution from MSD to support study conduct. Jose A. Lopez Martin: study funding to the institution from MSD to support study conduct; grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from MSD during the conduct of the study; grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from BMS; grants from Merck-Serono; grants and personal fees from Pfizer; personal fees from Bayer|grants and personal fees from Lilly; grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from PharmaMar; grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from Roche; grants and personal fees from Novartis; and personal fees from Pierre-Fabre; current employee of PharmaMar (beginning after this study was conducted). Marloes G.J. van Dongen: study funding to the institution from MSD to support study conduct. Antoine Italiano: study funding to the institution from MSD to support study conduct, grants from MSD, grants from BMS, grants and personal fees from Bayer, personal fees from Springworks, grants from AstraZeneca, grants and personal fees from Roche, grants from Ipsen, grants from PharmaMar. Lei Xu: employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. Owns stock in Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. Fan Jin: employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. Owns stock in Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. Kevin Norwood: employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. Owns stock in Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. Patrick Ott: study funding to the institution from MSD to support study conduct; grants from BMS, Genentech, Celldex, Cytomx, Pfizer, Neon Therapeutics, Armo Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Xencor, and Oncorus; personal fees from Alexion, Amgen, BMS, Genentech, Celldex, Cytomx, Pfizer, Novartis, Neon Therapeutics (now BioNTechUS), and Array., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)