Search

This prespecified exploratory analysis evaluated the association of gene expression signatures, tumor mutational burden (TMB), and multiplex immunohistochemistry (mIHC) tumor microenvironment–associated cell phenotypes with clinical outcomes of pembrolizumab in advanced recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC) from the phase II KEYNOTE-100 study. Pembrolizumab-treated patients with evaluable RNA-sequencing (n = 317), whole exome sequencing (n = 293), or select mIHC (n = 125) data were evaluated. The association between outcomes (objective response rate [ORR], progression-free survival [PFS], and overall survival [OS]) and gene expression signatures (T-cell–inflamed gene expression profile [Tcell inf GEP] and 10 non-Tcell inf GEP signatures), TMB, and prespecified mIHC cell phenotype densities as continuous variables was evaluated using logistic (ORR) and Cox proportional hazards regression (PFS; OS). One-sided p -values were calculated at prespecified α = 0.05 for Tcell inf GEP, TMB, and mIHC cell phenotypes and at α = 0.10 for non-Tcell inf GEP signatures; all but Tcell inf GEP and TMB were adjusted for multiplicity. No evidence of associations between ORR and key axes of gene expression was observed. Negative associations were observed between outcomes and Tcell inf GEP-adjusted glycolysis (PFS, adjusted- p = 0.019; OS, adjusted- p = 0.085) and hypoxia (PFS, adjusted- p = 0.064) signatures. TMB as a continuous variable was not associated with outcomes (p > 0.05). Positive associations were observed between densities of myeloid cell phenotypes CD11c+ and CD11c+/MHCII−/CD163−/CD68− in the tumor compartment and ORR (adjusted- p = 0.025 and 0.013, respectively). This exploratory analysis in advanced ROC did not find evidence for associations between gene expression signatures and outcomes of pembrolizumab. mIHC analysis suggests CD11c+ and CD11c+/MHCII−/CD163−/CD68− phenotypes representing myeloid cell populations may be associated with improved outcomes with pembrolizumab in advanced ROC. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02674061. [Display omitted] • Association of molecular determinants with outcomes of pembrolizumab in advanced recurrent ovarian cancer was evaluated. • No evidence of associations between ORR and key axes of gene expression was observed with pembrolizumab monotherapy. • T-cell–inflamed GEP-adjusted glycolysis and hypoxia signatures were negatively associated with clinical outcomes. • Continuous TMB was not associated with efficacy, but TMB ≥175 mut/exome (≈ ≥10 mut/Mb) trended toward improved outcomes. • Higher densities of myeloid cell phenotypes CD11c + and CD11c+/MHCII−/CD163−/CD68− trended toward improved efficacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Olaparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, has previously shown efficacy in a phase 2 study when given in capsule formulation to all-comer patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed high-grade serous ovarian cancer. We aimed to confirm these findings in patients with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation using a tablet formulation of olaparib.Methods: This international, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial evaluated olaparib tablet maintenance treatment in platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation who had received at least two lines of previous chemotherapy. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at baseline of 0-1 and histologically confirmed, relapsed, high-grade serous ovarian cancer or high-grade endometrioid cancer, including primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to olaparib (300 mg in two 150 mg tablets, twice daily) or matching placebo tablets using an interactive voice and web response system. Randomisation was stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy (complete vs partial) and length of platinum-free interval (6-12 months vs ≥12 months) and treatment assignment was masked for patients, those giving the interventions, data collectors, and data analysers. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival and we report the primary analysis from this ongoing study. The efficacy analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population; safety analyses included patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01874353, and is ongoing and no longer recruiting patients.Findings: Between Sept 3, 2013, and Nov 21, 2014, we enrolled 295 eligible patients who were randomly assigned to receive olaparib (n=196) or placebo (n=99). One patient in the olaparib group was randomised in error and did not receive study treatment. Investigator-assessed median progression-free survival was significantly longer with olaparib (19·1 months [95% CI 16·3-25·7]) than with placebo (5·5 months [5·2-5·8]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·30 [95% CI 0·22-0·41], p<0·0001). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or worse severity were anaemia (38 [19%] of 195 patients in the olaparib group vs two [2%] of 99 patients in the placebo group), fatigue or asthenia (eight [4%] vs two [2%]), and neutropenia (ten [5%] vs four [4%]). Serious adverse events were experienced by 35 (18%) patients in the olaparib group and eight (8%) patients in the placebo group. The most common in the olaparib group were anaemia (seven [4%] patients), abdominal pain (three [2%] patients), and intestinal obstruction (three [2%] patients). The most common in the placebo group were constipation (two [2%] patients) and intestinal obstruction (two [2%] patients). One (1%) patient in the olaparib group had a treatment-related adverse event (acute myeloid leukaemia) with an outcome of death.Interpretation: Olaparib tablet maintenance treatment provided a significant progression-free survival improvement with no detrimental effect on quality of life in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation. Apart from anaemia, toxicities with olaparib were low grade and manageable.Funding: AstraZeneca. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background:Maintenance monotherapy with the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib significantly prolongs progression-free survival over placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed serous ovarian cancer, with greatest benefit seen in patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation (BRCAm). Preservation of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is important during maintenance therapy; we evaluated the effect of olaparib on HRQoL in this Phase II trial (NCT00753545, Study 19).Methods:Patients received olaparib 400 mg b.i.d. (capsules) or placebo until progression. Patient-reported HRQoL and disease-related symptoms were evaluated using the FACT-Ovarian (FACT-O) questionnaire (completed at baseline and every 28 days until progression), the FACT/NCCN Ovarian Symptom Index (FOSI) and the Trial Outcome Index (TOI). TOI of the FACT-O was the primary measure.Results:Overall, 265 women were randomised to maintenance olaparib (n=136) or placebo (n=129). Compliance for HRQoL assessment was high (∼80% over time). Most patients in both arms reported a best response of 'no change' on TOI (81%) and other HRQoL measures. There were no statistically significant differences in time to worsening or improvement rates of TOI, FOSI and FACT-O scores in the overall, BRCAm and germline BRCAm populations.Conclusions:Maintenance treatment with olaparib was well tolerated and had no adverse impact on HRQoL in this study of patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed serous ovarian cancer who had responded to their most recent platinum-based therapy (partial or complete response). Interpretation of the HRQoL results in this population may differ from patients who have not responded to their most recent platinum-based therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer, maintenance monotherapy with the PARP inhibitor olaparib significantly improves progression-free survival versus placebo. We assessed the effect of maintenance olaparib on overall survival in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer, including those with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations (BRCAm).Methods: In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial involving 82 sites across 16 countries, patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer who had received two or more courses of platinum-based chemotherapy and had responded to their latest regimen were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated sequence to receive oral maintenance olaparib (as capsules; 400 mg twice a day) or a matching placebo by an interactive voice response system. Patients were stratified by ancestry, time to progression on penultimate platinum, and response to most recent platinum. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment by the use of unique identifiers generated during randomisation. The primary endpoint of the trial was progression-free survival. In this updated analysis, we present data for overall survival, a secondary endpoint, from the third data analysis after more than 5 years' follow-up (intention-to-treat population). We did the updated overall survival analysis, described in this Article at 77% data maturity, using a two-sided α of 0·95%. As the study was not powered to assess overall survival, this analysis should be regarded as descriptive and the p values are nominal. We analysed randomly assigned patients for overall survival and all patients who received at least one dose of treatment for safety. This trial is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00753545.Findings: Between Aug 28, 2008, and Feb 9, 2010, 265 patients were randomly assigned to olaparib (n=136) or placebo (n=129). 136 patients had deleterious BRCAm. The data cutoff for this analysis was Sept 30, 2015. An overall survival advantage was seen with maintenance olaparib versus placebo in all patients (hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·55-0·96]; nominal p=0·025, which did not meet the required threshold for statistical significance [p<0·0095]; median overall survival was 29·8 months [95% CI 26·9-35·7] for those treated with olaparib vs 27·8 months [24·9-33·7] for those treated with placebo), and in patients with BRCAm (HR 0·62 [95% CI 0·41-0·94] nominal p=0·025; 34·9 months [95% CI 29·2-54·6] vs 30·2 months [23·1-40·7]). The overall survival data in patients with BRCA wild-type were HR 0·83 (95% CI 0·55-1·24, nominal p=0·37; 24·5 months [19·8-35·0] for those treated with olaparib vs 26·6 months [23·1-32·5] for those treated with placebo). 11 (15%) of 74 patients with BRCAm received maintenance olaparib for 5 years or more. Overall, common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the olaparib and placebo groups were fatigue (11 [8%] of 136 patients vs four [3%] of 128) and anaemia (eight [6%] vs one [1%]). 30 (22%) of 136 patients in the olaparib group and 11 (9%) of 128 patients in the placebo group reported serious adverse events. In patients treated for 2 years or more, adverse events in the olaparib and placebo groups included low-grade nausea (24 [75%] of 32 patients vs two [40%] of five), fatigue (18 [56%] of 32 vs two [40%] of five), vomiting (12 [38%] of 32 vs zero), and anaemia (eight [25%] of 32 vs one [20%] of five); generally, events were initially reported during the first 2 years of treatment.Interpretation: Despite not reaching statistical significance, patients with BRCA-mutated platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer receiving olaparib maintenance monotherapy after platinum-based chemotherapy appeared to have longer overall survival, supporting the reported progression-free survival benefit. Clinically useful long-term exposure to olaparib was seen with no new safety signals. Taken together, these data support both the long-term clinical benefit and tolerability of maintenance olaparib in patients with BRCA-mutated platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer.Funding: AstraZeneca. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The discovery that PARP inhibitors block an essential pathway of DNA repair in cells harbouring a BRCA mutation has opened up a new therapeutic avenue for high-grade ovarian cancers. BRCA1 and BRCA2 proteins are essential for high-fidelity repair of double-strand breaks of DNA through the homologous recombination repair (HRR) pathway. Deficiency in HRR (HRD) is a target for PARP inhibitors. The first PARP inhibitor, olaparib, has now been licensed for BRCA-mutated ovarian cancers. While mutated BRCA genes are individually most commonly associated with HRD other essential HRR proteins may be mutated or functionally deficient potentially widening the therapeutic opportunities for PARP inhibitors. HRD is the first phenotypically defined predictive marker for therapy with PARP inhibitors in ovarian cancer. Several different PARP inhibitors are being trialled in ovarian cancer and this class of drugs has been shown to be a new selective therapy for high-grade ovarian cancer. Around 20% of high-grade serous ovarian cancers harbour germline or somatic BRCA mutations and testing for BRCA mutations should be incorporated into routine clinical practice. The expanded use of PARP inhibitors in HRD deficient (non-BRCA mutant) tumours using a signature of HRD in clinical practice requires validation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rucaparib is an orally available potent selective small-molecule inhibitor of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) 1 and 2. Rucaparib induces synthetic lethality in cancer cells defective in the homologous recombination repair pathway including BRCA-1/2. We investigated the efficacy and safety of single-agent rucaparib in germline (g) BRCA mutation carriers with advanced breast and ovarian cancers.Methods: Phase II, open-label, multicentre trial of rucaparib in proven BRCA-1/2 mutation carriers with advanced breast and or ovarian cancer, WHO PS 0-1 and normal organ function. Intravenous (i.v.) and subsequently oral rucaparib were assessed, using a range of dosing schedules, to determine the safety, tolerability, dose-limiting toxic effects and pharmacodynamic (PD) and pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles.Results: Rucaparib was well tolerated in patients up to doses of 480 mg per day and is a potent inhibitor of PARP, with sustained inhibition ⩾24 h after single doses. The i.v. rucaparib (intermittent dosing schedule) resulted in an objective response rate (ORR) of only 2% but with 41% (18 out of 44) patients achieved stable disease for ⩾12 weeks and 3 patients maintaining disease stabilisation for >52 weeks. The ORR for oral rucaparib (across all six dose levels) was 15%. In the oral cohorts, 81% (22 out of 27) of the patients had ovarian cancer and 12 out of 13, who were dosed continuously, achieved RECIST complete response/partial response (CR/PR) or stable disease (SD) ⩾12 weeks, with a median duration of response of 179 days (range 84-567 days).Conclusions: Rucaparib is well tolerated and results in high levels of PARP inhibition in surrogate tissues even at the lowest dose levels. Rucaparib is active in gBRCA-mutant ovarian cancer and this activity correlates with platinum-free interval. The key lessons learned from this study is that continuous rucaparib dosing is required for optimal response, the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) for continuous oral scheduling has not been established and requires further exploration and, thirdly, the use of a PD biomarker to evaluate dose-response has its limitations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Angiogenesis is a validated clinical target in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Cediranib is an oral antiangiogenic vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1-3 inhibitor that has shown antitumour activity in recurrent ovarian cancer. We assessed efficacy and safety of cediranib in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy and as continued maintenance treatment in patients with first relapse of platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer.Methods: In this randomised, three-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients aged 18 years or older with relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer at 63 centres in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Spain, and the UK. Participants received up to six cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy (once every 3 weeks) then entered a maintenance phase. Participants were randomly allocated (2:3:3), with five stratification factors and in alternating blocks, to receive placebo alongside chemotherapy and then placebo only maintenance (arm A; reference), cediranib 20 mg once-daily alongside chemotherapy then placebo only maintenance (arm B; concurrent), or cediranib 20 mg once-daily alongside chemotherapy then cediranib 20 mg once-daily maintenance (arm C; maintenance). Patients continued treatment to progression or excessive toxic effects. The primary efficacy endpoint was progression-free survival between arms A and C. Efficacy analysis was by intention to treat. Safety was assessed in all patients who received the allocated study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00532194; the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN68510403; and ANZ Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN1261000016003.Findings: We randomly assigned 486 [corrected] women between Nov 13, 2007, and Dec 23, 2011; results presented are for 456 patients randomly assigned subsequent to the 30mg safety phase. During a median of 19·5 months (IQR 14-26) follow-up, 113 (96%) of 118 women assigned to arm A and 141 (86%) of 164 assigned to arm C had disease progression. Median progression-free survival was 11·0 months (95% CI 10·4-11·7) in arm C and 8·7 months (7·7-9·4) in arm A (hazard ratio 0·56, 0·44-0·72, p<0·0001). 156 (90%) of 174 patients in arm B had disease progression, and median progression-free survival was 9·9 months (95% CI 9·4-10·5). Diarrhoea, neutropenia, hypertension, and voice changes were significantly more common, during chemotherapy with cediranib, and diarrhoea, hypothyroidism and voice changes were more common during maintenance. Poor compliance with cediranib was noted during maintenance treatment with toxic effects being the most common cause for discontinuation.Interpretation: Cediranib, when given orally with chemotherapy and continued as maintenance, yielded a meaningful improvement [corrected] in progression-free survival in women with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer, albeit with added toxic effects. The positive results in ICON6 could provide women with a new therapeutic option for recurrent ovarian cancer. Assessment of the secondary endpoint of overall survival will need longer follow-up.Funding: Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, Cancer Australia, National Gynecological Cancer Centre, and AstraZeneca. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ovarian cancer is the fifth leading cause of female cancer deaths in the Western world. Significant progress has been made in the treatment of patients with ovarian cancer, however, the majority of patients experience disease recurrence and new therapies are being sought for such patients. Clinical investigation of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors for ovarian cancer treatment has demonstrated promising activity in this disease. Here, we review the development of PARP inhibitors and their future role in the treatment of patients with ovarian cancer. Studies of olaparib, the first PARP inhibitor to be approved in Europe and the USA, in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer have demonstrated clinical efficacy with improvements in progression-free survival. In maintenance therapy of platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer there is supporting evidence of clinical benefit from exploratory endpoints that include time to first subsequent treatment and time to second subsequent treatment. Adverse events that should be monitored following treatment with PARP inhibitors include nausea, vomiting, fatigue and anaemia. Based on the evidence presented, patients who will receive the greatest benefit from PARP inhibition are those with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ovarian cancer is the fifth leading cause of female cancer deaths in the Western world. Significant progress has been made in the treatment of patients with ovarian cancer, however, the majority of patients experience disease recurrence and new therapies are being sought for such patients. Clinical investigation of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors for ovarian cancer treatment has demonstrated promising activity in this disease. Here, we review the development of PARP inhibitors and their future role in the treatment of patients with ovarian cancer. Studies of olaparib, the first PARP inhibitor to be approved in Europe and the USA, in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer have demonstrated clinical efficacy with improvements in progression-free survival. In maintenance therapy of platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer there is supporting evidence of clinical benefit from exploratory endpoints that include time to first subsequent treatment and time to second subsequent treatment. Adverse events that should be monitored following treatment with PARP inhibitors include nausea, vomiting, fatigue and anaemia. Based on the evidence presented, patients who will receive the greatest benefit from PARP inhibition are those with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Maintenance monotherapy with the PARP inhibitor olaparib significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer. We aimed to explore the hypothesis that olaparib is most likely to benefit patients with a BRCA mutation. Methods: We present data from the second interim analysis of overall survival and a retrospective, preplanned analysis of data by BRCA mutation status from our randomised, double-blind, phase 2 study that assessed maintenance treatment with olaparib 400 mg twice daily (capsules) versus placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer who had received two or more platinum-based regimens and who had a partial or complete response to their most recent platinum-based regimen. Randomisation was by an interactive voice response system, stratified by time to progression on penultimate platinum-based regimen, response to the most recent platinum-based regimen before randomisation, and ethnic descent. The primary endpoint was PFS, analysed for the overall population and by BRCA status. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00753545. Findings: Between Aug 28, 2008, and Feb 9, 2010, 136 patients were assigned to olaparib and 129 to placebo. BRCA status was known for 131 (96%) patients in the olaparib group versus 123 (95%) in the placebo group, of whom 74 (56%) versus 62 (50%) had a deleterious or suspected deleterious germline or tumour BRCA mutation. Of patients with a BRCA mutation, median PFS was significantly longer in the olaparib group than in the placebo group (11·2 months [95% CI 8·3-not calculable] vs 4·3 months [3·0-5·4]; HR 0·18 [0·10-0·31]; p<0·0001); similar findings were noted for patients with wild-type BRCA, although the difference between groups was lower (7·4 months [5·5-10·3] vs 5·5 months [3·7-5·6]; HR 0·54 [0·34-0·85]; p=0·0075). At the second interim analysis of overall survival (58% maturity), overall survival did not significantly differ between the groups (HR 0·88 [95% CI 0·64-1·21]; p=0·44); similar findings were noted for patients with mutated BRCA (HR 0·73 [0·45-1·17]; p=0·19) and wild-type BRCA (HR 0·99 [0·63-1·55]; p=0·96). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the olaparib group were fatigue (in ten [7%] patients in the olaparib group vs four [3%] in the placebo group) and anaemia (seven [5%] vs one [<1%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 25 (18%) patients who received olaparib and 11 (9%) who received placebo. Tolerability was similar in patients with mutated BRCA and the overall population. Interpretation: These results support the hypothesis that patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer with a BRCA mutation have the greatest likelihood of benefiting from olaparib treatment. Funding: AstraZeneca. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dendritic cell-based vaccines offer promise for therapy of ovarian cancer. Previous studies have demonstrated that oxidation of several antigens, including ovarian cancer cells, using hypochlorous acid strongly enhances their immunogenicity and their uptake and presentation by dendritic cells. The response of T cells and dendritic cells to autologous tumour from patients with active disease has not previously been investigated. Monocyte-derived dendritic cells were generated from patients with active disease and activated by co-culture with oxidised tumour cells and the TLR agonist poly I:C. The dendritic cells showed an activated phenotype, but secreted high levels of TGFβ. Co-culture of the antigen-loaded dendritic cells with autologous T cells generated a population of effector T cells that showed a low level of specific lytic activity against autologous tumour, as compared to autologous mesothelium. The addition of neutralising antibody to TGFβ in DC/T cell co-cultures increased the levels of subsequent tumour killing in three samples tested. Co-culture of monocytes from healthy volunteers with the ovarian cell line SKOV-3 prior to differentiation into dendritic cells reduced the ability of dendritic cells to stimulate cytotoxic effector cells. The study suggests that co-culture of dendritic cells with oxidised tumour cells can generate effector cells able to kill autologous tumour, but that the high tumour burden in patients with active disease may compromise dendritic cell and/or T cell function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Olaparib (AZD2281) is an oral poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]–ribose) polymerase inhibitor that has shown antitumor activity in patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer with or without BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutations. Methods: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study to evaluate maintenance treatment with olaparib in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed, high-grade serous ovarian cancer who had received two or more platinum-based regimens and had had a partial or complete response to their most recent platinum-based regimen. Patients were randomly assigned to receive olaparib, at a dose of 400 mg twice daily, or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors guidelines. Results: Of 265 patients who underwent randomization, 136 were assigned to the olaparib group and 129 to the placebo group. Progression-free survival was significantly longer with olaparib than with placebo (median, 8.4 months vs. 4.8 months from randomization on completion of chemotherapy; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25 to 0.49; P<0.001). Subgroup analyses of progression-free survival showed that, regardless of subgroup, patients in the olaparib group had a lower risk of progression. Adverse events more commonly reported in the olaparib group than in the placebo group (by more than 10% of patients) were nausea (68% vs. 35%), fatigue (49% vs. 38%), vomiting (32% vs. 14%), and anemia (17% vs. 5%); the majority of adverse events were grade 1 or 2. An interim analysis of overall survival (38% maturity, meaning that 38% of the patients had died) showed no significant difference between groups (hazard ratio with olaparib, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.39; P=0.75). Conclusions: Olaparib as maintenance treatment significantly improved progression-free survival among patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed, high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Interim analysis showed no overall survival benefit. The toxicity profile of olaparib in this population was consistent with that in previous studies. (Funded by AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00753545.) [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Abstract: The last five years has seen a major expansion in the number of clinical trials with molecular targeted agents in ovarian cancer. Most of the studies are with anti-angiogenic agents. This review discusses the rationale for molecular targeted therapy in ovarian cancer and the current randomized trials. It focuses on anti-angiogenic agents, particularly bevacizumab and small molecule VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and EGFR, α-folate receptor, PARP, src kinase and IGFR inhibitors. The results of first-line trials and studies in recurrent disease with bevacizumab will soon be available. Results of many other trials with molecular targeted therapy will follow over the next 2–3years. We highlight some of the complex issues about sequencing, duration of therapy and selection of agents to aid the debate about the best use of molecular targeted agents in the treatment of ovarian cancer. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Ovarian cancer commonly relapses after remission and new strategies to target microscopic residual diseases are required. One approach is to activate tumor-specific cytotoxic T cells with dendritic cells loaded with tumor cells. In order to enhance their immunogenicity, ovarian tumor cells (SK-OV-3, which express two well-characterized antigens HER-2/ neu and MUC-1) were killed by oxidation with hypochlorous acid (HOCl). Results: Treatment for 1 h with 60 μM HOCl was found to induce necrosis in all SK-OV-3 cells. Oxidized, but not live, SK-OV-3 was rapidly taken up by monocyte-derived dendritic cells, and induced partial dendritic cell maturation. Dendritic cells cultured from HLA-A2 healthy volunteers were loaded with oxidized SK-OV-3 (HLA-A2−) and co-cultured with autologous T cells. Responding T cells were tested for specificity after a further round of antigen stimulation. In ELISPOT assays, T cells produced interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) in response to the immunizing cellular antigen, and also to peptides coding for MUC-1 and HER-2/ neu HLA-A2 restricted epitopes, demonstrating efficient cross-presentation of cell-associated antigens. In contrast, no responses were seen after priming with heat-killed or HCl-killed SK-OV-3, indicating that HOCl oxidation and not cell death/necrosis per se enhanced the immunogenicity of SK-OV-3. Finally, T cells stimulated with oxidized SK-OV-3 showed no cross-reaction to oxidized melanoma cells, nor vice versa, demonstrating that the response was tumor-type specific. Conclusions: Immunization with oxidized ovarian tumor cell lines may represent an improved therapeutic strategy to stimulate a polyclonal anti-tumor cellular immune response and hence extend remission in ovarian cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The majority of women with advanced ovarian cancer will relapse after first-line chemotherapy. Treatment decisions are based most commonly on the probability of a further response to platinum-based therapy. Many women will respond to second and subsequent lines of therapy with platinum and other drugs such as liposomal doxorubicin, topotecan, paclitaxel, gemcitabine, and etoposide. The decision to include platinum drugs is based mainly on a categorization of patients into those with a partially platinum-sensitive relapse (platinum-free interval of 6–12 months) or a platinum-sensitive relapse (platinum-free interval of >12 months). These categories are based on empirical observations made >15 years ago. Most trials with newer agents have been either non-randomized phase II studies or performed in a heterogeneous population of women, including those with platinum-resistant tumors. Interpretation of the activity of these new drugs is often difficult, and this affects decision-making in clinical practice. Recent randomized trials comparing platinum-based combinations with platinum alone (mainly carboplatin) have shown a benefit in favor of combination therapy. The prolonged chemosensitivity in many cases of ovarian cancer and the use of serum CA125 antigen levels as a surrogate marker of response provide an opportunity to study the activity of new anticancer agents in relapsed disease. However, future studies need to be randomized to reduce selection bias and should stratify for factors known to influence response. Many patients with relapsed ovarian cancer will survive for many years and knowledge of the disease, its response to different treatments, and the appropriate timing of drug delivery and length of treatment requires considerable clinical judgment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Decisions about the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer are usually based on the treatment-free interval. Patients relapsing with an interval of more than six months are usually retreated with platinum-based chemotherapy. Non platinum drugs (such as paclitaxel, gemcitabine, liposomal doxorubicin or topotecan) are also active in relapsed disease. A high response rate is consistently seen with combinations of platinum and these drugs in phase II trials. ICON 4, the first large-scale randomised trial in `platinum-sensitive' relapsed ovarian cancer demonstrated a survival benefit for using platinum-based therapy in combination with paclitaxel. More studies are needed to explore other combinations of treatment in this group of women as the choice and timing of second-line therapy needs to take account of the benefits and toxicity of treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Decisions about the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer are usually based on the treatment-free interval. Patients relapsing with an interval of more than six months are usually retreated with platinum-based chemotherapy. Non platinum drugs (such as paclitaxel, gemcitabine, liposomal doxorubicin or topotecan) are also active in relapsed disease. A high response rate is consistently seen with combinations of platinum and these drugs in phase II trials. ICON 4, the first large-scale randomised trial in 'platinum-sensitive' relapsed ovarian cancer demonstrated a survival benefit for using platinum-based therapy in combination with paclitaxel. More studies are needed to explore other combinations of treatment in this group of women as the choice and timing of second-line therapy needs to take account of the benefits and toxicity of treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To describe the baseline symptom burden(SB) experienced by patients(pts) with recurrent ovarian cancer(ROC) prior and associations with progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). We analysed baseline SB reported by pts. with platinum resistant/refractory ROC (PRR-ROC) or potentially‑platinum sensitive ROC receiving their third or greater line of chemotherapy (PPS-ROC≥3) enrolled in the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup - Symptom Benefit Study (GCIG-SBS) using the Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment concerns (MOST). The severity of baseline symptoms was correlated with PFS and OS. The 948 pts. reported substantial baseline SB. Almost 80% reported mild to severe pain, and 75% abdominal symptoms. Shortness of breath was reported by 60% and 90% reported fatigue. About 50% reported moderate to severe anxiety, and 35% moderate to severe depression. Most (89%) reported 1 or more symptoms as moderate or severe, 59% scored 6 or more symptoms moderate or severe, and 46% scored 9 or more symptoms as moderate or severe. Higher SB was associated with significantly shortened PFS and OS; five symptoms had OS hazard ratios larger than 2 for both moderate and severe symptom cut-offs (trouble eating, vomiting, indigestion, loss of appetite, and nausea; p < 0.001). Pts with ROC reported high SB prior to starting palliative chemotherapy, similar among PRR-ROC and PPS-ROC≥3. High SB was strongly associated with early progression and death. SB should be actively managed and used to stratify patients in clinical trials. Clinical trials should measure and report symptom burden and the impact of treatment on symptom control. • Patients with recurrent ovarian cancer report a high symptom burden at baseline prior to commencing chemotherapy. • The high symptom burden is not reflected by performance status alone. • High symptom burden is strongly associated with early progression and death. • Symptom burden should be documented, actively managed and used to stratify patients in clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Most patients with ovarian cancer will relapse after receiving frontline platinum-based chemotherapy and eventually develop platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory disease. We report results of avelumab alone or avelumab plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) compared with PLD alone in patients with platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer.Methods: JAVELIN Ovarian 200 was an open-label, parallel-group, three-arm, randomised, phase 3 trial, done at 149 hospitals and cancer treatment centres in 24 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer (maximum of three previous lines for platinum-sensitive disease, none for platinum-resistant disease) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via interactive response technology to avelumab (10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks), avelumab plus PLD (40 mg/m2 intravenously every 4 weeks), or PLD and stratified by disease platinum status, number of previous anticancer regimens, and bulky disease. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival by blinded independent central review and overall survival in all randomly assigned patients, with the objective to show whether avelumab alone or avelumab plus PLD is superior to PLD. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02580058. The trial is no longer enrolling patients and this is the final analysis of both primary endpoints.Findings: Between Jan 5, 2016, and May 16, 2017, 566 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (combination n=188; PLD n=190, avelumab n=188). At data cutoff (Sept 19, 2018), median duration of follow-up for overall survival was 18·4 months (IQR 15·6-21·9) for the combination group, 17·4 months (15·2-21·3) for the PLD group, and 18·2 months (15·8-21·2) for the avelumab group. Median progression-free survival by blinded independent central review was 3·7 months (95% CI 3·3-5·1) in the combination group, 3·5 months (2·1-4·0) in the PLD group, and 1·9 months (1·8-1·9) in the avelumab group (combination vs PLD: stratified HR 0·78 [repeated 93·1% CI 0·59-1·24], one-sided p=0·030; avelumab vs PLD: 1·68 [1·32-2·60], one-sided p>0·99). Median overall survival was 15·7 months (95% CI 12·7-18·7) in the combination group, 13·1 months (11·8-15·5) in the PLD group, and 11·8 months (8·9-14·1) in the avelumab group (combination vs PLD: stratified HR 0·89 [repeated 88·85% CI 0·74-1·24], one-sided p=0·21; avelumab vs PLD: 1·14 [0·95-1·58], one-sided p=0·83]). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (18 [10%] in the combination group vs nine [5%] in the PLD group vs none in the avelumab group), rash (11 [6%] vs three [2%] vs none), fatigue (ten [5%] vs three [2%] vs none), stomatitis (ten [5%] vs five [3%] vs none), anaemia (six [3%] vs nine [5%] vs three [2%]), neutropenia (nine [5%] vs nine [5%] vs none), and neutrophil count decreased (eight [5%] vs seven [4%] vs none). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 32 (18%) patients in the combination group, 19 (11%) in the PLD group, and 14 (7%) in the avelumab group. Treatment-related adverse events resulted in death in one patient each in the PLD group (sepsis) and avelumab group (intestinal obstruction).Interpretation: Neither avelumab plus PLD nor avelumab alone significantly improved progression-free survival or overall survival versus PLD. These results provide insights for patient selection in future studies of immune checkpoint inhibitors in platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer.Funding: Pfizer and Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

This article discusses the potential use of the MEK inhibitor trametinib as a treatment for hereditary haemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT), a condition characterized by vascular malformations. The study presents a clinical case of a patient with HHT who experienced a reduction in nosebleeds and transfusion requirements after taking trametinib. The authors also provide RNA sequencing data from blood outgrowth endothelial cells (BOECs) derived from HHT patients, which suggest that MEK1 inhibition may be beneficial in reducing HHT-associated bleeding and anemia. Further research is needed to confirm these findings and optimize dosing regimens. [Extracted from the article]

To compare NFOSI-18 Disease Related Symptoms – Physical (DRS P), Total score, and side effect bother between maintenance rucaparib (600 mg twice daily) vs. placebo in the phase III ARIEL3 trial. ARIEL3 (NCT01968213) included patients with ovarian carcinoma who responded to second-line or later platinum-based chemotherapy. The NFOSI-18 DRS-P and Total scales were secondary endpoints. The NFOSI-18 contains a side effect impact item (GP5): "I am bothered by side effects of treatment." We compared treatment arms on change from baseline of DRS-P and Total scores using mixed models with repeated measures (MRMM). Time to first and confirmed deterioration of NFOSI-18 DRS-P and Total scales were analyzed using Cox regression. We also calculated the proportion of patients reporting moderate to high side effect bother on GP5. In the intention-to-treat (ITT) cohort, mean change from baseline favored the placebo. Compared to placebo, rucaparib was associated with higher risk of deterioration [e.g., 4-point deteriorator definition hazard ratio (HR): 1.85; 95% CI: 1.46, 2.36; median time to first deterioration on DRS P: 1.9 vs. 7.0 months]. Confirmed deterioration results resembled those for first deterioration. Proportions of patients reporting moderate/high side effect bother on GP5 fluctuated around 20% across treatment cycles. Results in BRCA mutant and homologous recombination deficient cohorts were generally similar to those from the ITT cohort. This placebo-controlled study in the maintenance therapy setting provides a unique view of the impact of PARP inhibition on the patient-reported outcomes that are commonly used in ovarian cancer clinical trials. Information regarding the adverse side effect impact of PARP inhibitors should be weighed against their clinical benefit. • This study used the NFOSI-18, which has more questions on relevant side effects of rucaparib than other QOL measures. • On the NFOSI-18, patients receiving rucaparib had a higher risk of deterioration than those receiving the placebo. • Patients receiving rucaparib reported high-moderate side effect bother on the FACT item GP5 approximately 20% of the time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Maintenance monotherapy with the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib significantly prolongs progression-free survival over placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed serous ovarian cancer, with greatest benefit seen in patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation (BRCAm). Preservation of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is important during maintenance therapy; we evaluated the effect of olaparib on HRQoL in this Phase II trial (NCT00753545, Study 19).Methods: Patients received olaparib 400 mg b.i.d. (capsules) or placebo until progression. Patient-reported HRQoL and disease-related symptoms were evaluated using the FACT-Ovarian (FACT-O) questionnaire (completed at baseline and every 28 days until progression), the FACT/NCCN Ovarian Symptom Index (FOSI) and the Trial Outcome Index (TOI). TOI of the FACT-O was the primary measure.Results: Overall, 265 women were randomised to maintenance olaparib (n=136) or placebo (n=129). Compliance for HRQoL assessment was high (∼80% over time). Most patients in both arms reported a best response of 'no change' on TOI (81%) and other HRQoL measures. There were no statistically significant differences in time to worsening or improvement rates of TOI, FOSI and FACT-O scores in the overall, BRCAm and germline BRCAm populations.Conclusions: Maintenance treatment with olaparib was well tolerated and had no adverse impact on HRQoL in this study of patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed serous ovarian cancer who had responded to their most recent platinum-based therapy (partial or complete response). Interpretation of the HRQoL results in this population may differ from patients who have not responded to their most recent platinum-based therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Ovarian cancer survival in the UK is poorer than other similar countries. Results from the National Ovarian Cancer Audit Feasibility Pilot (OCAFP) showed that approximately 1 in 4 women with advanced stage ovarian cancer (greater than Stage 2) do not receive any anti-cancer treatment and that only 51% will receive both surgery and chemotherapy in England. The audit also showed that the proportions of women receiving treatment varies a lot across different areas in England. In response, a multidisciplinary team from the British Gynaecological cancer society has established Quality performance indicators that can be evaluated regularly using routinely collected data and will help improve cancer outcomes. Ovarian cancer survival in the UK lags behind comparable countries. Results from the ongoing National Ovarian Cancer Audit feasibility pilot (OCAFP) show that approximately 1 in 4 women with advanced ovarian cancer (Stage 2, 3, 4 and unstaged cancer) do not receive any anticancer treatment and only 51% in England receive international standard of care treatment, i.e., the combination of surgery and chemotherapy. The audit has also demonstrated wide variation in the percentage of women receiving anticancer treatment for advanced ovarian cancer, be it surgery or chemotherapy across the 19 geographical regions for organisation of cancer delivery (Cancer Alliances). Receipt of treatment also correlates with survival: 5 year Cancer survival varies from 28.6% to 49.6% across England. Here, we take a systems wide approach encompassing both diagnostic pathways and cancer treatment, derived from the whole cohort of women with ovarian cancer to set out recommendations and quality performance indicators (QPI). A multidisciplinary panel established by the British Gynaecological Cancer Society carefully identified QPI against criteria: metrics selected were those easily evaluable nationally using routinely available data and where there was a clear evidence base to support interventions. These QPI will be valuable to other taxpayer funded systems with national data collection mechanisms and are to our knowledge the only population level data derived standards in ovarian cancer. We also identify interventions for Best practice and Research recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The proportion of patients with advanced ovarian cancer who relapse has remained high and fairly constant over the last decade. Choosing treatment for recurrent ovarian cancer is complex. Many active therapeutic agents are available, and there are challenges in defining the optimal timing and sequencing of treatments. Furthermore, the explosion in the number of biological agents presents additional challenges in identifying their activity and place in the pathway of treatment. Establishing optimal treatment as monotherapy, or in combination with chemotherapy, or as maintenance treatment requires new approaches to trial design, selecting meaningful endpoints and conducting carefully conducted trials with translational studies. Patients with relapsed ovarian cancer can now survive several years; the aim is to increase this further. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

A letter to the editor about the danger of combining bolus-therapy irinotecan and fluorourcacil to treat colorectal cancer is presented.

Poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have revolutionised the management of patients with high-grade serous and endometrioid ovarian cancer demonstrating significant improvements in progression-free survival. Whilst the greatest benefit is seen with BRCA1/2 mutant cancers, it is clear that the benefit extends beyond this group. This sensitivity is thought to be due to homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), which is present in up to 50% of the high-grade serous cancers. Several different HRD assays exist, which fall into one of three main categories: homologous recombination repair (HRR)-related gene analysis, genomic "scars" and/or mutational signatures, and real-time HRD functional assessment. We review the emerging data on HRD as a predictive biomarker for PARP inhibitors and discuss the merits and disadvantages of different HRD assays. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment (MOST) concerns is a validated patient-reported symptom assessment tool for assessing symptom benefit and adverse effects of palliative chemotherapy in women with recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC). We aimed to examine (i) how symptoms within MOST symptom indexes track together (i.e. co-occur) and (ii) the association between MOST symptom indexes and key aspects of health-related quality of life (HRQL). A prospective cohort of women with ROC completed the MOST-T35, EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-OV28 at baseline and before each cycle of chemotherapy. Analyses were conducted on baseline and end-of-treatment data. Exploratory factor analysis and hierarchical cluster analysis identified groups of co-occurring symptoms. Path models examined associations between MOST symptom indexes and HRQL. Data from 762 women at baseline and 681 at treatment-end who completed all 22 symptom-specific MOST items and at least one HRQL measure were analysed. Four symptom clusters emerged at baseline and treatment-end: abdominal symptoms, symptoms associated with peripheral neuropathy, nausea and vomiting, and psychological symptoms. Psychological symptoms (MOST-Psych) and symptoms due to disease (ovarian cancer) or treatment (MOST-DorT) were associated with poorer scores on QLQ-C30 and OV28 functioning domains and worse overall health at both time points. Four MOST symptom clusters were consistent across statistical methods and time points. These findings suggest that routine standardized assessment of psychological and physical symptoms in clinical practice with MOST plus appropriate symptom management referral pathways is an intervention for improving HRQL that warrants further research. • Four MOST symptom clusters were observed: abdominal, peripheral neuropathy, nausea/ vomiting, psychological symptoms. • Psychological and disease or treatment-related symptoms were consistently associated with worse functioning. • Routine symptom screening with the MOST and appropriate management could reduce symptom burden and improve quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The absence of the putative DNA/RNA helicase Schlafen11 (SLFN11) is thought to cause resistance to DNA-damaging agents (DDAs) and PARP inhibitors.Methods: We developed and validated a clinically applicable SLFN11 immunohistochemistry assay and retrospectively correlated SLFN11 tumour levels to patient outcome to the standard of care therapies and olaparib maintenance.Results: High SLFN11 associated with improved prognosis to the first-line treatment with DDAs platinum-plus-etoposide in SCLC patients, but was not strongly linked to paclitaxel-platinum response in ovarian cancer patients. Multivariate analysis of patients with relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer from the randomised, placebo-controlled Phase II olaparib maintenance Study19 showed SLFN11 tumour levels associated with sensitivity to olaparib. Study19 patients with high SLFN11 had a lower progression-free survival (PFS) hazard ratio compared to patients with low SLFN11, although both groups had the benefit of olaparib over placebo. Whilst caveated by small sample size, this trend was maintained for PFS, but not overall survival, when adjusting for BRCA status across the olaparib and placebo treatment groups, a key driver of PARP inhibitor sensitivity.Conclusion: We provide clinical evidence supporting the role of SLFN11 as a DDA therapy selection biomarker in SCLC and highlight the need for further clinical investigation into SLFN11 as a PARP inhibitor predictive biomarker. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article reports on the results of a clinical trial on different strategies of sequential and combination chemotherapy for patients with poor prognosis advanced colorectal cancer (MRC FOCUS). Three treatment strategies were provided to the patients. Strategy 1 was to give single-agent fluorouracil until failure and then single-agent irinotecan. Strategy 2 was to give fluorouracil until failure and then combination chemotherapy. Strategy C was combination chemotherapy from the outset. The study challenges the assumption that maximum tolerable treatment must be used first-line. The staged approach of single-agent treatment upgraded to combination is not worse than first-line combination.

The impact of maintenance therapy with PARP inhibitors (PARPi) on progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with BRCA mutations and platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PSROC) varies widely. Individual prognostic factors do not reliably distinguish patients who progress early from those who have durable benefit. We developed and validated a prognostic nomogram to predict PFS in these patients. The nomogram was developed using data from a training patient cohort with BRCA mutations and high-grade serous PSROC on the placebo arm of two maintenance therapy trials, Study 19 and SOLO2/ENGOT-ov21. We performed multivariable Cox regression analysis based on pre-treatment characteristics to develop a nomogram that predicts PFS. We assessed the discrimination and validation of the nomogram in independent validation patient cohorts treated with maintenance olaparib. The nomogram includes four PFS predictors: CA-125 at randomisation, platinum-free interval, presence of measurable disease and number of prior lines of platinum therapy. In the training (placebo) cohort (internal validation C-index 0.64), median PFS in the model-predicted good, intermediate and poor-risk groups was: 7.7 (95% CI 5.3–11.3), 5.4 (4.8–5.8) and 2.9 (2.8–4.4) months, respectively. In the validation (olaparib) cohort (C-index 0.71), median PFS in the model-predicted good, intermediate and poor-risk groups was: not reached, 16.6 (13.1–22.4) and 8.3 (7.1–10.8) months, respectively. The nomogram showed good calibration in the validation cohort (calibration plot). This nomogram can be used to predict PFS and counsel patients with BRCA mutations and PSROC prior to maintenance olaparib and for stratification of patients in trials of maintenance therapies. • The impact of maintenance PARPi on PFS in women with BRCA-mutant PSROC varies widely. • Our nomogram includes CA-125, PFI, measurable disease and prior platinum therapy. • Our nomogram and online tool demonstrates good discrimination and is well-calibrated. • Our nomogram can help to predict PFS and counsel patients prior to olaparib therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although most patients with epithelial ovarian cancer respond to frontline platinum-based chemotherapy, around 70% will relapse within 3 years. The phase 3 JAVELIN Ovarian 100 trial compared avelumab (anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody) in combination with chemotherapy followed by avelumab maintenance, or chemotherapy followed by avelumab maintenance, versus chemotherapy alone in patients with treatment-naive epithelial ovarian cancer.Methods: JAVELIN Ovarian 100 was a global, open-label, three-arm, parallel, randomised, phase 3 trial run at 159 hospitals and cancer treatment centres in 25 countries. Eligible women were aged 18 years and older with stage III-IV epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer (following debulking surgery, or candidates for neoadjuvant chemotherapy), and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via interactive response technology to receive chemotherapy (six cycles; carboplatin dosed at an area under the serum-concentration-time curve of 5 or 6 intravenously every 3 weeks plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 every 3 weeks or 80 mg/m2 once a week [investigators' choice]) followed by avelumab maintenance (10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks; avelumab maintenance group); chemotherapy plus avelumab (10 mg/kg intravenously every 3 weeks) followed by avelumab maintenance (avelumab combination group); or chemotherapy followed by observation (control group). Randomisation was in permuted blocks of size six and stratified by paclitaxel regimen and resection status. Patients and investigators were masked to assignment to the two chemotherapy groups without avelumab at the time of randomisation until completion of the chemotherapy phase. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by blinded independent central review in all randomly assigned patients (analysed by intention to treat). Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02718417. The trial was fully enrolled and terminated at interim analysis due to futility, and efficacy is no longer being assessed.Findings: Between May 19, 2016 and Jan 23, 2018, 998 patients were randomly assigned (avelumab maintenance n=332, avelumab combination n=331, and control n=335). At the planned interim analysis (data cutoff Sept 7, 2018), prespecified futility boundaries were crossed for the progression-free survival analysis, and the trial was stopped as recommended by the independent data monitoring committee and endorsed by the protocol steering committee. Median follow-up for progression-free survival for all patients was 10·8 months (IQR 7·1-14·9); 11·1 months (7·0-15·3) for the avelumab maintenance group, 11·0 months (7·4-14·5) for the avelumab combination group, and 10·2 months (6·7-14·0) for the control group. Median progression-free survival was 16·8 months (95% CI 13·5-not estimable [NE]) with avelumab maintenance, 18·1 months (14·8-NE) with avelumab combination treatment, and NE (18·2 months-NE) with control treatment. The stratified hazard ratio for progression-free survival was 1·43 (95% CI 1·05-1·95; one-sided p=0·99) with the avelumab maintenance regimen and 1·14 (0·83-1·56; one-sided p=0·79) with the avelumab combination regimen, versus control treatment. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were anaemia (69 [21%] patients in the avelumab maintenance group, 63 [19%] in the avelumab combination group, and 53 [16%] in the control group), neutropenia (91 [28%], 99 [30%], and 88 [26%]), and neutrophil count decrease (49 [15%], 45 [14%], and 59 [18%]). Serious adverse events of any grade occurred in 92 (28%) patients in the avelumab maintenance group, 118 (36%) in the avelumab combination group, and 64 (19%) in the control group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in one (<1%) patient in the avelumab maintenance group (due to atrial fibrillation) and one (<1%) patient in the avelumab combination group (due to disease progression).Interpretation: Although no new safety signals were observed, results do not support the use of avelumab in the frontline treatment setting. Alternative treatment regimens are needed to improve outcomes in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.Funding: Pfizer and Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background: The liver is the most frequent site for metastases of colorectal cancer, which is the second largest contributor to cancer deaths in Europe. We did a randomised trial to compare an intrahepatic arterial (IHA) fluorouracil and folinic acid regimen with the standard intravenous de Gramont fluorouracil and folinic acid regimen for patients with adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum, with metastases confined to the liver. Methods: We randomly allocated 290 patients from 16 centres to receive either intravenous chemotherapy (folinic acid 200 mg/m[2], fluorouracil bolus 400 mg[2] and 22-h infusion 600 mg/m[2], day 1 and 2, repeated every 14 days), or IHA chemotherapy designed to be equitoxic (folinic acid 200 mg/m[2], fluorouracil 400 mg/m[2] over 15 mins and 22-h infusion 1600 mg/m[2], day 1 and 2, repeated every 14 days). The primary endpoint was overall survival, and analysis was by intention to treat. Findings: 50 (37%) patients allocated to IHA did not start their treatment, and another 39 (29%) had to stop before receiving six cycles of treatment because of catheter failure. The IHA group received a median of two cycles (0-6), compared with 8.5 (6-12) for the intravenous group. 45 (51%) IHA patients who did not start or did not receive six cycles switched to intravenous treatment. In both groups, grade 3 or 4 toxicity was uncommon. Median overall survival was 14.7 months for the IHA group and 14.8 months for the intravenous group (hazard ratio 1.04 [95% CI 0.80-1.33], log-rank test p=0.79). Similarly, there was no significant difference in progression-free survival. Interpretation: Our results showed no evidence of an advantage in progression-free survival or overall survival for the IHA group; thus continued use of this regimen cannot be recommended outside of a clinical trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT), formerly known as European Group for Bone Marrow Transplantation, was established in 1974 in the Netherlands to share experiences, to promote research and clinical studies and to set up registries in the field of hematopoietic tissue transplantation. At the present time more 400 European and non-European centers are members of the EBMT group. In 1984 a new Working Party was created (Solid Tumors) with the aim to investigate the role of high-dose chemotherapy and stem cell support in the fields of adult and pediatric solid tumors. By January 2000 more than 14 000 patients were registered, and at the present time this Registry is the world largest database on this subject. Several phase III randomized clinical trials have recently started on behalf of the Group in different diseases (breast carcinoma, small cell lung cancer, ovarian carcinoma, germ cell tumors and Ewing''s family sarcoma). Hundreds of randomized patients will finally produce clearer information on this still experimental therapeutic modality. This paper will describe the EBMT Solid Tumors Working Party Registry updated results as well as the main ongoing studies. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

BACKGROUND: The authors performed a meta‐analysis to better quantify the benefit of maintenance poly(ADP‐ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) therapy to inform practice in platinum‐sensitive, recurrent, high‐grade ovarian cancer for patient subsets with the following characteristics: germline BRCA mutation (gBRCAm), somatic BRCA mutation (sBRCAm), wild‐type BRCA but homologous recombinant‐deficient (HRD), homologous recombinant‐proficient (HRP), and baseline clinical prognostic characteristics. METHODS: Randomized trials comparing a PARPi versus placebo as maintenance treatment were identified from electronic databases. Treatment estimates of progression‐free survival were pooled across trials using the inverse variance weighted method. RESULTS: Four trials included 972 patients who received a PARPi (olaparib, 31%; niraparib, 35%; or rucaparib, 34%) and 530 patients who received placebo. For patients who had germline BRCA1 mutation (gBRCAm1) (N = 471), the hazard ratio (HR) was 0.29 (95% CI, 0.23‐0.37); for those who had germline BRCA2 mutation (gBRCAm2) (N = 236), the HR was 0.26 (95% CI, 0.17‐0.39); and, for those who had sBRCAm (N = 123), the HR was 0.22 (95% CI, 0.12‐0.41). The treatment effect was similar between the gBRCAm and sBRCAm subsets (P =.48). In patients who had wild‐type BRCA HRD tumors (excluding sBRCAm; N = 309), the HR was 0.41 (95% CI, 0.31‐0.56); and, in those who had wild‐type BRCA HRP tumors (N = 346), the HR was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.49‐0.83). The relative treatment effect was greater for the BRCAm versus HRD (P =.03), BRCAm versus HRP (P <.00001), and HRD versus HRP (P <.00001) subsets. There was no difference in benefit based on age, response after recent chemotherapy, and prior bevacizumab. CONCLUSIONS: In platinum‐sensitive, recurrent, high‐grade ovarian cancer, maintenance PARPi improves progression‐free survival for all patient subsets. PARPi therapy has a similar magnitude of benefit for sBRCAm and gBRCAm. Although patients with BRCAm derive the greatest benefit, the absence of a BRCAm or HRD could not be used to exclude patients from maintenance PARPi therapy. BRCA mutation status is able to predict for the magnitude of PARP inhibitor benefit in platinum‐sensitive recurrent high‐grade ovarian tumor. However, the absence of a BRCA mutation or homologous recombinant deficiency in high‐grade ovarian tumor cannot be used to exclude patients from such therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Report the results from a preplanned interim analysis of a phase III, double blind, randomized controlled study of ofranergene obadenovec (VB-111), a targeted anti-cancer gene therapy, in combination with paclitaxel in patients with platinum resistant ovarian cancer (PROC). The OVAL (NCT03398655) study is an on-going study where patients are randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 with VB-111 or placebo. The protocol specifies a pre-planned unblinded futility interim analysis of CA-125 response per GCIG criteria in the first 60 evaluable patients. The futility rule determined for this analysis was that the response rate of VB-111 must be greater than the response rate of placebo by at least 10% in order to continue the study. Coincident with the interim analysis, the blinded CA-125 response rate was estimated as a proportion of the first 60 evaluable patients with CA-125 response per GCIG criteria. Post-treatment fever is provided as a possible surrogate marker of VB-111 therapy activity. The median age of the evaluable patients was 62 years (range 41–82); 97% had high-grade serous cancer; 58% had been treated with 3 or more previous lines of therapy, 70% received prior anti-angiogenic treatment, 43% received prior PARP inhibitors. CA-125 response in the VB-111 and weekly paclitaxel treated arm met the pre-specified interim criterion of an absolute advantage of 10% or higher compared to the control. Blinded results show a 53% CA-125 response rate (32/60) with 15% complete response (n=9). Assuming balanced randomization and an absolute advantage of 10% or higher to the VB-111 arm, it may be deducted that the response in the VB-111 treatment arm is 58% or higher. Among patients with post-treatment fever, the CA-125 response rate was 69%. At the time of the interim analysis, response rate findings are comparable to the responses seen in a similar patient population in the phase I/II study. The independent data and safety monitoring committee (iDSMC) recommended continuing the OVAL trial as planned. No new safety signals were identified. • OVAL is a Phase III trial using paclitaxel and VB-111 in recurrent ovarian cancer • VB-111 has a dual mechanism targeting tumor vasculature and anti-tumor immunity • CA-125 response in the VB-111 treated arm met the pre-specified interim criterion • Assuming balanced randomization, the response in the VB-111 arm was at least 58% • The OVAL study has been recommended to continue enrollment as planned [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The survival results of the PORTEC-3 trial showed a significant improvement in both overall and failure-free survival with chemoradiation therapy versus pelvic radiation therapy alone. The present analysis was performed to compare long-term adverse events (AE) and health-related quality of life (HRQOL).Methods and Materials: In the study, 660 women with high-risk endometrial cancer were randomly assigned to receive chemoradiation therapy (2 concurrent cycles of cisplatin followed by 4 cycles of carboplatin/paclitaxel) or radiation therapy alone. Toxicity was graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3.0. HRQOL was measured using EORTC QLQ-C30 and CX24/OV28 subscales and compared with normative data. An as-treated analysis was performed.Results: Median follow-up was 74.6 months; 574 (87%) patients were evaluable for HRQOL. At 5 years, grade ≥2 AE were scored for 78 (38%) patients who had received chemoradiation therapy versus 46 (24%) who had received radiation therapy alone (P = .008). Grade 3 AE did not differ significantly between the groups (8% vs 5%, P = .18) at 5 years, and only one new late grade 4 toxicity had been reported. At 3 and 5 years, sensory neuropathy toxicity grade ≥2 persisted after chemoradiation therapy in 6% (vs 0% after radiation therapy, P < .001) and more patients reported significant tingling or numbness at HRQOL (27% vs 8%, P < .001 at 3 years; 24% vs 9%, P = .002 at 5 years). Up to 3 years, more patients who had chemoradiation therapy reported limb weakness (21% vs 5%, P < .001) and lower physical (79 vs 87, P < .001) and role functioning (78 vs 88, P < .001) scores. Both treatment groups reported similar long-term global health/quality of life scores, which were better than those of the normative population.Conclusions: This study shows a long-lasting, clinically relevant, negative impact of chemoradiation therapy on toxicity and HRQOL, most importantly persistent peripheral sensory neuropathy. Physical and role functioning impairments were seen until 3 years. These long-term data are essential for patient information and shared decision-making regarding adjuvant chemotherapy for high-risk endometrial cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Limited evidence exists to support CA-125 as a valid surrogate biomarker for progression in patients with ovarian cancer on maintenance PARP inhibitor (PARPi) therapy. We aimed to assess the concordance between CA-125 and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) criteria for progression in patients with BRCA mutations on maintenance PARPi or placebo. We extracted data on progression as defined by Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup CA-125, investigator- and independent central-assessed RECIST from the SOLO2/ENGOT-ov21(NCT01874353) trial. We excluded those with progression other than by RECIST, progression on date of randomisation, and no repeat CA-125 beyond baseline. We evaluated the concordance between CA-125 progression and RECIST progression, and assessed the negative (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV). Of 295 randomised patients, 275 (184 olaparib, 91 placebo) were included. 171 patients had investigator-assessed RECIST progression. Of 80 patients with CA-125 progression, 77 had concordant RECIST progression (PPV 96%, 95% confidence interval 90–99%). Of 195 patients without CA-125 progression, 94 had RECIST progression (NPV 52%, 45–59%). Within treatment arms, PPV was similar (olaparib: 95% [84–99%], placebo: 97% [87–100%]) but NPV was lower in patients on placebo (olaparib: 60% [52–68%], placebo: 30% [20–44%]). Of 94 patients with RECIST but without CA-125 progression, 64 (68%) had CA-125 that remained within normal range. We observed similar findings using independent-assessed RECIST. Almost half the patients without CA-125 progression had RECIST progression, and most of these had CA-125 within the normal range. Regular computed tomography imaging should be considered as part of surveillance in patients treated with or without maintenance olaparib rather than relying on CA-125 alone. • There is poor concordance between CA-125 non-PD and RECIST progression. • Half the patients without CA-125 PD had RECIST PD, most had normal CA-125 levels. • CT imaging to be considered as part of follow-up rather than relying on CA-125 alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The ICON8 study reported no significant improvement in progression-free survival (a primary endpoint) with weekly chemotherapy compared with standard 3-weekly treatment among patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. All ICON8 patients were eligible to take part in the accompanying health-related quality-of-life study, which measured the effect of treatment on self-reported wellbeing, reported here.Methods: In this open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3, three-arm, Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup (GCIG) trial done at 117 hospital sites in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, South Korea, and Republic of Ireland, women (aged at least 18 years) with newly diagnosed, histologically confirmed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IC-IV ovarian cancer and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were randomly assigned (1:1:1) centrally using minimisation to group 1 (intravenous carboplatin area under the curve [AUC]5 or AUC6 and 175 mg/m2 intravenous paclitaxel every 3 weeks), group 2 (carboplatin AUC5 or AUC6 every 3 weeks and 80 mg/m2 paclitaxel weekly), or group 3 (carboplatin AUC2 weekly and 80 mg/m2 paclitaxel weekly). Randomisation was stratified by GCIG group, disease stage, and outcome and timing of surgery. Patients and clinicians were not masked to treatment assignment. Patients underwent immediate or delayed primary surgery according to clinicians' choice. Patients were asked to complete European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OV28 questionnaires at enrolment, before each chemotherapy cycle, then 6-weekly up to 9 months, 3-monthly up to 2 years, and 6-monthly up to 5 years. Quality of life was a prespecified secondary outcome of the ICON8 study. Within the quality-of-life study, the co-primary endpoints were QLQ-C30 global health score at 9 months (cross-sectional analysis) and mean QLQ-C30 global health score from randomisation to 9 months (longitudinal analysis). Data analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01654146 and ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN10356387, and is currently in long-term follow up.Findings: Between June 6, 2011, and Nov 28, 2014, 1566 patients were recruited into ICON8 (522 were included in group 1, 523 in group 2, and 521 in group 3). Baseline quality-of-life questionnaires were completed by 1438 (92%) of 1566 patients and 9-month questionnaires by 882 (69%) of 1280 patients. We observed no significant difference in global health score at 9 months (cross-sectional analysis) between study groups (group 2 vs group 1, difference in mean score 2·3, 95% CI -0·4 to 4·9, p=0·095; group 3 vs group 1, -0·8, -3·8 to 2·2, p=0·61). Using longitudinal analysis, we found lower global health scores for those receiving weekly paclitaxel than for those receiving 3-weekly chemotherapy (group 2 vs group 1, mean difference -1·8, 95% CI -3·6 to -0·1, p=0·043; group 3 vs group 1, -2·9, -4·7 to -1·1, p=0·0018).Interpretation: We found no evidence of a difference in global quality of life between treatment groups at 9 months; however, patients receiving weekly treatment reported lower mean quality of life across the 9-month period after randomisation. Taken together with the lack of progression-free survival benefit, these findings do not support routine use of weekly paclitaxel-containing regimens in the management of newly diagnosed ovarian cancer.Funding: Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Health Research Board Ireland, Irish Cancer Society, and Cancer Australia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The PORTEC-3 trial investigated the benefit of combined adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy versus pelvic radiotherapy alone for women with high-risk endometrial cancer. We updated the analysis to investigate patterns of recurrence and did a post-hoc survival analysis.Methods: In the multicentre randomised phase 3 PORTEC-3 trial, women with high-risk endometrial cancer were eligible if they had International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage I, endometrioid grade 3 cancer with deep myometrial invasion or lymphovascular space invasion, or both; stage II or III disease; or stage I-III disease with serous or clear cell histology; were aged 18 years and older; and had a WHO performance status of 0-2. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive radiotherapy alone (48·6 Gy in 1·8 Gy fractions given on 5 days per week) or chemoradiotherapy (two cycles of cisplatin 50 mg/m2 given intravenously during radiotherapy, followed by four cycles of carboplatin AUC5 and paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 given intravenously), by use of a biased coin minimisation procedure with stratification for participating centre, lymphadenectomy, stage, and histological type. The co-primary endpoints were overall survival and failure-free survival. Secondary endpoints of vaginal, pelvic, and distant recurrence were analysed according to the first site of recurrence. Survival endpoints were analysed by intention-to-treat, and adjusted for stratification factors. Competing risk methods were used for failure-free survival and recurrence. We did a post-hoc analysis to analyse patterns of recurrence with 1 additional year of follow-up. The study was closed on Dec 20, 2013; follow-up is ongoing. This study is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN14387080, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00411138.Findings: Between Nov 23, 2006, and Dec 20, 2013, 686 women were enrolled, of whom 660 were eligible and evaluable (330 in the chemoradiotherapy group, and 330 in the radiotherapy-alone group). At a median follow-up of 72·6 months (IQR 59·9-85·6), 5-year overall survival was 81·4% (95% CI 77·2-85·8) with chemoradiotherapy versus 76·1% (71·6-80·9) with radiotherapy alone (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·51-0·97], p=0·034), and 5-year failure-free survival was 76·5% (95% CI 71·5-80·7) versus 69·1% (63·8-73·8; HR 0·70 [0·52-0·94], p=0·016). Distant metastases were the first site of recurrence in most patients with a relapse, occurring in 78 of 330 women (5-year probability 21·4%; 95% CI 17·3-26·3) in the chemoradiotherapy group versus 98 of 330 (5-year probability 29·1%; 24·4-34·3) in the radiotherapy-alone group (HR 0·74 [95% CI 0·55-0·99]; p=0·047). Isolated vaginal recurrence was the first site of recurrence in one patient (0·3%; 95% CI 0·0-2·1) in both groups (HR 0·99 [95% CI 0·06-15·90]; p=0·99), and isolated pelvic recurrence was the first site of recurrence in three women (0·9% [95% CI 0·3-2·8]) in the chemoradiotherapy group versus four (0·9% [95% CI 0·3-2·8]) in the radiotherapy-alone group (HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·17-3·33]; p=0·71). At 5 years, only one grade 4 adverse event (ileus or obstruction) was reported (in the chemoradiotherapy group). At 5 years, reported grade 3 adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups, occurring in 16 (8%) of 201 women in the chemoradiotherapy group versus ten (5%) of 187 in the radiotherapy-alone group (p=0·24). The most common grade 3 adverse event was hypertension (in four [2%] women in both groups). At 5 years, grade 2 or worse adverse events were reported in 76 (38%) of 201 women in the chemoradiotherapy group versus 43 (23%) of 187 in the radiotherapy-alone group (p=0·002). Sensory neuropathy persisted more often after chemoradiotherapy than after radiotherapy alone, with 5-year rates of grade 2 or worse neuropathy of 6% (13 of 201 women) versus 0% (0 of 187). No treatment-related deaths were reported.Interpretation: This updated analysis shows significantly improved overall survival and failure-free survival with chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone. This treatment schedule should be discussed and recommended, especially for women with stage III or serous cancers, or both, as part of shared decision making between doctors and patients. Follow-up is ongoing to evaluate long-term survival.Funding: Dutch Cancer Society, Cancer Research UK, National Health and Medical Research Council, Project Grant, Cancer Australia Grant, Italian Medicines Agency, and the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Objective In the randomized phase 3 ICON7 trial (ISRCTN91273375), adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy for newly diagnosed ovarian cancer significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS; primary endpoint) but not overall survival (OS; secondary endpoint) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. We explored treatment effect according to stage and extent of residual disease. Methods Patients with stage IIB–IV or high-risk (grade 3/clear-cell) stage I–IIA ovarian cancer were randomized to receive six cycles of carboplatin and paclitaxel either alone or with bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg every 3 weeks followed by single-agent bevacizumab for 12 further cycles (total duration 12 months). Post hoc exploratory analyses of subgroups defined by stage and extent of residual disease at diagnosis within the stage IIIB–IV population (European indication) was performed. Results The PFS benefit from bevacizumab was seen consistently in all subgroups explored. The PFS hazard ratio was 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59–0.99) in 411 patients with stage IIIB–IV ovarian cancer with no visible residuum and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.69–0.95) in 749 patients with stage IIIB–IV disease and visible residuum. As in the ITT population, no OS difference was detected in any subgroup except the previously described 'high-risk' subgroup. Safety results in analyzed subgroups were consistent with the overall population. Conclusions Adding bevacizumab to front-line chemotherapy improves PFS irrespective of stage/residual disease. In patients with stage III with >1 cm residuum, stage IV or inoperable disease, this translates into an OS benefit. No OS benefit or detriment was seen in other subgroups explored. Highlights • Post hoc analyses of ICON7 explored bevacizumab by stage and extent of residual disease after upfront surgery for OC. • The progression-free survival (PFS) benefit from bevacizumab was seen consistently in all subgroups explored. • The PFS hazard ratio was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.59–0.99) in 411 patients with stage IIIB–IV disease and no visible residuum. • No OS difference was detected overall or in any subgroup except the previously reported 'high-risk' subgroup. • Adding bevacizumab to front-line chemotherapy improves PFS irrespective of stage/residual disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]